In a rapidly shifting cybersecurity landscape, the importance of resilient and robust operating systems has never been greater — a truth that stands out starkly amid recent events in the Windows ecosystem. As world-leading investigative journalist Kim Zetter and Microsoft’s David Weston sat down at LABScon 2024, their discussion peeled back the layers on current threats, industry responses, and the future roadmap for Microsoft and its partners in defending the backbone of global IT infrastructure.
Few things signify a sea change in a technology giant’s culture quite as visibly as a shift from prioritizing feature proliferation to making security paramount, even at the expense of killing popular or long-standing user functionalities. Weston, responsible for the security engineering of Windows—along with Azure Linux, XBOX, Windows Server, and more—offered candid insights on why Microsoft now puts security at the top of the engineering agenda. It’s a response forged by necessity: with Microsoft’s operating systems and cloud solutions forming the spine of both enterprise and consumer computing, they have become lucrative targets for sophisticated threat actors worldwide.
The discussion underscored a lesson repeatedly learned at great cost: as the world’s digital assets cluster around Microsoft products, the operating system’s attack surface becomes a golden opportunity for adversaries. This isn’t mere theoretical risk, as high-profile breaches and zero-days have shown over the years. For Microsoft, holding the trust of over a billion users and organizations is a delicate balancing act. It becomes clear that the days of adding features unchecked, sometimes with unclear security ramifications, are fading. Instead, there is tangible resolve to sunset features that can’t be reliably secured, and to design new ones with threat mitigation as a core design principle.
Weston and Zetter delved into the specifics: third-party security tools that intervene at the kernel level can introduce catastrophic risk, whether through bugs or compromised updates. As a direct response, Microsoft is pursuing architectural reform. One standout is the development of a user mode API to safeguard kernel access, placing strict guardrails on how external software interacts with the system’s most sensitive layer. This heralds a new era of operating system design where “trust but verify” is augmented by “verify and restrict.” The move is both an admission and an assertion: the complexity and vulnerability imposed by third-party kernel hooks is no longer tolerable in a hyperconnected world.
This isn’t just a technical journey; it’s a fundamental cultural realignment for the ecosystem. Both Microsoft and vendors need to treat every software update as a potential breach point. Secure boot, cryptographic signing, and advanced attestation methods are just the start—these must be paired with rigorous operational discipline, clear accountability chains, and a responsiveness to emerging threats that matches the speed of attackers. Microsoft’s stance is not simply reactionary; rather, it signals for the industry what the bare minimum for “trustworthy computing” must be.
But Weston’s comments reflected an emerging consensus: AI is a force multiplier for both sides. While it grants defenders an unprecedented ability to sift through massive event logs and surface subtle threats, it also enables threat actors to scale highly targeted phishing, malware customization, and obfuscation. The race becomes one of who can deploy, adapt, and improve AI faster. Moreover, the trust placed in AI-driven tools raises difficult questions about explainability, bias, and the potential for catastrophic misjudgment—particularly when such tools are given kernel or high-privilege access.
Zetter pressed on the critical risks: features that record or index user actions, even ostensibly for helpful purposes, become ripe targets for exfiltration in the event of compromise. Weston attempted to balance these concerns against usability, emphasizing Microsoft’s work to architect Recall with robust local encryption and access controls. Yet, the episode offers a microcosm of the perennial tension at the heart of OS design. Every new feature brings with it vectors for abuse; the cost of innovation is an ever-expanding perimeter to defend—a task defenders never win with finality.
This exchange underscores a hardening realization for Microsoft: transparency and explicit user choice must be at the forefront. Hidden telemetry, unadvertised data capture, or any feature that might surprise a privacy-conscious user risks both technical exposure and reputational harm. The solution isn’t mere after-the-fact patching, but a shift toward offering granular, opt-in controls, with clear disclosures and meaningful user agency.
This shift extends into their development process. Secure-by-default configuration, aggressive patch cycles, and exhaustive threat modeling are now table stakes for building or modifying features. Documentation and code reviews are scrutinized for hints of latent risk. In this, Microsoft echoes practices from defense-in-depth military doctrine: assume breach, minimize blast radius, and harden the core.
With every new avenue that connects to a Microsoft product—be it an API, device driver, or external service—the potential for credential theft, privilege escalation, or lateral movement increases. It’s here that Microsoft’s approach is most rigorously tested. Zero trust, microsegmentation, and continuous authentication aren’t just buzzwords but living mandates that must inform every layer of engineering, support, and partner engagement.
