full-disclosure - Re: 0-day "vulnerability"

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <AANLkTinYOTR3yyUZqjxgKTa=ndx=CpzPVOZ4rzTus-QC@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 12:50:34 -0400
From: Curt Purdy <infosysec@...il.com>
To: "Thor (Hammer of God)" <thor@...merofgod.com>
Cc: "full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk" <full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk>,
	"full-disclosure-bounces@...ts.grok.org.uk"
	<full-disclosure-bounces@...ts.grok.org.uk>
Subject: Re: 0-day "vulnerability"

Right as usual t-man, but while we are doing F&Ws job for them,
"Remote code execution" is: any program you can run on a machine you
can't touch (for further explanation, "man touch").

Curt



On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 12:35 PM, Thor (Hammer of God)
<thor@...merofgod.com> wrote:
> None of this really matters.  People will call it whatever they want to.  Generally, all software has some sort of vulnerability.  If they want to call the process of that vulnerability being communicated for the first time "0 day vulnerability" then so what.
>
> The industry can't (and won't) even come up with what "Remote Code Execution" really means, so trying to standardize disclosure nomenclature is a waste of time IMO.
> t
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: full-disclosure-bounces@...ts.grok.org.uk [mailto:full-disclosure-
>>bounces@...ts.grok.org.uk] On Behalf Of w0lfd33m@...il.com
>>Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2010 9:25 AM
>>To: Curt Purdy; full-disclosure-bounces@...ts.grok.org.uk; full-
>>disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk
>>Subject: Re: [Full-disclosure] 0-day "vulnerability"
>>
>>Yep. Totally agree. Vulnerability exists in the system since it has been
>>developed. It is just the matter when it has been disclosed or being exploited.
>>
>>I would suggest " 0 day disclosure" instead of "0 day vulnerability" :)
>>
>>
>>------Original Message------
>>From: Curt Purdy
>>Sender: full-disclosure-bounces@...ts.grok.org.uk
>>To: full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk
>>Subject: [Full-disclosure] 0-day "vulnerability"
>>Sent: Oct 28, 2010 8:48 PM
>>
>>Sorry to rant, but I have seen this term used once too many times to sit idly
>>by. And used today by what I once thought was a respectable infosec
>>publication (that will remain nameless) while referring to the current Firefox
>>vulnerability (that did, by the way, once have a 0-day
>>sploit)  Also, by definition, a 0-day no longer exists the moment it is
>>announced ;)
>>
>>For once and for all: There is no such thing as a "zero-day vulnerability"
>>(quoted), only a 0-day exploit...
>>
>>Curt Purdy CISSP, GSNA, GSEC, MCSE+I, CCNA
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
>>Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
>>Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
>>
>>
>>Sent from BlackBerry(r) on Airtel
>>_______________________________________________
>>Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
>>Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
>>Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
>

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/