>> John Furrier: Hello, welcome back to theCUBE's coverage of Cloud Native Security Con 2023 North America the inaugural event. I'm John Furrier, host of theCUBE, along with Dave Alonte and Lisa Martin covering from the studio. But we have on location Emmy Eide, who is with Red Hat, director of Supply Chain Security. Emmy, great to have you on from location. Thanks for joining us. >> Emmy Eide: Yeah, thank you. >> So everyone wants to know this event is new, it's an aural event, cloud native con, coup con. Very successful. Was this event successful? They all want to know what's going on there. What's the vibe? What's the tracks like? Is it different? Why this event? Was it successful? What's different? >> Yeah, I've really enjoyed being here. The food is wonderful. There's also quite a few vendors here that are just some really cool emerging technologies coming out and a lot from open source, which is really cool to see as well. The talks are very interesting. It's really, they're very diverse in subject but still all security related which is really cool to see. And there's also a lot of different perspectives of how to approach security problems and the people behind them, which I love to see. And it's very nice to hear the different innovative ideas that we can go about doing security. >> We heard from some startups as well that they're very happy with the, with the decision to have a dedicated event. Red Hat is no stranger to open source. Obviously coup con, you guys are very successful there in cloud native con, Now the security con. Why do you think they did this? What's the vibe? What's the rationale? What's your take on this? And what's different from a topic standpoint? >> For non-security specific like events? Is that what you mean? >> What's different from coup con, cloud native con, and here at the cloud native security con? Obviously security's the focus. Is it just deeper dives? Is it more under the hood? Is it root problems or is this beyond Kubernetes? What's the focus, I guess. People want to know, you know, why the new event? >> I mean, there's a lot of focus on supply chain security, right? Like that's the hot topic in security right now. So that's been a huge focus. I can't speak to the differences of those other conferences. I haven't been able to attend them. But I will say that having a security specific conference, it really focuses on the open community and how technology is evolving, and how do you apply security. It's not just talking about tools which I think other conferences tend to focus on just the tools and you can really, I think, get lost in that as someone trying to learn about security or trying to even implement security, but they talk about what it takes to implement those tools, What's behind the people behind implementing those tools? >> Let's get into some of the key topics that we've identified and get your reaction. One, supply chain security, which I know you'll give a lot of commentary on 'cause that's your focus. Also we heard, like, Liz Rice talking about the extended Berkeley packet filtering. Okay, that's big. You know, your root kernel management, that's big. Developer productivity was kind of implied around removing the blockers of security, making it, you know, more aligned with developer first mentality. So that seems to be our takeaway. What's your reaction to those things? You see the same thing? >> I don't have a specific reaction to those things. >> Do you see the same thing happening on the ground there? Are they covering supply? >> Oh, yeah. >> Those three things are they the big focus? >> Yeah. Yeah, I think it's all of those things kind of like wrapped into one, right? But yeah, there's... I'm not sure how to answer your question. >> Well, let's jump into supply chain for instance. 'Cause that has come up a lot. >> Sure. >> What's the focus there on the supply chain security? Is it SBOMs? Is it the container security? What's the key conversations and topics being discussed around supply chain security? >> Well, I think there's a lot of laughter around SBOM right now because no one can really define it, specifically, and everyone's talking about it. So there's, there's a lot more than just the SBOM conversation. We're talking about like full end-to-end development process and that whole software supply chain that goes with it. So there's everything from infrastructure, security, all the way through to like signing transparency logs. Really the full gambit of supply chain, which is is really neat to see because it is such a broad topic. I think a lot of folks now are involved in supply chain security in some way. And so just kind of bringing that to the surface of what are the different people that are involved in this space, thinking about, what's on the top of their mind when it comes to supply chain security. >> How would you scope the order of magnitude of the uptick in supply chain attacks? Is it pretty heavy right now or is it, you know, people with the hair on fire or is it... What's the, give us the taste of the temperature in the room on the supply chain attacks? >> I think most of the folks who are involved in the space understand just that it's increasing. I mean, like, what is it? A 742% increase average annual year, year over year in supply chain attacks. So the amount of attacks increasing is a little daunting, right, for most of us. But it is what it is. So I think most of us right now are just trying to come together to say, "What are you doing that works? This is what I'm doing that works." And in all the different facets of that. 'cause I think we try to throw, we try to throw tools at a lot of problems and this problem is so big and broad reaching that we really are needing to share best practices as a community and as a security community. So this has been, this conference has been really great for that. >> Yeah, I've heard that a lot. You know, too many tools, not enough platform thinking, not enough architecture, needs some structure. Are you seeing any best practice around frameworks and structure around how to start getting in and and building out more of a better approach or posture? I mean, what's that, what's the, what's the state of the union for supply chain, how to handle that? >> Well, I talked about that a little bit in my my keynote that I gave, actually, which was about... And I've heard other other leaders talk about it too. And obviously it keyed my ear just because I'm so passionate about it, about partnership. So you know, empathetic security where the security team that's enforcing the policies, creating the policies, guidelines is working with the teams that are actually doing the production and the development, hand-in-hand, right? Like I can sit there and tell you, "Hey, you have all these problems and here's your security checklist or framework you need to follow." But that's not going to do them any good and it's going to create a ton of holes, right? So actually partnering with them helping them to understand the risks that are associated with their very specific need and use case, because every product has a different kind of quirk to it, right? Like how it's being developed. It might use a different tool and if I sit there and say, "Hey, you need to log on to this, you need to like make your tool work this platform over here and it's not compatible." I'm going to have to completely reframe how I'm doing productization. I need to know that as a security practitioner because me disrupting productization is not something that I should be doing. And I've heard a couple a couple of folks kind of talking about that, the people aspect behind how we implement these tools, the frameworks and the platforms, and how do we draw out risk, right? Like how do we talk about risk with these teams and really make them understand so it's part of their core culture in their understanding. So when they go back to their, when they go back and having to make decisions without me in the room they know they can make those business decisions with the risk as part of that decision. >> I love that empathetic angle because that's really going to, what needs to happen. It's not just, "Hey, that's your department, see you later." Or not even having a knowledge of the information. This idea of team construction, team management is a huge cultural shift. I'm sure the reaction was very positive. How do you explain that to an organization that's out there? Like how do you... what's the first three steps you got to take? Is there anything that you can share for advice people watch you saying, "Yeah we need to we need to change how our teams operate and interact with each other." >> Yeah, I think the first step is to take a good hard look at yourself. And if you are standing there on an ivory tower with a clipboard, you're probably doing it wrong. Check the box security is never going to be any way that works long term. It's going to take you a long time to implement any changes. At Red Hat, we did not look ourselves. You know, we've been doing a lot of great things in supply chain security for a while, but really taking that look and saying, "How can we be more empathetic leaders in the security space?" So we looked at that, then you say, "Okay, what is my my rate of change going to happen?" So if I need to make so many security changes explaining to these organizations, you're actually going to go faster. We improved our efficiency by 2000% just by doing that, just by creating this more empathetic. So why it seems like it's more hands-on, so it's going to be harder, it's easy to send out an email and say, "Hey, meet the security standard, right?" That might seem like the easy way 'cause you don't have time to engage. It's so much faster if you actually engage and share that message and have a a common understanding between the teams that like, "I'm here to deliver a product, so is the security team. The security team's here to deliver that same product and I want to help you do it in a trusted way." Right? >> Yeah. Dave Alonte, my co-host, was just on a session. We were talking together about security teams jumping on every team and putting a C on their jersey to be like the captain of the intramural team, and being involved, and it goes beyond just like the checklist, like you said, "Oh, I got the SBOM list of materials and I got a code scanning thing." That's not enough, is what we're hearing. >> No. >> Is there a framework or a methodology to go beyond that? You got the empathetic, that's really kind of team issue. You got to go beyond some of the tactical things. What's next beyond, you got the empathy and what's that framework structure when you say where you say anything there? >> So what do you do after you have the empathy, right? >> Yeah. >> I would say Salsa is a good place to start, the software levels. Supply chain levels for software artifacts. It's a mouthful. That's a really good maturity framework to start with. No matter what size organization you have, they're just going to be coming out here soon with version one. They release 0.1 a few months back. That's a really good place to give yourself a gut check of where you are in maturity and where you can go, what are best practices. And then there's the SSDF, which is the Secure Software Development framework. I think NIST wrote that one. But that is also a really, a really good framework and they map really well to each other, actually, When you work through Salsa, you're actually working through the SSDF requirements. >> Awesome. Well, great to have you on and great to get that that knowledge. I have to ask you like coup con, I remember when it started in Seattle, their first coup con events, right? Kind of small, similar to this one, but there's a lot of end user activities. Certainly the CNCF kind of was coming together like right after that. What's the end user activity like there this week? That seems to always been the driver of these events. It's a little bit organic. You got some of the key experts coming together, focus. Have you observed any end user activity in terms of contributions, participation? What's the story on the end user piece there? Is it heavy? Is it light? What's the... >> Um, yeah... It seems moderate. I guess somewhere in the middle. I would say largely heavy, but there's definitely participation. There is a lot of communing and networking happening between different organizations to partner together, which is important. But I haven't really paid attention much to like the Twitter side of this. >> Yeah, you've been busy doing the keynotes. How's Red Hat doing all this? You guys have been great positioned with the cloud native movement. Been following the Red Hat's moves since OpenStack days. Really good, good line of product, good open source, Mojo, of course. Good product mix, right, and relevant. Where's the security focus here? Obviously, you guys are clearly focused on security. How's the Red Hat story going on over there? >> There was yesterday a really good talk that explains that super well. It was given by a Red Hatter, connecting all of the open source projects we've been a part of and kind of explaining them. And obviously again, I'm keying in 'cause it's a supply chain kind of conversation, but I'd recommend that anyone who's going to go back and watch these on YouTube to check that one out just to see kind of how we're approaching the security space as well as how we contribute back to the community in that way. >> Awesome. Great to have you on. Final word, I'll give you the final word. What's the big buzz on supply chain? How would you peg the progress there? Feeling good about where things are? What's the current progress on supply chain security? >> I think that it has opened up a lot of doors for communication between security organizations that have tended to be closed. I'm in product security. Product securities, information securities tend to not speak externally about what we're doing. So you don't want to, you know, look bad or you don't want to expose any risk that we have, right? But it is, I think, necessary to open those lines of communication, to be able to start tackling this. It's a big problem throughout all of our industries, and if one supply chain is attacked and those products are used in someone else's supply chain, that can continue, right? So I think it's good. We have a lot of work to do as an industry and the advancements in technology is going to make that a little bit more complicated. But I'm excited for it. >> You can just throw AI at it. That's the big, everyone's doing AI. Just throw AI at it, it'll solve it. Isn't that the new thing? >> I do secure AI though. >> Super important. I love what you're doing there. Supply chain, open source needs, supply chain security. Open source needs this big time. It has to be there. Thank you for the work that you do. Really appreciate you coming on. Thank you. >> Yeah, thanks for having me. >> Yeah, good stuff. Supply chain, critical to open source growth. Open source is going to be the key to success in the future with automation and AI right around the corner. And that's important. This theCUBE covers from cloud native con, security con in North America, 2023. I'm John Furrier. Thanks for watching.

