Slashdot Mirror

Hibernation insuffient resources exist to complete the API see MSKB 909095.

Download and install to fix (you don't even have to ring PSS any more!) IMHO, this is an update they really should push out using Automatic Updates. (They probably will when the next security bug is found in the kernel.)

I've been using BeOS lately because I'm working on Haiku and it boots from POST into the full BeOS GUI, ready to use, in about 9 seconds. It shutdowns in about 4 seconds. This is on an Athlon 1.33 GHz with 512 MB RAM, a system that Windows XP takes a minute or two to boot up and shutdown on.

As others have mentioned this isn't really an issue for most other operating systems.

I really have to wonder what the hell Windows is doing at boot-up to be so freaking slow. Keep in mind that BeOS (unlike Windows) can quickly adapt to hardware changes at boot-up, so it isn't like some crazy hardware driver caching is happening or anything.

I used to always joke that the Windows boot-up included a couple million no-ops to be so damn slow. Anyhow this is one reason of many I'm helping with Haiku.

I also find it fascinating that the new "performance features" touted in Vista are really all just kludges to work around Windows' inefficiencies. The fact that other systems (like, ahem, BeOS and Haiku) don't need such kludges shows this is a Microsoft Windows problem.

Believe you me, Microsoft makes money on support. Maybe not consumer releases when covered by warranty, but corporate customers pay dearly for support, as do shops that run older versions of Windows and are willing to pay for it. Custom development is a source of income as well as those stupid microsoft branded hardware devices (keyboards, mice, personal castration devices, etc...)

The old OS doesn't die, it just continues to draw support revenue. Just because Microsoft announces end-of-life status on a product, doesn't mean they're not willing to take money to support the people still running it (and that have pockets deep enough to pay for that support)

C:\Documents and Settings\freaky>uptime /?
 
UPTIME, Version 1.01
(C) Copyright 1999, Microsoft Corporation
 
Uptime [server] [/s ] [/a] [/d:mm/dd/yyyy | /p:n] [/heartbeat] [/? | /help]
        server Name or IP address of remote server to process.
/s Display key system events and statistics.
/a Display application failure events (assumes /s).
/d: Only calculate for events after mm/dd/yyyy.
/p: Only calculate for events in the previous n days.
/heartbeat Turn on/off the system's heartbeat
/? Basic usage.
/help Additional usage information.

close but no cigar. I know you want to drive your anti-Xbox point home, but at least get your facts straight. It's around $50 US for the annual gold membership. I pay that price because it keeps (most of) the cheaters out and my experience that much better.

This interface already exists. The orchestration designer in BizTalk is exactly what you're talking about, and more besides. It's brilliant.

Getting your info from the right sources? ... Microsoft says differently:
Q. Does MAK activation require Internet connectivity?
A. MAK activation can be performed either online or by telephone.
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/windowsvista/plan /faq.mspx

I argued the point that Microsoft will make it easy for you to activate their product because they want to sell it to you. Indeed they do.

Or you can switch to Linux and/or OSX. :)

Now I assume that smiley from your original post indicates a joke. You caught me!

Sure, the copyright enters the public domain after n years, but then a museum or gallery or monopolistic corporation buys the artwork and claims it as their intellectual property, so you can't take photos or publish it without paying them. Even if the original artist's been dead for centuries.

Just try taking photos in an art gallery in front of a security guard if you don't believe me...

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/using/networkin g/expert/northrup_03may16.mspx

I'm curious what they've taken out of the Business edition. I have a free legit copy on the way and thought it was basically the same as Ultimate except for MediaCenter software and Bitlocker. Two extras I'll never use.

This is the list I'm looking at. http://www.microsoft.com/windowsvista/getready/edi tions/default.mspx

It's quite tricky because, typically, the TCP/IP stack has no knowledge of which application is the originator of a particular packet.

Actually, it's completely trivial. All TCP (and UDP) activity from apps (and services) is made through the winsock and wsock32 DLL's and it's trivial to figure out the pid and tid of the caller using GetCurrentProcess() and GetCurrentThread(). I believe that this is how NetLimiter has always worked, setting itself up as a "Device Filter", and now Microsoft is "building in" that functionality to their own version of NetLimiter.

It's quite tricky because, typically, the TCP/IP stack has no knowledge of which application is the originator of a particular packet.

