RE: [inbox] Re: [Full-Disclosure] RE: new internet explorer exploit (was new worm)

How can this be a 0-day worm is McAfee VirusScan picks it up as VBS/Psyme
worm?  In my opinion, in order to truely be a 0-day worm, it has to be
completely new.  It doesn't even have to be a new vulnerability really.

 0-day  -->  date of birth  (no AV signatures out at first onset, larger AV
companies start releasing signatures after a couple hours of backwards
engineering)
 1 - 3 Day --->  living the good life  (Large AV vendors have sigs out,
smaller av vendors should have them out as well)
 3+ Day  ---> old.... (ALL AV vendors have sigs out)

  Now, a 0-day vulnerabilty and a 0-day worm for the 0-day vuln, would be
something indeed.  It surely would catch the world by surprise....

   Psyme is not 0-day, McAfee had DATS out for it since October 8, last
year, discovered September 30 last year...

I'm not trying to start a flame war, thats just the way I see things.

  Exibar

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu [mailto:Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu]
> Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 7:53 PM
> To: Drew Copley
> Cc: Jelmer; full-disclosure@lists.netsys.com; bugtraq@securityfocus.com
> Subject: [inbox] Re: [Full-Disclosure] RE: new internet explorer exploit
> (was new worm)
>
>
> On Mon, 29 Mar 2004 11:44:12 PST, Drew Copley <dcopley@eeye.com>  said:
>
> > Yeah. It is a zero day worm, and it is very notable as such.
> >
> > I can not recall a previous zero day worm. (AV is not my job, but I do
> > try and follow zero day.)
> >
> > Hence, IE has birthed us the first zero day worm.
>
> Has anybody offered the Microsoft dude who denied the existence of 0-days
> some ketchup for his fried crow? ;)