<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" version="2.0"><channel><title><![CDATA[Discuss: x isn&#x27;t a security boundary because ... (where x is represented in https:&#x2F;&#x2F;attack.mitre.org&#x2F;datacomponents&#x2F; or other control lists).]]></title><description><![CDATA[<p>Discuss: x isn't a security boundary because ... (where x is represented in <a href="https://attack.mitre.org/datacomponents/" rel="nofollow noopener"><span>https://</span><span>attack.mitre.org/datacomponent</span><span>s/</span></a> or other control lists).</p><p>Counter point: Anything that changes the profile of the attack surface and presents an opportunity for detection can be considered a security boundary. Some may be more effective than others, some may have bugs, others may be configured badly but they all have some boundary value. The point of a security test is to point out the bugs and misconfigurations.</p>]]></description><link>https://board.circlewithadot.net/topic/a05d356b-1ba7-4027-82e7-99c265cf825e/discuss-x-isn-t-a-security-boundary-because-...-where-x-is-represented-in-https-attack.mitre.org-datacomponents-or-other-control-lists-.</link><generator>RSS for Node</generator><lastBuildDate>Fri, 15 May 2026 05:38:19 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://board.circlewithadot.net/topic/a05d356b-1ba7-4027-82e7-99c265cf825e.rss" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><pubDate>Tue, 28 Apr 2026 14:27:50 GMT</pubDate><ttl>60</ttl></channel></rss>