I got to thinking about this, and my mind wouldn’t let it alone, because I come from a slower time, a time when we thought more deeply and probably looked for solutions.
The perceived loss of human relevance in security operations stems from our obsession with high volume noise rather than the singular, quiet point of failure. We focus on the scale of the attack when the reality is often a simple credential theft that bypasses every automated defense we have built. By shifting our gaze from the thousands of alerts to the one identity that holds the keys, we regain our agency. It is about understanding the architecture of trust rather than just the mechanics of the breach. This shift requires us to move away from purely reactive patterns toward a more deliberate, human-centric oversight of our own infrastructure.
All of that is correct, Cyril, if only it were a 'perceived' loss, but the loss is quite real. "Shifting one's gaze" is something we used to do, way back in the days before email. How many letters came to your mailbox 50 years ago? I have tamed my email as completely as possible, yet awake to a hundred new messages. Do I avoid Robert Reich in favor of cloes friends?
Which 'identity' holds the key?
Whose 'architecture of trust' do you trust? Jim Freeman's?
Thanks for the comment. I appreciate the time you took to construct it, and my pledge to you is to take the time to reply with something other than 'Thanks.'
The perceived loss of human relevance in security operations stems from our obsession with high volume noise rather than the singular, quiet point of failure. We focus on the scale of the attack when the reality is often a simple credential theft that bypasses every automated defense we have built. By shifting our gaze from the thousands of alerts to the one identity that holds the keys, we regain our agency. It is about understanding the architecture of trust rather than just the mechanics of the breach. This shift requires us to move away from purely reactive patterns toward a more deliberate, human-centric oversight of our own infrastructure.
https://cyrilsimonnet.substack.com/p/nobody-hacked-100000-websites-somebody?utm_source=substor&utm_medium=substack&utm_campaign=comment
All of that is correct, Cyril, if only it were a 'perceived' loss, but the loss is quite real. "Shifting one's gaze" is something we used to do, way back in the days before email. How many letters came to your mailbox 50 years ago? I have tamed my email as completely as possible, yet awake to a hundred new messages. Do I avoid Robert Reich in favor of cloes friends?
Which 'identity' holds the key?
Whose 'architecture of trust' do you trust? Jim Freeman's?
Thanks for the comment. I appreciate the time you took to construct it, and my pledge to you is to take the time to reply with something other than 'Thanks.'