More than just a venue for highlighting technical achievement, LABScon serves as an early warning system for what’s next in adversarial innovation. For those charged with defending the world’s digital systems, the lessons exchanged here translate into more robust products, sharper detection engines, and, ultimately, a safer user base.
This means investing in rapid rollback mechanisms, air-gapped redundant backups, and tools that allow administrators (and users) to quarantine trouble before it spreads. Perhaps even more importantly, it means cultivating a culture of readiness—from rehearsed incident response protocols to continuous learning and adaptation at every level of the organization.
Microsoft and its partners must not just secure systems by design—they must empower users with understandable interfaces, actionable guidance, and a sense of partnership in maintaining their own defenses. This democratization of security knowledge is perhaps the most crucial ingredient yet for a resilient ecosystem.
This cycle—shock, reflection, adaptation—is not unique to Microsoft. It is, in fact, the rhythm of progress across every mature technology sector. But with stakes so high, and systems so central to global economic and social well-being, the margin for error is narrowing.
Microsoft’s continued evolution—guided in part by pressure and insight from informed critics and engaged partners—sets a powerful precedent. As risks grow more complex and adversaries more sophisticated, the winners will be those who learn fastest, respond openly, and engage most meaningfully with their ecosystem.
The shared future of our digital infrastructure depends on these lessons sticking. For every enterprise administrator, security vendor, and ordinary user, the ever-present call is for vigilance, transparency, and a relentless drive towards resilience.
Source: www.sentinelone.com LABScon24 Replay | Resilience and Protection in the Windows Ecosystem
Prioritizing Security Over Features: A Paradigm Shift
Few things signify a sea change in a technology giant’s culture quite as visibly as a shift from prioritizing feature proliferation to making security paramount, even at the expense of killing popular or long-standing user functionalities. Weston, responsible for the security engineering of Windows—along with Azure Linux, XBOX, Windows Server, and more—offered candid insights on why Microsoft now puts security at the top of the engineering agenda. It’s a response forged by necessity: with Microsoft’s operating systems and cloud solutions forming the spine of both enterprise and consumer computing, they have become lucrative targets for sophisticated threat actors worldwide.The discussion underscored a lesson repeatedly learned at great cost: as the world’s digital assets cluster around Microsoft products, the operating system’s attack surface becomes a golden opportunity for adversaries. This isn’t mere theoretical risk, as high-profile breaches and zero-days have shown over the years. For Microsoft, holding the trust of over a billion users and organizations is a delicate balancing act. It becomes clear that the days of adding features unchecked, sometimes with unclear security ramifications, are fading. Instead, there is tangible resolve to sunset features that can’t be reliably secured, and to design new ones with threat mitigation as a core design principle.
The CrowdStrike Outage: Catalyst for Fundamental Change
No conversation about recent Windows security could ignore the tectonic shock of the 2024 CrowdStrike outage. The failure wasn’t caused by a malicious actor but by a software update gone awry, yet the repercussions were global and severe. Mission-critical systems in hospitals, airports, and banks ground to a halt. For Microsoft, the outage became a clarion call for resilience—not just in the face of deliberate attack, but failures from within the trusted supply chain itself.Weston and Zetter delved into the specifics: third-party security tools that intervene at the kernel level can introduce catastrophic risk, whether through bugs or compromised updates. As a direct response, Microsoft is pursuing architectural reform. One standout is the development of a user mode API to safeguard kernel access, placing strict guardrails on how external software interacts with the system’s most sensitive layer. This heralds a new era of operating system design where “trust but verify” is augmented by “verify and restrict.” The move is both an admission and an assertion: the complexity and vulnerability imposed by third-party kernel hooks is no longer tolerable in a hyperconnected world.
Securing the Software Supply Chain: The New Imperative
Beyond internal engineering rigor, the discussion highlighted the immense challenge of securing the broader Windows ecosystem. In particular, Weston emphasized the onus on vendors who supply security products and critical updates. The CrowdStrike event illuminated how even trusted partners can, through mistakes or malicious compromise, become a vector for harm. For Microsoft, shepherding a secure supply chain now means collaborating with partners to encourage (and eventually require) hardened deployment practices, continuous code auditing, and transparent vulnerability reporting.This isn’t just a technical journey; it’s a fundamental cultural realignment for the ecosystem. Both Microsoft and vendors need to treat every software update as a potential breach point. Secure boot, cryptographic signing, and advanced attestation methods are just the start—these must be paired with rigorous operational discipline, clear accountability chains, and a responsiveness to emerging threats that matches the speed of attackers. Microsoft’s stance is not simply reactionary; rather, it signals for the industry what the bare minimum for “trustworthy computing” must be.