(energetic music plays) >> Lisa: Hey everyone, we're so glad you're here with us. theCUBE is covering Cloud Native Security Con 23. Lisa Martin here with John Furrier. This is our second day of coverage of the event. We've had some great conversations with a lot of intellectual, exciting folks, as you know cuz you've been watching. John and I are very pleased to welcome back one of our alumni to theCUBE Taylor Dolezal joins us the head of ecosystem at CNCF. Taylor, welcome back to theCUBE. Great to see you. >> Taylor: Hey everybody, great to see you again. >> Lisa: So you are on the ground in Seattle. We're jealous. We've got fomo as John would say. Talk to us about, this is a inaugural event. We were watching Priyanka keynote yesterday. Seemed like a lot of folks there, 72 sessions a lot of content, a lot of discussions. What's the buzz, what's the reception of this inaugural event from your perspective? >> Taylor: So it's been really fantastic. I think the number one thing that has come out of this conference so far is that it's a wonderful chance to come together and for people to see one another. It's, it's been a long time that we've kind of had that opportunity to be able to interact with folks or you know, it's just a couple months since last Cube Con. But this is truly a different vibe and it's nice to have that focus on security. We're seeing a lot of folks within different organizations work through different problems and then finally have a vendor neutral space in which to talk about all of those contexts and really raise everybody up with all this new knowledge and new talking points, topics, and different facets of knowledge. >> John: Taylor, we were joking on our yesterday's summary of the keynotes, Dave Vellante and I, and the guests, Lisa and I, about the CNCF having an event operating system, you know, very decoupled highly cohesive events, strung together beautifully through the Linux Foundation, you know, kind of tongue in cheek but it was kind of fun to play on words because it's a very technical community. But the business model of, of hackers is booming. The reality of businesses booming and Cloud Native is the preferred developer environment for the future application. So the emphasis, it's very clear that this is a good move to do and targeting the community around security's a solid move. Amazon's done it with reinforce and reinvent. We see that Nice segmentation. What's the goal? Because this is really where it connects to Cube Con and Cloud Native Con as well because this shift left there too. But here it's very much about hardcore Cloud Native security. What's your positioning on this? Am I getting it right or is there is that how you guys see it? >> Taylor: Yeah, so, so that's what we've see that's what we were talking about as well as we were thinking on breaking this event out. So originally this event was a co-located event during the Cube Con windows in both Europe and North America. And then it just was so consistently popular clearly a topic that people wanted to talk, which is good that people want to talk of security. And so when we saw this massive continued kind of engagement, we wanted to break this off into its own conference. When we were going through that process internally, like you had mentioned the events team is just phenomenal to work with and they, I love how easy that they make it for us to be able to do these kinds of events too though we wanted to talk through how we differentiate this event from others and really what's changed for us and kind of how we see this space is that we didn't really see any developer-centric open source kinds of conferences. Ones that were really favoring of the developer and focus on APIs and ways in which to implement these things across all of your workloads within your organization. So that's truly what we're looking to go for here during these, all of these sessions. And that's how it's been playing out so far which has been really great to see. >> John: Taylor, I want to ask you on the ecosystem obviously the built-in ecosystem at CNCF.IO with Cube Cons Cloud Cons there, this is a new ecosystem opportunity to add more people that are security focused. Is their new entrance coming into the fold and what's been the reaction? >> Taylor: So short answer is yes we've seen a huge uptick across our vendor members and those are people that are creating Cloud offerings and selling those and working with others to implement them as well as our end users. So people consuming Cloud Native projects and using them to power core parts of their business. We have gotten a lot of data from groups like IBM and security, IBM security and put 'em on institute. They gave us a cost of data breach report that Priyanka mentioned and talked about 43% of those organizations haven't started or in the early stages of updating security practices of their cloud environments and then here on the ground, you know, talking through some best practices and really sharing those out as well. So it's, I've gotten to hear pieces and parts of different conversations and and I'm certain we'll hear more about those soon but it's just really been great to, to hear everybody with that main focus of, hey, there's more that we can do within the security space and you know, let's let's help one another out on that front just because it is such a vast landscape especially in the security space. >> Lisa: It's a huge landscape. And to your point earlier, Taylor it's everyone has the feeling that it's just so great to be back together again getting folks out of the silos that they've been operating in for such a long time. But I'd love to get some of your, whatever you can share in terms of some of the Cloud Native security projects that you've heard about over the last day or so. Anything exciting that you think is really demonstrating the value already and this inaugural event? >> Taylor: Yes, so I I've been really excited to hear a lot of, personally I've really liked the talks around EBPF. There are a whole bunch of projects utilizing that as far as runtime security goes and actually getting visibility into your workloads and being able to see things that you do expect and things that you don't expect and how to remediate those. And then I keep hearing a lot of talks about open policy agents and projects like Caverno around you know, how do we actually automate different policies or within regulated industries, how do we actually start to solve those problems? So I've heard even more around CNCF projects and other contexts that have come up but truly most of them have been around the telemetry space EBPF and, and quite a few others. So really great to, to see all those projects choosing something to bind to and making it that much more accessible for folks to implement or build on top of as well. >> John: I love the reference you guys had just the ChatGPT that was mentioned in the keynote yesterday and also the reference to Dan Kaminsky who was mentioned on the reference to DNS and Bind, lot of root level security going on. It seems like this is like a Tiger team event where all the top alpha security gurus come together, Priyanka said, experts bottoms up, developer first practitioners, that's the vibe. Is that kind of how you guys want it to be more practitioners hardcore? >> Taylor: Absolutely, absolutely. I think that when it comes to security, we really want to help. It's definitely a grassroots movement. It's great to have the people that have such a deep understanding of certain security, just bits of knowledge really when it comes to EBPF. You know, we have high surveillance here that we're talking things through. Falco is here with Sysdig and so it it's great to have all of these people here, though I have seen a good spread of folks that are, you know, most people have started their security journey but they're not where they want to be. And so people that are starting at a 2 0 1, 3 0 1, 4 0 1 level of understanding definitely seeing a good spread of knowledge on that front. But it's really, it's been great to have folks from all varying experiences, but then to have the expertise of the folks that are writing these specifications and pushing the boundaries of what's possible with security to to ensure that we're all okay and updated on that front too, I think was most notable yesterday. Like you had said >> Lisa: Sorry Taylor, when we think of security, again this is an issue that, that organizations in every industry face, nobody is immune to this. We can talk about the value in it for the hackers in terms of ransomware alone for example. But you mentioned a stat that there's a good amount of organizations that are really either early in their security journeys or haven't started yet which kind of sounds a bit scary given the landscape and how much has changed in the last couple of years. But it sounds like on the good news front it isn't too late for organizations. Talk a little bit about some of the recommendations and best practices for those organizations who are behind the curve knowing that the next attack is going to happen. >> Taylor: Absolutely. So fantastic question. I think that when it comes to understanding the fact that people need to implement security and abide by best practices, it's like I I'm sure that many of us can agree on that front, you know, hopefully all of us. But when it comes to actually implementing that, that's I agree with you completely. That's where it's really difficult to find where where do I start, where do I actually look at? And there are a couple of answers on that front. So within the CNTF ecosystem we have a technical action group security, so tag security and they have a whole bunch of working groups that cover different facets of the Cloud Native experience. So if you, for example, are concerned about runtime security or application delivery concerns within there, those are some really good places to find people knowledgeable about, that even when the conference isn't going on to get a sense of what's going on. And then TAG security has also published recently version two of their security report which is free accessible online. They can actually look through that, see what some of the recent topics are and points of focus and of interest are within our community. There are also other organizations like Open SSF which is taking a deeper dive into security. You know, initially kind of having a little bit more of an academic focus on that space and then now getting further into things around software bill materials or SBOMs supply chain security and other topics as well. >> John: Well we love you guys doing this. We think it's very big deal. We think it's important. We're starting to see events post COVID take a certain formation, you know joking aside about the event operating systems smaller events are happening, but they're tied together. And so this is key. And of course the critical need is our businesses are under siege with threats, ransomware, security challenges, that's IT moves to Cloud Native, not everyone's moved over yet. So that's in progress. So there's a huge business imperative and the hackers have a business model. So this isn't like pie in the sky, this is urgent. So, that being said, how do you see this developing from who should attend the next one or who are you looking for to be involved to get input from you guys are open arms and very diverse and great great culture there, but who are you looking for? What's the makeup persona that you hope to attract and nurture and grow? >> Taylor: Absolutely. I, think that when it comes to trying the folks that we're looking for the correct answer is it varies you know, from, you know, you're asking Priyanka or our executive director or Chris Aniszczyk our CTO, I work mostly with the end users, so for me personally I really want to see folks that are operating within our ecosystem and actually pulling these down, these projects down and using them and sharing those stories. Because there are people creating these projects and contributing to them might not always have an idea of how they're used or how they can be exploited too. A lot of these groups that I work with like Mercedes or Intuit for example, they're out there in the world using these, these projects and getting a sense for, you know, what can come up. And by sharing that knowledge I think that's what's most important across the board. So really looking for those stories to be told and novel ways in which people are trying to exploit security and attacking the supply chain, or building applications, or just things we haven't thought about. So truly that