> Sure, but presumably vulnerabilities exist in more or less all > software?
Certainly. But I think there is a difference between finding out that your ftp server software has a buffer overflow exploit in it and continuing to ship and expand the same macro/scripting system that you *know* is insecure and enabling, by default, options that you *know* are insecure. > The desire to crack them is that much greater in the case of MS for several > reasons: > 1) Market saturation. So many people use these products that it > may be more > 'beneficial' to crack them. > 2) Hatred of M$ and what it stands for. > 3) Vulnerabilities are often well known, and have existed for years I'm sure these are very valid reasons but I think you're missing the most obvious and most important one. MS products, and Outlook in particular, get exploited because its so damn easy to do. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
