I find it interesting that so many security questions are addressed by asking more questions. What level of logging should I have? Well, that depends, what are you protecting? Do you have staff to watch logs? Budget to buy something to watch logs? What do you expect from logs? And so on… One answer usually just doesn’t fit every situation.
I can actually bring this back to my old discussion on security religions. Some people believe in absolute solutions that are secure and cover every situation. Others believe in incremental security, where you may have to layer protections to cover all your bases, and maybe not any layer is all that secure in itself.
This takes on a new dimension when you talk about scope. Are you talking about security on a macroscopic scale (e.g. national, global, internetwide) or microscopic (e.g. any organization, a home office)? Scope can have even more implications such as budget, coverage, and so on, but macro vs micro is the best start.
I often engage in security discussions that can lead to heated argument if the concepts of security religion (of participants) and scope (of the discussion) are not addressed up front. Participants can become violently argumentative, when they’re simply talking about different things (global DNS security vs your SMB DNS presence). Hence, security discussions or questions, to me, almost always begin with more questions, questions designed to fit the scope and religion, while also answering other necessary questions that eventually lead down an informal risk valuation…