[tprynn]

I agree with the principle, but the way these arguments have been summarized here has led to near-complete strawmanning. It's like the author started from the blog title and then came up with their own contextless, binary arguments.

Certifications: The typical arguments against security certifications are not that they "don’t represent the full spectrum of skills a professional needs" but instead that many of them teach outdated, useless, or actively negative practices. Then they're used as an advertising tool and organizations with less security expertise are told they must hire based on certifications rather than actual skill.

Compliance: "compliance is counterproductive for security." Most security practitioners don't necessarily like compliance primarily because it's not enjoyable for them. It distracts them from the tasks that they want to be working on. In most cases compliance is orthogonal to security. In some cases it can certainly be counterproductive (e.g. government compliance programs requiring outdated crypto).

Management: The typical refrain "management doesn't spend enough on security / take risks seriously" has been turned into "management doesn’t care about security because they don’t fund every single thing the security team asks for". I mean, it's obvious that the argument wasn't taken seriously by the author just based on how they wrote that.

[bitexploder]

I have been doing infosec consulting, appsec, penetration testing, threat modeling, risk asssesment, etc. for 15 years and that was my take on the article. It is a nice discussion piece but a little one sided. They kept erecting straw men that don’t really reflect the nuanced opinion of most of my peers. On Twitter and social media some luminaries are really prone to hot takes and it could be easy to assume that is reflective of the industry as a whole (and especially the authors opinion). Often it is neither.

One other vexing thing in this industry, is that it is very deep. You will often see folks with a deep background in say, reversing, come out with really strong opinions on some other topic such as phishing even though they are little more than observers to that aspect of infosec. Reversing doesn’t qualify you to be a CISO, etc. I just made my own straw man there, but it’s a truism in my opinion.

The core thrust of the article is reasonable though. Often we want an amazing solution or a big win when improving something even a little is a real improvement from a security perspective. A lot of little wins in an organization can really add up to changing its security culture, etc. I would ultimately agree the saying “perfect is the enemy of good” applies in the security world.

[GordonS]

> Compliance: "compliance is counterproductive for security." Most security practitioners don't necessarily like compliance primarily because it's not enjoyable for them.

I have a B2B micro-ISV in the cyber security space, largely targeting a compliance niche - you get out what you put in.

I have customers that treat compliance as nothing more than a pointless burden; a series of boxes to be ticked, "check-box compliance" - all they want is to prove to their auditors that they are following the letter of the compliance standard. I imagine security consultants see this kind of thing a lot, and it's easy to see why they might view compliance negatively.

However, I also have customers that look past the letter of their compliance standards, and look towards the intent - these customers get a lot more out of it, and are actually increasing their security posture as their compliance standards intended.

[PragmaticPulp]

> It's like the author started from the blog title and then came up with their own contextless, binary arguments.

Most of the arguments are actually quite common on Twitter’s Infosec communities. It’s common to read smug tweets dunking on certifications or security through obscurity or management similar to these strawman arguments in the article.

Not coincidentally, Twitter isn’t a great place to get good infosec advice. It’s too focused on calling out less-than-perfect solutions from a safe distance rather than actually examining practical security in the real world. This article makes a good point of showing the difference and would be useful for newcomers who might be confused.

[unethical_ban]

Counterpoint: Security admins are overwhelmed with process and tasks to keep the trains running, and perceive they don't have time to go back and clean up bad configs. If something isn't done right the first go-round, it will never be right.

Compliance is the bludgeon that says "go make this right". Then security admins bitch about not having the time, and we say we don't have enough people in the industry.

Automate the boring stuff. We do have a shortage - a shortage of people who are creative enough and talented enough to script their toil away.

[_tk_]

I work in a team of 100+ cyber professionals, and consume the typical infosec content that’s out there. None of the authors that I know, or any of my peers argue in this presumed way. Additionally, as everyone in cyber knows: every answer to any question should start with “it depends”. That’s also how I experience knowledge exchange between peers most of the time.

[OrvalWintermute]

Great comment which I upvoted for accuracy because it is how the real professionals in the industry talk.

A great example of this is the debate around fail-open and fail-closed in different scenarios.

Depending on the system, the function, the security objectives underying it, and the way in which success or failure is determined, eventually, a decision can be reached about what is optimal for an organization in a particular case.

It is completely consistant to argue for fail-closed for a low availability requiring system with a big attack surface that is internet facing, while simultaneously proffering fail-open for a mission-critical industrial control system with strong physical protections that is in a locked-down closed off environment, unpivotable, for which work stoppage is a serious threat. Basically, something unlike Colonial Energy..... :)