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, <[email protected]> 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: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > 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/
