3 ms·

> The term "one-day vulnerability" refers to vulnerabilities that have been disclosed but not patched. And by CVE description, the team means a CVE-tagged advis

> The term "one-day vulnerability" refers to vulnerabilities that have been disclosed but not patched. And by CVE description, the team means a CVE-tagged advisory shared by NIST I wonder if this whole article was written by an LLM. I've never heard anyone worth listening to use the term 1day. I've always just called them vulnerability. I've actually just recently taken to calling them bugs in normal conversations. but while I'm ranting, I'm gonna rant about the widening of 0day. it's not synonymous with vulnerability it's when shell code or other POC payload is 'released' as the disclosure. Usually when it's release is immediately following an update. Especially when that update is 'Patch Tuesday.' It also should be scary, "you can make the app exit/crash" doesn't really count, but I'm not usually that pedantic. Meaning, if you disclose something to a vendor, give them 90 days, then publish the CVE but not shellcode, the best you have in a "90day" but even then, no POC exploit, no anything-day.

jkrshnmenon 3y ago
The jargon of 0-day and n-days are pretty common in the vulnerability detection community. The rest of your rant is pretty difficult for me to understand though.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
apstls 3y ago
The term 1day is not uncommon, not only among exploit vendors on either side of the law (in other words, selling to crime groups or selling to governments) but also among the general threat intelligence and broader cybersecurity community. It doesn’t stand out as strange at all, really. However, I don’t believe their particular definition aligns with the typical/colloquial usage of the term. It’s usually used in the more direct sense, i.e. a very new vulnerability that is unlikely to have been broadly patched. As far as the term 0day, I don’t think there’s much debate or contrarian opinions to be had. The only room for argument I see is between defining it as an unreleased vulnerability unknown to the vendor versus a vulnerability known to the vendor but not yet patched, basically what this article defines a 1day as. Either way, it comes down to nitpicking nuances of definitions of commonly-used terms. I don’t think there’s much meaningful discussion to be had.

jkrshnmenon 3y ago

The jargon of 0-day and n-days are pretty common in the vulnerability detection community. The rest of your rant is pretty difficult for me to understand though.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

apstls 3y ago

The term 1day is not uncommon, not only among exploit vendors on either side of the law (in other words, selling to crime groups or selling to governments) but also among the general threat intelligence and broader cybersecurity community. It doesn’t stand out as strange at all, really. However, I don’t believe their particular definition aligns with the typical/colloquial usage of the term. It’s usually used in the more direct sense, i.e. a very new vulnerability that is unlikely to have been broadly patched. As far as the term 0day, I don’t think there’s much debate or contrarian opinions to be had. The only room for argument I see is between defining it as an unreleased vulnerability unknown to the vendor versus a vulnerability known to the vendor but not yet patched, basically what this article defines a 1day as. Either way, it comes down to nitpicking nuances of definitions of commonly-used terms. I don’t think there’s much meaningful discussion to be had.