One of our favorite friends, Jack Daniels, has a new post on Active Defense:
If you make the claim that “active defense” is only a euphemism for “hacking back”, you are either hyping an agenda, or selling a (probably outdated) security model. Or perhaps you’ve just been misled by the previously mentioned shysters. By my count that’s three flavors of wrong, although one may be slightly less bitter.
…
Let’s start with “active defense”. It is not a new idea, and it doesn’t necessarily mean hacking back. It may encompass counterattacks, but there are a lot of active defenses far short of attack.
I refer you back to my post on active defense definitions last summer. I really don’t know where all the confusion is coming from – I meet almost no security professionals who don’t understand the difference. It seems to be more of a press/PR issue.
Reader interactions
One Reply to “The Battle over Active Defense Continues”
I agree, active defense is not necessarily hack back, but could end up there as a last resort. Bottom line is it is a process of options for business owners that goes beyond traditional security. Key: a team of experts that can guide the CEOs in collecting intel and evaluating risk, liability and legal issues.