The Art of Cyberwar | Part IV | Tactical Dispositions

the art of cyberwar - tactical dispositions. matt shannon cloud security.

The Principles:
“The good fighters of old first put themselves beyond the possibility of defeat, and then waited for an opportunity of defeating the enemy.”

“Thus it is that in war the victorious strategist only seeks battle after the victory has been secured, whereas he who is destined to be defeated, first fights, and afterwards looks for victory.” —Sun Tzu

Every data breach, foreign conflict, and policy error typically originates from an action taken without adequate prior positioning.

There is a common tendency to conflate activity with progress. Sun Tzu recognized that true invincibility is rooted in defense, while the opportunity for victory depends on the adversary.

In contemporary terms, this concept is referred to as defensive posture: the disciplined practice of preparation prior to visibility.

Defensive Positions

Effective cybersecurity teams secure their positions well in advance of any actual test. They maintain comprehensive awareness of data locations, access privileges, and the criticality of various systems. Such teams implement patches discreetly, monitor systems consistently, and design infrastructures to recover from failures rather than assuming failures will not occur.

That’s tactical disposition:

Enforcing least privilege to build resilience.
Applying timely patching to keep critical systems protected.
Building backups as integrated mechanisms for redundancy and recovery.
Running tabletop exercises to rehearse scenarios that organizations hope never occur.

This often-invisible work may appear inconsequential until it proves essential in critical moments.

When Nations Forget the Same Lesson

Historical evidence indicates that both nations and organizations seldom pause sufficiently to engage in strategic reflection.

Nations often amass extensive arsenals, initiate large-scale programs, and extend supply lines to project strength. However, when strength is dispersed excessively, it transforms into fragility, a phenomenon known as overreach. Overreach fundamentally undermines resilience.

The United States has frequently responded to perceived threats with disproportionate measures, conflating activity with effective strategy and reallocating resources without a long-term perspective. Engagements in wars and alliances often occur more rapidly than preparations for their potential consequences.

The consequences include wasted resources, public fatigue, and strategic exhaustion. All of which contribute to diminished geopolitical and geostrategic self-awareness.

According to Sun Tzu, achieving invincibility does not involve amassing weapons, engaging in unnecessary interventions, or imposing ineffective sanctions. Instead, it requires constructing economic, digital, and diplomatic systems capable of absorbing shocks while maintaining integrity. A resilient nation need not swing at every shadow.

Resource Stewardship

Cybersecurity is frequently perceived as a process of continual escalation, characterized by the addition of more tools, dashboards, and alerts.

However, each new platform introduces additional complexity, which in turn creates new potential attack surfaces.

Effective security practices may require declining adoption of the latest technologies and decommissioning unnecessary systems to simplify complex environments.

As Bruce Lee once said “I fear not the man who has practiced 10,000 kicks once, but I fear the man who has practiced one kick 10,000 times.”

Simplifying operations enables organizations to concentrate on mastering essential tools, particularly when resources are limited. The principles of simplicity, directness, and economy of motion are fundamental to effective practice.

Our government should also learn to exercise the same restraint. Faithful stewardship isn’t constant investment in everything; it’s a deliberate focus on what matters most.

This approach exemplifies strategic minimalism, which emphasizes the optimal utilization of public resources and, ultimately, enriches us all by conserving precious and limited resources.

Similarly, as America’s original Foreign Policy was initially articulated by John Quincy Adams on July 4th, 1821:

[America]…goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all.

She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.

She will commend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example.

She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence,

She would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom.

The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force…
She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit…

[America’s] glory is not dominion, but liberty. Her march is the march of the mind. She has a spear and a shield: but the motto upon her shield is, Freedom, Independence, Peace. This has been her Declaration: this has been, as far as her necessary intercourse with the rest of mankind would permit, her practice.

This practical wisdom may appear boring. However, organizations and governments alike must identify their assets, maintain them, and protect only what can be effectively defended. Continuous review, revision, and updates are fundamental.

The Cost of Perpetual Readiness

Sun Tzu cautioned that armies maintained in the field for extended periods deplete their own strength. Contemporary parallels include budgets exhausted by perpetual emergencies and professionals experiencing burnout due to continuous false positives.

The solution lies in cultivating a well-developed security posture rather than succumbing to ongoing panic and overreaction.

Organizations should prepare comprehensively, rest intentionally, and engage only when strategically necessary.

