Assuming ya'll are right and I'm not disputing that.
How do you know that open office doesn’t have just as many holes in it..

Right now microsoft is targeted because they're the biggest kid on the
block, but we all know how people (companies, hackers, etc.) like to target
the king of the mountain.
Who's to say that if microsoft wasn’t around, it wouldn’t be the companies
that ya'll like that wouldn’t be accused of all these problems ?
 


Virgil Bierschwale
http://www.virgilslist.com
http://www.tccutlery.com
http://www.bierschwale.com
http://www.bierschwalesolutions.com

-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of Whil Hentzen (Pro*)
Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2006 9:50 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [NF] Third Word Exploit released

Ted Roche wrote:
> http://www.infoworld.com/cgi-bin/redirect?source=rss&url=http://www.in
> foworld.com/article/06/12/13/HNthirdword_1.html
> 
> or
> 
> http://tinyurl.com/y6xdv5
> 
> What guidance are folks providing their clients when there have been 
> three Zero-Day Exploits in three weeks?

Other than asking them why they are running software that, six years after a
rash of Word-related viruses, is still subject to holes like this that MSFT
denies, then downplays, then admits that they'll get around to fixing when
it's convenient for them.... when there are plenty of good alternatives out
there....

It's their money; if they want to spend it on fixing things that didn't have
to be broken, that's their decision. I can't make the horse drink after I've
pointed out the water to them.

Whil




[excessive quoting removed by server]

_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: [email protected]
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the 
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added 
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.

Reply via email to