Taken in the context of the Windows operating system, providing antivirus protection may be all that is necessary. Windows already has a firewall. Windows has the Windows Defender antispyware tool. Internet Explorer has features to detect and identify phishing and other potentially malicious web sites. So, for Microsoft to incorporate anything more than a stripped down antivirus capability could be considered overkill.

Third-party security vendors have lined up to alternately bash MSE as inadequate and slam Microsoft for throwing its monopolistic weight around. They can't really have it both ways. Either Microsoft made a good product and its dominance of the PC operating system is a threat to the security software industry, or MSE sucks and they have nothing to worry about.

It is a mixed bag for Microsoft. Users and competitors are quick to point out flaws and vulnerabilities in the Microsoft Windows operating systems and other Microsoft applications. Microsoft has taken more than its share of criticism over software security. But, when Microsoft develops tools to close those gaps and protect its software it is accused of freezing out third-party vendors and charged with accusations of monopolistic bullying.

I tend to lean to the side of the debate that it is both Microsoft's obligation and its right to secure and protect its products however it sees fit. If Microsoft's efforts to create a more secure operating system platform end up putting third-party security vendors out of business, then so be it. Those entities arguably should never have existed had Microsoft created more secure software from the beginning.

One problem I see with MSE is Microsoft's restriction that only systems that pass the Genuine Windows anti-piracy validation are going to be able to download it. I am not condoning software piracy, but there are plenty of illegitimate Windows systems around the world. I understand Microsoft not wanting to support pirated Windows operating systems, but the net effect of the attempt to 'punish' pirates adversely impacts the rest of us.

Its sort of like the debate about stricter gun laws. Those who are doing illegal things with the guns are already breaking the law and are not likely to care whether or not there are harsher penalties associated. Basically, gun laws only impact the law abiding.