I am pretty sensitive to definitions. When Mark Russinovich first broke the story about Sony and its “rootkit” I questioned the definition. It is particularly annoying when it gets so much press that the word has basically been compromised forever. It was kind of interesting that this question only came up in the media a few weeks later when Symantec was accused of using rootkit technology.

Rob Slade and Kurt Wismer write most recently about the “rootkit” definition and its implications. 

This type of thing comes up maybe a couple of times a year. For example, here is a post I wrote about the whole hacker/cracker debate in the past. The only reason it matters is when the specifics drive one’s ability to address the problem. Since it is so common to have point product solutions in security, this can be pretty meaningful.

I do take some comfort in the fact that lots of words change their meaning over time. I suspect that our small world is the reason that even professional jargon is subject to this problem. Oh, and did I mention marketing?

I think we are better off just learning to live with understanding all of the different meanings of the word. For fun, I dug up a list (from here and taken on face value for this post) that shows how word definitions change over time simply by defining the original meaning. Here it is:

• Word = Original Meaning
• awful = deserving of awe
• brave = cowardice (as in bravado)
• counterfeit = legitimate copy
• girl = young person of either sex
• guess = take aim
• knight = boy
• luxury = sinful self indulgence
• neck = parcel of land (as in neck of the woods)
• notorious = famous
• nuisance = injury, harm
• quick = alive (as in quicksilver)
• sophisticated = corrupted
• tell = to count (as in bank teller)
• truant = beggar