>>Welcome back to the doctor khan cube conversation. Dr khan 2021 virtual. I'm john for your host of the cube of mulch, Donny co founder and CTO and see so for accurate hot startup hot company. Uh, thanks for coming on the cube for dr continent and talking cybersecurity and cloud native. Super important. Thanks for coming on, >>appreciate john. Thanks for having me. >>So here dr khan. Obviously the conversations around developer experience, um, making things more productive. Obviously cloud scale cloud native with docker containers with kubernetes all lining up right in line with the trend that's now going mainstream and all commercial enterprises. I mean developer productivity security is a huge times thing if you don't get it right. So, you know, shifting left is that everyone's talking about, but this is a huge challenge. Can you, can you talk about what you guys do at your company and specifically why it relates to this conversation for developers at dr khan. >>Sure. Um, so john as we understand today, there are millions of uh, you know, code comments that are happening in cloud native environments on daily basis. Um, you know, in a recent report, Airbnb reported, they've checked in 125,000 plus times ham charts in an ear. And what that means is that, you know, the guitars revolution is here. Uh, and that also means that, well, you got your kubernetes clusters sinking up with infrastructure as code, such as ham chart customized and yarrow files right almost several times a day now, what that also means is that the opportunity to make sure that your clusters are being deployed securely by these infrastructure as code templates and deployment has called template is available before the deployment happens and not after the deployment. Also, in order to reduce the cost or detecting security challenges. The best option and opportunity is during the development time and during the deployment time, which is the pipeline time and that's what we offer. We shift your cloud, native security posture detection to left. We detect all your security posture related issues while the code is in development in the design phase as well as while it is about to get deployed, that is within the guitars pipelines or your traditional develops pipelines and not only with detect where we sell feel the code as well, specifically infrastructure as code. So we detect the problems and we fix the problem by generating the remediation code which we like to call it as remediation is called. The detection mechanisms like all this policy is called. That's the primary use case that we offer. We help developers reduce the cost of remediation and also meantime to the mediations for security problems >>and actually see them a boatload of hassle to going back and figure out how they wrote the code at that time. And kind of what happened always is a problem. Um, I gotta Okay, so I'm gonna get into this policy is code. You mentioned that also you mentioned Getafe's revolution. Let's get to that in a second. But first I want you to explain to the folks what is cloud native security and what does that mean? And what kind of attacks emerge as that surface area becomes apparent? >>Absolutely. So cloud native security is a very interesting new paradigm. Uh it's not just related with one single control pain like take, for example, Cuban haters, it's not just that, it's also the supply chain elements that go into the deployment of your cloud native clusters. Like see if kubernetes cluster you need to secure not just the application code which is running inside your container images, but also the container image itself, then the pod, then the name space, then the cluster. And also you need to do all the other cyber hygienic, high generated things that we were doing previously. So it's so much of complexity because availability of different control planes, you need to be able to make sure that you are doing security, not just right, but at a very, very cost effective in a very, very cost effective manner. And the kind of attacks that we are predicting we're going to see in cloud native world are going to be very different from what we have seen so far. Especially there's a new attack type that I am have coined. I call that as cloud native waterhole attack. What it means is that imagine that most of the cloud native infrastructures are developed out of a lot of different open source components and pieces. So imagine you're pulling up a container image from a open source container agency and that continued which contains a man there container image can directly land into your cluster and not only can enter into your so called secure cluster environment. Usually the cluster control planes are not exposed to internet but deployment of one supply chain element like a Mallory's container image and exposed to an entire cluster. And that's what is waterhole attack when it comes to chlorinated water hole attacks to supply chains. So these are some very innovative and noble attacks that you know, we Uh you know, predict are going to come to our weigh in next 12-18 months. >>So you say it's a waterhole attack. That's the that's the coin term that you've made. So basically what you're saying is the container could be infected with all the properties that is containing into a secure cluster. It's almost been penetrated like malware would or spear phishing attack, it targets the cluster and then infects it. >>So not only that because your continuing images that you're pulling in um from your registries registries can be located anywhere right? If you do not do proper sanitization and checking off your supply chain components such as a continuing image, it can land insecure zones like this. So not only in a cluster, it can become part of a system named space very soon and and that's where the risks are that, you know, you had a parameter, you know, at least of some sort when it was non cloud native environments. And now you have a kind of false sense of security that I have equivalent is cluster, which sort of air gap in one way like there's no exposure to internet of the control plane control being a P. I. Is not supposed to Internet, that doesn't mean anything. A container enters into your cluster can take over the entire cluster. >>All right, so that's cool. So I love that attacks kind of attack. So back to cloud native security definition. So you're defining cloud native security as cloud native clusters. Is it specific around kubernetes or what specifically the cloud native security? What's the category? If the if water holds the attack vector, what's cloud native security means? >>So what it means is that you need to worry about multiple different control planes in a cloud native environment. It's not just a single control pain that you have to worry about. You have to worry about your uh as I said, kubernetes control plane, you have service measures on top of it, You could have server less layers on top of