that developer archetype is really helpful to have the consumers, the end users, the folks that are actually using these. And then, yeah, and I'm truly anywhere knowledgeable about security or that wants to learn more >> John: Super important, we're here to help you scale those stories up whatever you need, send them our way. We're looking forward to getting those. This is a super important movement getting the end users who are on the front lines bringing it back into the open, building, more software, making it secure and verified, all super important. We really appreciate the mission you guys are on and again we're here to help. So send those stories our way. >> Taylor: Cool, cool. We couldn't do it without you. Yeah, just everyone contributing, everyone sharing the news. This is it's people, people is the is the true operating system of our ecosystem. So really great to, really great to share. >> Lisa: That's such a great point Taylor. It is all about people. You talked about this event having a different vibe. I wanted to learn a little bit more about that as we, as we wrap up because there's so much cultural change that's required for organizations to evolve their security practices. And so people of course are at the center of culture. Talk a little bit about why that vibe is different and do you think that yeah, it's finally time. Everyone's getting on the same page here we're understanding, we're learning from each other. >> Taylor: Yes. So, so to kind of answer that, I think it's really a focus on, there's this term shift left and shift right. And talking about where do we actually put security in the mix as it comes to people adopting this and and figuring out where things go. And if you keep shifting at left, that meaning that the developers should care more deeply about this and a deeper understanding of all of these, you know, even if it's, even if they don't understand how to put it together, maybe understand a little bit about it or how these topics and, and facets of knowledge work. But you know, like with anything, if you shift everything off to one side or the other that's also not going to be efficient. You know, you want a steady stream of knowledge flowing throughout your whole organization. So I think that that's been something that has been a really interesting topic and, and hearing people kind of navigate and try to get through, especially groups that have had, you know, deployed an app and it's going to be around for 40 years as well. So I think that those are some really interesting and unique areas of focus that I've come up on the floor and then in a couple of the sessions here >> Lisa: There's got to be that, that balance there. Last question as we wrap the last 30 seconds or so what are you excited about given the success and the momentum of day one? What excites you about what's ahead for us on day two? >> Taylor: So on day two, I'm really, it's, there's just so many sessions. I think that it was very difficult for me to, you know pick which one I was actually going to go see. There are a lot of favorites that I had kind of doubled up at each of the time so I'm honestly going to be in a lot of the sessions today. So really excited about that. Supply chain security is definitely one that's close to my heart as well but I'm really curious to see what new topics, concepts or novel ideas people have to kind of exploit things. Like one for example is a package is out there it's called Browser Test but somebody came up with one called Bowser Test. Just a very simple misname and then when you go and run that it does a fake kind of like, hey you've been exploited and just even these incorrect name attacks. That's something that is really close and dear to me as well. Kind of hearing about all these wild things people wouldn't think about in terms of exploitation. So really, really excited to hear more stories on that front and better protect myself both at home and within the Cloud Community as I stand these things up. >> Lisa: Absolutely you need to clone yourself so that you can, there's so many different sessions. There needs to be multiple versions of Taylor that you can attend and then you can all get together and talk about and learn. But that's actually a really good problem to have as we mentioned when we started 72 sessions yesterday and today. Lots of great content. Taylor, we thank you for your participation. We thank you for bringing the vibe and the buzz of the event to us and we look forward as well to hearing and seeing what day two brings us today. Thank you so much for your time Taylor. >> Taylor: Thank you for having me. >> John: All right >> Lisa: Right, for our guest and John Furrier, I'm Lisa Martin. You're watching theCube's Day two coverage of Cloud Native Security Con 23. (energetic music plays)

(lively music) >> Welcome back to our coverage of Cloud Native Security Con. I'm Dave Vellante, here in our Boston studio. We're connecting today, throughout the day, with Palo Alto on the ground in Seattle. And right now I'm here with Michael Foster with Red Hat. He's on the ground in Seattle. We're going to discuss the trends and containers and security and everything that's going on at the show in Seattle. Michael, good to see you, thanks for coming on. >> Good to see you, thanks for having me on. >> Lot of market momentum for Red Hat. The IBM earnings call the other day, announced OpenShift is a billion-dollar ARR. So it's quite a milestone, and it's not often, you know. It's hard enough to become a billion-dollar software company and then to have actually a billion-dollar product alongside. So congratulations on that. And let's start with the event. What's the buzz at the event? People talking about shift left, obviously supply chain security is a big topic. We've heard a little bit about or quite a bit about AI. What are you hearing on the ground? >> Yeah, so the last event I was at that I got to see you at was three months ago, with CubeCon and the talk was supply chain security. Nothing has really changed on that front, although I do think that the conversation, let's say with the tech companies versus what customers are actually looking at, is slightly different just based on the market. And, like you said, thank you for the shout-out to a billion-dollar OpenShift, and ACS is certainly excited to be part of that. We are seeing more of a consolidation, I think, especially in security. The money's still flowing into security, but people want to know what they're running. We've allowed, had some tremendous growth in the last couple years and now it's okay. Let's get a hold of the containers, the clusters that we're running, let's make sure everything's configured. They want to start implementing policies effectively and really get a feel for what's going on across all their workloads, especially with the bigger companies. I think bigger companies allow some flexibility in the security applications that they can deploy. They can have different groups that manage different ones, but in the mid to low market, you're seeing a lot of consolidation, a lot of companies that want basically one security tool to manage them all, so to speak. And I think that the features need to somewhat accommodate that. We talk supply chain, I think most people continue to care about network security, vulnerability management, shifting left and enabling developers. That's the general trend I see. Still really need to get some hands on demos and see some people that I haven't seen in a while. >> So a couple things on, 'cause, I mean, we talk about the macroeconomic climate all the time. We do a lot of survey data with our partners at ETR, and their recent data shows that in terms of cost savings, for those who are actually cutting their budgets, they're looking to consolidate redundant vendors. So, that's one form of consolidation. The other theme, of course, is there's so many tools out in the security market that consolidating tools is something that can help simplify, but then at the same time, you see opportunities open up, like IOT security. And so, you have companies that are starting up to just do that. So, there's like these countervailing trends. I often wonder, Michael, will this ever end? It's like the universe growing and tooling, what are your thoughts? >> I mean, I completely agree. It's hard to balance trying to grow the company in a time like this, at the same time while trying to secure it all, right? So you're seeing the consolidation but some of these applications and platforms need to make some promises to say, "Hey, we're going to move into this space." Right, so when you have like Red Hat who wants to come out with edge devices and help manage the IOT devices, well then, you have a security platform that can help you do that, that's built in. Then the messaging's easy. When you're trying to do that across different cloud providers and move into IOT, it becomes a little bit more challenging. And so I think that, and don't take my word for this, some of those IOT startups, you might see some purchasing in the next couple years in order to facilitate those cloud platforms to be able to expand into that area. To me it makes sense, but I don't want to hypothesize too much from the start. >> But I do, we just did our predictions post and as a security we put up the chart of candidates, and there's like dozens, and dozens, and dozens. Some that are very well funded, but I mean, you've seen some down, I mean, down rounds everywhere, but these many companies have raised over a billion dollars and it's like uh-oh, okay, so they're probably okay, maybe. But a lot of smaller firms, I mean there's just, there's too many tools in the marketplace, but it seems like there is misalignment there, you know, kind of a mismatch between, you know, what customers would like to have happen and what actually happens in the marketplace. And that just underscores, I think, the complexities in security. So I guess my question is, you know, how do you look at Cloud Native Security, and what's different from traditional security approaches? >> Okay, I mean, that's a great question, and it's something that we've been talking to customers for the last five years about. And, really, it's just a change in mindset. Containers are supposed to unleash developer speed, and if you don't have a security tool to help do that, then you're basically going to inhibit developers in some form or another. I think managing that, while also giving your security teams the ability to tell the message of we are being more secure. You know, we're limiting vulnerabilities in our cluster. We are seeing progress because containers, you know, have a shorter life cycle and there is security and speed. Having that conversation with the C-suites is a little different, especially when how they might be used to virtual machines and managing it through that. I mean, if it works, it works from a developer's standpoint. You're not taking advantage of those containers and the developer's speed, so that's the difference. Now doing that and then first challenge is making that pitch. The second challenge is making that pitch to then scale it, so you can get onboard your developers and get your containers up and running, but then as you bring in new groups, as you move over to Kubernetes or you get into more container workloads, how do you onboard your teams? How do you scale? And I tend to see a general trend of a big investment needed for about two years to make that container shift. And then the security tools come in and really blossom because once that core separation of responsibilities happens in the organization, then the security tools are able to accelerate the developer workflow and not inhibit it. >> You know, I'm glad you mentioned, you know, separation of responsibilities. We go to a lot of shows, as you know, with theCUBE, and many of them are cloud shows. And in the one hand, Cloud has, you know, obviously made the world, you know, more interesting and better in so many different ways and even security, but it's like new layers are forming. You got the cloud, you got the shared responsibility model, so the cloud is like the first line of defense. And then you got the CISO who is relying heavily on devs to, you know, the whole shift left thing. So we're asking developers to do a lot and then you're kind of behind them. I guess you have audit is like the last line of defense, but my question to you is how can software developers really ensure that cloud native tools that they're using are secure? What steps can they take to improve security and specifically what's Red Hat doing in