On 9/25/07, Brian Loe <knobdy (at) gmail (dot) com [email concealed]> wrote:
> On 9/25/07, Gadi Evron <ge (at) linuxbox (dot) org [email concealed]> wrote:
> > No longer good enough.
> >
> > We can get a press scare over a public vuln release, or a wake-up call.
> >
> > I think we can do better as an industry.
>
> Who, then, rewrites all of the reference material? And doesn't any new
> definition simply become definition number 2 in Webster?
>
> Is it really the definition that is lacking or is the use of the word
> at issue? Seems to me, from the beginning of this debate, that its the
> usage. Far easier to reform the "zero day process" (disclosure, etc.)
> than to redefine the term "zero day". The term is owned by the public,
> the process is owned by those who follow it, the industry.

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.

Adrian

[ reply ]