Re: [Full-disclosure] defining 0day

["Juergen Marester" <marester.juergen@xxxxxxxxx>]

0day means vulnerability which was never used IRL, or use 0 time, thats why
we use term 0day.

But 0day doesnt mean it's an new type of vulnerability, otherwise the
appopriate term should be 0-vulnerability.

On 9/25/07, Gadi Evron <ge@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 25 Sep 2007, Thor (Hammer of God) wrote:
> > For the record, the original term "O-Day" was coined by a dyslexic
> > security engineer who listened to too much Harry Belafonte while working
> > all night on a drink of rum.  It's true.  Really.
> >
> > t
>
> Okay. I think we exhausted the different views, and maybe we are now able
> to come to a conlusion on what we WANT 0day
> to mean.
>
> What do you, as professional, believe 0day should mean, regardless of
> previous definitions?
>
> Obviously, the term has become charged in the past couple of years with
> the targeted office vulnerabilities attacks,
> WMF, ANI, etc.
>
> We require a term to address these, just as much as we do "unpatched
> vulnerability" or "fully disclosed
> vulnerability".
>
> What other such descriptions should we consider before proceeding?
> non-disclosure?
>
>          Gadi.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/