that area? >> Yeah, well I think there's, I would actually move away from that being the developer responsibility. I think the job is the operators' and the security people. The tools to give them the ability to see. The vulnerabilities they're introducing. Let's say signing their images, actually verifying that the images that's thrown in the cloud, are the ones that they built, that can all be done and it can be done open source. So we have a DevSecOps validated pattern that Red Hat's pushed out, and it's all open source tools in the cloud native space. And you can sign your builds and verify them at runtime and make sure that you're doing that all for free as one option. But in general, I would say that the hope is that you give the developer the information to make responsible choices and that there's a dialogue between your security and operations and developer teams but security, we should not be pushing that on developer. And so I think with ACS and our tool, the goal is to get in and say, "Let's set some reasonable policies, have a conversation, let's get a security liaison." Let's say in the developer team so that we can make some changes over time. And the more we can automate that and the more we can build and have that conversation, the better that you'll, I don't say the more security clusters but I think that the more you're on your path of securing your environment. >> How much talk is there at the event about kind of recent high profile incidents? We heard, you know, Log4j, of course, was mentioned in the Keynote. Somebody, you know, I think yelled out from the audience, "We're still dealing with that." But when you think about these, you know, incidents when looking back, what lessons do you think we've learned from these events? >> Oh, I mean, I think that I would say, if you have an approach where you're managing your containers, managing the age and using containers to accelerate, so let's say no images that are older than 90 days, for example, you're going to avoid a lot of these issues. And so I think people that are still dealing with that aspect haven't set up the proper, let's say, disclosure between teams and update strategy and so on. So I don't want to, I think the Log4j, if it's still around, you know, something's missing there but in general you want to be able to respond quickly and to do that and need the tools and policies to be able to tell people how to fix that issue. I mean, the Log4j fix was seven days after, so your developers should have been well aware of that. Your security team should have been sending the messages out. And I remember even fielding all the calls, all the fires that we had to put out when that happened. But yeah. >> I thought Brian Behlendorf's, you know, talk this morning was interesting 'cause he was making an attempt to say, "Hey, here's some things that you might not be thinking about that are likely to occur." And I wonder if you could, you know, comment on them and give us your thoughts as to how the industry generally, maybe Red Hat specifically, are thinking about dealing with them. He mentioned ChatGPT or other GPT to automate Spear phishing. He said the identity problem is still not fixed. Then he talked about free riders sniffing repos essentially for known vulnerabilities that are slow to fix. He talked about regulations that might restrict shipping code. So these are things that, you know, essentially, we can, they're on the radar, but you know, we're kind of putting out, you know, yesterday's fire. What are your thoughts on those sort of potential issues that we're facing and how are you guys thinking about it? >> Yeah, that's a great question, and I think it's twofold. One, it's brought up in front of a lot of security leaders in the space for them to be aware of it because security, it's a constant battle, constant war that's being fought. ChatGPT lowers the barrier of entry for a lot of them, say, would-be hackers or people like that to understand systems and create, let's say, simple manifests to leverage Kubernetes or leverage a misconfiguration. So as the barrier drops, we as a security team in security, let's say group organization, need to be able to respond and have our own tools to be able to combat that, and we do. So a lot of it is just making sure that we shore up our barriers and that people are aware of these threats. The harder part I think is educating the public and that's why you tend to see maybe the supply chain trend be a little bit ahead of the implementation. I think they're still, for example, like S-bombs and signing an attestation. I think that's still, you know, a year, two years, away from becoming, let's say commonplace, especially in something like a production environment. Again, so, you know, stay bleeding edge, and then make sure that you're aware of these issues and we'll be constantly coming to these calls and filling you in on what we're doing and make sure that we're up to speed. >> Yeah, so I'm hearing from folks like yourself that the, you know, you think of the future of Cloud Native Security. We're going to see continued emphasis on, you know, better integration of security into the DevSecOps. You're pointing out it's really, you know, the ops piece, that runtime that we really need to shore up. You can't just put it on the shoulders of the devs. And, you know, using security focused tools and best practices. Of course you hear a lot about that and the continued drive toward automation. My question is, you know, automation, machine learning, how, where are we in that maturity cycle? How much of that is being adopted? Sometimes folks are, you know, they embrace automation but it brings, you know, unknown, unintended consequences. Are folks embracing that heavily? Are there risks associated around that, or are we kind of through that knothole in your view? >> Yeah, that's a great question. I would compare it to something like a smart home. You know, we sort of hit a wall. You can automate so much, but it has to actually be useful to your teams. So when we're going and deploying ACS and using a cloud service, like one, you know, you want something that's a service that you can easily set up. And then the other thing is you want to start in inform mode. So you can't just automate everything, even if you're doing runtime enforcement, you need to make sure that's very, very targeted to exactly what you want and then you have to be checking it because people start new workloads and people get onboarded every week or month. So it's finding that balance between policies where you can inform the developer and the operations teams and that they give them the information to act. And that worst case you can step in as a security team to stop it, you know, during the onboarding of our ACS cloud service. We have an early access program and I get on-calls, and it's not even security team, it's the operations team. It starts with the security product, you know, and sometimes it's just, "Hey, how do I, you know, set this policy so my developers will find this vulnerability like a Log4Shell and I just want to send 'em an email, right?" And these are, you know, they have the tools and they can do that. And so it's nice to see the operations take on some security. They can automate it because maybe you have a NetSec security team that doesn't know Kubernetes or containers as well. So that shared responsibility is really useful. And then just again, making that automation targeted, even though runtime enforcement is a constant thing that we talk about, the amount that we see it in the wild where people are properly setting up admission controllers and it's acting. It's, again, very targeted. Databases, cubits x, things that are basically we all know is a no-go in production. >> Thank you for that. My last question, I want to go to the, you know, the hardest part and 'cause you're talking to customers all the time and you guys are working on the hardest problems in the world. What is the hardest aspect of securing, I'm going to come back to the software supply chain, hardest aspect of securing the software supply chain from the perspective of a security pro, software engineer, developer, DevSecOps Pro, and then this part b of that is, is how are you attacking that specifically as Red Hat? >> Sure, so as a developer, it's managing vulnerabilities with updates. As an operations team, it's keeping all the cluster, because you have a bunch of different teams working in the same environment, let's say, from a security team. It's getting people to listen to you because there are a lot of things that need to be secured. And just communicating that and getting it actionable data to the people to make the decisions as hard from a C-suite. It's getting the buy-in because it's really hard to justify the dollars and cents of security when security is constantly having to have these conversations with developers. So for ACS, you know, we want to be able to give the developer those tools. We also want to build the dashboards and reporting so that people can see their vulnerabilities drop down over time. And also that they're able to respond to it quickly because really that's where the dollars and cents are made in the product. It's that a Log4Shell comes out. You get immediately notified when the feeds are updated and you have a policy in action that you can respond to it. So I can go to my CISOs and say, "Hey look, we're limiting vulnerabilities." And when this came out, the developers stopped it in production and we were able to update it with the next release. Right, like that's your bread and butter. That's the story that you want to tell. Again, it's a harder story to tell, but it's easy when you have the information to be able to justify the money that you're spending on your security tools. Hopefully that answered your question. >> It does. That was awesome. I mean, you got data, you got communication, you got the people, obviously there's skillsets, you have of course, tooling and technology is a big part of that. Michael, really appreciate you coming on the program, sharing what's happening on the ground in Seattle and can't wait to have you back. >> Yeah. Awesome. Thanks again for having me. >> Yeah, our pleasure. All right. Thanks for watching our coverage of the Cloud Native Security Con. I'm Dave Vellante. I'm in our Boston studio. We're connecting to Palo Alto. We're connecting on the ground in Seattle. Keep it right there for more coverage. Be right back. (lively music)

(rousing music) >> Hello everyone. Welcome back to "theCUBE's" day one coverage of Cloud Native Security Con 23. This is going to be an exciting panel. I've got three great guests. I'm Lisa Martin, you know our esteemed analysts, John Furrier, and Dave Vellante well. And we're excited to welcome to "theCUBE" for the first time, Yves Sandfort, the CEO of Comdivision Group, who's coming to us from Germany. As you know, Cloud Native Security Con is a global event. Everyone welcome Yves, great to have you in particular. Welcome to "theCUBE." >> Great to be here. >> Thank you for inviting me. >> Yves, tell us a little bit, before we dig into really wanting to understand your perspectives on the event and get Dave and John's feedback as well, tell us a little bit about you. >> So yeah, talking about me, or talking about Comdivision real quick. We are in the business for over 27 years already. We started as a SaaS company, then became more like an architecture and, and Cloud Native company over the last few years. But what's interesting is, and I think that's, that's, that's really interesting when we look at our industry. It hasn't really, the requirements haven't really changed over the years. It's still security. We still have to figure out how we deal with security. We still have to figure out how we deal with compliance and everything else. And I think therefore, it's more and more important that we take these items more seriously. Also, based on the fact that when we look at it, how development and other things happen nowadays, it's, it's, everybody says it's like open source. It's great because everybody can look into the code. We, I think the last few years have shown us enough example that that's not necessarily solving all the issues, but it's also code and development has changed rapidly when we look at the Cloud Native approach, where it's far more about gluing the pieces together, versus the development pieces. When I was actually doing software development 25 years ago, and had to basically build my code because I didn't have that much internet access for it. So it has evolved, but even back then we had