Indeed.
> that suggests otherwise:
Except that it does no such thing. If you have passwords for defense in depth, they both exist for security reasons and it is a security problem to expose them (because you've just eliminated part of your depth.)
Defense in depth means that the problems of any one layer being violated are mitigated by additional layers of security, it doesn't mean it suddenly ceases to be a security problem if one of your measures is compromised. It just reduces the likely immediate severity of such a compromise, providing a greater chance of being able to effectively address it before it leads to an actual breach.
Yes, it's still a problem, because then you have to depend on the whitelist staying valid and never having an admin accidentally turn it off. And you also have to depend on none of the machines on the trusted IPs being compromised either. And you have to depend on many other things not happening as well.
Instead, you want what is called defense in depth--several layers of security so that an attacker needs to breach several defensive layers in order to get access to what they're looking for. Relying on just an IP whitelist as a single layer of defense is not considered to be a good practice.