Infoworld ran an interesting article on John Thompson's recent CeBIT keynote in which he took a shot at Microsoft by suggesting that there is an inherently "...huge conflict of interest for one company to provide both an operating platform and a security platform."
I suppose that opinion depends upon whether or not said company suggests that their security controls are all that are needed to secure said operating system or that defense in depth is not needed.
Here's why I find this statement interesting and I am going to twist it by agreeing with the statement within the context of the same argument pertaining to Cisco as an extension to the many, many articles I have already written on this topic.
Given just the last rash of vulnerabilities in Cisco's routing, switching and security products a few weeks ago, I believe it's also a mistake (you can read "conflict of interest" if you desire) for Cisco (le fox) to protect the network (le chicken.) That's the same argument of the "operating system" and the "security platform."
I think it's simply not relevant or appropriate to simply shrug off issues like this just because of Cisco's size and the apparent manifest destiny associated with security "going into the switch" -- just because it does and more than likely will -- does not mean it should and does not mean that people will settle for "good enough" security when the network consistently fails to self-defend.
I don't disagree that more and more security *will* make it's way into the network switches, much like I don't disagree that the sun will rise in the east and set in the west, but much in the same way that folks don't just give up and go to sleep once the sun goes down, the lightbulb that goes on in my head suggests there is a better way.