to deal with security and everything. >> Right. The focus on security is, is incredibly important, and the focus keeps growing as you mentioned. This is, guys, and I want to get your perspectives on this. We're going to start with John. This is the first time Cloud Native Security Con is its own event being extracted from, and amplified from KubeCon. John, I want to understand from your perspective, break down the event, what you see, what you've heard, and Cloud Native Security in general. What does this mean to companies? What does it mean to customers? Is this a reality? >> Well, I think that's the topic we want to discuss, and I think Yves background, you see the VMware certification, I love that. Because what VMware did with virtualization, was abstract that from server virtualization, kind of really changed the game on things, and you start to see Cloud Native kind of go that next level of how companies will be operating their business, not just digital transformation, as digital transformation goes to completion, it's total business transformation where IT is everywhere. And so you're starting to see the trends where, "Okay, that's happening." Now you're starting to see, that's Cloud Native Con, or KubeCon, AWS re:Invent, or whatever show, or whatever way you want to look at it. But in, in the past decade, past five years, security has always been front and center as almost a separate thing, and, in and of itself, but the same thing. So you're starting to see the breakout of security conversations around how to make things work. So a lot of operational conversations around what used to be DevOps makes infrastructure as code, and that was great, that fueled that. Then DevSecOps came. So the Cloud Native next level, is more application development at scale, developers driving the standards with developer first thinking, shifting left, I get all that. But down in the lower ends of the stack, you got real operational issues. DNS we've heard in the keynote, we heard about the Colonel, the Lennox Colonel. Things that need to be managed and taken care of at a security level. These are like, seem like in the weeds, but you're starting to see that happen. And the other thing that I think's real about Cloud Native Security Con that's going to be interesting to watch, is Amazon has pretty much canceled all their re:Invent like shows except for two; Re:Invent, which is their annual conference, and Re:Inforce, which is dedicated to securities. So Cloud Native, Linux, the Linux Foundation has now breaking out Cloud Native Con and KubeCon, and now Cloud Native Security Con. They can't call it KubeCon because it's not Kubernetes, but it's like security focus. I think this is the beginning of starting to see this new developer driving, developers driving the standards, and it has it implications, what used to be called IT ops, and that's like the VMwares of the world. You saw all the stuff that was not at developer focus, but more ops, becoming much more in the application. So I think, I think it's real. The question is where does it go? How fast does it develop? So to me, I think it's a real trend, and it's worthy of a breakout, but it's not yet clear of where the landing zone is for people to start doing it, how they get started, what are the best practices. Machine learning's going to be a big part of this. So to me it's totally cool, but I'm not yet seeing the beachhead. So that's kind of my take. >> Dave, our inventor and host of breaking analysis, what's your take? >> So when you, I think when you zoom out, there's some, there's a big macro change that's been going on. I think when you look back, let's say 10, 12 years ago, the, the need for speed far trumped the, the, the security aspect, the governance, the data privacy. It was like, "Yeah, the risks, they're not that great compared to our opportunity." That has completely changed because the risks are now so much higher. And so what's happening, I think there's a, there's a major effort amongst CIOs and CISOs to try to make security not a blocker because it use to be, it still is. "Okay, I got this great initiative." Eh, give it to the SecOps pros, and let them take it for a while before we can go to market. And so a huge challenge now is to simplify, automate, AI comes in, the whole supply chain security, so the, so the companies can not be facing so much friction. And that is non-trivial. I don't think we're anywhere close there, but I think the goal is by, within the next several years, we're going to be in a position, that security, we heard today, is, wasn't designed in to the initial internet protocols. It was bolted on. And so increasingly, the fundamental architecture of the internet, the Cloud, et cetera, is, is seeing designed in security, and, and that is an imperative, or else business is going to come to a grinding halt. >> Right. It's no longer, the bolt no longer works. Yves, what's your perspective on Cloud Native Security, where it stands today? What's in it for customers, whether we're talking about banks, or hospitals, or retailers, what do you think? >> I think when we, when we look at security in the, in the modern world, is we need to as, as Dave mentioned, we need to rethink how we apply it. Very often, security in the past has been always bolted on in the end. If we continue to do that, it'll become more and more difficult, because as companies evolve, and as companies want to bring products and software to market in a much faster and faster way, it's getting more and more difficult if we bolt on the security process at the end. It's like, developers build something and then someone checks security. That's not going to work any longer. Especially if we also consider now the changes in the industry. We had Stack Overflow over the last 10 years. If I would've had Stack Overflow 15, 20, what, 25 years ago when I was a developer, it would've changed a hell lot. Looking at it now, and looking at it what we had in the last few weeks, it's like where nearly all of my team members say is like finally I don't need any script kiddies anymore because I can't go to (indistinct) who writes the code for me. Which is on one end great, because it enables us to solve certain problems in a much higher pace. But the challenge with that is, if the people who just copy and past that code, don't understand the implications of that code, we have a much higher risk continuously. And what people thought was, is challenging with Stack Overflow. Imagine that something in one of these AI engines, is actually going ballistic, and it creates holes in nearly every one of these applications. And trust me, there will be enough developers who are going to use these tools to develop codes, the same as students in university are going to take this to write their essays and everything else. And so it's really important that every developer team basically has a security person within their team, and not a security at the end. So we build something, we check it, go through QA, and then it goes to security. Security needs to be at the forefront. And I think that's where we see Cloud Native Security Con, where we see AWS. I saw it during re:Invent already where they said is like, we have reinforced next year. I think this becomes more and more of a topic, and I think companies, as much as it is become a norm that you have a firewall and everything else, it needs to become a norm that when you are doing software development, and every development team needs to have a security person on that needs to be trained. >> I love that chat comment Dave, 'cause you and I were talking about this. And I think that is going to be the issue. Do we need security chat for the chat bot? And there's like a, like a recursive model there. The biases are built in. I think, and I think our interview with the Palo Alto Network's co-founder, Dave, when he talked about zero trust as a structured way to start things, but he was referencing that with Cloud, there's a chance to rethink or do a do-over in security. So, I think this is kind of to me, where this is all going. And I think you asked Pat Gelsinger what, year 2013, 2014, can, is security a do over? I think we're in that do over time. >> He said yes. >> He said yes. (laughing) He was right. But yeah, eight years later... But this is, how do you, zero trust gives you some structure, but how do you organize and redo security? Because to me, I think that's what's happening here. >> And John you heard, Zuk at Palo Alto Network said, "Yeah, the, the words security and architecture, they don't go together historically." And so it is a total, total retake. >> Well is that because there's too many tools out there and- >> Yeah. For sure. >> Yeah, well, first of all, a lot of hardware. And then yeah, a lot of tools. You even see IIOT and industry 40, you see IOT security coming up as another stove pipe, and that's not the right approach. And, and so- >> Well let me, let me ask you a question Dave, and Yves, if you don't mind. 'Cause I was just riffing on this yesterday about this. In the ML space, you're seeing the ML models, you're seeing proprietary models versus open source. Is security going to go down this proprietary security methods and open source? Because that's interesting, because the CNCF is run by the the Linux Foundation. So you can almost maybe see a model where there's more proprietary security methods than open source. Or is it, is that a non-issue? >> I would, I would, let me, if I, if I jump in here first, I think the last, especially last five or 10 years have clearly shown the, the whole and, and I invested early on in the, in the end 90s in several open source startups in the Bay area. So, I'm well behind the whole open source idea and, and mid (indistinct) and others back then several times. But the point is, I think what we have seen is open source is not in general, more secure or less secure, because code is too complex nowadays. You have millions of lines of code, and it's not that either one way or the other is going to solve it. The ways I think we are going to look at it is more is what's the role to market, because only because something is open source doesn't necessarily mean it's going to be available for everyone. And the same for proprietary source from that perspective, even though everybody mixes licensing and payments and all that all the time, but it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with it. But I think as we are going through it, and when we also look at the industry, security industry over the last 10 plus years has been primarily hardware focused. And a lot of these vendors have done a good business out of selling hardware boxes, putting software on top of it. Whereas in reality, those were still X86 standard boxes in the end. So it was not that we had specific security ethics or anything like that in there anymore. And so overall, the question of the market is going to change. And as we are looking into Cloud Native, think about someone like an AWS, do you really envision them to have a hardware box of every supplier in their data center, and that in every availability zone in every region? Same for Microsoft, same for Google, etc? So we need to have new ways on how we can apply security. And that applies both on the backend services, but also on the front end side. >> And if I, and if I could chime in, I think the, the good, I think the answer is, is, is no and yes. And what I mean by that is if you take, antivirus and known malware, I mean pretty much anybody today can, can solve that problem, it's the unknown malware. So I think the yes part of the answer is yes, it's, it's going to be proprietary, but in the sense we're going to use open source tooling, and then apply that in a proprietary way with, with specific algorithms and unique architectures that are going to solve problems. For example, XDR with, with unknown malware. So, and that's the, that's the hard part. As somebody said, I think this morning at the keynote, it's, it's all the stuff that, that the SecOps team couldn't find. That's the really hard part. >> (laughs) Well the question will be will, is the new IP, the ability to feed ChatGPT some magical spelled insertion query string that does the job, that's unique, that might be the new IP, the the question to ask. >> Well, that's what the hackers are going to do. And I, they're on offense. (John laughs) And the offense knows what play is coming. So, they're going to start. >> So guys, let's take this conversation up a level. I want to get your perspectives on what's in this for me as a customer? We know security is a board level