Maybe so, I'm not sure, but the point is that MS are moving in the right

Michael Culley

"Patrick Troughton" <> wrote in message
> Are you sure? The article first states that "the worm affects only

> SQL Server version 7.0." But the very next sentence seemingly contradicts
> this statement, "By default, SQL Server 2000 requires the administrator

> a password, so it's not vulnerable." So, if the default were overriden,

> that not make SQL Server 2000 vulnerable?
> /Pat
> "Michael Culley" <> wrote:
> >
> >If you read the article it said it affects sql7 and not 2000. sql7 was
> >released *before* they made this claim. The fact the sql2000 is not
> >vunerable and that there is a patch available for sql7 indicated they are
> >staying true to their word.
> >
> >--
> >Michael Culley
> >