On 9/25/07, Gadi Evron <ge@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > No longer good enough. > > We can get a press scare over a public vuln release, or a wake-up call. > > I think we can do better as an industry. > Who, then, rewrites all of the reference material? And doesn't any new definition simply become definition number 2 in Webster? Is it really the definition that is lacking or is the use of the word at issue? Seems to me, from the beginning of this debate, that its the usage. Far easier to reform the "zero day process" (disclosure, etc.) than to redefine the term "zero day". The term is owned by the public, the process is owned by those who follow it, the industry. Couldn't a formal process be developed that does the defining/labeling of a particular disclosure?
