From: Keith Dawson (dawson@world.std.com)
Date: Fri May 05 2000 - 06:47:56 PDT
Adam L. Beberg:
>Still NOT ONE WORD about Micro$oft products. However, in
>> one up-close screenshot showing a user deleting a registry entry, the
>> /Windows path was readable.
Joachim Feise <jfeise@ics.uci.edu>:
>Well, CNet starts to point to M$:
>http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-1814907.html
Coverage in both the Boston Globe (Hiawatha Bray) and the NY Times (John Mar-
koff) at least raised the issue of Microsoft's culpability. Both ran quotes
from Scott Culp, program manager for their Security Response Center, denying
any responsibility. Listen to this soundbyte in the context of the antitrust
defence: "The technologies are there because customers have asked us to put
it [sic] there." Culp told Markoff, "This is not due to a flaw in a Microsoft
product." Both reporters talked to Richard Smith for a counterbalancing view,
but his quote wass pale in comparison to Zboray's "The secuity posture from
which ActiveX and VBScript were designed is the wrong posture."
http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/126/nation/Virus_snarls_computers_worldwide+.shtml
http://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/00/05/biztech/articles/05virus.html
--KD, who's not writing Media Grok this morning but wishes he were.
_______________________________________________________
Keith Dawson dawson@world.std.com http://dawson.nu/
Layer of ash separates morning and evening milk.
Internet Freedom's 1999 Internet Journalist of the Year
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri May 05 2000 - 06:49:50 PDT