it and when you have to worry about so many different control pains, but it also means is that the security needs to become part of and has to get baked into the entire process of building cloud native environment, not afterthought or it shouldn't happen after the fact. >>See the containers for containers that watch the containers security for the security to watch the security. So you get so let's get we'll get to that. I want to get back to the solution, but one more thing. Um this one piece. So your c so um there you have a lot of shops in there from your background, I know that. Um So if if people out there, other Csos are looking at expanding, You know, day one day 2 ongoing, you know, ai ops get upstate to operate what everyone call it cloud native environments. How do they consider figuring out how to deploy and understand cloud need to secure? What do they have to do if you're a c So knowing what, you know, what steps are you taking? >>Yeah, it's funny that, you know, there's a big silo today between the sea, so organizations and the devops and get ops teams. Uh so the number one priority, in my opinion, that the sea so s uh you know, have to really follow is having visibility into the uh developers. So developers who are developing not just code but also infrastructure as code. So there is a slight difference between writing python code versus writing uh say ham charts or customized templates. Right? So you need as a see saw, you know, see so our needs to have full visibility into Okay, out of 100 developers, how many do I have who are writing deployment as code? And then how many of them are continuously checking in code and introducing security issues? Those issues have to be visualized while the issues are written in code and as they are getting checked into the repositories, so catch the security issues while the code is getting checked into the repository. And the next best stages catch the issues while the pipelines are picking up the code from the repository. So sisters needs to have visibility into this. I call it as shift left visibility for CSOS. So sisters need to know, okay, what are my top 10 developers who are writing infrastructure as code? How many of those developers are committing wonderful code. How many of these pull requests which have been raised have got security violations? How many of them have been fixed and how many have not been fixed? That's what is the visibility that can uh you know, provide opportunities to seize organizations to >>react and more things to put KPI S around two to understand where the gaps are and where the potential blind spots are. Okay, shift left visibility to see. So if you've got the get ups revolution, you got the waterhole attacks. You have multiple control planes obviously complex. The benefits of cloud native though are significant and people doing modern applications are seeing that. So clearly this is direction that everyone's going. The consensus is clear. So how do you solve this? You mentioned policy as code. I'm kind of connecting the dots here. If I'm going to understand what's going on in real time as the code is in flight as it's checking in. For instance, this is kind of in the pipeline as you say. So this has to be solved. What is the answer to this? Because it's clearly the way people want it. No one wants to come back and say we got hacked or development being pulled off task to figure out what they fixed or didn't do what's the policy is code angle? >>So um you know, of course, you know, there could be more than one ways to solve this problem. The way we are solving this problem is that first thing we are bringing all top type of infrastructure as code and the control planes into a single uniform format, which we like to call it as cloud, as code. The reason why we do that so that we can normalize the representation of these different data sets in one single normalized format. And then we apply open policy agent which is a C N C F uh graduated project, which is kind of the de facto standard to do any kind of policy is called use cases in the cloud native world today. So we apply open policy agent to this middleware that we create, which basically brings all these different control plane data, all the different infrastructures code into anomalous format. We apply O P A and we use policies to apply uh Opie on this data this way. What happens is that we write, for example, we want to write a policy, you don't want certain parts to be exposed to Internet in a given name space. You can write such a policy. This policy, you can run on life cluster as well as on the hand charts, which is your development side of the artifact. Right. Because we're bringing both these datasets into middleware. So in short, one of the solutions that we are proposing is that different control planes, different infrastructures, code has to be brought into a normalized format. And then you apply frameworks like Opie a open policy agent to achieve your policy is called use cases. >>What is the attraction for this direction? O. P. A. In particular obviously controlled planes. I get that. I can see the benefit of having this abstraction away with the normalization. I think that would enable a lot of innovation on top of it. Um Makes a lot of sense, totally cool. What's the attraction? What's the vibe? Are people reacting to this? Uh Some people might say whoa hold on, you're taking on too much uh your eyes are bigger than your stomach. You're taking on too much territory. Whoa, slow down. I can I I want to own that control plane. There's a lot of people trying to own the control plane. So again it's a little bit of politics here. What's your what's your thoughts on the momentum? What's the support, what's it look like? >>Yeah, I think you are getting it right, the political side of things. So, um, you know, one responses that, look, we have launched our open source project contour a scan uh last year and uh you know, we're doing pretty well. It's a full opium based uh in a project which allows you to do policies code on not only new cloud control planes, like, you know, kubernetes and others, but also the traditional control planes provided by CSP s like cloud security, cloud service providers. So parents can can be used not just for hand charts and customized, but also for terra form. What we are uh promoting is open culture. With scan. We want community to contribute, become part of it. Um yes, we are promoting a middleware here uh but we want to do it with the help of the community and our reaction what we're getting is very very good. We are in our commercial offering also we use opa we have good adoption going on right now. We believe will be able to uh you know with the developer community, you have this thing going for us. >>I love cloud as code. It's so much more broader than infrastructure as code and I'll see the control plane benefits. You know when I talk to customers, I want to get your