Actually, it's completely trivial. All TCP (and UDP) activity from apps (and services) is made through the winsock and wsock32 DLL's and it's trivial to figure out the pid and tid of the caller using GetCurrentProcess() and GetCurrentThread(). I believe that this is how NetLimiter has always worked, setting itself up as a "Device Filter", and now Microsoft is "building in" that functionality to their own version of NetLimiter.

How about this one:
No right to create modifications or derivatives of this Specification is granted herein.

There is a separate patent license available to parties interested in implementing software programs that can read and write files that conform to the Specification. This patent license is available at this location: http://www.microsoft.com/mscorp/ip/format/xmlpaten tlicense.asp.

The link with the actual license to READ and WRITE a file to their specifications is dead. This one works though, http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/xps/xpspatentlic.msp x. Is it the same? different license? Bad links happen to everyone.

Some handy excerpts: "Necessary Claims" do not include any claims: (i) that would require a payment of royalties by Microsoft to unaffiliated third parties; (ii) covering any Enabling Technologies that may be necessary to make or use any product incorporating a Licensed Implementation,....

This says to me that they have not indemnified developers from patent time-bombs for the functions one step beyond their proposed standard or other patent time-bombs laid by lesser-known Patent IP firms. Maybe someone with more coding skills can explain if it would be possible to implement a standard without so-called "Enabling Technologies"?

(iii) covering the reading or writing of documents other than XPS Documents, or rendering of XPS Documents in a manner that is different than the rendering allowed by the XML Paper Specification. "Enabling Technologies" means technologies that may be necessary to make or use any product or portion of a product that complies with the XML Paper Specification, but are not expressly set forth"

To me this says Microsoft can come after you if you do something they didn't think of.

I don't see how this benefits any developer outside of a select few.

How about this one:
No right to create modifications or derivatives of this Specification is granted herein.

There is a separate patent license available to parties interested in implementing software programs that can read and write files that conform to the Specification. This patent license is available at this location: http://www.microsoft.com/mscorp/ip/format/xmlpaten tlicense.asp.

The link with the actual license to READ and WRITE a file to their specifications is dead. This one works though, http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/xps/xpspatentlic.msp x. Is it the same? different license? Bad links happen to everyone.

Some handy excerpts: "Necessary Claims" do not include any claims: (i) that would require a payment of royalties by Microsoft to unaffiliated third parties; (ii) covering any Enabling Technologies that may be necessary to make or use any product incorporating a Licensed Implementation,....

This says to me that they have not indemnified developers from patent time-bombs for the functions one step beyond their proposed standard or other patent time-bombs laid by lesser-known Patent IP firms. Maybe someone with more coding skills can explain if it would be possible to implement a standard without so-called "Enabling Technologies"?

(iii) covering the reading or writing of documents other than XPS Documents, or rendering of XPS Documents in a manner that is different than the rendering allowed by the XML Paper Specification. "Enabling Technologies" means technologies that may be necessary to make or use any product or portion of a product that complies with the XML Paper Specification, but are not expressly set forth"

To me this says Microsoft can come after you if you do something they didn't think of.

I don't see how this benefits any developer outside of a select few.

Do you have a source for that? Because it is contradictory to what I thought was the case, and Microsoft themselves give no hint of this on their FAQ about MSXML vs. ODF (which they've updated today). Incidentally, you seem to have adopted that FAQ's habit of identifying ODF as "the OpenOffice format" -- as you're aware, but others often seem not to be, it's a file format, not something dependent on a specific software product.

On an unrelated note, from TFA:

-- I'd be very surprised if it is indeed the case that the majority of the world's information is in MSXML format ...

Not only that, but if you think about it, providing remote access allows another point of entry for attack. All employees that use the remote access, even if trustworthy, can't be trusted to follow all security precautions when they aren't even at the office to begin with. If you are allowed full control over files remotely, you are basically exposing inside information to outside security risks, as even the neighbor kid could potentially delete your files if your employee is too sloppy security wise at home.

That's why we use NAP.

"The original builders of the application created a two-tier architecture built around various UNIX systems. FreeBSD, a UNIX-like system similar to the Linux operating system, was used to run the front-end Web servers that handled login, Microsoft Outlook Express, and Web-based content delivery tasks."

...

