 |
 |
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-vers >>>> 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/ >