Then you would have gathered wrong. They didn't "switch servers" rather than fixing their own software. They were undergoing a Distributed Denial of Service attack, not an infection of their own systems. They did switch to a content hosting service with much, much more bandwidth than they themselves possess.
If people are going to bash Microsoft, they should do it for the right reasons, and this aspect of the current infestation isn't one of them. The infestation itself is reason enough. Mark Post -----Original Message----- From: Daniel Casey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, August 18, 2003 10:08 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Microsoft beats the blaster Which was...In order for Microsoft to protect themselves from the Worm, they switched to Linux rather than using/fixing their Windows servers. At least that's what I gathered from the article. Ryan Ware <[EMAIL PROTECTED] ic.com> To Sent by: Linux on [EMAIL PROTECTED] 390 Port cc <[EMAIL PROTECTED] IST.EDU> Subject Re: Microsoft beats the blaster 08/18/2003 08:49 AM Please respond to Linux on 390 Port <[EMAIL PROTECTED] IST.EDU> Which was? I realize the whole blaster thing is egg on Microsoft's secure computing initiative face, and that Windows itself is a playground for kiddies. > -----Original Message----- > From: John Summerfield [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, August 18, 2003 8:44 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Microsoft beats the blaster > > On Mon, 18 Aug 2003, Ryan Ware wrote: > > > Microsoft has used Akamai for eons for downloads of all sorts. I find > it > > amusing that people think that Microsoft would have an issue with using > a > > linux server for something. I guess this > > http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph?site=www.linuxworldexpo.com is > amusing > > also. > > Perhaps you missed a key point. > > > -- > > > Cheers > John. > > Join the "Linux Support by Small Businesses" list at > http://mail.computerdatasafe.com.au/mailman/listinfo/lssb > Copyright John Summerfield. Reproduction prohibited.
