"These days, the company takes security extremely seriously. I think you'd be hard-pressed to find many nation states that have as sophisticated a security appr

"These days, the company takes security extremely seriously. I think you'd be hard-pressed to find many nation states that have as sophisticated a security approach as Amazon does." Sounds like PR fluff. Maybe the crappy nation states have poorer posture, but decent nation states tend to have decent knowledge of security principles, decent isolation of data and tenants within networks, various physically enforced unidirectional links and decent actionable threat intelligence, none of which are necessarily evidenced for Amazon by the interviewee. Additional evidence to back the claim would have been nice. I am not saying nations do not make security mistakes, they make plenty, but I am not convinced it is due to a somehow inferior or less sophisticated approach. "They might, but ultimately the security standards of their data centers are always going to be lower than those of a cloud provider like AWS. A cloud provider has many tenants and they can have economies of scale that let them have more sophisticated security systems than someone fully managing their systems in-house." Interestingly, the economies of scale argument, while true, cuts both ways, because there is an economic limit to securing shared infrastructure. The business model of AWS and other CSPs is to multiplex access to shared resources, thereby introducing multi-tenancy issues as well as putting more eggs in the one basket, which is much more lucrative for an adversary to target. I think a mature cybersecurity engineer should be aware of the tradeoff, seems this one is somewhat biased. I am not sure if it is intentional, but marketing a big truck with guns may be capitalizing on conflating security with the perception of security. Can someone please explain why the truck being giant adds to security? Is it harder for it to roll over on the freeway and cause bits to spill?