reaction to this because I really appreciate your experience and and leadership here. I talked to customers all the time and I wont say name, I won't name names but they're big, big and fintech and you'll big and life sciences in other areas. They all say we want to bring best to breed together but it's too hard to make it all work. We can get it done, but it's a lot of energy. So obviously building code and getting into production that is just brute force. Anyway, they got to get that done and they're working on their pipe lining. But getting other best of breed stuff together and making it work is really hard. Does this solve that? Do you, are you helping solve that problem? Is this an integration opportunity? >>Yes, that and that is true and we have realized it, you know, uh long back. So that's why we do not introduce any new tooling into the existing developer workflows, no new tool whatsoever. We integrate with all existing developer workflows. So if you are a, you know, modern uh, you know, get off shop and you're using flux or Argo, we integrate terrace can seamlessly integrated flux in Argo, you don't even get to know that you already have what policy is called enabled if you're using flux Argo or any equivalent, you know, getups, toolkit. Likewise, if you are using any kind of uh, you know, say existing developer pipeline or workflows such as, you know, the pipelines available on guitar, get lab, you know, get bucket and other pipelines. We seamlessly integrate our motor is very, very simple. We don't want to introduce one more two for developers, we want to introduce one more per security. We want to get good old days, >>no one wants another tool in the tool shed. I mean it's like, it's like really like the tool shit, they get all these tools laying around. But everyone again, this is back to the platform wars in the old days when I was younger. Breaking into the early days of the web platforms were everything you have to build your own proprietary platform Wasn't some open source being used, but mostly it was full stack. Now platforms are inter operating with hybrid and now Edge. So I want to get your thoughts on and I'm just really a little bit off topic. But it's kind of related. How should companies think about platform engineering? Because you now have the cloud scale, which in a way is half a stack. You don't really if you're gonna have horizontal scalability and you're gonna have these kind of unified control planes and infrastructure as code. Then in a way you don't really need that full stack developer. I mean I could program the network. I don't need to get into the weeds on that. I got now open policy agent on with terrorists. Can I really can focus on developing this is kind of like an OS concept. So how should companies think about platforms and hiring platform engineers and and something that will scale and have automation and all the benefits and goodness of the cloud scale. >>Yeah, I mean you actually nailed it when you began uh we've been experienced since we've been experiencing now since last at least 18 months that and if I were specifically also, I'll touch based on the security side of things as well. But platform engineering and platforms, especially now everything is about interoperability and uh, what we have started experiencing is that it has to be open. The credibility any platform can gain is only through openness interoperability and also neutrality. If these three elements are missing, it's very hard to push and capture the mind share of the users to adopt the platform. And why do you want to build a platform to actually attract partners who can build integrations and also to build apps on top of it or plug ins on top of it? And that can only be encouraged if there is, you know, totally openness, key components have to be open source, especially in security. I can give you several examples. The future of security is absolutely open source, the credibility cannot be gained without that. A quick example of that is cystic. I mean, who thought they were gonna be pulling such a huge, you know, funding round, of course that all is on the background of Falco, Right? So what I'm trying to play and sing and same for psyllium, Right? So what I'm clearly able to see is the science are that especially in cybersecurity community, you are delivering open source based platforms, you will have the credibility because that's where you will get the mindshare developers will come and you know, and work with you of course, you know, I have no shame naming fellow vendors right, who are doing this right and this is the right way to do it. >>Yeah. And I think it's it's totally true and you see the validation on that just to verify your point out that we have a little love fest here on open source, it's pretty obvious the the end user communities are controlled not the hard core and users like the hyper scholars, you know, classic enterprises are are starting not only contribute participate but add value more than they've ever have. The question I want to ask you is okay. I totally agree on open as data becomes super important because remember data is only as good as what you have and the more data the better the machine learning the better the data scale, um, sharing is important. So open sharing kind of ties into open source. What's your thoughts on data? Data policy, is this going to extend out into data control planes? What's your thoughts there? I'd love to get your input. >>We are a little little bit early in that thought. I think it's gonna take a little while uh for you know, the uh for the industry bosses to come to terms to that uh data lakes and uh you know, data control planes eventually will open up. But you know, I I see there is resistance in that space today uh but eventually it's gonna come around. You know, that has because that would be the next level of openness, you know, once the platforms uh in a mature as an example right today. Um you want to write uh you know, any kind of say policies for your same products, right. Uh you have the option available to write policies and customized, you know, languages. But then many platforms are coming up which are supporting policy is developed in in languages which are open and that's data which is going to open up, you know very soon. So you will not be measured in terms of how many policies you have as a product, but you will be measured. Can you consume? Open policies are not so i that it is going to go there, it's going to take a little while, but I think he is going to move that. >>It makes sense. Get the apparatus built on the infrastructure side. Once you have some open policy capability that's going to build an abstraction on top of it, then you can program data to be more policy driven or dynamic based upon contextual behavioural dynamics. So it makes a lot of sense. Oh, great insight here, love the conversation, Congratulations on your success. Love the vision. Love