Speaking as a security professional, this viewpoint already exists in software in various concepts like "defense in depth" and "zero-trust networking". > It se

Speaking as a security professional, this viewpoint already exists in software in various concepts like "defense in depth" and "zero-trust networking". > It seems pretty well established that making secure software is impossible. Time to pivot to designing software systems that are tolerant of inevitable security breaches. This is the nature of "zero-touch networking". More generally, we talk about "security boundaries" as the equivalent of what you'd consider "compartmentalization". For example, the virtual machine is a security boundary (infect the OS but the VM should keep it contained to not affect the host hardware), the network firewall is a security boundary (treat everything outside as potentially hostile unless authenticated), the authentication system is one, and so on, because each one imposes substantial security barriers that you depend on to some degree, but you also model the "what if it fails?" scenario. > One example of this is compartmentalization. A single breach must not have access to all the sensitive data. Another is backups must be air gapped (or put on physically read-only media) so ransomware cannot compromise them. All of these things are already commonly known practice, and both data compartmentalization and airgaps have been in practice for decades. I'm not saying that it's perfect everywhere, because it's a shitshow in general, but rather that the field has been aware of and has been implementing these practices for a long time when people have the incentives to do it. I think there are two major differences. The first is that in cyber security the failure mode is adversarial, not coincidental, so tolerances work differently. It's less about the stress the system can take, more about how long it'll take the adversary to figure it out and how useful the exploit is. The second difference is that there isn't remotely as much market/government infrastructure around making sure that you don't screw up the security. That's both good and bad: good because it means lower costs to entry. Bad because it means plenty of people will play fast and loose.