You can also reduce blast radius from breaches, and make systems more robust, rather than just trying to make zero mistakes. How bad breaches are and how well you can recover is also part of the outcome, just framing it as zero breaches or nothing is not that helpful, even though reducing breaches is important.

▲

jeremyjh an hour ago | parent | next [-]

This isn't a different thing - it is just one of techniques used, and it still requires humans to understand the systems they are building. Teams that outsource their systems understanding to AI will fail, no matter how they frame it.

▲

andix 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Isn't that the same thing as "not making mistakes"? If you can reduce the blast radius and didn't, wasn't that a major mistake in the first place?

	▲	charlieyu1 an hour ago \| parent \| next [-]
		A lot of code is certainly not written careful enough. Plenty examples of plaintext passwords storage in the wild.
	▲	phil21 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		No, it's recognizing mistakes will be made and no one is perfect. You will also make mistakes regarding blast radius - sometimes the blast doors don't close or function like you thought they would during an actual explosion. Defense in depth is the idea. Swiss cheese model of failure.