the openness. I'll see. We think uh data as code is big too. Obviously media's data where CUBA is open. We have we have the same philosophy. So thanks for sharing. Love the vision. Take a minute to plug the company. What are you guys looking to do? Uh you guys hiring, take a minute to put the plug out for the for the company? >>Absolutely. We are absolutely hiring great ingenious, you know, a great startup mind folks who want to come and work for a very, very innovative environment. Uh we are very research and development, you know driven and have brought various positions available today. Um we are trying to do something which has not been attempted before. Our focus is 100% on reducing the cost of security. And uh you know, in order to do that, you really have to do things that previously were not in development environments. And that's where we're going. We're open source uh, you know, open source initiatives, big open source lovers and we welcome people come in and apply our positions, >>reduce the cost of security, do the heavy lifting for the customer with code and have great performance, that's the ultimate goal. Great stuff. Cloud need security, threat modeling, deV stickups, shifting left in real time. You guys got a lot of hard problems you're attacking? >>Um well, you know, some of the good things uh that we're doing is also because of the team that we have right. Most of our co team comes from very heavy threat modeling, threat analysis and third intelligence background. So we have we're blending a very unique perspective of allowing developers to tackle the threats, which they're not supposed to even understand how they work. We do the heavy lifting from threat intelligence point of view, we just let the developers work on the code that we generate for them to fix those threats. So we're shipping threat intelligence and threat modeling also to left. Uh we're one of the first companies to create threat models just out of infrastructure is called, we read your infrastructure as code and we create a digital twin of your cloud late at one time, even before it has been actually built. So we do some of those things which we like to call it just advanced bridge card prediction where we can predict whether you have reach parts a lot in your runtime environment that would have been committed. >>And then the Holy Grail obviously the automation and self healing um is really kind of where you've got to get to. Right, that's the whole that's the whole ballgame, right? They're making that productive. Oh, thank you for coming on a cube here. Dr khan 2021 sharing your insights, co founder and CTO and see so. Oh much Danny. Thank you for coming on. I appreciate it, >>monsieur john thank you for having >>Okay Cube coverage of Dr Khan 2021. Um your host, John Fury? The Cube. Thanks for watching. Yeah.

>> From theCUBE Studios in Palo Alto in Boston, bringing you data driven insights from theCUBE and ETR, This is "Breaking Analysis with Dave Vellante". >> Black Hat 22 was held in Las Vegas last week, the same time as theCUBE Supercloud event. Unlike AWS re:Inforce where words are carefully chosen to put a positive spin on security, Black Hat exposes all the warts of cyber and openly discusses its hard truths. It's a conference that's attended by technical experts who proudly share some of the vulnerabilities they've discovered, and, of course, by numerous vendors marketing their products and services. Hello, and welcome to this week's Wikibon CUBE Insights powered by ETR. In this "Breaking Analysis", we summarize what we learned from discussions with several people who attended Black Hat and our analysis from reviewing dozens of keynotes, articles, sessions, and data from a recent Black Hat Attendees Survey conducted by Black Hat and Informa, and we'll end with the discussion of what it all means for the challenges around securing the supercloud. Now, I personally did not attend, but as I said at the top, we reviewed a lot of content from the event which is renowned for its hundreds of sessions, breakouts, and strong technical content that is, as they say, unvarnished. Chris Krebs, the former director of Us cybersecurity and infrastructure security agency, CISA, he gave the keynote, and he spoke about the increasing complexity of tech stacks and the ripple effects that that has on organizational risk. Risk was a big theme at the event. Where re:Inforce tends to emphasize, again, the positive state of cybersecurity, it could be said that Black Hat, as the name implies, focuses on the other end of the spectrum. Risk, as a major theme of the event at the show, got a lot of attention. Now, there was a lot of talk, as always, about the expanded threat service, you hear that at any event that's focused on cybersecurity, and tons of emphasis on supply chain risk as a relatively new threat that's come to the CISO's minds. Now, there was also plenty of discussion about hybrid work and how remote work has dramatically increased business risk. According to data from in Intel 471's Mark Arena, the previously mentioned Black Hat Attendee Survey showed that compromise credentials posed the number one source of risk followed by infrastructure vulnerabilities and supply chain risks, so a couple of surveys here that we're citing, and we'll come back to that in a moment. At an MIT cybersecurity conference earlier last decade, theCUBE had a hypothetical conversation with former Boston Globe war correspondent, Charles Sennott, about the future of war and the role of cyber. We had similar discussions with Dr. Robert Gates on theCUBE at a ServiceNow event in 2016. At Black Hat, these discussions went well beyond the theoretical with actual data from the war in Ukraine. It's clear that modern wars are and will be supported by cyber, but the takeaways are that they will be highly situational, targeted, and unpredictable because in combat scenarios, anything can happen. People aren't necessarily at their keyboards. Now, the role of AI was certainly discussed as it is at every conference, and particularly cyber conferences. You know, it was somewhat dissed as over hyped, not surprisingly, but while AI is not a panacea to cyber exposure, automation and machine intelligence can definitely augment, what appear to be and have been stressed out, security teams can do this by recommending actions and taking other helpful types of data and presenting it in a curated form that can streamline the job of the SecOps team. Now, most cyber defenses are still going to be based on tried and true monitoring and telemetry data and log analysis and curating known signatures and analyzing consolidated data, but increasingly, AI will help with the unknowns, i.e. zero-day threats and threat actor behaviors after infiltration. Now, finally, while much lip service was given to collaboration and public-private partnerships, especially after Stuxsnet was revealed early last decade, the real truth is that threat