Seems like a little biased journalism going on here. Maybe you're too closely tied to Microsoft to see clearly.

In the fine print at the bottom of the article you state:

>Microsoft's security issues are bad. And though my call on
>this one is that we won't see any massive worm taking
>advantage of this particular vulnerability, the security
>of the Simple Service Discovery Protocol in itself still
>must be addressed and secured.

Yet in quoting a shorter exerpt in the bold large-print sidebar you create a different impression, saying:

>we won't see any massive worm taking advantage of this
>particular vulnerability

In context that is a qualifying statement, not the bottom line. Yet the sidebar implies it is the bottom line. The real bottom line is that this is a serious vulnerability that could be exploited to achieve all sorts of havoc. Why minimize this, unless you have alterior motives? Stipend? Which side is your bread buttered on? Hmm...

[ reply ]

Link to this comment: http://www.securityfocus.com/comments/columns/50/9618#9618