Re: ILOVEYOU worm (fwd)

Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

From: Joachim Feise (
Date: Thu May 04 2000 - 17:23:35 PDT

Comet wrote:
> "Adam L. Beberg" wrote:
> > A bag of jellybeans says Microsoft gets zero blame for this, or even
> > associated with the $100M+ in estimated damages. Congress, the
> > pentagon, all hit. What happened to that cyberwarfare division the
> > president was hyping. Shouldn't they be protecting the pentagon from
> > enemies like Microsoft?
> You might be a winner, Adam.
> Watched a brief CNN report about this first thing this a.m. Not one
> whisper about Micro$oft or its products. Five minutes ago CNN aired an
> expanded story complete with cropped screenshots (client not
> visible.) Still NOT ONE WORD about Micro$oft products. However, in
> one up-close screenshot showing a user deleting a registry entry, the
> /Windows path was readable.

Well, CNet starts to point to M$:
Zboray harshly criticized Microsoft for releasing a programming language with the
"wrong security posture" to businesses and the public. "Visual Basic script and the
macros are proving to be a disaster. This is just happening over and over again. We
have to get away from this hostile active content that is coming in through Word
documents, Excel spreadsheets and the browser.
"You can say a lot of things (about) how Java's not good, and you can say JavaScript
has a lot of flaws," Zboray said. "But the security posture from which they were
designed was the right posture. The security posture from which ActiveX and VBScript
were designed is the wrong posture."
For its part, Microsoft attributes the ongoing security issues not so much to inherent
problems with Visual Basic script and its macro language, but to bad people misusing
good software.

Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu May 04 2000 - 17:25:33 PDT