intelligence in the private sector is still evolving. In particular, the industry, mid decade, really tried to commercially exploit proprietary intelligence and, you know, do private things like private reporting and monetize that, but attitudes toward collaboration are trending in a positive direction was one of the sort of outcomes that we heard at Black Hat. Public-private partnerships are being both mandated by government, and there seems to be a willingness to work together to fight an increasingly capable adversary. These things are definitely on the rise. Now, without this type of collaboration, securing the supercloud is going to become much more challenging and confined to narrow solutions. and we're going to talk about that little later in the segment. Okay, let's look at some of the attendees survey data from Black Hat. Just under 200 really serious security pros took the survey, so not enough to slice and dice by hair color, eye color, height, weight, and favorite movie genre, but enough to extract high level takeaways. You know, these strongly agree or disagree survey responses can sometimes give vanilla outputs, but let's look for the ones where very few respondents strongly agree or disagree with a statement or those that overwhelmingly strongly agree or somewhat agree. So it's clear from this that the respondents believe the following, one, your credentials are out there and available to criminals. Very few people thought that that was, you know, unavoidable. Second, remote work is here to stay, and third, nobody was willing to really jinx their firms and say that they strongly disagree that they'll have to respond to a major cybersecurity incident within the next 12 months. Now, as we've reported extensively, COVID has permanently changed the cybersecurity landscape and the CISO's priorities and playbook. Check out this data that queries respondents on the pandemic's impact on cybersecurity, new requirements to secure remote workers, more cloud, more threats from remote systems and remote users, and a shift away from perimeter defenses that are no longer as effective, e.g. firewall appliances. Note, however, the fifth response that's down there highlighted in green. It shows a meaningful drop in the percentage of remote workers that are disregarding corporate security policy, still too many, but 10 percentage points down from 2021 survey. Now, as we've said many times, bad user behavior will trump good security technology virtually every time. Consistent with the commentary from Mark Arena's Intel 471 threat report, fishing for credentials is the number one concern cited in the Black Hat Attendees Survey. This is a people and process problem more than a technology issue. Yes, using multifactor authentication, changing passwords, you know, using unique passwords, using password managers, et cetera, they're all great things, but if it's too hard for users to implement these things, they won't do it, they'll remain exposed, and their organizations will remain exposed. Number two in the graphic, sophisticated attacks that could expose vulnerabilities in the security infrastructure, again, consistent with the Intel 471 data, and three, supply chain risks, again, consistent with Mark Arena's commentary. Ask most CISOs their number one problem, and they'll tell you, "It's a lack of talent." That'll be on the top of their list. So it's no surprise that 63% of survey respondents believe they don't have the security staff necessary to defend against cyber threats. This speaks to the rise of managed security service providers that we've talked about previously on "Breaking Analysis". We've seen estimates that less than 50% of organizations in the US have a SOC, and we see those firms as ripe for MSSP support as well as larger firms augmenting staff with managed service providers. Now, after re:Invent, we put forth this conceptual model that discussed how the cloud was becoming the first line of defense for CISOs, and DevOps was being asked to do more, things like securing the runtime, the containers, the platform, et cetera, and audit was kind of that last line of defense. So a couple things we picked up from Black Hat which are consistent with this shift and some that are somewhat new, first, is getting visibility across the expanded threat surface was a big theme at Black Hat. This makes it even harder to identify risk, of course, this being the expanded threat surface. It's one thing to know that there's a vulnerability somewhere. It's another thing to determine the severity of the risk, but understanding how easy or difficult it is to exploit that vulnerability and how to prioritize action around that. Vulnerability is increasingly complex for CISOs as the security landscape gets complexified. So what's happening is the SOC, if there even is one at the organization, is becoming federated. No longer can there be one ivory tower that's the magic god room of data and threat detection and analysis. Rather, the SOC is becoming distributed following the data, and as we just mentioned, the SOC is being augmented by the cloud provider and the managed service providers, the MSSPs. So there's a lot of critical security data that is decentralized and this will necessitate a new cyber data model where data can be synchronized and shared across a federation of SOCs, if you will, or mini SOCs or SOC capabilities that live in and/or embedded in an organization's ecosystem. Now, to this point about cloud being the first line of defense, let's turn to a story from ETR that came out of our colleague Eric Bradley's insight in a one-on-one he did with a senior IR person at a manufacturing firm. In a piece that ETR published called "Saved by Zscaler", check out this comment. Quote, "As the last layer, we are filtering all the outgoing internet traffic through Zscaler. And when an attacker is already on your network, and they're trying to communicate with the outside to exchange encryption keys, Zscaler is already blocking the traffic. It happened to us. It happened and we were saved by Zscaler." So that's pretty cool. So not only is the cloud the first line of defense, as we sort of depicted in that previous graphic, here's an example where it's also the last line of defense. Now, let's end on what this all means to securing the supercloud. At our Supercloud 22 event last week in our Palo Alto CUBE Studios, we had a session on this topic on supercloud, securing the supercloud. Security, in our view, is going to be one of the most important and difficult challenges for the idea of supercloud to become real. We reviewed in last week's "Breaking Analysis" a detailed discussion with Snowflake co-founder and president of products, Benoit Dageville, how his company approaches security in their data cloud, what we call a superdata cloud. Snowflake doesn't use the term supercloud. They use the term datacloud, but what if you don't have the focus, the engineering