conversation. We talk about this all the time. We also know that they're based on, I think David, was the conversations that you and I had, with Palo Alto Networks at Ignite in December. There's a, there's a lack of alignment between the executives and the board from a security perspective. When we talk about Cloud Native Security, we all talked about the value in that, what's in it for customers? I want to get your perspectives on should this be a board level conversation, and if so, how do you advise organizations, whether it is a hospital, or a bank, or an organization that is really affected by things like ransomware? How should they be thinking about this from an organizational perspective? >> Well, I'll start first, because we had this conversation during our Super Cloud event last month, and this comes up a lot. And this is, the CEO board level. Yes it is a board level conversation for security, as is application development as in terms of transforming their business to be competitive, not to be on the wrong side of history with this wave coming. So I think that's more of a management. But the issue is, they tell their people, "Go do it." And they're like, 'cause they get sold on the idea of, "Hey, won't you transform your business, and everything's going to be data driven, and machine learning's going to power your apps, get new customers, be profitable." "Oh, sign me up for that." When you have to implement this, it's really hard. And I think the core issue is, where are companies in their life cycle of the ability to execute and architect this thing properly as Dave said, Nick Zuk said, "You can't have architecture and security, you need platforms." So, I think the re-platforming, and the re-factoring of business is a big factor, and that's got to get down into the, the organizational shifts and the people to do it. So are there skills? Do I do a managed service? How do I architect it? Are there more services? Are there developers doing applications that are going to be more agile? So, this is not an easy thing. And to move a business from IT operations that is proven, to be positioned for this enablement, is just really difficult. And it's expensive. And if you screw it up, you could be, could be on the wrong side of things. So, to me, that's the big issue is, you sell the dream and then you got to implement it. And that's really difficult. >> Yves, give us your perspective on, based on John's comments, how do organizations shift so dramatically? There's a cultural element there as well, but there's also organizations that are, have competitive competitors in the rear view mirror, and there's time to waste. What are your thoughts on that? >> I think that's exactly the point. It's like, as an organization, you need to take the decision between the time, the risk, and all the other elements we have into this game. Because you can try to achieve 100% security, but that's exactly the same as trying to, to protect gold or anything else 100%. It's most likely not going to be from a risk perspective anyway sensible. And that's the same from a corporational perspective. When you look at building new internet services, or IOT services, or any kind of new shopping experience or whatever else, you need to balance out between the risks and the advantages out of it. And you also need to be accepting that you potentially on the way make mistakes, but then it's more important than ever that you are able to quickly fix any mistakes, and to adjust to anything what's happening in the market. Because as we are building all these new Cloud Native applications, and build up all these skill sets, one of the big scenarios is we are far more depending on individual building blocks. These building blocks come out of open source communities, which have a much different way. When we look back in software development, back then we had application servers from Oracle, Web Logic, whatsoever, they had a release cycles of every three to six months. As now we have to deal with open source, where sometimes release cycles are on a four week schedule, in between security patches. So you need to be much faster in adopting that, checking that, implementing that, getting things to work. So there is a security stretch from that perspective. There is a speech stretch on the other thing companies have to deal with, and on the other side it's always a measurement between the risk, and the security you can afford. Because reality is, you will not be 100% protected no matter what you do. So, you need to balance out what you as an organization can actually build on. But I think, coming back also to the point, it's on the bot level nowadays. It's like nearly every discussion we have with companies nowadays as they move into the Cloud, especially also here in Europe where for the last five years, it was always, it's like "It's data privacy." Data privacy is no longer, I mean, yes, for certain people, it's still the point, but for many more people it's like, "How protected is my data?" "What do we do in case of ransomware attack?" "What do we do in case of a denial of service?" All of these things become more vulnerable, where in the past you were discussing these things with a becking page, or, or like a stock exchange. They were, it's like, "What the hell is going to happen if we have a denial of service?" Now all of the sudden, this now affects nearly everyone in their storefronts and everything else, because everything is depending on it. >> Yeah, I think you're right on. You think about how cultural change occurs, it's bottom ups or, bottom up, top down or middle out. And what, what's happened with security is the people in the security team cared about it, they were the, everybody said, "Oh, it's their problem." And then it just did an end run to the board, kind of mid, early last decade. And then the board sort of pushed that down. And the line of business is realizing, "Holy cow. My business, my EBIT can be dramatically affected by this, so I care." Now it's this whole house, cultural team sport. I know it's sort of a, a cliche, but it, it's true. Everybody actually is beginning to care about security because the risks are now so high, and it's going to affect not only the bottom line of the company, the bottom line of the business, their job, it's, it's, it's virtually everywhere. It's a huge cultural shift that we're seeing. >> And that's a big challenge for organizations in any industry. And Yves, you talked about ransomware service. Every industry across the globe is vulnerable to this. But how can, maybe John, we'll start with you. How can Cloud Native Security help organizations if they're able to embrace it, operationally, culturally, dial down some of the vulnerabilities that just seem to keep growing? >> Well, I mean that's the big question. The breaches are, are critical. The governances also could be a way that anchors down growth. So I think the balance between the governance compliance piece of it is key, but making the developers faster and more productive is the key to me. And I think having the security paradigm where they're not blockers, as Dave said, is critical. So I love the whole shift left, but now that we have more data focused initiatives around how that, you can use data to understand the security issues, I think data and security are together, and I think there's a going to be a data operating system model emerging, where data and security will be almost one thing. And that will be set up by the security teams, and the data teams together. And that will feed guardrails into the developer environment. So the developer should feel no pain at all in doing this. So I think the best practice will end up being what we're seeing with supply chain, security, with making sure code's verified. And you're going to see the container, security side completely address has been, and KubeCon, we just, I asked Scott Johnson, the CEO of Docker, and I asked him directly, "Are you guys all tight on container security?" He said, yes, but other people are suggesting that's not true. There's a lot of issues with the container security. So, there's all kinds of areas where there's holes. So Cloud Native is cool on one hand, and very relevant, but if it's not shored up, it's going to be a problem. But I, so I think that's where the action will be, at the developer pipeline, in the containers, and the data. So, that will be very relevant, and if companies nail that, they'll be faster, they'll have better apps, and that'll be the differentiator. And again, if they don't on this next wave, they're going to be driftwood. >> Dave, how do they prevent becoming driftwood? >> Well, I think Cloud has had a huge impact. And a Cloud's by no means a panacea, but let's face it, it's dramatically improved a lot of companies security posture. Now there's still that shared responsibility. Even though an S3 bucket is encrypted, it's still your responsibility to make sure that it doesn't get decrypted by somebody who has access to it. So there are things like that, but to Yve's earlier point, that can be, that's done through software now, it's done through best practices. Those best practices can be shared. So the way you, you don't become driftwood, is you start to, you step back, rethink that security architecture as we were talking about earlier, take advantage of the Cloud, take advantage of Cloud Native, and all the, the rapid pace of innovation that's occurring there, and you don't use, it's called before, The audit is the last line of defense. That's no longer a check box item. "Oh yeah, we're in compliance." It's, this is a business imperative, and because we're going to reduce our expected loss and reduce our business risk. That's part of the business case today. >> Yeah. >> It's a huge, critically important part of the business case. Yves, question for you. If you're in an elevator with a CEO, a CFO, and a CISO, and they're talking about security and Cloud Native Security, what's your value proposition to them on a, on a say a 32nd elevator ride? >> Difficult story. I think at the moment, the most important part is, we need to get people to work together, and we need to train people to work more much better together. I think that's the overall most important part for all of these solutions, because in the end, security is always a person issue. If, we can have the best tools in the industry, as long as we don't get all of these teams to work together, then we have a problem. If the security team is always seen as the end of the solution to fix everything, that's not going to work because they always are the bad guys in the game. And so we need to bring the teams together. And once we have the teams work together, I think we have a far better track on, on maintaining security. >> John and Dave, I want to get your perspectives on what Yves just said. In all the experience that the two of you have as industry analysts here on "theCUBE," Wikibon, Siliconangle Media. How do you advise organizations to get those teams together? As Eve said, that alignment is critical, but John, we'll start with you, then Dave go to you. What's your advice for organizations that need to align those teams and really don't have a lot of time to wait to do it? >> (chuckling) That's a great question. I think, I think that's everyone pays hundreds of thousands of millions of dollars to get that advice from these consultants, organizations out there doing the transformations. But I think it comes down to personnel and commitment. I think if there's a C-level commitment to the effort, you'll see the institutional structure change. So you can see really getting behind it with their, with their wallet and their, and their support of either getting more personnel to support and assist, or manage services, or giving the power to the teams to execute and doing it in a way that, that's, that's well known and best practices. Start small, build out the pilots, build the platform, and then start getting it right. And I think that's the key. Not the magic wand, the old model of rolling out stuff in, in six month cycles. It's really, get the proof points, double down and change the culture, but also execute and have real metrics. And changing the architecture, like having more penetration tests as a service. Doing pen tests is like a joke now. So that doesn't make any sense. You got to have that built in almost every day, and every minute. So, these kinds of new techniques have to be implemented and have to be tried. So that's why these communities are growing. That's why I like what open source has been doing, and I like the open source as the place to