"During June and July of 2000, the Hotmail site was converted from FreeBSD running Apache Web services to Windows 2000 Server running Microsoft Internet Information Services 5.0."

You can read the case study here: http://www.microsoft.com/technet/interopmigration/ case/hotmail/default.mspx

What versions of Microsoft Office Word are associated with this advisory?
This advisory addresses Word 2000, Word 2002, Word 2003, Microsoft Word Viewer 2003, Word 2004 for Mac, Word 2004 v. X for Mac, and Works 2004, 2005, and 2006.

Which other platform allows independent game developers to develop and distribute games designed for use with a large (25" and up) screen and two to four controllers? HTPC?

Just the Xbox 360.

Or, you know, any PC. It's not like you can't get TV-out. You can connect as many controllers as you like, too. You could use a mac. etc etc.

Their solution certainly said that we aren't to open any MS Word documents.

Windows' OS updates already assume lowest priority, via BITS. BITS is available to be used by any application that wants to use it, so if antivirus/firewall vendors decided to make use of it, rather than rolling their own solutions, all those updates can happen at lowest priority also. It's QOS requesting lowest priority, rather than highest priority.

I'm not sure if you can specify individual priority levels, but the OS already allows applications to download using the lowest priority.

I'm having problems with Vista's DNS Suffixing:

- My entire network has the dns suffix : work.intranet and I have a BIND dns server that resolves a.work.intranet and *.a.work.intranet to 192.168.0.2 so that if I ping bbb.a.work.intranet or ccc.a.work.intranet they all resolve to 192.168.0.2 (at least up until Vista)

- If I ping a.work.intranet it correctly resolves to 192.168.0.2;
- If I ping a it correctly resolves to 192.168.0.2;
- If I ping bbb.a.work.intranet it correctly resolves to 192.168.0.2;
- BUT IF I ping bbb.a it no longer resolves. (could not find host)

- If I do a nslookup bbb.a it correcly resolves to 192.168.0.2

So what appears to be happening is that it isn't adding the dns suffix when the domain has more than two parts (xxx.yyy).

Any ideas how to solve this?

http://forums.microsoft.com/MSDN/ShowPost.aspx?Pos tID=884630&SiteID=1

It's the one where Microsoft decided they will decide when and where and on what devices to allow you to play your media.

Any bright minds out there that willingly use these things lost control of all of their personal media.
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/play er/faq/drm.mspx

http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=34 523 is in plain engrish.

I certainly hope you aren't running either Vista or WMP11.

Microsoft have just given advance notification of what their bundle of patches to be released next Tuesday will contain. There are five general Windows bulletins there - no surprise that the most severe is 'critical' - but I'm kind of surprised to see they have no intention of shipping any Office-related fixes.

FYI, this does not seem to affect Windows Media Player 11, which is available via Windows Update or the WMP site.

It also does not affect Vista, both because Vista comes with WMP 11, and thanks to IE7 running in protected mode. This would likely cause the browser to crash, however.

FYI, this does not seem to affect Windows Media Player 11, which is available via Windows Update or the WMP site.

It also does not affect Vista, both because Vista comes with WMP 11, and thanks to IE7 running in protected mode. This would likely cause the browser to crash, however.

OK, then Microsoft had nothing to do with TerraServer, they got that from Ariel Images.

but when is MS going to actually release something *new*? how about skipping book search and taking a risk with something that google hasn't already done?

for example, i think their efforts on XNA game studio are of they type they should do more often: it leverages their core strengths (dev tools and 3d graphics), takes advantage of existing products with wide install bases (yes, duh..windows - but i really mean directx) and is INTERESTING and EXCITING and something GOOGLE CAN'T MATCH NEXT WEEK.

I took the challenge and am looking at the m$ft research site... but its quite boring. I mean, researching education? Edubuntu isn't researching, its delivering.

Hardware development? So softie wants to get into hardware once the fact that equivalents for 80% of what they do can be downloaded for free on the web? Recall what Ballmer said in India a few weeks back about softie needing to move to services and support. Or is the "research" how to make new specs with ever-tighter licensing restrictions to ensure Open Source cannot use the next generation of hardware. I'm not joking. The new camera memory specs are basically only made to outlaw open source implementations.

