[Full-disclosure] defining 0day

[Douglas K. Fischer]

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [Full-disclosure] defining 0day
From: n3td3v <xploitable at gmail.com>
To: Gadi Evron <ge at linuxbox.org>, full-disclosure at lists.grok.org.uk, 
n3td3v <n3td3v at googlegroups.com>
Date: 04/19/2008 18:44
> On Tue, Sep 25, 2007 at 8:02 PM, Gadi Evron <ge at linuxbox.org> wrote:
>   
>>  Okay. I think we exhausted the different views, and maybe we are now able
>> to come to a conlusion on what we WANT 0day to mean.
>>
>>  What do you, as professional, believe 0day should mean, regardless of
>> previous definitions?
>>
>>  Obviously, the term has become charged in the past couple of years with the
>> targeted office vulnerabilities attacks, WMF, ANI, etc.
>>
>>  We require a term to address these, just as much as we do "unpatched
>> vulnerability" or "fully disclosed vulnerability".
>>
>>  What other such descriptions should we consider before proceeding?
>> non-disclosure?
>>
>>         Gadi.
>>
>>     
>
> I just caught a news article that summed up nicely what 0day means...
>
> "A zero-day flaw is a software vulnerability that has become public
> knowledge but for which no patch is available. It is particularly
> dangerous since users are exposed from day zero until the day a vendor
> prepares a patch and notifies users it is ready."
>
> http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/144803/chinese_blogs_detail_zeroday_flaw_in_microsoft_works.html
>
> Regards,
>
> n3td3v
>   
I would actually add one more criteria. Not only would a 0day have no 
patch available, but the vulnerability being exploited would not have 
been previously announced. In other words, the very first exposure in 
the wild of a 0day would be active exploitation of an "as of yet 
unknown" (except of course by the exploit author) vulnerability. This 
makes a true 0day all the more potent.

Cheers,

Doug