This sequence, prioritizing defense before offense and clarity before action, establishes the resilience that many organizations seek.

Learning From Tactical Blindness

Security breaches frequently result from overlooked fundamentals, such as unpatched systems, insufficiently trained users, and unreviewed alerts.

Similarly, the escalation of wars or crises is often attributable to unexamined assumptions.
Both scenarios arise from neglecting the primary principle of tactical disposition: understanding one’s position before determining a course of action.

Modern Application

In cybersecurity: organizations should implement defense-in-depth strategies, automate routine checks, and prioritize cultivating awareness rather than fear. Emphasizing culture over blame.
In governance: it is essential to align objectives with available capacity, critically assess the true cost of each commitment, and recognize that restraint can be the most strategic option.

This parallel represents a recurring pattern rather than a mere metaphor.

Practitioner’s Questions To Ask Yourself:

Am I defending by hope instead of design?
Which tools add noise without adding clarity?
What assumptions have gone unchallenged for too long?
Where has “doing more” replaced “preparing better”?

Final Reflection

While invincibility is not the explicit objective, it is often the understated result of an effective security architecture. Complete protection cannot be guaranteed. However, it can be achieved through patience and persistence. Although this approach may lack glamour, in the ongoing struggle to maintain tactical disposition, it remains essential.

Sun Tzu’s good fighter was never reckless, never idle. He shaped his defenses so well that the enemy’s attacks lost meaning.

Nations and security architects should adopt similar practices. Consistently apply the principles of tactical disposition, exercise prudent stewardship of public resources, and cultivate strength, resilience, and wisdom.

The objective is not to engage in conflict frequently, but to do so only when absolutely necessary. Making it essential to fully understand and apply this story’s principles:

“The good fighters of old first put themselves beyond the possibility of defeat, and then waited for an opportunity of defeating the enemy.”

The Art of Cyberwar | Part III | Attack by Stratagem

The principle:
If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. Sun Tzu – Chapter III

Strategy vs. Stratagem

A strategy is designed for longevity, while a stratagem addresses immediate challenges. Strategy anticipates years ahead to foster resilience. Stratagem focuses on the next breach, exploit, or distraction.

Within cybersecurity, strategy encompasses architectural design, layered controls, validated incident response plans, and a culture prepared to act decisively during crises. Stratagem represents the attacker’s tools, such as persuasive emails, covert code injections, or precisely timed physical penetration tests.

Both approaches are powerful, yet each possesses inherent limitations.

The Modern Battlefield: Fluid and Fractured

The threat landscape evolves continuously. Traditional boundaries are replaced by cloud environments, API vulnerabilities, and interconnected third-party networks. Security architects must prioritize adaptability and fluidity over static defenses to effectively mitigate risks.

Zero Trust principles, continuous validation, and integrated security practices throughout the development lifecycle enable proactive identification and mitigation of vulnerabilities prior to production deployment. In an environment where compromise is presumed and rapid response is critical, these measures are indispensable.

Effective defenders adopt a proactive stance. They anticipate adversary actions, analyze behavioral patterns, and design systems to adapt under attack rather than fail.

Attack by Stratagem: The Psychology of Exploitation

Major breaches often originate through psychological manipulation rather than technical flaws. Techniques such as phishing, vishing, and deepfakes exploit cognitive vulnerabilities to diminish user awareness. This approach mirrors historical propaganda methods, where controlling perception leads to controlling behavior.

While governments previously leveraged headlines and radio broadcasts, contemporary attackers exploit digital interfaces such as login pages and hyperlinks. Both strategies depend on user fatigue, habitual behavior, and misplaced trust. If users believe a fraudulent login page is legitimate, they inadvertently compromise security.

Similarly, if citizens equate fear with patriotism, they may relinquish critical judgment in favor of perceived safety. As Ben Franklin observed, individuals who prioritize temporary safety over essential liberty may ultimately forfeit both: “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.“

This tactic operates effectively across a spectrum, from individual email inboxes to broader ideological movements.

The Architecture of Awareness

A resilient security architecture reflects the characteristics of an aware and vigilant mindset.

Network segmentation limits the blast radius. Application hardening predicts misuse before it happens.

Firewalls and Security Information and Event Management (SIEM) systems provide the critical, irreplaceable resource of time.

Knowing your environment is knowing yourself.

Without a thorough understanding of all dependencies, exposures, and behavioral patterns, it is impossible to detect significant changes or anomalies. The same principle applies at the national level: when societies cease to critically evaluate their narratives, division and deception proliferate with ease.

Propaganda Built Into the Code

James Montgomery Flagg, I Want You for U.S. Army, 1917, collection of Chip and Carrie Robertson, photo by Robert Wedemeyer — James Montgomery Flagg, *I Want You for U.S. Army*, 1917, collection of Chip and Carrie Robertson, photo by Robert Wedemeyer

From Woodrow Wilson’s Committee on Public Information to the televised theater of Desert Storm, America learned how framing shapes belief.

Attackers apply similar principles, constructing their deceptive tactics by exploiting established trust.

Deceptive login pages replicate corporate portals, ransomware communications adopt professional language, and deepfakes are crafted to appear and sound authentic.

The primary threat is not the attack itself, but the absence of awareness regarding potential dangers. Stratagem prevails when critical scrutiny is abandoned.

Reverse Engineering the Present

Post-incident analyses consistently reveal that warning signals were present before breaches. Although alerts, logs, and telemetry data were available, they did not translate into actionable understanding.

Visibility does not equate to genuine situational awareness.

Historical events reinforce this observation.

The United States has engaged in conflicts based on incomplete or inaccurate information, often mistaking perception for certainty.

In both cybersecurity and geopolitics, failure frequently results from conflating raw data with meaningful insight.

Understanding adversaries requires effective intelligence gathering, including threat hunting, reconnaissance, and red-team exercises.

Self-awareness in cybersecurity necessitates discipline, such as maintaining asset visibility, ensuring policy integrity, and sustaining composure during operations.

A deficiency in either area enables adversarial stratagems to succeed.

The Quiet Defense

The most robust networks, analogous to resilient individuals, operate discreetly.
They do not engage in ostentatious displays; instead, they maintain a constant state of preparedness.

Their resilience is embedded within their structural design rather than expressed through rhetoric.

Authentic resilience does not stem from more active dashboards or faster technical tools. Resilience is rooted in organizational culture, situational awareness, and a humble approach. It is defined by the ability to learn, adapt, and respond more rapidly than emerging threats.

Cybersecurity, akin to statecraft, is a continuous endeavor to prevent breaches. Success is achieved not by engaging in every conflict, but by anticipating and neutralizing threats before they materialize, thereby securing victory without ever having to fight. Bringing us full circle back to understanding the fundamental nature of the original principle: If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles.

Security Without Pessimism: Why “Just One Click” Can Still Break Everything

The Myth of the Harmless Click
It’s late on a Friday afternoon. You’ve taken back-to-back phone calls, your inbox is overflowing, and your caffeine is slowly but surely fading. Then comes one last email. It’s something from HR about a new hire policy update.

You click, skim, and move on.

Five minutes later, that “harmless” click starts a slow-motion domino fall. Credentials harvested, tokens stolen, access expanding, all before you’ve even closed your laptop.

People think, “It was just one click.”
That’s the point. It only ever takes one.

The Domino Effect
Here’s what happens after that moment most people never see.

That fake login page doesn’t just steal your password, it grabs your session cookies, mimics your device fingerprint, and jumps the line of trust. Suddenly, it’s you logging in from a new location, sending a file, approving an invoice.

Once inside, attackers don’t move fast. They move quietly. They study your company like a playbook, structure, tone, and approval chains. The next email they send looks even more real because it’s built with your real data.

By the time anyone notices, the damage has often been done for days.

But why do we fall for it? The answer isn’t carelessness—it’s psychology.

The Psychology of the Click
No one falls for this because they’re careless. They fall because they’re human.

Attackers know when we don’t double-check: near quitting time, maybe when you’re experiencing that post-lunch carb crash, or when you’re in a rush to make that 9am meeting. All of those moments when we see what we expect to see. They don’t need to hack your brain, they simply nudge it the right way.

Speed, familiarity, and trust are their sharpest weapons, which is why “training” alone doesn’t solve the problem. Awareness isn’t a habit. The mind knows better, but the hand clicks first.

How Attackers Exploit Normalcy
Modern phishing doesn’t seem sketchy; it seems routine.

They copy internal phrasing, familiar names, work to perfect internal branding. The trick isn’t panic anymore, it’s comfort and familiarity.

Common triggers:

“Quick update before the weekend.”
“Need approval by end of day” or “close of business.”
“Can you confirm this invoice?”

Nothing dramatic. That’s the point. The hook isn’t fear, it’s familiarity.

How to Build a Click Buffer
You can’t eliminate every threat, but you can slow the chain reaction.

Build a Click Buffer. Think of it as a two-second pause that keeps good habits automatic:

Hover before you click. Make it reflex.
Check the sender domain. If it looks almost right, it’s wrong.
Stop treating “urgent” as a priority. Urgency is a tactic, not truth.
Ask IT. They’d rather you check 100 false alarms than clean up one breach.

A brief pause can equal a big payoff. Security starts with seconds, not software.

Culture Over Blame
Here’s where most companies stumble: they turn mistakes into shame. Someone clicks a bad link, and suddenly they’re the subject of the next slide in “staff security awareness training.”

That doesn’t build security, it builds silence.

A healthy culture rewards curiosity. If people feel safe saying, “Hey, I think I messed up,” the damage stops faster, every time.

You can’t stop every click. However, you can build a team that identifies, shares, and learns from mistakes before they spiral out of control.

Final Thought
The real security upgrade isn’t another tool or rule to apply, it’s simply learning to breathe and take a little extra time to pause before you click.

One breath before the click. One second to hover over the link.
One habit that keeps the rest intact.
That’s not fearmongering.
That’s just good hygiene.

If you found this helpful, please share it with your team or reflect on your own scanning and clicking habits. Security is a team effort and every small pause makes a difference.

The Art of Cyberwar | Part II | Let Your Great Object Be Victory

The principles:
“In war, let your great object be victory, not lengthy campaigns”…because “There is no instance of a country having benefited from prolonged warfare.”
— Sun Tzu, The Art of War, Chapter II

The Art of Cyberwar -- Part II -- Be Wary of Lengthy Campaigns

Historical precedent demonstrates that nations failing to adapt are often used as cautionary examples. Despite significant resources, the United States has not yet overcome this strategic challenge.

From Vietnam to Afghanistan, the United States has exemplified Sun Tzu’s warning by conflating endurance with strength and persistence with strategy. When military presence supersedes the objective of victory, campaigns extend beyond their intended purpose, resulting in significant human and material costs.

The Illusion of Victory

Following President George H. W. Bush’s declaration on March 1, 1991, that the United States had overcome the ‘Vietnam syndrome,’ national sentiment was celebratory. The Gulf War was conducted rapidly and with precision, widely broadcast as evidence of renewed national confidence. The conclusion of the Cold War was perceived as a triumph for democratic governance.

However, this perceived redemption represented a recurrence of previous strategic errors. The primary lesson of Vietnam—the futility of engaging in conflict without a defined objective—remained unheeded. Demonstrating rapid military success led to neglect of the risks associated with protracted engagements lacking clear victory conditions or exit strategies.

In subsequent decades, this hubris manifested in new conflicts. The invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan were initially framed as missions of defense and liberation, but evolved into prolonged operations characterized by strategic inertia. Between January 1968 and January 2022, the United States expended approximately $41 trillion on regime-change wars, supporting unstable governments, and reconstructing nations without explicit local consent.

When the conflict concluded in Kabul in August 2021, the resulting images closely resembled those from Saigon in 1975: helicopters evacuating personnel, abandonment of allied partners, and governmental collapse returning control to the previously ousted regime.

Two wars. Two generations. One unlearned truth:

“Contributing to maintain an army at a distance
causes the people to be impoverished.”

The resulting impoverishment extended beyond material losses to include diminished clarity, discipline, and strategic purpose.

The Cost of Long Wars

Sun Tzu recognized that prolonged conflict leads to internal deterioration. Geographic and temporal distance not only depletes resources but also impairs strategic perception.

Extended campaigns obscure strategic objectives and make it difficult to define victory when mere survival becomes the primary focus.

This confusion often results in a detrimental shift from strategic planning to operational maintenance.

The Cyber Parallel

A similar pattern is evident in contemporary cybersecurity. Prolonged defensive operations manifest as alert fatigue, excessive expenditures, and staff burnout. Continuous patching, monitoring, and incident response create an environment of persistent engagement. While terminology evolves, the underlying strategic mindset remains unchanged.

Cybersecurity teams often become engaged in repetitive activities, addressing recurring issues through marginally varied approaches without achieving lasting resolution.

This situation represents the cybersecurity equivalent of protracted military engagements, often referred to as ‘forever wars.’ Effective leaders, including Chief Information Security Officers (CISOs), recognize the importance of strategic restraint.

It is neither feasible nor advisable to attempt to defend all assets indiscriminately. The primary objective is not comprehensive awareness but rather targeted precision.

Security efforts should prioritize critical assets and aim to resolve threats efficiently rather than sustain ongoing conflict.

“The leader of armies is the arbiter of the people’s fate.”

Within organizational contexts, this leadership role may be assumed by a security architect, team leader, or any individual responsible for directing security resources. The fundamental responsibility remains the protection of the enterprise.

Victory Over Attrition

The primary cost of protracted conflicts, whether conventional or digital, is cumulative exhaustion. Achieving victory requires recognizing the appropriate moment to cease operations, consolidate gains, conduct assessments, and facilitate recovery.

Regardless of the domain, whether physical or digital, conflicts that lack a definitive conclusion cannot be considered genuine victories.

Once again, highlighting the timeless nature and importance of imbibing this story’s principles: “In war, let your great object be victory, not lengthy campaigns…”
because “There is no instance of a country having benefited from prolonged warfare.“

The 5 Biggest Meal Prep Myths and What Actually Works for Real People

Meal prep gets talked about so much these days, you’d swear it’s a personality trait. It’s always rigid, joyless, and maybe just a little smug. But the truth is, prepping food isn’t about discipline for its own sake. It’s about simplifying the week so you can think less about logistics, saving money, and staving off adverse health effects, and more about living your life.

While you’ll often see phrases like “may help” or “might improve” online, real data and everyday experience show what actually works. Here’s what makes a real difference for people like us.

Myth #1: “Meal prep means eating the same thing every day.”

Reality: Meal prep doesn’t mean you have to eat chicken and rice every day until you’re sick of them. The real goal is to make healthy choices easy and convenient.

Try prepping ingredients instead of full meals. Grill or roast some proteins, cook a few types of carbs, and chop up veggies. Then, mix and match them throughout the week—maybe smoked salmon over greens one day, steak and rice another, or yogurt with fruit when you need something quick.

What “the science” says: Research from the International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity found that people who plan their meals tend to have more diverse diets — not less. It’s the planning that makes variety possible, not spontaneity.

Myth #2: “Prepping takes too much time.”

Reality: Spending a few hours on Sunday or Saturday can save you from stressful evenings all week. Even just washing produce, boiling rice, or portioning fruit ahead of time can make your weekdays much easier.
And it’s not just about time. People who spend even 30–60 minutes a day preparing food eat more vegetables and fruit (University of Washington research, 2014).

The time’s going somewhere either way, you can spend it prepping intentionally, or you can spend it waiting in drive-thrus.

Myth #3: “Meal prep is only for people trying to lose weight.”

Reality: That idea is just a marketing myth. Meal prep isn’t only for losing weight. It helps you avoid making poor choices when you’re hungry and supports your long-term health.

Sure, portion control helps. But more importantly, prep stabilizes your energy and makes fueling performance automatic. Whether you’re lifting, coding, or commuting, your brain and body both need steady inputs.

Home-prepped meals consistently come in lower in sodium and saturated fat, not because they’re “diet food,” but because you’re in charge of the ingredients.

You’re not dieting; you’re planning to succeed, not to fail. When in doubt, always rely on PPP, proper prior planning, and it’ll save you in countless scenarios.

Myth #4: “It’s cheaper to just grab takeout.”

Reality: The numbers don’t lie. Data from the American Journal of Preventive Medicine shows that people who cook at home spend significantly less on food than those who eat out. Prepping helps you shop with purpose, so you buy only what you need. You waste less food and make your ingredients go further.

Pro tip: Using convenience items still counts as meal prep. Things like pre-washed greens, frozen veggies, frozen fruits, or rotisserie chicken can make things easier. Being efficient is smart, not cheating.

Myth #5: “Healthy meal prep means going ‘Paleo,’ ‘keto,’ or you’re “cutting carbs.”

Reality: Restrictive eating styles burn people out. The goal is consistency, not purity. You don’t have to eliminate carbs, especially if you train. Always remember, persistence over perfection.

Your brain and body work best with carbs. Foods like fruits, vegetables, potatoes, and white rice help you perform and recover, especially if you’re working out.

Coach’s Note: We eat well today for optimal performance tomorrow. — **Coach’s Note:**
We eat well today for optimal performance tomorrow.

Whether your training is on the mats, in the gym, or at your desk, food is fuel, not a moral test.

The Bottom Line

Meal prep isn’t about being perfect, it’s about being consistent. It’s a simple way to get back your energy, time, and control in a world full of distractions. Eat well, keep your plans simple, and stick with what works.

Progress comes from following through, not from always trying something new.

The Art of Cyberwar | Part I | The Illusion of Truth

The principle:
All warfare is based on deception. —Sun Tzu

In warfare, there’s a certain irony in how often truth becomes a casualty before the first shot is ever fired. As an American, that line from The Art of War has always carried extra weight. Our history is full of moments when deception wasn’t just a tactic on the battlefield; it was the spark that lit the fuse.

From the smoke and mirrors of the Spanish-American War to the Gulf of Tonkin and the blurred motives of the Gulf Wars and the Global War on Terrorism, we’ve seen how perception shapes permission. Wars don’t always start because one side is stronger; they start because one story feels true enough to believe.

And since “All warfare is based on deception,” Sun Tzu went on to say:

When you’re able to attack, you must appear unable. When using our forces, we must seem inactive. When we are near, we must make the enemy believe we are far away. When we’re far away, we must make him believe we are nearby.

We must hold out bait to entice the enemy and then crush him. If he is superior in strength, evade him. If your opponent is overconfident in nature, seek to provoke him. Pretend to be weak, so that he may grow arrogant and attack when he otherwise wouldn’t. Attack him where he is unprepared, appear where you are not expected. If he is trying to take rest and recover, give him no rest. If his forces are united, divide them.

The general who loses a battle has made only a few calculations beforehand. Thus, many calculations lead to victory, and making only a few calculations ensures defeat. By paying attention to these points, I can foresee who is likely to win or lose.

Deception as Strategy

The principles articulated by Sun Tzu extend beyond the battlefield to broader strategic contexts. His observations highlight the value of misdirection for leaders and strategists. The objective is not to create disorder, but to control perception and attention. In both conventional warfare and digital security, success frequently depends on understanding the adversary’s perception of reality. This principle underpins the effectiveness and prevalence of social engineering tactics.

Contemporary deception strategies have shifted focus from traditional military maneuvers to achieving information dominance. Modern tools include manipulated narratives, deepfakes, phishing campaigns, propaganda, and misinformation. These methods target cognitive processes rather than physical harm. Once individuals accept misinformation as truth, further manipulation becomes significantly easier. The Committee on Public Information, the United States’ World War I propaganda agency, exemplifies institutionalized information control.

Cybersecurity’s Ethical Deception

In cybersecurity, deception is employed with the intent to enhance defense mechanisms. Techniques such as honeypots attract attackers, sandbox environments facilitate malware analysis, and red team exercises simulate adversarial tactics to maintain robust security postures.

In this context, deception functions as a defensive measure rather than an offensive tool. It is utilized to identify vulnerabilities rather than to exploit them. The underlying principle that can mislead a nation may, when applied ethically, serve to protect it. The distinction lies in the intent: defense and awareness as opposed to manipulation and illusion.

Both approaches depend on psychological insight and require strategic foresight. However, only defensive deception is fundamentally grounded in ethical integrity.

The Martial Mirror

Martial artists understand deception in its purest, most physical form. A feint isn’t a lie, it’s a question. In Wing Chun, they’re called “asking hands.” You draw your opponent’s attention, focus and/or movement one way to reveal where they’re vulnerable. The best fighters aren’t those who hide, but those who read intent faster than it’s shown. It’s why attacks on the halfbeat are so effective. But, that’s a lesson for another time.

Cybersecurity employs similar principles. Confrontation is not always optimal; instead, threats are redirected, absorbed, or neutralized preemptively. The discipline emphasizes anticipating patterns before they fully emerge, rather than merely reacting. This approach is often described as the art of fighting without fighting.

The Modern Maxim

“Deception reveals more than it hides, it shows what we most want others to believe.”

In this context, each act of deception simultaneously reveals underlying motives, strategies, and tactics.

For those responsible for safeguarding systems, individuals, or factual accuracy, the task often begins where clarity diminishes. The primary challenge is not to eliminate deception entirely, but to recognize and understand it without compromising ethical standards.

The initial action in any conflict, whether digital, physical, or psychological, is seldom a direct attack; it is often the creation of a narrative to tell. The essential responsibility is to accurately identify threats based on objective analysis, rather than relying solely on presented information. Illustrating the everlasting importance of learning the principle of this story: All warfare is based on deception.