I'm still waiting for 'softie to make good on their promise for a distributed OO system as documented in their 1994 DCOM paper. Where I come from if you make a promise you keep it. If you cannot then you never make the promise. Their lie killed Next but, like most of their promises, never was completed. I believe their research to be an absolute joke when I look at their products. Look at Exchange. Talk about productive Groupware? Where's the innovation? You mean email, meetings, and contacts are all they could think of/duplicate?

Here's a good one: http://research.microsoft.com/speech/
What? China? So Dragon consumer apps were all but killed and now softie's answer is someone in China will make their speech recognition work? The amazing thing is with their Billions upon Billions their products are no better than the Free and Open Source Software on the web. Simply amazing. A true testimony to what happens when a company focuses on killing innovation in the market rather than innovating themselves. They are an embarrassment to any computer scientist and what I wonder is how many Ph.D.'s spend more than one year there. They should be embarassed. But most everyone will side with money.
    Meanwhile the FOSS apps are catching up by leaps and bounds. In case you missed it, Linux server surpassed 'dows in feature/funtionality several years back, Linux desktop is now superior to the 'dows desktop, MySQL/Postgresql are as good/better than m$ft rdbms, and a horde of FOSS are closing in on most everything else 'softie sells. They may need to research how to make money in the new Software Paradigm... I guess their monkey-business with NOVL shows where their true research is - and that's not innovation!
Cheers,
TimJowers
http://www.serviza.com/ Serviza Monster Linux Computers. Fully Loaded Linux with Open Source equivalent to $261k in the 'softie space. Power on and GO! Make it what YOU will.

Singularity? We've seen some ideas, some graphs, but where is the development now? What is planned release date (even if missed by +4 years). Do you know anything about Singularity? http://research.microsoft.com/os/singularity/ here are the same informations provided in articles over and over again - nothing new - only that it's managed and will improve access rights and is based on microkernel - NOW THAT'S SURPRISING!

It sounds like a bad remake of Plan9, but 20 years late.

You clearly don't have a clue. Why not do a little research yourself before spouting off at the mouth. If you did a little checking you would find this... http://research.microsoft.com/~heckerman/ ... and see that MSR has MD's working with machine learning to help develop HIV Vaccines. Or you can be a small person and live your life by small assumptions.

Microsoft Robotics Studio includes a new technology called Coordination and Concurrency Runtime to help make highly concurrent programming easier. You can download the current preview of Robotics Studio at http://microsoft.com/robotics. There is also information on the CCR at http://channel9.msdn.com/Showpost.aspx?postid=1435 82.

If Microsoft were less predatory and less a bully in business maybe the rest of the world would stop looking down their noses at Microsoft's "research". As it is, it looks less like research and more like unfettered spending to find "yet another" way to dominate.

Clearly you know very little about what you're talking about, but as your comment is in perfect accordance with the dominant groupthink it gets modded up anyway. MSR is actually less restrictive than an average PhD program, you can work on basically anything you want, which is one of the reasons PhDs find it so appealling. It is more or less independent from the rest of MS, and the researchers are certainly not driven by a desire to find "yet another way to dominate". Yet this, of course, is precisely also the reason for the difficulty they are having with technology transfer.

It's one thing to look down on MS because of what they bring to market, and quite another to look down on the great work done in MSR, much of which is free to download and use by anyone. If you want to deride professionals doing great work by putting scare quotes around "research" (really, don't you think that's a little much?), do it for a better reason than your kneejerk conflation of what MSR is doing and MS' business practices.

For christ's sake, if you're going to pay so much for "innovation", try to tackle some of the fundamental problems with modern computing, instead of gimmicky wireless sharing for MP3 players, new copy-protection schemes, and snazzy graphics for FreeCell.

For christ's sake, if you're going to pay so much for "innovation", try to tackle some of the fundamental problems with modern computing, instead of gimmicky wireless sharing for MP3 players, new copy-protection schemes, and snazzy graphics for FreeCell.

For christ's sake, if you're going to pay so much for "innovation", try to tackle some of the fundamental problems with modern computing, instead of gimmicky wireless sharing for MP3 players, new copy-protection schemes, and snazzy graphics for FreeCell.

That's not MSR. That's marketing research. (I don't know what the department that does that is named though.)

