Re: SCADA
Dotzero <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.security.firewalls.wizards |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 6:49 PM, Marcus J. Ranum <[email protected]> wrote: > Paul D. Robertson wrote: >> >> The other side of the coin is that adding layers adds complexity and code- >> and adding code adds bugs- so you don't *always* get a net security gain by >> adding "protecion." > > You raise a problem that I've spent too much time pondering. In effect, > it refutes the "conventional wisdom" of computer security. Which goes > as follows: > Item #1 - Defense in depth is good > Item #2 - Complexity is the enemy of security > > If #2 is true, #1 can't be, because defense in depth adds complexity. > > Puzzled, > mjr. > -- Perhaps a more nuanced discussion on the nature of complexity is in order. If I perform 5 simple but very beneficial (Securitywise) things to achieve better defense in depth, how much complexity have I really added compared to implementing 5 very intricate things? There will always be a set of tradeoffs to consider. Where one ends up depends very much on where one thinks one is going.