|
|
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 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 |
> > As a professional, I would be happy to see terms like '0day' banished
> > from the lexicon entirely. It's an essentially meaningless -- all
> > third-party exploits are zero-day to _somebody_ -- term of boast co-
> > opted from the warez scene, and we can do perfectly well without it.
>
> I'd accept that. Can we agree on a term that means: "Right now you're
> learning about a vulnerability for which there is a working exploit, and no
> way to protect yourself short of impacting the availability of your systems
> by unplugging them or disabling the affected service."?
>
> I'd propose "unpatched vulnerability with known working exploit", but it's
> kind of verbose, and I don't think some of the kids joining our ranks can
> string that many complete words together anymore (too much texting).
UV:WE
Unpatched Vulnerability: Working Exploit
. . . or maybe "zero day exploit".
--
CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
Brian K. Reid: "In computer science, we stand on each other's feet."
[ reply ]