Ask yourself: what are these security tools capable of doing *besides* stopping viruses?
Exactly. And yet they can give a user a false sense of security, so I dare say "security provided by ISPs" could even be part of the problem.
Have the days of individual security ever begun by the way? People "solely relying on patching and upgrades" were always lulling themselves etc., just not for the reasons suggested by Mr Moroneos: and not necessarily for Windows only (one word: rootkits), although it heroically stands as the most exploited target. Some of the worst threats are still represented by bad password policies -- or no password policies at all -- and vulnerability to social engineering. 15 years ago it was not called that, but there were examples in the wild back then. (What I recall on the fly is ILoveYou, but I'm sure somebody less lazy than me can come out with other examples from 1995-ish.) Some people will click the wrong link, open the wrong messages, etc.: ISPs cannot correct people's behaviour, unless in the horrific ways we can all imagine (see several of the comments here.)
Or is there something in TFA I didn't get? I confess the word "cloud" repeated every other line gave me a hard time understanding what the hell he was talking about.
Microsoft is required by law to now make a “good faith effort” to contact the owner(s) of Rustock control domains and other infrastructure the company has since seized, and to notify the individual(s) of the date, time and location of an upcoming court hearing in Seattle, Washington, where the defendants will have an opportunity to be heard.
Microsoft will publish the information on a Web site set up for this purpose – noticeofpleadings.com.
"Confound these ancestors.... They've stolen our best ideas!" - Ben Jonson