2 ms·
The industry response to this seems to be "DevSecOps," where the only real "Sec" is reactionary monitoring. Monitoring doesn't keep incidents from happening. It
by drewcoo 2y ago
The industry response to this seems to be "DevSecOps," where the only real "Sec" is reactionary monitoring. Monitoring doesn't keep incidents from happening. It only raises internal awareness.
This is the best that most separate security teams do, too.
In all fairness, the "DevOps" part of things can manage deploys in ways to minimize exposure. But most teams that I've seen revert to manual "process" whenever something unusual occurs, so forget about the ideal automated responses to problems we were promised when we were trying to automate sysadmins out of their jobs. There are several layers of broken here that we're not allowed to talk about.
- soco 2y agoOh but we do talk and even praise the "move fast break things" - until it's actually broken, that is.
- t_believ-er873 2y agoYou're right about "Sec" in DevSecOps. Unfortunately, often it’s just about being reactive monitoring. It’s true that monitoring alone doesn’t prevent incidents but rather just tells you after the fact that something has gone wrong. The real challenge is integrating proactive security measures that actually prevent incidents before they occur or measures that can help to handle the consequences, like MFA, encryption, regular backups and their testing, Disaster Recovery, etc.