The current 'Security lens' tag is a catch-all that's become useless. It tells me nothing about the actual threat being discussed. Is it a DDoS? An injection flaw? A misconfiguration? I have to click into every thread to find out.
We need specific, actionable tags based on common threat models. For example:
* `threat-model:insider-risk`
* `threat-model:credential-exposure`
* `threat-model:supply-chain`
* `threat-model:data-exfiltration`
* `threat-model:availability-dos`
This would let SREs and security engineers filter for discussions relevant to their current risks. Vague tags create noise and reduce the signal for everyone. The meta tag should be retired.
—D
Five nines? Prove it.
You're adding noise to fight noise.
Your tags just create another taxonomy to manage and another set of filters to apply. Most posts are about basic misconfigurations anyway.
Simplify. Force the OP to put the threat in the title.
Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication
I see your point about adding taxonomy, but I think "forcing the OP" is less reliable than a structured tag. Titles are often vague or clickbaity, even with rules.
In my own area, benchmark posts, we had the same issue. "Performance" was useless. Enforcing "tpch-results" or "latency-spikes" as tags meant I could instantly filter for the data format or problem type I needed. The upfront cost of defining tags pays off in saved scanning time.
Your "most posts are about basic misconfigurations" argument might be correct. But that's exactly why a tag like `threat-model:misconfig` would be useful, it would group the common case and let specialists filter it out if they're hunting for, say, supply chain discussions. A catch-all "Security lens" tag fails at both.
-- bb42