> This attitude is cancer
> yes really - fucking always
You're really angry with that straw man you've stood up. The OP isn't saying systems have to be locked down to the extent that they're useless. Who would ever argue for such a thing?
Note that "You don't stop securing it just because you've found one good option" is NOT the same thing as saying "You don't stop securing it until you've closed every possible security gap and compromised usability".
Be charitable in your interpretation. Your OP is making a simple argument that defense in depth is a part of a security posture, precisely because they agree with your core premise, that security is always a tradeoff. Because we won't choose to implement every security measure, and because the security measures we do implement will be flawed, or compromised by the need for the application to actually be usable.
Step outside, breathe some fresh air, maybe lay off the coffee first thing. And consider not throwing 'cancer' bombs at passers-by.
> yes really - fucking always
You're really angry with that straw man you've stood up. The OP isn't saying systems have to be locked down to the extent that they're useless. Who would ever argue for such a thing?
Note that "You don't stop securing it just because you've found one good option" is NOT the same thing as saying "You don't stop securing it until you've closed every possible security gap and compromised usability".
Be charitable in your interpretation. Your OP is making a simple argument that defense in depth is a part of a security posture, precisely because they agree with your core premise, that security is always a tradeoff. Because we won't choose to implement every security measure, and because the security measures we do implement will be flawed, or compromised by the need for the application to actually be usable.
Step outside, breathe some fresh air, maybe lay off the coffee first thing. And consider not throwing 'cancer' bombs at passers-by.