> Usually if it says "0-Day" assume that it can be exploited without human intervention a-la stuxnet

That's not at all what a 0-day means, it just means a previously unknown vulnerability. We've never seen a ransomware attack anywhere close to as sophisticated at Stuxnet. This latest attack is nothing new and is only affecting people who haven't kept their systems up to date.

I understand that this is not what it means. But generally speaking when an article says "0-day malware" it usually ends up meaning that no human involvement is needed.

Please don't assume I don't know what 0-day actually means. I chose my words carefully as not not imply that I was saying the definition of the term.

"0-day" does not mean without human intervention. That just means "previously undisclosed".

I understand that. Which is why I said "usually".

Typically when we see news using the term 0-day it's because there was no human element needed in the infection of machines. Thinking back in recent memory (17~ years) I can't remember a time when 0-day was used when it didn't mean autonomous infection.

Although. I fully understand that the term means that it's a previously unknown issue. Which is why I chose my words as carefully as I did.

It "usually" means "undisclosed". Everything else is entirely circumstantial and coincidental.

The reason human intervention is generally required now is because Windows has been hardened enough that some idiot user has to click a button to bypass the built-in basic protection. There's still a possibility of a "0-day" exploit remote-owning a machine, though these sorts of exploits are a lot harder to craft due to that attack surface being exposed to more security scrutiny.