Security is the new number 1 concern for Microsoft. The repercussions of this are still some time off, but the Windows is insecure jokers will have to look elsewhere for amusement. Security has so far been the domain of anal-retentive folks, and was not exactly hot. Maybe we can finally move away from crappy pointer-based languages? Yeah, one can hope.
2003-08-23: Very interesting perspective on the security of DCOM after last week’s worms:
Microsoft has made some pretty strong claims about the improved security of our products as a result of these changes. And then the DCOM issues come to light. Unfortunately, it’s still going to be a long time before all our code is as clean as it needs to be.
Some of the code we reviewed in the DCOM stack had comments about DGROUP consolidation (remember that precious 64KB segment prior to 32-bit flat mode?) and OS/2 2.0 changes. Some of these source files contain comments from the 80s. I thought that Win95 was ancient!
2004-02-17: You’ve got to hand it to these guys that they have sense of humor.

2004-06-24: Turns out Microsoft really means it this time. I had an older SQL Server 2000 running that stopped working after the update. Turns out XP detected the missing service packs for MSSQL and disabled TCP access on the default MSSQL port. Commendable, although the error message could have been displayed more prominently (maybe as part of the new security center)
2007-11-30: Microsoft continues its old lies about security. Why do they bother? Their products have become better, why piss into their own well?
Do people in charge of security strategy at Microsoft really believe that aggressively concealing the count of fixes that do make it out makes a product more secure? Shouldn’t they be trying to fix more bugs, rather than writing reports that would “punish” them for actively improving the security of their users rather than hoping that defects aren’t found by someone who they can’t keep quiet?