|
BugTraq
0day: PDF pwns Windows Sep 20 2007 01:21PM pdp (architect) (pdp gnucitizen googlemail com) (3 replies) Re: [Full-disclosure] 0day: PDF pwns Windows Sep 21 2007 07:53PM Thierry Zoller (Thierry Zoller lu) (2 replies) Re: [Full-disclosure] 0day: PDF pwns Windows Sep 21 2007 09:21PM Aaron Collins (collinsa ehawaii gov) Re: [Full-disclosure] 0day: PDF pwns Windows Sep 21 2007 09:21PM Kevin Finisterre (lists) (kf_lists digitalmunition com) Re: 0day: PDF pwns Windows Sep 20 2007 03:29PM Gadi Evron (ge linuxbox org) (1 replies) Re: 0day: PDF pwns Windows Sep 20 2007 11:16PM Crispin Cowan (crispin novell com) (2 replies) Re: 0day: PDF pwns Windows Sep 23 2007 05:34AM Crispin Cowan (crispin novell com) (2 replies) Re: 0day: PDF pwns Windows Sep 23 2007 11:52PM Chad Perrin (perrin apotheon com) (2 replies) Re: 0day: PDF pwns Windows Sep 24 2007 10:57PM Lamont Granquist (lamont scriptkiddie org) (1 replies) Re: 0day: PDF pwns Windows Sep 25 2007 05:57PM Roland Kuhn (rkuhn e18 physik tu-muenchen de) (1 replies) RE: 0day: PDF pwns Windows Sep 25 2007 06:39PM Thor (Hammer of God) (thor hammerofgod com) (2 replies) defining 0day Sep 25 2007 07:02PM Gadi Evron (ge linuxbox org) (3 replies) Re: defining 0day Sep 25 2007 08:40PM Charles Miller (cmiller pastiche org) (2 replies) Re: defining 0day Sep 26 2007 11:25PM Zow Terry Brugger (zow llnl gov) (1 replies) Re: defining 0day Sep 26 2007 11:10PM Chad Perrin (perrin apotheon com) (1 replies) Re: defining 0day Sep 25 2007 07:51PM Brian Loe (knobdy gmail com) (1 replies) Re: defining 0day Sep 25 2007 07:59PM Gadi Evron (ge linuxbox org) (1 replies) Re: defining 0day Sep 25 2007 08:15PM Brian Loe (knobdy gmail com) (1 replies) |
|
|
Privacy Statement |
> I understand why this descriptivist approach is tempting over a
> prescriptivist approach. But it's important, I think, to keep in mind
> that the public uses the word "illegal" when they really mean
> "unlawful" and uses the word "Schizophrenic" when they are talking
> about multiple personality disorders. All technical fields have their
> jargon, and the general public is simply not well educated enough
> about the issues involved to arbitrate disputes over usage. Just as
> the legal profession needs the word "illegal" with its proper meaning,
> we also need our jargon to facilitate precise discussions about
> security matters. The public can't always be the source of our
> definitions.
I understand and agree. The issue is, that as with those other terms,
the industry has allowed the term to be misused long enough that the
public now using it wrong as well. However, the "public" I was
referring to is reference materials - dictionaries, wikipedia, etc..
If a newcomer to the security field hears the term "zero day" where
does he go to find out what a "zero day" exploit is? Most students go
to dictionaries or the like... and whats wrong with the current
definition of a "zero day"?
Okay, dump "zero day" completely and choose a new term for each
division of exploit or vulnerability.
Blue Sky Rambling: Try to enable a unified method of disclosure for
all types of exploits and vulnerabilities via a single medium/site or
multiple sites with a unified form or some such. I envision a check
list asking things like "is this vulnerability known to the vendor -
yes/no" and "does this exploit work against latest versions and all
patches - yes/no" or whatever it takes to filter disclosures and allow
them to be programatically labeled and disseminated, and the
"participating" vendor to be contacted - everything occurring in an
orderly, acceptable fashion by way of carved-in-stone rules.
Definitions of the labels can't be argued because the rules don't bend
for one person's perception. If all of the right check boxes are
checked, its zero day, or its not. Oh, and you have to be "certified"
to release a disclosure!
[ reply ]