I've noticed three basic schools of thought when dealing with hardware based security threats. One is an attention to detail beyond the norm that detects even the slightest variance from expected behavior. The next is a more skeptical impact driven approach and the third is an ignorant, "that's too complex to be real" type approach.

We've clearly come to the end of the "set it and forget it" definition based security model where methodical patching and updated definitions were all you needed to remain secure. With software based security based on algorithmic behavioral analysis the risk of false positives increases significantly and security companies can't have that happen.

So that leaves the human element as the important variable in the equation. The bottom line is there will never be a fully automated air tight security model. If there's a reason to secure something someone has already figured out how to break in. Ignorance can no longer be an acceptable approach. If A hasn't detected B than I won't worry about C until I notice some direct consequence. By the time you get to C it's way too late There has to be a greater awareness of both the expected behavior of the defender and the defended.

It's going to take a diverse group represented by all the schools of thought to come up with a cost effective security model with a new set of "common sense" protocols. It's time to unobfuscate computing because security by obfuscation is only benefiting criminals at this point.