MSUNAG Archives

MSUNAG Archives


Next Message | Previous Message
Next in Topic | Previous in Topic
Next by Same Author | Previous by Same Author
Chronologically | Most Recent First
Proportional Font | Monospaced Font


Join or Leave MSUNAG
Reply | Post New Message
Search Archives

Subject: Re: IE Zero Day Vulnerability
From: David McFarlane <[log in to unmask]>
Reply-To:David McFarlane <[log in to unmask]>
Date:Tue, 29 Apr 2014 11:42:54 -0400

text/plain (52 lines)

And going off on a tangent here...  Have we changed the meaning of 
"Zero Day Vulnerability"?  According to my understanding, and as 
corroborated by Wikipedia, a "Zero-day attack" refers to a situation 
where "There are zero days between the time the vulnerability is 
discovered (and made public), and the first attack."  But in this 
case we have not yet seen any attack, so it would be more proper to 
refer to this as an n-day vulnerability, where n indicates the number 
of days since the vulnerability was discovered.  Or has "0-day" 
suffered journalistic inflation, like so much of our terminology?  If 
every discovered vulnerability is now considered "0-day", then what 
function does the modifier "0-day" serve?  What then makes a "0-day" 
vulnerability different from a non 0-day vulnerability?

This is much like the misused term DDoS, where in many cases the 
first "D" is irrelevant and simply DoS would serve.  Sigh.

-- dkm

At 4/29/2014 11:29 AM Tuesday, David Graff wrote:
>I agree that this is sensationalist. We have arbitrary code execution
>vulnerabilities against Flash, Acrobat, and Java all the time and those have
>active user bases on par with IE these days. What's one more way to
>infiltrate an XP system?
>But, if you're looking for mitigation against unpatched buffer overrun
>attacks Windows, its worth installing the EMET package from Microsoft and
>accepting the default config which will run DEP and SEHOP in opt-out mode.
>Hopefully the IE sandboxing that UAC creates is also containing this attack
>for anything running Vista and newer.
>On Mon, 28 Apr 2014 14:41:39 -0400, David McFarlane <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >Yet another (less alarmist) perspective on
> >this:
> > 
> lorers-new-0-day-vulnerability
> >
> >-- dkm  "What, me worry?"
> >
> >
> >At 4/28/2014 08:57 AM Monday, Murray, Troy wrote:
> >>Zero-day exploit in every version of Internet Explorer discovered
> >>late yesterday, and XP won't be patched when a fix is released.
> >>
> >>< 
> n-of-inte-1568383903/+whitsongordon?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+lifehacker%2Ffull+%28Lifehacker%29>

Back to: Top of Message | Previous Page | Main MSUNAG Page



CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager