In January, a vulnerability in WMF surfaced that let attackers use the Windows' graphics rendering engine that handles WMF images to launch malicious code on users' computers via these images. A number of security researchers posted information about the vulnerability to their mailing lists. Within a few hours, researcher H.D. Moore posted a working example of a WMF exploit--a piece of code written to take advantage of a software flaw--on his Metasploit Web site. Some defended the action, saying it offered insight into the rules security pros needed to put on intrusion-detection systems to avoid getting hit. Others argued that what Moore did enabled the average hacker to more easily exploit the flaw.

Information Week published a long, sensational, and patently dishonest article on security research today. This text makes it seem as if malware authors used the information H.D. Moore published. The fact is that this vulnerability was being exploited by criminal organizations in the wild before anyone in the security research community knew about it. The article fails to make this fact clear because it doesn't fit into the narrative that the reporter is aiming for and undermines the questions the reporter is raising. Would any major news media organization be interesting in a peice that discusses whether intentially dishonest reporting is good or bad for society?