, 2001-12-31
Everyone from the FBI to the L.A. Times has something scary to say about the new XP vulnerability. Here's why they all have it wrong.
Expand all |
Post comment
Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt, Inc.
2001-12-31
Anonymous (1 replies)
Anonymous (1 replies)
RE: Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt, Inc.
2001-12-31
J Horner <jjhorner@bellsouth.net> (2 replies)
J Horner <jjhorner@bellsouth.net> (2 replies)
RE: Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt, Inc.
2001-12-31
Anonymous (1 replies)
Anonymous (1 replies)
Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt, Inc.
2001-12-31
Anonymous (2 replies)
Anonymous (2 replies)
No worm? Tim, lay off the meds
2001-12-31
Anonymous (9 replies)
Anonymous (9 replies)
A lesson in comprehension...
2002-01-02
Anonymous (1 replies)
Anonymous (1 replies)
A lesson in... Comprehend this: MS has 36+Billion in Liquidity (4x next on list)
2002-01-06
gained by monopoly + inferior product = superior pricing (does this compute?) (1 replies)
gained by monopoly + inferior product = superior pricing (does this compute?) (1 replies)
A lesson in... Comprehend this: MS has 36+Billion in Liquidity (4x next on list)
2002-01-16
Anonymous
Anonymous
Here you go Tim, the exploit is out !
2002-01-04
Chad Cyrisse (1 replies)
Chad Cyrisse (1 replies)

I don't really belive that a massive worm will be released for this vulnerability. First of all, this vulnerability has born old, with Windows Windows 98 and ME being listed in the affected systems row.
As far as I can see everybody had time to discover this bug and build up (or, at least, figure out) an exploit, and I don't know the existance of any exploit yet (even "in the wild").
The only reason to justify the panic created with this vulnerability would be "SYSTEM COMPROMISE" and remote "root level" access in the hand of scriptie kiddies. And, in accordance with the last paragraph, scriptie kidddies had enough time to find out an exploit and they've failed. Now Microsoft released the patches and whether someone release a patch this patch will be probably less effective.
[ reply ]
Link to this comment: http://www.securityfocus.com/comments/columns/50/9677#9677