 |
 |
So if a "0day" exploit occurs, why not just say something like, "an attack now underway has been discovered against a previously unknown [unreported?] vulnerability"? This is unambiguous, requires no mental unpacking for either experts or non-experts, and puts urgent emphasis squarely on the attack underway rather than on the vulnerability. -- dkm At 5/22/2014 04:28 PM Thursday, STeve Andre' wrote: >No, "0day" exploits are real and should be noted. What needs improvement >is knowing when to use the term. The media seems to need a course on the >proper usage of technical terms. > >We also need a new term for what are limited release exploits, aimed at a >specific target. One can only wonder what the vandals will call that. > >--STeve Andre' > >On 05/22/14 11:08, David McFarlane wrote: >>Well, last time I rushed to judgment without properly reading the >>articles, and I stuck my foot in my mouth big-time. Now we have a >>new "Zero-day" flaw announced, and this time I'm not the only one >>complaining about misuse of the term, as you may see in the >>discussion at Slashdot: >> >>http://it.slashdot.org/story/14/05/21/220225/new-ie-8-zero-day-discovered >> >>So it seems that people do use the term just because it "sounds >>cool", and it has ceased to mean anything useful. I suggest we get >>rid of "zero-day". >> >>-- dkm >> >> >>At 4/29/2014 03:10 PM Tuesday, David McFarlane wrote: >>>About my screed on "0-day": Looks like I need a lesson on reading >>>comprehension. As has been kindly pointed out to me, the first >>>sentence of the original Microsoft Security Advisory at >>>https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/security/2963983.aspx >>>says, "Microsoft is aware of limited, targeted attacks ..." I >>>would have had to click through an extra link to get to that >>>statement, but even the press account that started this thread, in >>>the first sentence of the second paragraph, reads, "Attacks taking >>>advantage of the vulnerability are largely targeting ..." So this >>>does honor the traditional use of "0-day", and I have no excuse. >>> >>>Mea culpa, >>>-- dkm >>> >>> >>>At 4/29/2014 11:42 AM Tuesday, David McFarlane wrote: >>>><editorial> >>>>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. >>>></editorial> >>>> >>>>-- 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. >>>>> >>>>>http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=41138 >>>>> >>>>>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: >>>>> >http://steve.grc.com/2014/04/28/a-quick-mitigation-for-internet >>>>> -e x p 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. >>>>> >> >>>>> >><http://gizmodo.com/new-vulnerability-found-in-every-single-ve >>>>> rs i o >>>>> n-of-inte-1568383903/+whitsongordon?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+lifehacker%2Ffull+%28Lifehacker%29>http://gizmodo.com/new-vulnerability-found-in-every-single-version-of-inte-1568383903/