Re: Why no patch for the .wmf problem?

I didn't say I like it or am unconcerned. But I suggest it is necessary to
either accept it as reality, or switch to a different software vendor. This
is nothing new, it is the way it is, for the next several years if not
longer.

I suspect most people who were infected by this were not running up to date
antivirus. While there are always ways for such malware to try to evade
antivirus, I suspect using these methods were not necessary.


"Jim" <Jim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:487BCDB6-032C-4E9C-B0AA-C065CD5E4A7F@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Greetings,
>
> I am glad that you can be that comfortable considering the enormity of the
> issue. I however cannot afford to be of such an amenable mindset.
>
> Jim
>
> "Karl Levinson, mvp" wrote:
>
>> I really have no idea why you're surprised by this. Microsoft always
>> takes
>> around 40 days to test, localize and release patches. [You probably have
>> no
>> idea how painful it is to localize what would otherwise be "a simple
>> patch."] It's been that way for years. You're going to have to switch
>> to
>> another non-Microsoft operating system if you don't like this. This is
>> possibly one of the fastest patches they've ever released.
>>
>> You do have a number of workarounds at your disposal. Antivirus protects
>> you as well as it protects you from any other virus. An attacker could
>> use
>> various methods to try to evade signature-based antivirus, but this has
>> always been possible with most viruses.


.

Loading