It seems to have lost its meaning after getting popularized following Stuxnet coverage.

No, I think it was since Code Red.

I understand why it's poorly understood. It's a snappy term, and people assume it means "bad" and nothing else because that's all you can get from the context. However, since most people also don't know the difference between a vulnerability and an exploit, they won't understand the definition of a zero-day when they read it.

But I'm still going to complain if a security vulnerability research company is using the term incorrectly in their own press copy. It makes them look amateurish.

▲

NooneAtAll3 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> the difference between a vulnerability and an exploit

is it the difference between a knife and a stab wound?

	▲	da_chicken 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		No, that's the difference between exploit (knife) and either the incident or impact (wound). The vulnerability would be a gap in armor. The vulnerability is the exposed weakness. Vulnerabilities get fixes, and they exist without anybody knowing about them. Vulnerabilities get CVEs assigned to them. The exploit is the means of attack. It's the specific actions or calls that let you take advantage of a vulnerability. It could be a worm, or botnet scripts, or specifically crafted data[0]. A proof of concept is not an exploit itself, but it demonstrates that the vulnerability can be exploited. An example of a vulnerability might be a gate where the gap between the door and the jam are too wide. The exploit is a coat hanger used to lift the inside latch from outside the gate. That results in unprivileged access. And zero-day specifically compares when the white hats (vendors, system owners) and the black hats learn about the existence of a vulnerability. If white hats learn that a vulnerability exists by being subject to an in-the-wild black hat exploit of it, then it's a true zero-day. [0]: https://xkcd.com/327/

▲

jungfty 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[dead]