MSR's the group that came up with SLAM, which is now incorporated into the Windows driver framework. It's resulted in (over the last 5 years) two POPL papers (one of the two top-tiered programming language conferences), a PLDI paper (the other of the two), a PASTE paper, a TOPLAS paper, three TACAS papers, three CAV papers, a few workshop papers, and a spinoff project at UC Berkeley called BLAST which is doing things very similar to SLAM. (They've had their own fair share of papers, and probably a doctoral thesis or two, on it.)

MSR's the group that wrote Singularity, an experimental OS written in C#, that has an ASPLOS paper, two EuroSys papers (one of which got the best paper award), and three workshop papers.

MSR's the group that wrote Vulcan, a binary rewriter that allowed them to create a program that records the execution trace of another program and play it back later. This is useful in, for instance, temporal debugging. (Think the Omnicient Debugger for Java, except made to work on any program because it operates on binaries. Except that MSR developed two other applications for the recorded traces.) This, and other projects that MSR has done with Vulcan, have resulted in a number of other papers.

Say what you like about MS in general, but MSR publishes more good research than many (probably even most) university CS depts.

There's a difference between being narcissistic and being popular by showind what you're doing. Google shows its beta products and takes them down if they're not working out. Microsoft will or will not publish Singularity for the next 5 years probably. I haven't heard of other projects listed.
Meanwhile, I've seen google groups beta, I've used beta of picassa to publish pictures and used tons of others google products before they reached production-ready state and when they were really poor in features. Now I'm testing google code projects even though they're can be described as alpha stage, not beta. Google also wrote some articles and explained what are they doing and what is planned.

Singularity? We've seen some ideas, some graphs, but where is the development now? What is planned release date (even if missed by +4 years). Do you know anything about Singularity? http://research.microsoft.com/os/singularity/ here are the same informations provided in articles over and over again - nothing new - only that it's managed and will improve access rights and is based on microkernel - NOW THAT'S SURPRISING!

Makes their lack of innovation all the more remarkable.

Heh, do you even *know* what the hell you are talking about? Maybe you should try looking at some of the ACM SIG* or IEEE publications in the various fields related to CS.

MSR produces some of the best CS research in the world. Just because their work does not percolate down to the products and services teams at MS does not make MSR lack any innovation.

In fact, if you look into most areas, MSR has made some very cutting edge and valuable contributions.

Maybe you should have a look at the list of publications they have put out since 2000.

Do not confuse research with development. Then again, given that this is Slashdot, blind and ignorant Microsoft bashing is welcome, even if the person bashing it has absolutely no clue whatsoever.

Nice.

That's because, unlike the old Bell Labs nor Google, Microsoft doesn't really capitalize from its research. Look at the research with Singularity, for example. As a future computer science researcher (I'm just a sophomore in college now), I would love to get my hands on a system like this. Finally something new that isn't based off of nearly 40 years of Unix. The goals are quite noble and innovative, and I'm glad that Microsoft is doing systems research, something that seems to have been neglected in computer science for some time (Rob Pike talked about that in his "System Research is Irrelevant" talk back in 2000). However, Vista makes use of absolutely none of this technology, and Microsoft doesn't seem to want to incorporate any of this research in Windows at all.

MS can be so much better if they actually applied their research to Windows, its flagship product. But since Microsoft has already accomplished its goal, have 90% worldwide marketshare on operating systems, I guess it can get away with incremental improvements every half decade or so. It's not that Microsoft doesn't innovate, look at the research. That's innovation. It's that Microsoft doesn't want to capitalize its innovations and is content on sticking with its Windows (and Office) monopoly.

Have you even browsed the site?

http://research.microsoft.com/

Google touchlight display for starters, it is one of my favorites.

Send this email to all your friends, and register at http://stopspammers.microsoft.com/$200.html to get your $200 today!!

Didn't they already make something like that?

I think they've called it the Ultra Mobile PC. (UMPC) Incidentally, I clicked on "hardware" and found amusingly vague specs.

Here's what you do: Just strip-out all the junk (HD, and WindowsXP) keeping the real goods (install around 40GB permanent flash storage, upgrade RAM, expand Wi-Fi with 10/100 Ethernet) and you've got a suprisingly usable brick. Expand further to use CF/SD/MMC/PCMCIA and it becomes ultra-usable. I bet it wouldn't cost all that much in the end.

Add some embedded linux and you're ready to go!

Just how much do they pay people to think up these things anyway? (too much)

Nope, it doesn't seem odd to me.