depth, and the bank roll that Snowflake has? Does that mean superclouds will only be developed by those companies with deep pockets and enormous resources? Well, that's certainly possible, but on the securing the supercloud panel, we had three technical experts, Gee Rittenhouse of Skyhigh Security, Piyush Sharrma who's the founder of Accurics who sold to Tenable, and Tony Kueh, who's the former Head of Product at VMware. Now, John Furrier asked each of them, "What is missing? What's it going to take to secure the supercloud? What has to happen?" Here's what they said. Play the clip. >> This is the final question. We have one minute left. I wish we had more time. This is a great panel. We'll bring you guys back for sure after the event. What one thing needs to happen to unify or get through the other side of this fragmentation and then the challenges for supercloud? Because remember, the enterprise equation is solve complexity with more complexity. Well, that's not what the market wants. They want simplicity. They want SaaS. They want ease of use. They want infrastructure risk code. What has to happen? What do you think, each of you? >> So I can start, and extending to the previous conversation, I think we need a consortium. We need a framework that defines that if you really want to operate on supercloud, these are the 10 things that you must follow. It doesn't matter whether you take AWS, Slash, or TCP or you have all, and you will have the on-prem also, which means that it has to follow a pattern, and that pattern is what is required for supercloud, in my opinion. Otherwise, security is going everywhere. They're like they have to fix everything, find everything, and so on and so forth. It's not going to be possible. So they need a framework. They need a consortium, and this consortium needs to be, I think, needs to led by the cloud providers because they're the ones who have these foundational infrastructure elements, and the security vendor should contribute on providing more severe detections or severe findings. So that's, in my opinion, should be the model. >> Great, well, thank you, Gee. >> Yeah, I would think it's more along the lines of a business model. We've seen in cloud that the scale matters, and once you're big, you get bigger. We haven't seen that coalesce around either a vendor, a business model, or whatnot to bring all of this and connect it all together yet. So that value proposition in the industry, I think, is missing, but there's elements of it already available. >> I think there needs to be a mindset. If you look, again, history repeating itself. The internet sort of came together around set of IETF, RSC standards. Everybody embraced and extended it, right? But still, there was, at least, a baseline, and I think at that time, the largest and most innovative vendors understood that they couldn't do it by themselves, right? And so I think what we need is a mindset where these big guys, like Google, let's take an example. They're not going to win at all, but they can have a substantial share. So how do they collaborate with the ecosystem around a set of standards so that they can bring their differentiation and then embrace everybody together. >> Okay, so Gee's point about a business model is, you know, business model being missing, it's broadly true, but perhaps Snowflake serves as a business model where they've just gone out and and done it, setting or trying to set a de facto standard by which data can be shared and monetized. They're certainly setting that standard and mandating that standard within the Snowflake ecosystem with its proprietary framework. You know, perhaps that is one answer, but Tony lays out a scenario where there's a collaboration mindset around a set of standards with an ecosystem. You know, intriguing is this idea of a consortium or a framework that Piyush was talking about, and that speaks to the collaboration or lack thereof that we spoke of earlier, and his and Tony's proposal that the cloud providers should lead with the security vendor ecosystem playing a supporting role is pretty compelling, but can you see AWS and Azure and Google in a kumbaya moment getting together to make that happen? It seems unlikely, but maybe a better partnership between the US government and big tech could be a starting point. Okay, that's it for today. I want to thank the many people who attended Black Hat, reported on it, wrote about it, gave talks, did videos, and some that spoke to me that had attended the event, Becky Bracken, who is the EIC at Dark Reading. They do a phenomenal job and the entire team at Dark Reading, the news desk there, Mark Arena, whom I mentioned, Garrett O'Hara, Nash Borges, Kelly Jackson, sorry, Kelly Jackson Higgins, Roya Gordon, Robert Lipovsky, Chris Krebs, and many others, thanks for the great, great commentary and the content that you put out there, and thanks to Alex Myerson, who's on production, and Alex manages the podcasts for us. Ken Schiffman is also in our Marlborough studio as well, outside of Boston. Kristen Martin and Cheryl Knight, they help get the word out on social media and in our newsletters, and Rob Hoff is our Editor-in-Chief at SiliconANGLE and does some great editing and helps with the titles of "Breaking Analysis" quite often. Remember these episodes, they're all available as podcasts, wherever you listen, just search for "Breaking Analysis Podcasts". I publish each on wikibon.com and siliconangle.com, and you could email me, get in touch with me at david.vellante@siliconangle.com or you can DM me @dvellante or comment on my LinkedIn posts, and please do check out etr.ai for the best survey data in the enterprise tech business. This is Dave Vellante for theCUBE Insights powered by ETR. Thanks for watching, and we'll see you next time on "Breaking Analysis". (upbeat music)

(gentle upbeat music) >> Welcome back everyone, to "theCUBE"'s live stage performance here in Palo Alto, California at "theCUBE" Studios. I'm John Furrier with Dave Vellante, kicking off our first inaugural Supercloud event. It's an editorial event, we wanted to bring together the best in the business, the smartest, the biggest, the up-and-coming startups, venture capitalists, everybody, to weigh in on this new Supercloud trend, this structural change in the cloud computing business. We're about to run the Ecosystem Speaks, which is a bunch of pre-recorded companies that wanted to get their voices on the record, so stay tuned for the rest of the day. We'll be replaying all that content and they're going to be having some really good commentary and hear what they have to say. I had a chance to interview and so did Dave. Dave, this is our closing segment where we kind of unpack everything or kind of digest and report. So much to kind of digest from the conversations today, a wide range of commentary from Supercloud operating system to developers who are in charge to maybe it's an ops problem or maybe Oracle's a