Why did I bother to send this message to Full-Disclosure last night, despite that I already posted it here? Because I knew that this would happen, it's happened before, and it will happen in the future, so having dates and hours to prove what you see on the top of each and every blog post here, namely the real-time situational awareness objective, is what I wanted to achieve. And I did. Thankfully, there're Sophos, TrendMicro, McAfee and Commtouch realizing that corporate blogging evolved from hard selling and the basics of marketing, to a complex PR platform, and therefore quote and link to my blog, to have me link back, so that a conversation emerges. Redefining the process of rephrasing so that my creative commons license per post is not violated? Find the ten differences between my post yesterday, its title, and today's statements:

"Continuing, Chia says that: “Leveraging on the fact that the site is, legitimate, and has high page ranks, the popular search engines are returning some of these iFRAME-ed results in the first few pages of the search results. And the objective? To get the unsuspicious user to click on the link”."

So, my original post went online yesterday, TeMerc reposted it, so did Paul, I sent it to Full-Disclosure, and as it looks like F-Secure's Wing Fei Chia seems to read, either Full-Disclosure, or my blog to come up this post, 24 hours later. Anyway, SecurityFocus, again covers the incident in an article entitled "Fraudsters piggyback on search engines", quoting me, this time professionally.