Hi Bob
So by implication, AVs that don't have this 'feature' (like NOD32) are
inferior to those that do?
Terry
"Bob Buckland ?:-)" 75214.226(At Beautiful Downtown)compuserve.com wrote
in message ...
Hi Suzanne,
Well, you asked about information on what the 'hooks' were for, so
spelling is a key bit of information g. You mean you didn't
like the alternate suggestion from Spell check of
super ceded ? 
The plug-in covers/covered one possible hole in the apps, and that was a
timing issue between when a request went to Windows and an
antivirus check was run there and then when the 'safe' file was passed to
an Office app.
At the time it was first introduced, MS wasn't 'in' the antivirus/security
business, but now, with OneCare, they are, and over time
the 3rd party security products have gotten better as well, so the risk is
likely smaller these days, but it's said that this can
also only make those on a path to 'break it' more determined than when it
was 'easier' 
As the white paper points out the API is
improved in Office 2003 and it has been improved again for Office 2007 as
well as for Windows and Internet Explorer versions.
Is there a greater risk without the plug-ins? Yes. Is it a big risk?
Not until the first time someone exploits it on a wide
scale, or it happens to 'you' g [and of course that would only happen
when on deadline].
=============
"Suzanne S. Barnhill" wrote in message
...
Aside from the fact that the author of
http://office.microsoft.com/download...AM102424861033
doesn't know how to spell "supersede" (and either wasn't using or ignored
Word's spell check), the white paper seems to be pretty much saying that a
decent AV app can do the necessary without an Office
plug-in, but it may
impact performance. If the plug-ins didn't affect usability and
performance
even more negatively, this might be relevant.
--
Suzanne S. Barnhill
--
Bob Buckland ?:-)
MS Office System Products MVP
*Courtesy is not expensive and can pay big dividends*