What’s the right balance between false positives and false negatives in real-time security?

One of the hardest challenges in cybersecurity is accepting that no tool is perfect. Errors will always slip through. The real question is: what kind of errors are you more willing to tolerate?

On one side, false positives can be annoying. Too many alerts, too many blocked connections, and users will eventually start ignoring the tool. On the other side, a single false negative, letting a malicious destination or process go unnoticed, can be catastrophic.

I’ve been working on this problem with Centurion. Behind the scenes, it uses multiple layers of reasoning, heuristics, and technical data analysis to generate a "risk score" for each URL or connection. The exact formula is a bit like the Coca-Cola recipe, but even within that recipe, there’s room to be stricter or looser. And the margin for error is tiny.

That’s why I wanted to open the discussion here:

In your view, what’s the better trade off? A system that errs slightly on the side of blocking too much, or one that risks missing a rare but dangerous attack?