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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 7:53 PM > To: Drew Copley > Cc: Jelmer; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [inbox] Re: [Full-Disclosure] RE: new internet explorer exploit > (was new worm) > > > On Mon, 29 Mar 2004 11:44:12 PST, Drew Copley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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? ;) > _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
