There’s a pervasive, false perception in contemporary politics. The candidate that advocates spending the most on something cares most about solving the problem. Today’s endpoint protection suites are similarly ranked. Those with the longer list of features are ranked higher. Similarly, like features are seldom compared one-to-one but are presumed little different among different suites. The breadth and price of the package carries too much weight. Actual results bear too little, including level of effort. And ultimately, the features checklists have usurped the overarching mission of endpoint protection suites, preventing compromises.
One of today’s most widespread cybersecurity principles seems prudent on the surface but has made the enterprise cyber program a bloated, lumbering beast of burden. Defense in depth is simple to intuit; it is as obvious as two heads are better than one. Reality demands, however, that the enterprise optimize. How many are too many? What combination is best, and so on? Clearly, finding that sweet spot depends more on just what mitigates the spectrum of prioritized risks. The following anonymous customer story exposes at least two other major dimensions that matter. These other two are the difference between excellence and mediocrity.