Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 14:05:47 -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"

Along the same lines, from DHS to Symantec, the threat level is always
"Elevated". So yellow is now the new green. I think ISS (IBM now) is
one of the few that leave their alert level at "1" until there is
really a "2-4" situation to deal with. I don't need more stress in my
day than the crackers already provide...

Of course, I know keeping things in perspective are hard these days,
i.e. I was reading the Washington Post on the Metro this morning,
looking at a map of the four stations that al-Qaeda planned to bomb,
as I passed all four of them. I would say my PTL (Personal Threat
Level) is red.

BTW Hammer, I think of is an OK middle name, but I think your last
name is a little presumptuous ;)

Curt



On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 1:14 PM, Thor (Hammer of God)
<thor@...merofgod.com> wrote:
> I would further define it as "code that can be run on a machine remotely without any human interaction."   What I think would be ultimately effective is if researches and those who make disclosure announcements quit trying to make their discoveries or processes "cool" and just stick to the facts.  Vendors want to downplay vulnerabilities, disclosures want it to sound as bad as it can be.  That's why we have people describing a user following a link in an email to download something from their site to be subsequently executed as "Remote Code Execution" that is "Moderately Critical" as if there are actually varying degrees of "Critical."
>
> The same holds true for quantifying "likelihood of exploitation" as "high" based on what researchers call "extremely common deployment environments in many businesses" when they are actually inferring what they THINK is common based on what two of their 5-10 workstation clients are doing  with XP peer-to-peer configurations.
>
> I think that the only people really paying any attention to this are other researchers, who basically ignore what other people call something - this doesn't really benefit the "user."  People want the "vulnerability" they "discover" to be awesome and cool and critical because it substantiates their egos.  For now, preceding anything with "0-day" is a way of invoking fear and urgency as if it represents some immanent disaster, but soon people will become desensitized to that as well.
>
> t
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Curt Purdy [mailto:infosysec@...il.com]
>>Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2010 9:51 AM
>>To: Thor (Hammer of God)
>>Cc: w0lfd33m@...il.com; full-disclosure-bounces@...ts.grok.org.uk; full-
>>disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk
>>Subject: Re: [Full-disclosure] 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/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists