[tavro]

> NO!

oh, sorry for misunderstanding then.

> NOOOO! NO NO NO!! It's ALREADY BREACHED!

i see and hear your point. it just makes me sad to think about security in this way, even though i think it would be good for someone that operates in the cyber security sphere. i think a more healthy way of approaching this for the general person, is what the person above said: "[...] what you're practically shooting for is to make the cost higher than the value an attacker would get from breaching you.", or for you not to lose more money/resources/value/whatever by securing your system, than you would do by getting breached or attacked. but that is just my opinion, and i am not an expert, so!

:o)