On Dec 7, 2011 7:49 PM, "Dobbins, Roland" <rdobbins@arbor.net> wrote:
On Dec 8, 2011, at 1:36 AM, Leo Bicknell wrote:
I don't think you're looking at defense in depth in the right way,
Actually, it sometimes seems as if nobody in the industry understands
what 'defense in depth' really means, heh.
'Defense in depth' is a military term of art which equates to 'trading space for time in order to facilitate attrition of enemy forces'. It does not have any real relevance to infosec/opsec; unfortunately, its original meaning has been corrupted and so it is widely (and incorrectly) used in
On a personal note , it is one of my least favorite terms because it is overused and generally used by people selling things, and defense in depth means throw eveything and the kitchen sink at the problem instead of matching threats / risks / vulnerabilities with security controls and threat mitigation and management. Defense in depth = blank check , in too many instances Yes, layers of security are good. No, a car with mattresses strapped to both ends is not safer to drive. Cb place of the more appropriate 'combined arms approach' or 'jointness' or 'mutual support' or 'layered defense' metaphors. Hannibal's tactics at Cannae are generally cited as the canonical (pardon the pun) example of actual military defense in depth.
;>
----------------------------------------------------------------------- Roland Dobbins <rdobbins@arbor.net> // <http://www.arbornetworks.com>
The basis of optimism is sheer terror.
-- Oscar Wilde