Don't get me wrong, I realize that Tim can (and does) come across rather strong and in some cases arrogant and disrespectful, but it sounds like the bulk of your problem with him lies in the fact that he *appears* to favor Microsoft and nothing else. Am I wrong?

This begs the question, were you able to comprehend what the article was stating or were you too blind-sided by your apparent disgust for Microsoft?

What part of his article led you to believe he misunderstood Eeye's advisory? I saw nothing directly stated or implied, did you?

What part of the following statement "And though my call on this one..." gave you any reason to believe that it was definitive. He never denied that a worm may/would be written to take advantage of this vulnerability, only suggested (not definitively mind you) that it wouldn’t be as wide spread or “massive” as the media might think.

There are at least three important things I got out of reading this article and its associated comments: 1) Tim was right about the inaccuracy that accompanied the reporting of this vulnerability; 2) Tim may be right about the public eye not seeing a massive worm exist in the near term, but not necessarily in the long term; 3) People like you astound me. I mean, how does one who can’t comprehend an article come to believe that they are in any position to fervently argue against what it may or may not be stating? Maybe I’m wrong about you and I’ve completely missed something or maybe you’re just stupid.


[ reply ]

Link to this comment: http://www.securityfocus.com/comments/columns/50/9604#9604