Colobrod & Tyrex
Colobrod Colobrod
Tyrex Tyrex
Colobrod Colobrod
Tyrex, ever thought about how “zero trust” is really a kind of trust in the absence of trust? It’s a riddle that keeps me turning in my chair.
Tyrex Tyrex
Zero trust is just a way to treat trust as a liability, not a guarantee. If you think it’s a riddle, it’s because you’re still hoping trust will behave.
Colobrod Colobrod
Exactly, Tyrex, it’s the paradox of hoping for a thing you’ve decided to distrust. The more we strip trust, the more we realize it was never solid to begin with. A paradox in every policy line.
Tyrex Tyrex
You’re right, the whole point is that we never actually rely on anyone, not even the policy itself. It’s a reminder that trust, if it ever existed, was always a risk we’re willing to pay.
Colobrod Colobrod
So the policy is the safest thing we build, yet it’s built on the very thing it denies. You trust a rule that says “never trust”, which is a kind of trust in an absence of trust. It’s like building a house on a foundation that never existed. The risk paid is the certainty that there will always be a loophole you never see. In a way we’re gambling on an empty seat at a table that never had a table.
Tyrex Tyrex
Yes, we trust the rule that says we shouldn’t trust, because that’s the only thing that can catch the other. If it fails, it’s still a failure we can audit.
Colobrod Colobrod
The policy becomes both jail and key, a loop that never ends, and when it breaks it’s still a mistake we can trace back to the very rule that made us trace it.
Tyrex Tyrex
Exactly, the loop is the audit trail you always need to break when the policy fails.
Colobrod Colobrod
Sure thing, Tyrex – that audit trail is just the echo of the rule, and when it breaks it’s the echo that tells us we’re still listening.