My understanding is that the ranking of a site according to Google's PageRank algorithm relies on how many quality sites link to the given site.

How many links are there in the wild to Microsoft's main Excel page? I'm guessing not many. Frankly, their front page is primarily a sales portal. (In fact, for me it only turns up fourth in a Google search for Excel!)

If I were Microsoft, and I were trying to increase the PageRank of my Excel page, I'd try making it more useful to users. Make it a destination worthy of quality links, and quality links will come.

Do not open or save Word files that you receive from un-trusted sources or that you receive unexpectedly from trusted sources. This vulnerability could be exploited when a user opens a specially crafted Word file.

Gee, "Microsoft Recommends" is the part of this story that is skewed in a deceptive manner.

The story above lists the exact quote, "not open or save Word files" as part of the sentence, "Microsoft suggests that users 'not open or save Word files,' even from trusted sources."

The actual quote from Microsoft's site is, "Do not open or save Word files that you receive from un-trusted sources or that you receive unexpectedly from trusted sources.", which can be checked at http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/advisory /929433.mspx under the heading of "Workarounds for Microsoft Word Remote Code Vulnerability:" Suddenly it means something completely different. It actually describes they way you should ALWAYS treat any attachment.

Sure, we all know that MS makes stuff with lots of holes in it (like most everyone else) but that is no excuse for flagrantly deceptive reporting. I get enough of that on TV every night...

"C'mon, did microsoft REALLY say, "'not open or save Word files,' even from trusted sources", davidsyes

"Recommendation: Do not open or save Word files that you receive from un-trusted or that are received unexpected from trusted sources. This vulnerability could be exploited when a user opens a file", microsoft.com

was SLASH! KNOCK OFF THE FUD SUBMISSIONS! (Score:5, Interesting)

As a best practice, users should always exercise extreme caution when opening unsolicited attachments from both known and unknown sources.

Here is a message we sent to customers. Links were added for posting on Slashdot:

Everyone,

Don't use Microsoft Word. Use Open Office instead. This advice remains effective until Microsoft releases a patch, and it is installed.

Microsoft just issued a security advisory warning people not to open Microsoft Word documents unless they have the latest version of Microsoft Word, which was just released, and costs $329 for the upgrade, or $679 for the most powerful full version.

On the security advisory web page the relevant parts are buried in sections that aren't visible unless you click on them:

"Do not open or save Word files that you receive from un-trusted sources or that you receive unexpectedly from trusted sources. This vulnerability could be exploited when a user opens a specially crafted Word file."

"We recommend that customers exercise extreme caution when they accept file transfers [files] from both known and unknown sources."

The vulnerability is being actively used to infect user's computers. That's the meaning of the phrase "zero-day" attack in the first sentence of the advisory. None of the anti-virus software vendors have made signatures for this attack yet, which means that anti-virus software CANNOT protect against an attack.

The reason Microsoft says to "exercise extreme caution" with files received "from both known and unknown sources", is that no one, not even computer consultants, can know whether a source can be trusted, since the anti-virus vendors have not yet made a method of detection for this vulnerability.

Michael

Here is a message we sent to customers. Links were added for posting on Slashdot:

Everyone,

Don't use Microsoft Word. Use Open Office instead. This advice remains effective until Microsoft releases a patch, and it is installed.

Microsoft just issued a security advisory warning people not to open Microsoft Word documents unless they have the latest version of Microsoft Word, which was just released, and costs $329 for the upgrade, or $679 for the most powerful full version.

On the security advisory web page the relevant parts are buried in sections that aren't visible unless you click on them:

"Do not open or save Word files that you receive from un-trusted sources or that you receive unexpectedly from trusted sources. This vulnerability could be exploited when a user opens a specially crafted Word file."

"We recommend that customers exercise extreme caution when they accept file transfers [files] from both known and unknown sources."

The vulnerability is being actively used to infect user's computers. That's the meaning of the phrase "zero-day" attack in the first sentence of the advisory. None of the anti-virus software vendors have made signatures for this attack yet, which means that anti-virus software CANNOT protect against an attack.

The reason Microsoft says to "exercise extreme caution" with files received "from both known and unknown sources", is that no one, not even computer consultants, can know whether a source can be trusted, since the anti-virus vendors have not yet made a method of detection for this vulnerability.

Michael