3 ms·
Ding ding ding! If you want to defend in depth - more power to you. If the way you're "defending in depth" is mostly not adding security, and is actively maki
by horsawlarway 3y ago
Ding ding ding!
If you want to defend in depth - more power to you.
If the way you're "defending in depth" is mostly not adding security, and is actively making the product less useful... I'm going to call it shite.
If you blindly say "defend in depth" without actually... you know... evaluating what that defense does to the product as a whole, you're doing your job poorly.
- jameshart 3y agoThe rules of engagement on this site call not for radical candor but for taking the most charitable interpretation of someone's words. Maybe the OP wasn't blindly saying 'defend in depth'? Maybe they were advocating for evaluating what that defense does to the product as a whole? If they were, is their attitude worth describing as cancerous?
- horsawlarway 3y agoIf that was my entire comment - I'd probably agree with you. Good thing there's about 5 other paragraphs of content in my response that provide additional context... My take: you're stuck on the word cancer as some sort of insult, rather than an analogy. I'd argue you're being fairly uncharitable in your responses - and further... you're yet again not engaging with the actual on-topic discussion. Have a good one.
- lelanthran 3y ago> Ding ding ding! > If you want to defend in depth - more power to you. > If the way you're "defending in depth" is mostly not adding security, and is actively making the product less useful... I'm going to call it shite. Agreed. Sure, there is defense at different depths, but there's no reason to add depth without adding defense as well.