3 ms·

I think a slight change in approach is needed. In a lot of cases, your network had a hard outer perimeter which was treated as unbreakable, and within that was

• marak830 12y ago
  This. I think its definatly time we started treating our internal networks as unsafe. Not as easier for the end user, but if done correctly a lot safer for everyone. A little depressing, but its what would have had to happen eventually.
• calpaterson 12y ago
  "De-perimeterisation" in security-ese https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De-perimeterisation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De-perimeterisation
  • hga 12y ago
    In military terms, it's switching from a crust defense (the perimeter) to defense in depth. There are situations where the former can make sense, such as a siege, where e.g. a penetration is quickly obvious and you can use your interior lines of communications to rush reserves to the action. The key, of course, is the "quickly obvious". Prior to the stats of the art allowing that (which sounds difficult and painful in principle), defense in depth is obviously the way to go. But you've got to achive it in some why where e.g. compromise of "bob@nvidia.com" + password doesn't quickly get you past any defense, or any that's relevant to bob.
    • niels_olson 12y ago
      The military's defense in depth can get crazy though. Without going into details, the smart people you want to do interesting things frequently end up so severely hamstrung they give up before starting.