AI in Security: Potential and Pitfalls
If any technological shift can match the scale of moving from feature-first to security-first OS engineering, it is the integration of artificial intelligence into cybersecurity operations. The conversation explored how AI tools are already augmenting both defenders and attackers. For Microsoft, leveraging AI in real-time threat intelligence, anomaly detection, and rapid incident response offers a fleeting edge against the automation employed by adversaries.But Weston’s comments reflected an emerging consensus: AI is a force multiplier for both sides. While it grants defenders an unprecedented ability to sift through massive event logs and surface subtle threats, it also enables threat actors to scale highly targeted phishing, malware customization, and obfuscation. The race becomes one of who can deploy, adapt, and improve AI faster. Moreover, the trust placed in AI-driven tools raises difficult questions about explainability, bias, and the potential for catastrophic misjudgment—particularly when such tools are given kernel or high-privilege access.
The Windows Recall Feature: Controversy and Clarification
No discussion with the engineer at the heart of Windows security could skirt recent controversy around Windows Recall. Promoted as a feature to make user experiences seamless—allowing easy retrieval of past activity or documents—Recall was met with an immediate backlash from privacy advocates and security professionals.Zetter pressed on the critical risks: features that record or index user actions, even ostensibly for helpful purposes, become ripe targets for exfiltration in the event of compromise. Weston attempted to balance these concerns against usability, emphasizing Microsoft’s work to architect Recall with robust local encryption and access controls. Yet, the episode offers a microcosm of the perennial tension at the heart of OS design. Every new feature brings with it vectors for abuse; the cost of innovation is an ever-expanding perimeter to defend—a task defenders never win with finality.
This exchange underscores a hardening realization for Microsoft: transparency and explicit user choice must be at the forefront. Hidden telemetry, unadvertised data capture, or any feature that might surprise a privacy-conscious user risks both technical exposure and reputational harm. The solution isn’t mere after-the-fact patching, but a shift toward offering granular, opt-in controls, with clear disclosures and meaningful user agency.
Rooting Out Weakness: How Microsoft Investigates and Responds
Weston’s team, including the Offensive Security Research & Engineering Team, has taken a far more adversarial approach in recent years—actively seeking out weakness in Windows before attackers can find and exploit them. This “red team” mentality within the engineering division is a decisive evolution from the historic, sometimes reactionary stance. Microsoft now invests in vulnerability discovery at an unprecedented scale, regularly orchestrating internal and external bug bounty programs, and fostering a culture where reporting a security weakness is rewarded, not buried.This shift extends into their development process. Secure-by-default configuration, aggressive patch cycles, and exhaustive threat modeling are now table stakes for building or modifying features. Documentation and code reviews are scrutinized for hints of latent risk. In this, Microsoft echoes practices from defense-in-depth military doctrine: assume breach, minimize blast radius, and harden the core.
The Expanding Windows Ecosystem: Opportunity and Exposure
As Microsoft’s security gaze has widened beyond Windows to encompass Azure Linux, XBOX, Windows Server, and bespoke iterations of the Azure OS, the attack surface has only grown more intricate. Weston’s team must contend not just with legacy threats to desktop Windows, but with emergent exploits targeting the complex interdependencies between cloud, endpoint, IoT, and hybrid workloads. The stakes are vast: enterprises, governments, and consumers worldwide trust this infrastructure for the movement and storage of their most sensitive data.With every new avenue that connects to a Microsoft product—be it an API, device driver, or external service—the potential for credential theft, privilege escalation, or lateral movement increases. It’s here that Microsoft’s approach is most rigorously tested. Zero trust, microsegmentation, and continuous authentication aren’t just buzzwords but living mandates that must inform every layer of engineering, support, and partner engagement.
