I really don't understand how "3) Penetrate and Patch" is a bad idea. The argument is:
> Your software and systems should be secure by design and should have been designed with flaw-handling in mind
I'm not sure I would argue that systems that have been hacked were intentionally insecure by design, but that the developers thought it was secure by design but they were just wrong. It seems totally unrealistic to say "just make it secure instead" as the solution, especially when machines are connected to the outside world.
> Your software and systems should be secure by design and should have been designed with flaw-handling in mind
I'm not sure I would argue that systems that have been hacked were intentionally insecure by design, but that the developers thought it was secure by design but they were just wrong. It seems totally unrealistic to say "just make it secure instead" as the solution, especially when machines are connected to the outside world.