From: mike 

On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 12:33:16 -0500, "Rich Gauszka"
 wrote:

>
>"Geo."  wrote in message
news:45f2e4b4$3{at}w3.nls.net...
>> "Rich Gauszka"  wrote in message
>> news:45f2bef2$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>>
>>>> Aren't there zero-day exploits that need to be patched
while Microsoft
>>>> is twiddling its thumbs?
>>
>>> Yep - yet sometimes a rushed patch could be considered a malicious zero
>>> day exploit.
>>
>> Right, it's not like users need to be concerned about the 6 zero day
>> exploits..
>>
>> http://eeyeresearch.typepad.com/blog/2007/02/patch_tuesday_f.html
>>
>> Geo. (how is it still a zero day exploit after over 400 days?)
>
>I didn't mean to imply that I was letting MS off the hook over the delay.
>Just that a rushed patch can be more dangerous than an exploit.
>
>I do wonder how many resources are allocated to the wga team vs. the exploit
>fixers as we all now know what Microsoft considers a security threat.


WGA is the focus nowadays.   Why do you even need to ask?

 /m

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5