Click here for details on protecting your PC.
During an interview with ZDNet Australia, Charney said he was disappointed when the software bug, which affected Windows Server 2003, touted as the most secure Microsoft operating system ever, was unearthed.
"We have always said that Windows Server 2003 would not be bullet-proof," he said. "It’s disappointing. Is it surprising? No… it just means we have a lot more work to do."
Disappointment seems an appropriate reaction -- the company spent $200m (£125m) in an attempt to secure Windows Server 2003 by standing down 8,500 developers for security training.
However, the security boss defended Microsoft's product security and said the company’s products have a disproportionately bad reputation.
"To some extent Windows is as secure, if not more secure, than many other systems, but the fact of the matter is we have [overwhelming] market share and with that comes increased responsibility," he told ZDNet Australia . "Even if we’re doing better than everyone else, that's great, but we have to do better still."
"Software's complex and it's not likely we'll get the number of bugs to zero but we have to do a better job than we've done to date," he added.
As for the threat of a "cyber terrorism" attack, Charney says there's a lot of hype out there.
"As difficult and as problematic as an event like Slammer might be, it doesn't compare to the World Trade Center [attacks]… If you’re trying to provoke terror the Internet may not be the best medium for that."
The real threat, he said, will come from a blended, co-ordinated threat, for example an attack on telephone infrastructure prior to a physical attack -- like the World Trade Center disaster -- and would be intended to disrupt emergency response capabilities.
"I think many of us in the field are concerned about the fact that a more co-ordinated terrorist attack could be the problem."
Talkback
I was administering NT/2000 domain for some 1-2 yrs. I had no idea about linux/unix etc. But i was hearing the much-touted-hype that windows is useless and unstable, linux/unix is incomparably secure, and stable, and all such accusations directed against Microsoft. But now, during the last 1 yr, i had oppurtunity to work in linux/unix etc. With this exp, i can confidently say that people are seriously understating the stability/security of windows NT/2000 while closing their eyes to the fact that these unix/linux etc etc cannot be called superior or even equal to windows in many respects of stability/security. For eg, how many times you have seen a solaris system rebooting in 15 minutes without any mistake from u? I have seen 3-4 times per 15 minutes. Compared to windows, unix/linux is a dead box. As unstable as windows if we use it in the same manner as windows. We use windows like a spade, rough treatment, and use linux like necklace, treat very gently, and then say the spade is dirty!!!