2 ms·
> Every useless security product ever pitched has justified its existence with "defense in depth". Even if this is true it is also shallow, misleading and IMO
by eitland 8y ago
> Every useless security product ever pitched has justified its existence with "defense in depth".
Even if this is true it is also shallow, misleading and IMO more of a master suppression technique[0]: even if we accept it as true it doesn't mean the opposite is true (i.e. that everything that is marketed as "defence in depth" is a useless security product.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master_suppression_techniques https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master_suppression_techniques
- tptacek 8y agoYou're rebutting an argument that I didn't make. What I said was that "defense in depth" is a weak argument. I didn't say that any solution that invokes "defense in depth" is bad. DNSSEC is bad on its own merits.