Re: defining 0day

["Andrew Weaver" <aweaver () ee net>]

I asked a few fairly regular Joes (our sales staff) what 0Day means to 
them.. just the words, they have no point of reference and they all pretty 
much agreed that they thought it meant

"less than a day old" "or less than 24 hours ago, X happened"

that is what i remember it being in the old NNTP file xfer days as well.

these are non-tech savy folks.
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Adrian Griffis" <adriang63 () gmail com>
To: "Brian Loe" <knobdy () gmail com>
Cc: "Gadi Evron" <ge () linuxbox org>; "Thor (Hammer of God)" 
<thor () hammerofgod com>; <bugtraq () securityfocus com>; "Chad Perrin" 
<perrin () apotheon com>; "Crispin Cowan" <crispin () novell com>; 
<Casper.Dik () sun com>; "pdp (architect)" <pdp.gnucitizen () googlemail com>; 
<full-disclosure () lists grok org uk>; "Lamont Granquist" 
<lamont () scriptkiddie org>; "Roland Kuhn" <rkuhn () e18 physik tu-muenchen de>
Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2007 4:37 PM
Subject: Re: defining 0day


> On 9/25/07, Brian Loe <knobdy () gmail com> wrote:
> > On 9/25/07, Gadi Evron <ge () linuxbox org> 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

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/