Supercloud. I mean, that was debated. So so much discussion, lot to unpack. What was your favorite moments? >> Well, before I get to that, I think, I go back to something that happened at re:Invent last year. Nick Sturiale came up, Steve Mullaney from Aviatrix; we're going to hear from him shortly in the Ecosystem Speaks. Nick Sturiale's VC said "it's happening"! And what he was talking about is this ecosystem is exploding. They're building infrastructure or capabilities on top of the CapEx infrastructure. So, I think it is happening. I think we confirmed today that Supercloud is a thing. It's a very immature thing. And I think the other thing, John is that, it seems to me that the further you go up the stack, the weaker the business case gets for doing Supercloud. We heard from Marianna Tessel, it's like, "Eh, you know, we can- it was easier to just do it all on one cloud." This is a point that, Adrian Cockcroft just made on the panel and so I think that when you break out the pieces of the stack, I think very clearly the infrastructure layer, what we heard from Confluent and HashiCorp, and certainly VMware, there's a real problem there. There's a real need at the infrastructure layer and then even at the data layer, I think Benoit Dageville did a great job of- You know, I was peppering him with all my questions, which I basically was going through, the Supercloud definition and they ticked the box on pretty much every one of 'em as did, by the way Ali Ghodsi you know, the big difference there is the philosophy of Republicans and Democrats- got open versus closed, not to apply that to either one side, but you know what I mean! >> And the similarities are probably greater than differences. >> Berkely, I would probably put them on the- >> Yeah, we'll put them on the Democrat side we'll make Snowflake the Republicans. But so- but as we say there's a lot of similarities as well in terms of what their objectives are. So, I mean, I thought it was a great program and a really good start to, you know, an industry- You brought up the point about the industry consortium, asked Kit Colbert- >> Yep. >> If he thought that was something that was viable and what'd they say? That hyperscale should lead it? >> Yeah, they said hyperscale should lead it and there also should be an industry consortium to get the voices out there. And I think VMware is very humble in how they're putting out their white paper because I think they know that they can't do it all and that they do not have a great track record relative to cloud. And I think, but they have a great track record of loyal installed base ops people using VMware vSphere all the time. >> Yeah. >> So I think they need a catapult moment where they can catapult to the cloud native which they've been working on for years under Raghu and the team. So the question on VMware is in the light of Broadcom, okay, acquisition of VMware, this is an opportunity or it might not be an opportunity or it might be a spin-out or something, I just think VMware's got way too much engineering culture to be ignored, Dave. And I think- well, I'm going to watch this very closely because they can pull off some sort of rallying moment. I think they could. And then you hear the upstarts like Platform9, Rafay Systems and others they're all like, "Yes, we need to unify behind something. There needs to be some sort of standard". You know, we heard the argument of you know, more standards bodies type thing. So, it's interesting, maybe "theCUBE" could be that but we're going to certainly keep the conversation going. >> I thought one of the most memorable statements was Vittorio who said we- for VMware, we want our cake, we want to eat it too and we want to lose weight. So they have a lot of that aspirations there! (John laughs) >> And then I thought, Adrian Cockcroft said you know, the devs, they want to get married. They were marrying everybody, and then the ops team, they have to deal with the divorce. >> Yeah. >> And I thought that was poignant. It's like, they want consistency, they want standards, they got to be able to scale And Lori MacVittie, I'm not sure you agree with this, I'd have to think about it, but she was basically saying, all we've talked about is devs devs devs for the last 10 years, going forward we're going to be talking about ops. >> Yeah, and I think one of the things I learned from this day and looking back, and some kind of- I've been sauteing through all the interviews. If you zoom out, for me it was the epiphany of developers are still in charge. And I've said, you know, the developers are doing great, it's an ops security thing. Not sure I see that the way I was seeing before. I think what I learned was the refactoring pattern that's emerging, In Sik Rhee brought this up from Vertex Ventures with Marianna Tessel, it's a nuanced point but I think he's right on which is the pattern that's emerging is developers want ease-of-use tooling, they're driving the change and I think the developers in the devs ops ethos- it's never going to be separate. It's going to be DevOps. That means developers are driving operations and then security. So what I learned was it's not ops teams leveling up, it's devs redefining what ops is. >> Mm. And I think that to me is where Supercloud's going to be interesting- >> Forcing that. >> Yeah. >> Forcing the change because the structural change is open sources thriving, devs are still in charge and they still want more developers, Vittorio "we need more developers", right? So the developers are in charge and that's clear. Now, if that happens- if you believe that to be true the domino effect of that is going to be amazing because then everyone who gets on the wrong side of history, on the ops and security side, is going to be fighting a trend that may not be fight-able, you know, it might be inevitable. And so the winners are the ones that are refactoring their business like Snowflake. Snowflake is a data warehouse that had nothing to do with Amazon at first. It was the developers who said "I'm going to refactor data warehouse on AWS". That is a developer-driven refactorization and a business model. So I think that's the pattern I'm seeing is that this concept refactoring, patterns and the developer trajectory is critical. >> I thought there was another great comment. Maribel Lopez, her Lord of the Rings comment: "there will be no one ring to rule them all". Now at the same time, Kit Colbert, you know what we asked him straight out, "are you the- do you want to be the, the Supercloud OS?" and he basically said, "yeah, we do". Now, of course they're confined to their world, which is a pretty substantial world. I think, John, the reason why Maribel is so correct is security. I think security's a really hard problem to solve. You've got cloud as the first layer of defense and now you've got multiple clouds, multiple layers of defense, multiple shared responsibility models. You've got different tools