SentinelOne’s LABScon: A Convergence of Cybersecurity Minds
It’s significant that this candid industry self-assessment was staged at LABScon—hosted by SentinelOne’s research division, SentinelLABS. LABScon assembles some of cybersecurity’s sharpest operators, offering a crucible where blue teamers, threat hunters, and policy shapers challenge one another’s assumptions, share intelligence, and, crucially, debate controversial reforms. By opening up about past mistakes and current reforms, Microsoft signals its willingness to foster a transparent and reality-based dialogue.More than just a venue for highlighting technical achievement, LABScon serves as an early warning system for what’s next in adversarial innovation. For those charged with defending the world’s digital systems, the lessons exchanged here translate into more robust products, sharper detection engines, and, ultimately, a safer user base.
Balancing Usability and Security: The Never-ending Tradeoff
One of the central themes from Zetter and Weston’s discussion is the perennial balancing act between usability and security. Every measure that locks down a system has the potential to impede legitimate user or developer productivity—a fact kept alive in every product meeting and feature review. The CrowdStrike incident, the Recall controversy, and debates around kernel access all expose this tension. Vendors, CISOs, and ordinary users alike need to understand that there are seldom binary solutions—rather, there are carefully managed tradeoffs. Transparency, clear documentation, timely support, and robust testing are the buffers that keep this balance tenable.Looking Forward: Resilience as the Foundation
As the conversation concluded, a few forward-looking themes emerged. The future of operating system security for Microsoft—and the wider Windows ecosystem—will be defined by resilience over mere detection or prevention. The goal is not to prevent every single incident (an impossibility given today’s threat actors and supply chain complexity), but to ensure that whatever happens, systems fail gracefully, recover quickly, and preserve the integrity of essential data and operations.This means investing in rapid rollback mechanisms, air-gapped redundant backups, and tools that allow administrators (and users) to quarantine trouble before it spreads. Perhaps even more importantly, it means cultivating a culture of readiness—from rehearsed incident response protocols to continuous learning and adaptation at every level of the organization.
The Role of the User: Shared Responsibility
Amid all the technical advances and architecture reforms, Zetter and Weston’s exchange circled back to an often overlooked truth: the durability of any security model depends on user participation. Updates, no matter how well-engineered, must be applied. Security features, no matter how robust, must be configured and understood. The vast success of phishing, social engineering, and increasingly AI-generated lures is a reminder that software alone cannot compensate for a disengaged or underinformed human in the loop.Microsoft and its partners must not just secure systems by design—they must empower users with understandable interfaces, actionable guidance, and a sense of partnership in maintaining their own defenses. This democratization of security knowledge is perhaps the most crucial ingredient yet for a resilient ecosystem.
Bridging the Gap: From Crisis to Opportunity
The events discussed at LABScon 2024 and the perspectives shared by Zetter and Weston offer an intriguing diagnosis for the current Windows ecosystem. Crises, whether caused by supply chain mishaps or adversarial innovation, are blunt reminders of inherent systemic risk. But in the crucible of these events lies the seed of progress. Failures prompt essential reforms, and each hard-won lesson becomes embedded in new architectural mandates, engineering standards, and community expectations.This cycle—shock, reflection, adaptation—is not unique to Microsoft. It is, in fact, the rhythm of progress across every mature technology sector. But with stakes so high, and systems so central to global economic and social well-being, the margin for error is narrowing.
A Blueprint for the Industry
For readers invested in the future of Windows security, or the broader challenge of engineering trustworthy digital infrastructure, the message is clear. Resilience is the new competitive advantage, borne out of transparency, genuine engagement with the independent security community, and a willingness to rethink old assumptions. Supply chain security is not someone else’s problem—if you deliver updates, if you build plugins, if you manage endpoints, the standard is rising.Microsoft’s continued evolution—guided in part by pressure and insight from informed critics and engaged partners—sets a powerful precedent. As risks grow more complex and adversaries more sophisticated, the winners will be those who learn fastest, respond openly, and engage most meaningfully with their ecosystem.
Final Thoughts: A Call for Collective Action
Weston and Zetter’s dialogue is a rare window into both the anxiety and ambition at the heart of today’s Windows security journey. Vulnerabilities and outages will always be with us; what matters is having the resilience to recover quickly, the humility to admit flaws, and the openness to course-correct publicly. As the world watches, Microsoft and its partners in the Windows ecosystem face an era of profound responsibility—and, if they succeed, renewed trust.The shared future of our digital infrastructure depends on these lessons sticking. For every enterprise administrator, security vendor, and ordinary user, the ever-present call is for vigilance, transparency, and a relentless drive towards resilience.
Source: www.sentinelone.com LABScon24 Replay | Resilience and Protection in the Windows Ecosystem
Last edited:
