Home page logo

fulldisclosure logo Full Disclosure mailing list archives

Re: defining 0day
From: coderman <coderman () gmail com>
Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2008 19:33:34 -0700

On Sat, Apr 19, 2008 at 5:27 PM, n3td3v <xploitable () gmail com> wrote:
 But from the computers point of view it doesn't care, if the
 vulnerability is not patched by the official vendor then its still a
 Its purely a mechanical term for the computer, not anything to do with
 what humans think.
 A computer doesn't count how many days ago, it counts in 0 and 1's, so
 it doesn't count the days inbetween, to the computer there is only
 0-day then patched is 1, thats what the reference is all about.

if we determine 0day by "patched" or "not patched" you've applied a
useless metric which means nothing.

when Oracle doesn't deliver a patch for a known vuln for 1.5 YEARS and
you get exploited via this vector, that is a 0day attack?
(a vector easily mitigated by disabling a known, often unnecessary
component added for marketing value to product..)

please, use your crack addled mind (what is left of it) and think
through the logical conclusion of your assertion.

0day is a perspective.

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

  By Date           By Thread  

Current thread:
[ Nmap | Sec Tools | Mailing Lists | Site News | About/Contact | Advertising | Privacy ]