Is Forefront in the Forefront?

This is Tech Ed week in Boston, where 12,000 folks have come to brush up on the latest technologies from Microsoft and its partners. It is also the scene of the Server and Tools Business Analyst Summit. Microsoft was outstanding in assuring the availability of executives with discussions as open and interactive as they could possibly be under the public-company constraints of "forward looking statements." Over two days I had the opportunity for several one-on-one briefings with Forefront security team leaders. At the end of all of that, I have to say I still feel like I'm missing something.

There is no question that enterprise customers welcome Microsoft jumping into the security market with both feet. And why not, competition gives customers more choices, lowers price points, and increases the odds of finding security products that actually meet enterprise needs. I have no qualms about the quality of any of the individual products. I'm sure Forefront for Client Security will be hot, that Forefront Security for Exchange Server and related Antigen products will fare well in the marketplace, and that NAP will be a lovely platform for controlling managed endpoints.

The problem I have is that today's Forefront product line looks a lot like what you would expect to see from a number of other security vendors. I was waiting to hear the "Big Idea" of what Microsoft is going to do better; how it was going to disrupt traditional approaches to securing corporate businesses. I wanted to hear of Forefront security delivered over the Internet as a service, or of innovative technical approaches to reduce complexity and plug the security gaps between servers and clients. I expected to hear that they were embedding technology into server applications, Longhorn, and Vista to deliver secure products, instead of externalizing technology to deliver standalone security products. However, I just did not see the pieces fitting together in a uniquely compelling manner.

Maybe I am being too harsh. Microsoft has to start somewhere, and the history of SQL/Server and Exchange shows that they can build great products. Perhaps the second generation of Forefront dissolves all the seams in corporate security architectures. But, I do wonder if without a differentiated approach, enterprises will combine operations and security from a single vendor or will they turn to traditional security vendors for segregation of duties. Symantec has a long legacy of security successes with a large installed base; Cisco offers clear alternatives in network-based security. What is the great reason to turn to Microsoft? Years ago Microsoft moved heaven and earth to become an Internet company, let's hope the same sense of urgency applies to the Forefront products.

Still, there are only three companies in the world, Symantec and Cisco being the other two, that can hope to secure an entire enterprise cloud-edge-server-client infrastructure. It is reasonable to expect to hear how Microsoft is leading with their strengths to solve very complex security problems that are impacting the growth of computing. I am not convinced that a non-differentiated approach chosen because there is money to be made is the winning vision. I am convinced that Microsoft's presence will make for a healthier security industry.