3 ms·
This has restored my faith in the government wrt technology. I am sure there are some very passionate and smart people behind this initiative who are motivated
by opportune 5y ago
This has restored my faith in the government wrt technology. I am sure there are some very passionate and smart people behind this initiative who are motivated by doing things right rather than intellectual laziness.
I’m convinced that the “defense in depth” and “security permitter” models were pretty much entirely driven by laziness (define a perimeter and call it a day) and pork (defense in depth= we can pay for tons of different disjoint security software/vendors/contracting because it adds depth). Zero trust actually requires you to do the right thing and do it everywhere, and hopefully reduces the amount of waste thrown at vendors. It will create a lot of integration work but will hopefully consolidate the actual security software used.
- rank0 5y agoDefense in depth is just a design philosophy for security controls. It absolutely makes sense and doesn’t have to be implemented as “disjoint security software/vendors/contracting” It can be the justification for things like database controls, OS level controls, or seemingly trivial things like log forging. I heard a million different versions of “it’s not a big deal because an attacker would have to breach our network already”