Re: [Full-disclosure] defining 0day

Who really cares what the definition of 0-day is to you or that you think
everyone uses it wrong? In the grand scheme of things you're like the rest
of us, you don't really matter.


On 9/25/07, Gadi Evron <ge@linuxbox.org> 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/



-- 
-- h0 h0 h0 --
www.nopsled.net

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/