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

--
Michael Culley
www.vbdotcom.com



"Patrick Troughton" <Patrick@Troughton.com> wrote in message
news:3ceb97d5$1@10.1.10.29...
>
> Are you sure? The article first states that "the worm affects only
Microsoft
> SQL Server version 7.0." But the very next sentence seemingly contradicts
> this statement, "By default, SQL Server 2000 requires the administrator
enter
> a password, so it's not vulnerable." So, if the default were overriden,
would
> that not make SQL Server 2000 vulnerable?
>
> /Pat
>
> "Michael Culley" <mike@vbdotcom.com> 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
> >www.vbdotcom.com