The Battle over Active Defense Continues

By Rich

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that “active defense” is only a euphemism for “hacking back”, you are either hyping an agenda, or selling a (probably outdated) security model.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.

No Related Posts

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.

By Dave

If you like to leave comments, and aren’t a spammer, register for the site and email us at and we’ll turn off moderation for your account.