> Last year we had a great public example of why eliminating attack surface should always be prioritized over legacy support. That's obviously not a good rule

> Last year we had a great public example of why eliminating attack surface should always be prioritized over legacy support. That's obviously not a good rule as stated, since the best way to follow it to run "rm -rf /" everything, which will give you zero attack surface and zero legacy support. A more reasonable formulation is: legacy support should not always be prioritized over eliminating attack surface.