Vista: More Security Widgets, More Security Value?

As part of Microsoft’s customer awareness campaign for Windows Vista, the latest issue of the Microsoft Security for Home Computer Users Newsletter has a column about “five security features in Windows Vista that might just surprise you.” These features are actually interesting, but the article begs a question about the value of more security features that are part of the operating system or application software like browsers and mailers. Compare the user-empowering tone of that article with another article in the latest issue of the parallel newsletter for IT folks, Microsoft Security Newsletter that explains the prevalence of botnets and “rootkits on the rise.”

Taken together, I see valiant efforts at adding more security mechanisms that could be managed by home users, despite the lamentable fact that these new mechanisms are just a liable as the older one to be subverted by malware that modify the OS in order to hide itself (rootkits) and its activity (bots participating in botnets).

I see real innovation in better empowering home users to manage their own security mechanisms, but even assuming that most people did manage security as suggested, is there real value these new features? Well, yes, insofar as some actual attacks are foiled more often because of easier-to-manage security features, especially those that help users avoid participation in phishing, for example. But, no, insofar as these new mechanisms don’t really amplify the OS’s ability to prevent itself being compromised.

What is the value problem here? And where would some real value lie? As is often the value, the value problem it is a disconnect on assumptions. One the one hand, we’d like OSs (all of them! Windows, Linux, etc.) to better protect themselves, and these new features don’t help at all there. On the other hand, the creditable work done on these features assumes an intrinsic value on new features that can do new protection in the cases where the OS hasn’t already been compromised.

I think that this assumptions disconnect can actually be re-connected, but I’ll save that idea for another day and another recent development that might help make that connection.