detected and its mass measured. Therefore a better representation of the reach of the ILC is shown in fig.\[fig:cmssm\](c) in which a large fraction of the allowed combinations of parameters scanned for the previous plot would give signals accessible to ILC, at least through $e^+e^- \to \tilde{\chi}^0_1\tilde{\chi}^0_2$ [@KP]. The isolated spot at low neutralino masses is from the focus point region of parameter space (also omitted in [@Ellis:2004bx]).

From this discussion it follows that SUSY can naturally be compatible with present electroweak (EW) measurements. In fact, the fit to EW and DM data, again within the cMSSM, points to rather low values of SUSY breaking parameters, as seen in fig.\[fig:cmssm\](d) [@Heinemeyer:2004xw], which interestingly enough are close to the benchmark point SPS1a of [@Allanach:2002nj].

\(a) (b) (c) (d)\
![(a) The WMAP strip for $\mu > 0$, $A_0 = 0$ and $\tan\beta = 10$ in the cMSSM; from [@Heinemeyer:2004xw]. (b) Scatter plot of the masses of the LVSP and the NLVSP in the cMSSM; from [@Ellis:2004bx]. (c) Scatter plot of the masses $m_1$=$m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1}$ and $m_2$=$m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_2}$ of cMSSM models satisfying $\tan\beta$ = 10, 20, 35 and $A_0=0$. (d) $\chi^2$ fits based on the current experimental EW precision observables and DM constraints as functions 