This has been a hot button topic in these forums at times, with one "hungry" individual in particular placing fault on MS' shoulders. Should MS take full, partial or no responsibility for a user's decision on what to install on their computers, including malicious files? My answer is Partial responsibility. Here is my idea of what they could do better: How about, stealing an idea from Linux, a Microsoft Approved Repository system? The way it might work is that any developer of software designed to run on Windows has the option, not forced upon them to submit their finalized product to MS, where it would be installed on a test platform, and put fully through the paces, ensuring it is malware-free, runs stable, does what it's supposed to do, and does not introduce unnecessary security risks in the O/S. Most importantly, it must be malware-free and stable (no BSOD's, crashing, etc). to meet a minimum acceptance criteria. If it passes, MS would issue a Digital certificate for the product, free of charge, and place it, with the consent of the developer, in their own secured repository, available to anyone who wishes to download from it. The developer could also link to this repository for those who want to trial the product. The product could be freeware or trial-ware, with payment to the developer made through the usual channels. Windows could use a digital inspection approach, much like UAC that shows the blue and gold shield for Windows digitally signed files for users installing software, that clearly displays to the user the software is MS approved and digitally signed. If it is not MS digitally signed from their approved repository, a bold and clear warning is displayed, although the user still has the option to continue installing as administrator, at their own risk! MS could make it very clear to users to make every effort to obtain their software from their repositories to ensure a malware-free experience, although downloading from other untrusted sources such as through torrents or product websites could still be an option, also at the user's own risk!. Now this isn't actually taking a form of responsibility, because nothing's forced on the developers or users, because I, for one, wouldn't want that, but it should theoretically at least significantly help reduce the risk of user's inadvertantly installing malicous files on their computers. It could be a great situation for developers, including the one man operations like Sandboxie, to have an MS-assigned digital certificate attached to their software, so users know it's not only malware-free, but that it's stable and effective.