The statement 'Death of the perimeter' indicates that creating a 100% secure network is impossible.

• A. True
• B. False
• C. Unsure
• D. None of the above

Answer: (A)

The main idea here is that the traditional idea of a hard network perimeter is no longer enough to guarantee safety. In today’s environments, users, devices, and services are distributed across the cloud, the internet, remote locations, and third‑party systems. This expands the attack surface far beyond a single boundary, so no set of controls can guarantee absolute security. Even with strong firewalls, encryption, patching, and monitoring, there will always be unknown vulnerabilities, zero‑day exploits, misconfigurations, insider threats, and evolving attack methods. Because of that, aiming for a perfectly secure network is not realistic; security is about reducing risk to an acceptable level and detecting and responding to incidents quickly, often through a defense‑in‑depth or zero‑trust approach rather than relying on a single perimeter. Therefore, the statement reflects a true principle: the death of the perimeter implies that 100% security cannot be achieved. The other options don’t fit because they would imply that perfect security is possible, or they offer uncertainty when the premise points to an impossibility.