Security focus or not, can an unrepentant Microsoft be trusted? 
ARS Technica News Desk by Ken "Caesar" Fisher 

Microsoft is working hard to make good on the promises making security job #1, and with Windows XP Service Pack 2 just a few months away we're all looking forward to this very important first step. But the Washington Post's Rob Pegoraro wonders if "no-regrets Microsoft" is really worthy of being trusted again. Questioning Ballmer on whether or not the company regrets its early no-holds-barred feature development pace, Ballmer essentially said "no."
"The browser wars were never about security, the browser wars were about features," Ballmer said, explaining why Microsoft added such items to Internet Explorer as ActiveX software to run Windows programs inside the browser. "I'm not saying that was right, with 20/20 hindsight; all I'm saying is the competitive marketplace took us all in a certain direction."

The browser case is particularly apropos because to this day, the overreaching implementation of ActiveX continues to be a headache for IT support in charge of helping out all those who get nailed by the trojan du jour. Just this week the Computer Emergency Readiness Team (CERT) issued another warning regarding a flaw in ActiveX that makes HTML e-mail dangerous (again), and while the savvy will undoubtedly scoff at such threats, the larger point is being missed, namely, the company's selective foresight. For example, asking why the built-in software firewall wasn't enabled by default before Service Pack 2, Ballmer had this to say.
"We made that decision in the spirit of usability," Ballmer said. Now, priorities are different: "Today's wise usability choice . . . is different from the correct usability choice of two years ago."

Pegoraro is honest enough to admit what he was hoping to hear from Ballmer: an apology. Instead, he got the "times have changed" speech, while those of us on the ground level are wondering if 2004 is really all that different from 2001, or 1998 for that matter. Is it unreasonable to expect Ballmer to admit flat out that the firewall should have been enabled by default when XP shipped in October of 2001? It's a matter of opinion, I suppose, but keep in mind that Ballmer is happy to admit error when it comes to failing to tap a new and upcoming market. Mmm, "features." 
Then there's another issue, which is Microsoft's insistence that the community take some responsibility for security, too. To be sure, the company is spot on with this one. In a world where 84% of security breaches are the "fault" of human error, more cross-cooperation is needed (don't place any bets with that statistic, of course). But the rhetoric of "this is as much your problem as it is ours" does little to comfort organizations who are already leery of Microsoft's products (justifiably or not).