<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: No Microsoft Security Bulletins for March 2007</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.didierstevens.com/2007/03/09/no-microsoft-security-bulletins-for-march-2007/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blog.didierstevens.com/2007/03/09/no-microsoft-security-bulletins-for-march-2007/</link>
	<description>(blog 'DidierStevens)</description>
	<pubDate>Tue, 06 Jan 2009 12:16:03 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=MU</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Ron</title>
		<link>http://blog.didierstevens.com/2007/03/09/no-microsoft-security-bulletins-for-march-2007/#comment-1232</link>
		<dc:creator>Ron</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 27 Mar 2007 05:26:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://didierstevens.wordpress.com/2007/03/09/no-microsoft-security-bulletins-for-march-2007/#comment-1232</guid>
		<description>I've seen this canned 'announcement' dozens of times now.  I just wish M$ (and all of their unpaid propagandists) would tell the whole truth.  Sure they did not issue any official 'security' patches.  So imagine my surprise when on that Tuesday I rebooted my machine and had to wait while M$ installed 3 patches... (or were they malware?).  When I checked, they appeared legit.  Assuming they really were M$ patches, how many times before this has M$ stacked multiple fixes into a patch, millions of times! So I wonder if any of the fixes in these patches had a security aspect.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;ve seen this canned &#8216;announcement&#8217; dozens of times now.  I just wish M$ (and all of their unpaid propagandists) would tell the whole truth.  Sure they did not issue any official &#8217;security&#8217; patches.  So imagine my surprise when on that Tuesday I rebooted my machine and had to wait while M$ installed 3 patches&#8230; (or were they malware?).  When I checked, they appeared legit.  Assuming they really were M$ patches, how many times before this has M$ stacked multiple fixes into a patch, millions of times! So I wonder if any of the fixes in these patches had a security aspect.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: No Microsoft security patches for March at Security Samizdat</title>
		<link>http://blog.didierstevens.com/2007/03/09/no-microsoft-security-bulletins-for-march-2007/#comment-728</link>
		<dc:creator>No Microsoft security patches for March at Security Samizdat</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 09 Mar 2007 09:35:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://didierstevens.wordpress.com/2007/03/09/no-microsoft-security-bulletins-for-march-2007/#comment-728</guid>
		<description>[...] Didier Stevens wonders if any zero-day exploit will be released this week: It will be interesting to see if new zero-days will appear in the coming days. We often see new zero-days just after patch Tuesday. There’s a theory that states that exploit writers do this to maximize the life-time of the exploit. If this theory is correct, we should already see new zero-days appearing between now and Tuesday, because exploit writers won’t have to wait for Tuesday to maximize the life-time of the exploits. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Didier Stevens wonders if any zero-day exploit will be released this week: It will be interesting to see if new zero-days will appear in the coming days. We often see new zero-days just after patch Tuesday. There’s a theory that states that exploit writers do this to maximize the life-time of the exploit. If this theory is correct, we should already see new zero-days appearing between now and Tuesday, because exploit writers won’t have to wait for Tuesday to maximize the life-time of the exploits. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
