__/ [ flyer ] on Friday 13 April 2007 08:12 \__
> In article <148a6uvb2ox6v.dlg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, erik@despam-
> funkenbusch.com says...
>> On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 22:02:08 +0100, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>
>> > Office zero-day bugs spoil Patch Tuesday
>> >
>> > ,----[ Quote ]
>> >| A trio of what appear to be new, yet-to-be-patched flaws in Microsoft
>> >| Office has surfaced, according to security researchers at McAfee.
>> >|
>> >| [...]
>> >|
>> >| The initial investigation has found that none of these zero-day
>> >| claims demonstrates any vulnerability in the products of Office
>> >| 2007, the latest version of Office, the representative said.
>> > `----
>> >
>> > http://news.zdnet.com/2100-1009_22-6175011.html
>>
>> Jesus, Roy. This one takes the cake. The very text you quote above says
>> that Office 2007 is not vulnerable, yet your title says it is.
>>
>> You can't claim this one was an "accident".
>
> Get your data straight.
>
> The "is not vulnerable" part comes from a lying Microsoftbrain PR
> chimpanzee.
>
>They even fully deny that they are idiots. More evidence as well.
No, he's right. I didn't read this carefully enough and, despite the fact
that I quoted this, I thought Office 2007 was among the versions affected. I
work quickly, so I tend to just glance at the text rather than read it
properly. I quickly jumped on a previous story, which I appended to the
post. It's a case of negligence, an accident. I apologise for that, and
thanks for the correction.
--
~~ With kind regards
Roy S. Schestowitz | Useless fact: the buttocks is the largest muscle
http://Schestowitz.com | GNU/Linux ¦ PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
Mem: 514480k total, 486224k used, 28256k free, 4100k buffers
http://iuron.com - next generation of search paradigms
|
|