have these conversations, because that's where the action will be for new stuff. And I think people will implement open source like they did before, but with different ways, better testing, better supply chain on the software side, verifying code. So, I see open source actually getting a tailwind from this, not a headwind. So, I'm bullish on the open source piece here on, on all levels, machine learning- >> Lisa, my answer is intramural sports. And it's 'cause I think it's cultural. And what I mean by that, is you take your your best and brightest security, and this is what frankly, a lot of CISOs do, an examples is Lena Smart, MongoDB. Take your best and brightest security pros, make them captains of the intramural teams, and pair them up with pods of individuals across the organization, which is most people who don't know anything about security, and put them together, so that they can, they, so that the folks that understand security can, can realize how little people know, what, what, what, how, what the worst practices that are out there in the reverse, how they can cross pollinate. And they do that on a regular basis, I know at Mongo and other companies. And that kind of cultural assimilation is a starting point for how you get security awareness up to your question around making it a team sport. >> Absolutely critical. Yves, I want to kind of wrap things with you. We've got a couple of minutes left. When you're really looking at the Cloud Native community, the growth of it, we talked about earlier in the program, Cloud Native Security Con being now extracted and elevated out of KubeCon, what are your thoughts on the groundswell that this community is generating around Cloud Native Security, the benefits that organizations will achieve from it? >> I think overall, when we have these securities conferences, or these security arms a bit spread out and separated out of the main conference, it helps to a certain degree, because especially in the security space, when you look at at other like black hat or white hat conferences and things like that in the past, although they were not focused on Cloud Native, a lot of these security folks didn't feel well taken care of in any of the other conferences because they were always these, it's like they are always blocking us, they're always making us problems, and all these kinds of things. Now that we really take the Cloud Native piece and the security piece together, or like AWS does it with re:Inforce, I think we will see more and more that people understand is that security is a permanent topic we need to cover, but we need to bring different people together, because security also has compliance and a lot of other components in there. So we will see at these conferences moving forward, also a different audience. It's not going to be only the Cloud Native developers. And if I see some of these security audiences, I can't really imagine them to really be at KubeCon because there is too much other things going on. And you couldn't really see much of that at re:Invent because re:Invent by itself has become a complete monster of a conference. It covers too many topics. And so having this very, very important security piece separated, also gives the opportunity, I think, that we can bring in the security people, but also have the type of board level discussions potentially, between the leaders of the industry, to also discuss on how we can evolve, how we can make things better, and how, how we can actually, yeah, evolve our industry for it. Because let's face it, that threat is not going to go away. It's, it's a business. And one of the last security conferences I was on, on the ransomware part, it was one of the topics someone said is like, "Look, currently on average, it takes a hacker group roughly around they said 15 to 20 K to break into a company, and they on average make 100K. It's a business, let's face it. And it's a business we don't like. And ethically, it's no discussion that this is not good, but that's something which is happening. People are making money with it. And as long as that's going to go on, and we have enough countries where these people can hide, it's going to stay and survive. And so, with that being said, it's important for us to really build an industry around this. But I also think it's good that we have separate conferences. In the past we had more the RSA conference, which tried to cover all of these areas. But that is not really fitting Cloud Native and everything else. So I think it's good that we have these new opportunities, the Cloud Native one, but also what AWS brings up for someone. >> Yves, you just nailed it. It just comes down to simple math. It's a fraction. Revenue over cost. And if you could increase the hacker's cost, increase the denominator, their ROI will go down. And that is the game. >> Great point, Dave. What I'm hearing guys, and we can talk about technology for days and days. I know all of you. But there's, there's a big component that, that the elevation of Cloud Native Security, on its own as standalone is critical, as is the people component. You guys all talked about that. We talked about the cultural change necessary for that. Hopefully what we're seeing with Cloud Native Security Con 23, this first event is going to give us more insight over the next couple of days, and the next months or so, as to how this elevation, and how the people can come together to really help organizations from a math perspective as, as Dave talked about, really dial down the risks there, understand more of the vulnerabilities so that ransomware as a service is not as lucrative as it is today. Guys, so much appreciate your time, really breaking down Cloud Native Security, the value in it from different perspectives, and what your thoughts are on where it's going. Thanks so much for your time. >> All right. Thanks. >> Thanks, Lisa. >> Thank you. >> Thanks, Yves. >> All right. For my guests, I'm Lisa Martin. You're watching theCUBE's day one coverage of Cloud Native Security Con 23. Thanks for watching. (rousing music)

(upbeat music) (upbeat music) >> Hi everybody, welcome back to our coverage of the Cloud Native Security Con. I'm Dave Vellante, here in our Boston studio. We're connecting today with Palo Alto, with John Furrier and Lisa Martin. We're also live from the show floor in Seattle. But right now, I'm here with Andy Thurai who's from Constellation Research, friend of theCUBE, and we're going to discuss the intersection of AI and security, the potential of AI, the risks and the future. Andy, welcome, good to see you again. >> Good to be here again. >> Hey, so let's get into it, can you talk a little bit about, I know this is a passion of yours, the ethical considerations surrounding AI. I mean, it's front and center in the news, and you've got accountability, privacy, security, biases. Should we be worried about AI from a security perspective? >> Absolutely, man, you should be worried. See the problem is, people don't realize this, right? I mean, the ChatGPT being a new shiny object, it's all the craze that's about. But the problem is, most of the content that's produced either by ChatGPT or even by others, it's an access, no warranties, no accountability, no whatsoever. Particularly, if it is content, it's okay. But if it is something like a code that you use for example, one of their site projects that GitHub's co-pilot, which is actually, open AI + Microsoft + GitHub's combo, they allow you to produce code, AI writes code basically, right? But when you write code, problem with that is, it's not exactly stolen, but the models are created by using the GitHub code. Actually, they're getting sued for that, saying that, "You can't use our code". Actually there's a guy, Tim Davidson, I think he's named the professor, he actually demonstrated how AI produces exact copy of the code that he has written. So right now, it's a lot of security, accountability, privacy issues. Use it either to train or to learn. But in my view, it's not ready for enterprise grade yet. >> So, Brian Behlendorf today in his keynotes said he's really worried about ChatGPT being used to automate spearfishing. So I'm like, okay, so let's unpack that a little bit. Is the concern there that it just, the ChatGPT writes such compelling phishing content, it's going to increase the probability of somebody clicking on it, or are there other dimensions? >> It could, it's not necessarily just ChatGPT for that matter, right? AI can, actually, the hackers are using it to an extent already, can use to individualize content. For example, one of the things that you are able to easily identify when you're looking at the emails that are coming in, the phishing attack is, you look at some of the key elements in it, whether it's a human or even if it's an automated AI based system. They look at certain things and they say, "Okay, this is phishing". But if you were to read an email that looks exact copy of what I would've sent to you saying that, "Hey Dave, are you on for tomorrow? Or click on this link to do whatever. It could individualize the message. That's where the volume at scale to individual to masses, that can be done using AI, which is what scares me. >> Is there a flip side to AI? How is it being utilized to help cybersecurity? And maybe you could talk about some of the more successful examples of AI in security. Like, are there use cases or are there companies out there, Andy, that you find, I know you're close to a lot of firms that are leading in this area. You and I have talked about CrowdStrike, I know Palo Alto Network, so is there a positive side to this story? >> Yeah, I mean, absolutely right. Those are some of the good companies you mentioned, CrowdStrike, Palo Alto, Darktrace is another one that I closely follow, which is a good company as well, that they're using AI for security purposes. So, here's the thing, right, when people say, when they're using malware detection systems, most of the malware detection systems that are in today's security and malware systems, use some sort of a signature and pattern scanning in the malware. You know how many identified malwares are there today in the repository, in the library? More than a billion, a billion. So, if you are to check for every malware in your repository, that's not going to work. The pattern based recognition is not going to work. So, you got to figure out a different way of identification of pattern of usage, not just a signature in a malware, right? Or there are other areas you could use, things like the usage patterns. For example, if Andy is coming in to work at a certain time, you could combine a facial recognition saying, that should he be in here at that time, and should he be doing things, what he is supposed to be doing. There are a lot of things you could do using that, right? And the AIOps use cases, which is one of my favorite areas that I work, do a lot of work, right? That it has use cases for detecting things that are anomaly, that are not supposed to be done in a way that's supposed to be, reducing the noise so it can escalate only the things what you're supposed to. So, AIOps is a great use case to use in security areas which they're not using it to an extent yet. Incident management is another area. >> So, in your malware example, you're saying, okay, known malware, pretty much anybody can deal with that now. That's sort of yesterday's problem. >> The unknown is the problem. >> It's the unknown malware really trying to understand the patterns, and the patterns are going to change. It's not like you're saying a common signature 'cause they're going to use AI to change things up at scale. >> So, here's the problem, right? The malware writers are also using AI now, right? So, they're not going to write the old malware, send it to you. They are actually creating malware on the fly. It is possible entirely in today's world that they can create a malware, drop in your systems and it'll it look for the, let me get that name right. It's called, what are we using here? It's called the TTPs, Tactics, Techniques and procedures. It'll look for that to figure out, okay, am I doing the right pattern? And then malware can sense it saying that, okay, that's the one they're detecting. I'm going to change it on the fly. So, AI can code itself on the fly, rather malware can code itself on the fly, which is going to be hard to detect. >> Well, and when you talk about TTP, when you talk to folks like Kevin Mandia of Mandiant, recently purchased by Google or other of those, the ones that have the big observation space, they'll talk about the most malicious hacks