Food for thought... many have pointed out that the Blaster worm could
have been easily set to do much worse damage than it actually was.
In fact, the author could have simply it to delete the C: drives of all
infected computers, or worse, on August 16th instead of doing a DOS
script against windowsupdate.com only, or it could have had a broader
definition of what to attack at MS as well, shutting down patching
availability
completely.  The article below points out that the worm's release
finally
forced millions of people to patch, stopping the chance of a much worse
worm later exploiting the RPC vulnerability.

Question of the day: could Blaster have been an intentional release by
either the US government, or less likely, MS itself?


Here's the article "The Bright Side of Blaster" from securityfocus

http://www.securityfocus.com/news/6728