Re: [Full-disclosure] 0-day "vulnerability"

[Curt Purdy <infosysec@xxxxxxxxx>]

OK, good points.

And since my mac dictionary widget doesn't have the term yet, I vote
for "0day dis" It has a nice ring to it ;)

Curt


On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 12:24 PM,  <w0lfd33m@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> To: full-disclosure@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> 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® 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/