Blog Post Mar 03, 2025

The all-or-nothing fallacy: a roadblock to better cybersecurity

In cybersecurity, perfection is a myth. Yet, time and again, we encounter arguments rooted in an "all-or-nothing" mentality - the flawed belief that if a security measure isn’t 100% foolproof, it isn’t worth implementing. This fallacy, which has persisted for years, leads to inaction and increased vulnerability. Rather than striving for unattainable perfection, security professionals must embrace incremental improvements that mitigate risk and enhance resilience.

1. Understanding the all-or-nothing fallacy

2. The security benefits of shortened certificate lifespans

3. Overcoming resistance to change

4. Embracing incremental security improvements

Understanding the all-or-nothing fallacy

The all-or-nothing fallacy is the tendency to reject security enhancements simply because they don’t eliminate risk entirely. This reasoning dismisses incremental improvements on the basis that some residual risk remains. For example, multi-factor authentication (MFA) significantly reduces the risk of unauthorized access, yet it isn’t infallible. Attackers may find ways around it, but that doesn’t mean MFA should be abandoned altogether. The same logic applies to certificate lifecycle management, network segmentation, and countless other security measures.

This mindset is currently surfacing in the debate surrounding the proposal to shorten SSL/TLS certificate lifespans to 47 days. Some argue that since a compromised private key could still be exploited within this period, reducing certificate duration offers little security benefit. However, such a stance ignores the clear advantages of limiting the attack window, improving automation adoption, and enhancing overall security posture.

The security benefits of shortened certificate lifespans

Historically, certificate lifespans have steadily decreased - from five and ten years to three, then two, then 398 days, and now potentially 47 days. Each reduction has been a step toward better security, and there is no logical reason to halt this progress now.

Shortening certificate lifespans addresses several key security concerns:

Reducing the attack window: If a private key is compromised, the attacker’s window of opportunity is directly tied to the certificate’s validity period. A certificate valid for 398 days provides an attacker with over a year of potential exploitation. A 47-day certificate drastically reduces this timeframe.
Forcing automation adoption: Shorter certificate lifespans incentivize organizations to automate certificate management, reducing the risk of human error, forgotten renewals, and misconfigurations that can lead to outages and vulnerabilities.
Addressing modern threats: Attackers increasingly infiltrate networks and remain undetected for extended periods before executing an attack. The longer a compromised certificate remains valid, the more damage an adversary can inflict. Shortened lifespans make it harder for attackers to leverage stolen credentials.

Overcoming resistance to change

Critics of reduced certificate lifespans often express concerns about operational overhead, arguing that frequent renewals add complexity. However, this perspective is shortsighted. Organizations that rely on manual certificate management are already at risk due to human error. Automation eliminates these concerns while simultaneously strengthening security. The shift to shorter lifespans should be seen as an opportunity to modernize certificate management rather than a burden.

Moreover, arguments against shortening lifespans often fail to acknowledge that cybersecurity is a game of risk reduction, not elimination. Just because attackers may still find ways to exploit vulnerabilities doesn’t mean we should refrain from making it harder for them. The goal is to minimize opportunities for adversaries, not to achieve an impossible state of absolute security.

Embracing incremental security improvements

Security is a continuous process of improvement, not a binary state of secure or insecure. Organizations must abandon the all-or-nothing mindset and recognize that every step toward enhanced security, no matter how small, contributes to a more robust defense. Whether it’s implementing MFA, automating certificate management, or reducing certificate lifespans, every measure that reduces risk is worthwhile.

The cybersecurity landscape is constantly evolving, and attackers adapt accordingly. Organizations that resist change due to outdated thinking leave themselves exposed. The future of digital security lies in agility, automation, and a commitment to progress. The sooner we move past the all-or-nothing fallacy, the stronger our defenses will be.