[resu_nimda]

It's funny because I'm in the camp that has been impressed with Microsoft lately. And of course it's ok to make mistakes, even really big ones.

But I would not say that this failure was a successful outcome, at least not nearly as successful as it could have been. They had to shut it down within hours and all we really learned is that people on the Internet like to troll with incredibly offensive stuff. Most of us knew that, I'm pretty sure. If they had actually prepared for abuse we might have learned more interesting things.

What really gets me though, is just the obnoxious spin on the press release implying that they had prepared so well for abuse but a sophisticated coordinated super-hacker attack found the tiny vulnerability.

[oneeyedpigeon]

I, too, want more details. What evidence does Microsoft have that the 'attack' was coordinated? What evidence do they have that it was an 'attack' at all? Is the 'vulnerability' they refer to merely the part of the algorithm that parrots input? That's not a vulnerability, that's a core function of the software.

More interestingly, at what point does repeating my opinion (however heartfelt, misguided, or unpopular) become a 'coordinated attack'?