"There are few empirical results that can guide risk mitigation decisions," which led Daniel Woods and Aaron Ceross in their seminal paper to conclude that, "legal reasoning will increasingly influence cybersecurity decisions relative to technical and quantitative reasoning." As this happens, "Risk decisions may be guided by concepts like reasonableness or appropriateness rather than effectiveness." This highlights the struggle between adhering to existing frameworks and pursuing innovative, effective strategies in cybersecurity.
"Security theatre vs. effective security" emphasizes that the combination of increasing complexity and adversarial tactics makes a scientific approach to cybersecurity difficult. This reflects on how organizations may prioritize compliance and legal safety over practical effectiveness, thereby hindering real progress.
Teams need a robust, reproducible, and reliable security approach rooted in a more scientific or engineering-centric approach. They need build-time detections, runtime insights, and coordinated action rather than just a consolidated view of findings.
For the rest of us, the security programs still come complete with oracles and fortune tellers who rely on anecdotes, personal experience, and which tools give them more detections. Because more is better, right?
Collection
[
|
...
]