<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="http://blogs.technet.com/utility/FeedStylesheets/rss.xsl" media="screen"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/" xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"><channel><title>The Mywife.E Worm: Update # 2</title><link>http://blogs.technet.com/b/antimalware/archive/2006/02/06/418876.aspx</link><description>As we pass noon on Monday, here in Redmond, we are happy to see that the Mywife.E worm (aka CME 24) turned out to be more hype than reality. Our product support departments (including calls to our free virus support line: 1-866-PCSafety) around the world</description><dc:language>en-US</dc:language><generator>Telligent Evolution Platform Developer Build (Build: 5.6.50428.7875)</generator><item><title>SANS - Internet Storm Center - MS genuinely surprised 250,000 unique systems infected with Alcan.B</title><link>http://blogs.technet.com/b/antimalware/archive/2006/02/06/418876.aspx#424760</link><pubDate>Sun, 09 Apr 2006 15:13:59 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">d5e57398-b9ef-4490-9955-07cbb4e4a80d:424760</guid><dc:creator>Chris Mosby at myITforum.com</dc:creator><description>Oh my... &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;MS genuinely surprised 250,000 unique systems infected with Alcan.B &lt;br&gt;Published: 2006-04-08,Last...&lt;img src="http://blogs.technet.com/aggbug.aspx?PostID=424760" width="1" height="1"&gt;</description></item><item><title>re: The Mywife.E Worm: Update # 2</title><link>http://blogs.technet.com/b/antimalware/archive/2006/02/06/418876.aspx#418883</link><pubDate>Tue, 07 Feb 2006 01:07:22 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">d5e57398-b9ef-4490-9955-07cbb4e4a80d:418883</guid><dc:creator>Alun Jones</dc:creator><description>Maybe we should require future viruses to sign their counter increment request?&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Hype is good and bad - who's to say that it didn't increase the number of people updating their virus scanners, or running any of a number of independently-developed scanning tools for just this virus?&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;When Y2K came and went with nary a whimper, the conventional wisdom held that the problem never existed. &amp;nbsp;As someone who spent some significant time investigating potential Y2K problems and fixing them before anyone saw them, I know better.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;A self-defeating prophecy is often a really good thing.&lt;div style="clear:both;"&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;img src="http://blogs.technet.com/aggbug.aspx?PostID=418883" width="1" height="1"&gt;</description></item></channel></rss>