that they see, involve lateral movement. So, that's obviously something that people are looking for, AI's looking for that. And of course, the hackers are going to try to mask that lateral movement, living off the land and other things. How do you see AI impacting the future of cyber? We talked about the risks and the good. One of the things that Brian Behlendorf also mentioned is that, he pointed out that in the early days of the internet, the protocols had an inherent element of trust involved. So, things like SMTP, they didn't have security built in. So, they built up a lot of technical debt. Do you see AI being able to help with that? What steps do you see being taken to ensure that AI based systems are secure? >> So, the major difference between the older systems and the newer systems is the older systems, sadly even today, a lot of them are rules-based. If it's a rules-based systems, you are dead in the water and not able, right? So, the AI-based systems can somewhat learn from the patterns as I was talking about, for example... >> When you say rules-based systems, you mean here's the policy, here's the rule, if it's not followed but then you're saying, AI will blow that away, >> AI will blow that away, you don't have to necessarily codify things saying that, okay, if this, then do this. You don't have to necessarily do that. AI can somewhat to an extent self-learn saying that, okay, if that doesn't happen, if this is not a pattern that I know which is supposed to happen, who should I escalate this to? Who does this system belong to? And the other thing, the AIOps use case we talked about, right, the anomalies. When an anomaly happens, then the system can closely look at, saying that, okay, this is not normal behavior or usage. Is that because system's being overused or is it because somebody's trying to access something, could look at the anomaly detection, anomaly prevention or even prediction to an extent. And that's where AI could be very useful. >> So, how about the developer angle? 'Cause CNCF, the event in Seattle is all around developers, how can AI be integrated? We did a lot of talk at the conference about shift-left, we talked about shift-left and protect right. Meaning, protect the run time. So, both are important, so what steps should be taken to ensure that the AI systems are being developed in a secure and ethically sound way? What's the role of developers in that regard? >> How long do you got? (Both laughing) I think it could go for base on that. So, here's the problem, right? Lot of these companies are trying to see, I mean, you might have seen that in the news that Buzzfeed is trying to hire all of the writers to create the thing that ChatGPT is creating, a lot of enterprises... >> How, they're going to fire their writers? >> Yeah, they replace the writers. >> It's like automated automated vehicles and automated Uber drivers. >> So, the problem is a lot of enterprises still haven't done that, at least the ones I'm speaking to, are thinking about saying, "Hey, you know what, can I replace my developers because they are so expensive? Can I replace them with AI generated code?" There are a few issues with that. One, AI generated code is based on some sort of a snippet of a code that has been already available. So, you get into copyright issues, that's issue number one, right? Issue number two, if AI creates code and if something were to go wrong, who's responsible for that? There's no accountability right now. Or you as a company that's creating a system that's responsible, or is it ChatGPT, Microsoft is responsible. >> Or is the developer? >> Or the developer. >> The individual developer might be. So, they're going to be cautious about that liability. >> Well, so one of the areas where I'm seeing a lot of enterprises using this is they are using it to teach developers to learn things. You know what, if you're to code, this is a good way to code. That area, it's okay because you are just teaching them. But if you are to put an actual production code, this is what I advise companies, look, if somebody's using even to create a code, whether with or without your permission, make sure that once the code is committed, you validate that the 100%, whether it's a code or a model, or even make sure that the data what you're feeding in it is completely out of bias or no bias, right? Because at the end of the day, it doesn't matter who, what, when did that, if you put out a service or a system out there, it is involving your company liability and system, and code in place. You're going to be screwed regardless of what, if something were to go wrong, you are the first person who's liable for it. >> Andy, when you think about the dangers of AI, and what keeps you up at night if you're a security professional AI and security professional. We talked about ChatGPT doing things, we don't even, the hackers are going to get creative. But what worries you the most when you think about this topic? >> A lot, a lot, right? Let's start off with an example, actually, I don't know if you had a chance to see that or not. The hackers used a bank of Hong Kong, used a defect mechanism to fool Bank of Hong Kong to transfer $35 million to a fake account, the money is gone, right? And the problem that is, what they did was, they interacted with a manager and they learned this executive who can control a big account and cloned his voice, and clone his patterns on how he calls and what he talks and the whole name he has, after learning that, they call the branch manager or bank manager and say, "Hey, you know what, hey, move this much money to whatever." So, that's one way of kind of phishing, kind of deep fake that can come. So, that's just one example. Imagine whether business is conducted by just using voice or phone calls itself. That's an area of concern if you were to do that. And imagine this became an uproar a few years back when deepfakes put out the video of Tom Cruise and others we talked about in the past, right? And Tom Cruise looked at the video, he said that he couldn't distinguish that he didn't do it. It is so close, that close, right? And they are doing things like they're using gems... >> Awesome Instagram account by the way, the guy's hilarious, right? >> So, they they're using a lot of this fake videos and fake stuff. As long as it's only for entertainment purposes, good. But imagine doing... >> That's right there but... >> But during the election season when people were to put out saying that, okay, this current president or ex-president, he said what? And the masses believe right now whatever they're seeing in TV, that's unfortunate thing. I mean, there's no fact checking involved, and you could change governments and elections using that, which is scary shit, right? >> When you think about 2016, that was when we really first saw, the weaponization of social, the heavy use of social and then 2020 was like, wow. >> To the next level. >> It was crazy. The polarization, 2024, would deepfakes... >> Could be the next level, yeah. >> I mean, it's just going to escalate. What about public policy? I want to pick your brain on this because I I've seen situations where the EU, for example, is going to restrict the ability to ship certain code if it's involved with critical infrastructure. So, let's say, example, you're running a nuclear facility and you've got the code that protects that facility, and it can be useful against some other malware that's outside of that country, but you're restricted from sending that for whatever reason, data sovereignty. Is public policy, is it aligned with the objectives in this new world? Or, I mean, normally they have to catch up. Is that going to be a problem in your view? >> It is because, when it comes to laws it's always miles behind when a new innovation happens. It's not just for AI, right? I mean, the same thing happened with IOT. Same thing happened with whatever else new emerging tech you have. The laws have to understand if there's an issue and they have to see a continued pattern of misuse of the technology, then they'll come up with that. Use in ways they are ahead of things. So, they put a lot of restrictions in place and about what AI can or cannot do, US is way behind on that, right? But California has done some things, for example, if you are talking to a chat bot, then you have to basically disclose that to the customer, saying that you're talking to a chat bot, not to a human. And that's just a very basic rule that they have in place. I mean, there are times that when a decision is made by the, problem is, AI is a black box now. The decision making is also a black box now, and we don't tell people. And the problem is if you tell people, you'll get sued immediately because every single time, we talked about that last time, there are cases involving AI making decisions, it gets thrown out the window all the time. If you can't substantiate that. So, the bottom line is that, yes, AI can assist and help you in making decisions but just use that as a assistant mechanism. A human has to be always in all the loop, right? >> Will AI help with, in your view, with supply chain, the software supply chain security or is it, it's always a balance, right? I mean, I feel like the attackers are more advanced in some ways, it's like they're on offense, let's say, right? So, when you're calling the plays, you know where you're going, the defense has to respond to it. So in that sense, the hackers have an advantage. So, what's the balance with software supply chain? Are the hackers have the advantage because they can use AI to accelerate their penetration of the software supply chain? Or will AI in your view be a good defensive mechanism? >> It could be but the problem is, the velocity and veracity of things can be done using AI, whether it's fishing, or malware, or other security and the vulnerability scanning the whole nine yards. It's scary because the hackers have a full advantage right now. And actually, I think ChatGPT recently put out two things. One is, it's able to direct the code if it is generated by ChatGPT. So basically, if you're trying to fake because a lot of schools were complaining about it, that's why they came up with the mechanism. So, if you're trying to create a fake, there's a mechanism for them to identify. But that's a step behind still, right? And the hackers are using things to their advantage. Actually ChatGPT made a rule, if you go there and read the terms and conditions, it's basically honor rule suggesting, you can't use this for certain purposes, to create a model where it creates a security threat, as that people are going to listen. So, if there's a way or mechanism to restrict hackers from using these technologies, that would be great. But I don't see that happening. So, know that these guys have an advantage, know that they're using AI, and you have to do things to be prepared. One thing I was mentioning about is, if somebody writes a code, if somebody commits a code right now, the problem is with the agile methodologies. If somebody writes a code, if they commit a code, you assume that's right and legit, you immediately push it out into production because need for speed is there, right? But if you continue to do that with the AI produced code, you're screwed. >> So, bottom line is, AI's going to speed us up in a security context or is it going to slow us down? >> Well, in the current version, the AI systems are flawed because even the ChatGPT, if you look at the the large language models, you look at the core piece of data that's available in the world as of today and then train them using that model, using the data, right? But people are forgetting that's based on today's data. The data changes on a second basis or on a minute basis. So, if I want to do something based on tomorrow or a day after, you have to retrain the models. So, the data already have a stale. So, that in itself is stale and the cost for retraining is going to be a problem too. So overall, AI is a good first step. Use that with a caution, is what I want to say. The system is flawed now, if you use it as is, you'll be screwed, it's dangerous. >> Andy, you got to go, thanks so much for coming in, appreciate it. >> Thanks for having me. >> You're very welcome, so we're going wall to wall with our coverage of the Cloud Native Security Con. I'm Dave Vellante in the Boston Studio, John Furrier, Lisa Martin and Palo Alto. We're going to be live on the show floor as well, bringing in keynote speakers and others on the ground. Keep it right there for more coverage on theCUBE. (upbeat music) (upbeat music) (upbeat music) (upbeat music)