for XDR, for identity, for governance, for privacy all within those different clouds. I mean, that really is a confusing picture. And I think the hardest- one of the hardest parts of Supercloud to solve. >> Yeah, and I thought the security founder Gee Rittenhouse, Piyush Sharrma from Accurics, which sold to Tenable, and Tony Kueh, former head of product at VMware. >> Right. >> Who's now an investor kind of looking for his next gig or what he is going to do next. He's obviously been extremely successful. They brought up the, the OS factor. Another point that they made I thought was interesting is that a lot of the things to do to solve the complexity is not doable. >> Yeah. >> It's too much work. So managed services might field the bit. So, and Chris Hoff mentioned on the Clouderati segment that the higher level services being a managed service and differentiating around the service could be the key competitive advantage for whoever does it. >> I think the other thing is Chris Hoff said "yeah, well, Web 3, metaverse, you know, DAO, Superclouds" you know, "Stupercloud" he called it and this bring up- It resonates because one of the criticisms that Charles Fitzgerald laid on us was, well, it doesn't help to throw out another term. I actually think it does help. And I think the reason it does help is because it's getting people to think. When you ask people about Supercloud, they automatically- it resonates with them. They play back what they think is the future of cloud. So Supercloud really talks to the future of cloud. There's a lot of aspects to it that need to be further defined, further thought out and we're getting to the point now where we- we can start- begin to say, okay that is Supercloud or that isn't Supercloud. >> I think that's really right on. I think Supercloud at the end of the day, for me from the simplest way to describe it is making sure that the developer experience is so good that the operations just happen. And Marianna Tessel said, she's investing in making their developer experience high velocity, very easy. So if you do that, you have to run on premise and on the cloud. So hybrid really is where Supercloud is going right now. It's not multi-cloud. Multi-cloud was- that was debunked on this session today. I thought that was clear. >> Yeah. Yeah, I mean I think- >> It's not about multi-cloud. It's about operationally seamless operations across environments, public cloud to on-premise, basically. >> I think we got consensus across the board that multi-cloud, you know, is a symptom Chuck Whitten's thing of multi-cloud by default versus multi- multi-cloud has not been a strategy, Kit Colbert said, up until the last couple of years. Yeah, because people said, "oh we got all these multiple clouds, what do we do with it?" and we got this mess that we have to solve. Whereas, I think Supercloud is something that is a strategy and then the other nuance that I keep bringing up is it's industries that are- as part of their digital transformation, are building clouds. Now, whether or not they become superclouds, I'm not convinced. I mean, what Goldman Sachs is doing, you know, with AWS, what Walmart's doing with Azure connecting their on-prem tools to those public clouds, you know, is that a supercloud? I mean, we're going to have to go back and really look at that definition. Or is it just kind of a SAS that spans on-prem and cloud. So, as I said, the further you go up the stack, the business case seems to wane a little bit but there's no question in my mind that from an infrastructure standpoint, to your point about operations, there's a real requirement for super- what we call Supercloud. >> Well, we're going to keep the conversation going, Dave. I want to put a shout out to our founding supporters of this initiative. Again, we put this together really fast kind of like a pilot series, an inaugural event. We want to have a face-to-face event as an industry event. Want to thank the founding supporters. These are the people who donated their time, their resource to contribute content, ideas and some cash, not everyone has committed some financial contribution but we want to recognize the names here. VMware, Intuit, Red Hat, Snowflake, Aisera, Alteryx, Confluent, Couchbase, Nutanix, Rafay Systems, Skyhigh Security, Aviatrix, Zscaler, Platform9, HashiCorp, F5 and all the media partners. Without their support, this wouldn't have happened. And there are more people that wanted to weigh in. There was more demand than we could pull off. We'll certainly continue the Supercloud conversation series here on "theCUBE" and we'll add more people in. And now, after this session, the Ecosystem Speaks session, we're going to run all the videos of the big name companies. We have the Nutanix CEOs weighing in, Aviatrix to name a few. >> Yeah. Let me, let me chime in, I mean you got Couchbase talking about Edge, Platform 9's going to be on, you know, everybody, you know Insig was poopoo-ing Oracle, but you know, Oracle and Azure, what they did, two technical guys, developers are coming on, we dig into what they did. Howie Xu from Zscaler, Paula Hansen is going to talk about going to market in the multi-cloud world. You mentioned Rajiv, the CEO of Nutanix, Ramesh is going to talk about multi-cloud infrastructure. So that's going to run now for, you know, quite some time here and some of the pre-record so super excited about that and I just want to thank the crew. I hope guys, I hope you have a list of credits there's too many of you to mention, but you know, awesome jobs really appreciate the work that you did in a very short amount of time. >> Well, I'm excited. I learned a lot and my takeaway was that Supercloud's a thing, there's a kind of sense that people want to talk about it and have real conversations, not BS or FUD. They want to have real substantive conversations and we're going to enable that on "theCUBE". Dave, final thoughts for you. >> Well, I mean, as I say, we put this together very quickly. It was really a phenomenal, you know, enlightening experience. I think it confirmed a lot of the concepts and the premises that we've put forth, that David Floyer helped evolve, that a lot of these analysts have helped evolve, that even Charles Fitzgerald with his antagonism helped to really sharpen our knives. So, you know, thank you Charles. And- >> I like his blog, by the I'm a reader- >> Yeah, absolutely. And it was great to be back in Palo Alto. It was my first time back since pre-COVID, so, you know, great job. >> All right. I want to thank all the crew and everyone. Thanks for watching this first, inaugural Supercloud event. We are definitely going to be doing more of these. So stay tuned, maybe face-to-face in person. I'm John Furrier with Dave Vellante now for the Ecosystem chiming in, and they're going to speak and share their thoughts here with "theCUBE" our first live stage performance event in our studio. Thanks for watching. (gentle upbeat music)