Neohapsis is currently accepting applications for employment. For more information, please visit our website www.neohapsis.com or email hr@neohapsis.com
Re: [Full-disclosure] defining 0day

From: scott (redhowlingwolvesbellsouth.net)
Date: Tue Sep 25 2007 - 22:38:41 CDT

This make sense,but if we can't even agree on what the public perceives
as a threat that they know nothing about,until a patch comes out or a
full blown exploit shows up ITW (such trivial bullshit),how can we even
say that we agree on the terms like disclosure,vulnerability,etc,etc,etc.

How about we all agree that certain things can have different terms that
mean the same thing.It's all semantics,really.I'm not going to go to New
Orleans and tell them they speak English all wrong,although an English
professor might try.

Would he get anywhere?Very doubtful.Same thing applies here.

Cheers, Scott

Gadi Evron wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Sep 2007, Charles Miller wrote:
>> On 26/09/2007, at 5:02 AM, Gadi Evron wrote:
>>> 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?
>> As a professional, I would be happy to see terms like '0day' banished
>> from the lexicon entirely. It's an essentially meaningless -- all
>> third-party exploits are zero-day to _somebody_ -- term of boast
>> co-opted from the warez scene, and we can do perfectly well without it.
>> Quibbling over its precise definition seems a ridiculous waste of bytes.
> It would if we are to stay stuck in our niche, but you need to
> remember - security is about niches, we are all experts -- but in very
> specific fields.
> These past 2 years we faced multiple targeted attacks with previously
> unknown vulnerabilities. We experience MASSIVE exploitation of users
> with 0days used on web sites and ine mail, etc.
> As an industry, as professionals, it is time to get our act together
> on the basics.
> I am operations manager for ZERT, and for me, this is indeed at the
> very heart of the matter. How you define this silliness is directly
> linked to how you do two of the most essential parts of security:
> 1. Vulnerability disclosure - for researchers.
> 2. Incident response - for.. responders.
> If a vulnerabiliy is fully disclosed, unpatched, being actively
> exploited, etc. caused real confusion, and non of us, or any of the
> written material, can agree on the basics.
> It's not about fighting on what 0day means as much as it is about how
> we as an industry, a community, conduct ourselves and can reach a
> common language, which directly impacts operations.
> So, if WMF was disclosed today after being actively exploited itw for
> a while, what would you call it? How would you respond to it? How long
> would it stay unpatched and when will you realize its importance?
>> C
> 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/