Re: defining 0day

From: Andrew Weaver <aweaver(at)ee.net>
Date: Tue Sep 25 2007 - 17:05:32 EDT

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)"

; ; "Chad Perrin" 
; "Crispin Cowan" ; 
; "pdp (architect)" ; 
; "Lamont Granquist" 
; "Roland Kuhn" 

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  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
>
Received on Tue Sep 25 17:48:59 2007