A theme I've seen surface lately is this notion that "good enough isn't good enough." My response to this is quite simple: if what you're doing isn't commercially reasonable and legally defensible, then your notion of "good enough" is itself flawed. At the end of the day, businesses should be aiming for "good enough" insomuch as that means doing as much as is reasonable and appropriate without wasting resources.
I would submit that anybody who argues against aiming for "good enough" simply doesn't understand how business operates, nor do they truly understand risk management. Infosec is not some zero-sum game where we can magically defeat all threats, eliminate all vulnerabilities, and go home "winners." Rather, it's a journey, not a destination. Every day we have to account for new threats and new vulnerabilities. However, we should not be focusing exclusively or obsessively on them. Instead, we should be focusing on the business and what it values and has of value.
