Of Course Defense-In-Depth, er, Defense-In-Breadth Works!
I don’t know what the the hell Ptacek and crew are on about. Of course defense-in-depth defense-in-breadth is effective. It’s heresy to suggest otherwise. Myopic, short-sighted, and heretical, I say!
In support, I submit into evidence People’s Exhibit #1, from here your honor:
…and I quoteth:
We use layers of security to ensure the security of the traveling public and the Nation’s transportation system.
Each one of these layers alone is capable of stopping a terrorist attack. In combination their security value is multiplied, creating a much stronger, formidable system. A terrorist who has to overcome multiple security layers in order to carry out an attack is more likely to be pre-empted, deterred, or to fail during the attempt.
Yeah! Get some! It’s just like firewalls, IPS, and AV, bitches! Mo’ is betta!
It’s patently clear that Ptacek simply doesn’t layer enough, is all. See, Rothman, you don’t need to give up!
"Twenty is the number and the number shall be twenty!"
How’s that for a metric?
That is all.
/Hoff
The reason infosec is like war is that its human against human. The programmers have it easy its just human against compiler.
Just because it doesn't make sense doesn't mean it's not good marketing.
Hmmm…travel document checker is a line of defense?
"Ok, our 19 layers of defense are…"
VIPRs are counting repeatedly.
"Amongst our 18 layers of defense…"
There's also "federal air marshals" "federal flight deck officers" and "law enforcement officers" who all seem to be on-plane.
"Let us come in again?"
I like how passengers are shown as the last line of defense. Too bad we've been disarmed.
@adam:
>> I like how passengers are shown as the last line of defense.
>> Too bad we've been disarmed.
I have peanuts and a bad attitude and I'm not afraid to use them.
You got peanuts? Looxuree!
And here all along I thought the last line of defense was Bruce Schneier with a well-placed roundhouse kick. I'm soooo embarassed now.