>>from >>around the globe. It's the Cube with digital coverage of AWS reinvent 2020 sponsored by Intel AWS and our community partners. >>Hey, welcome back. You're ready, Jeffrey here with the Cube coming to you from our Palo Alto studios with our continuing coverage of aws reinvent 2020 the virtual event. We're excited to be back. We've been coming to reinvent for years and years and years, I think since 2013 1st years virtual But that's the way it is. And we're gonna jump into Cloud and government and D o d. And we're really excited to have our next guest. You know a lot about the topic. We have Robert Grote. He is the VP of technology and strategy from spark Tronics coming to us from Virginia. Great to see you, Robert. >>Great. Thank you. >>And joining him is Anthony Voltaggio, the CTO of Smartronix. Anthony. Good to see you as well. Thank you. Great. So let's jump into it. I think Rob, we had you on a couple of years ago. I I looked it up. It was early October 18 and you guys were getting a lot of success with cloud in government and I think it was before the Jedi and all that other stuff was going down. Two years is forever in cloud time. I wonder if you could just share a little bit about how the market has changed since I think it was February or March of 2018 to now late November 2020 in terms of cloud and government and Department of Defense. And you're highly regulated customers. >>Sure, I think one of the things that's changed is that security certainly used to be a headwind on bond. Now we're actually seeing it more of a tailwind where our customers, especially are heavily regulated, compliance driven customers in the public sector and the D. O. D are really looking at new ways of embracing the value of the cloud. So one of the things that has changed is that maybe two years ago, we were looking at How do we move digital estate from on premise into the cloud environment? We're now we're looking at. How do we actually achieve value in the cloud? How do we allow our customers to optimize their portfolio? How do they modernize their application footprint in a in a secure way and some of the things that we focused on, particularly smartronix, is how do we remove that friction that exists when a new kind of legacy customer really wants to transform the way that they deliver services. So we built, uh, capabilities that really allow them to more rapidly migrate their services into the cloud environment. We created and have an 80 0, now for a cloud assured manage services, which means that our customers who want to meet the rigorous security mandates now have that ability to utilize our services when they're deploying these services. And it really enables them to focus on the development of the modernization, you know, versus having to do the cumbersome components of security compliance and operation on def. You if you look at what we're trying to build and trying Thio intersect with where our customers we're going, they really want to get to that pace of innovation that the cloud provides. Um, you know, I think I've said this before to the Cube that the slope of disruption is correlated to the pace of innovation. And if you continue to build technical debt like our customers may have done in the past, they're gonna fall behind and it might be okay, um, for, you know, Blockbuster to fall behind the Netflix or for uber disrupted industry. But for our customers, there's national security consequences when they fall behind. So we've got to create a platform and a capability that enables them to innovate on, deliver very agile services rapidly. >>And then I wanna go. I wanna go to you because I think Robin, in your last interview, talked about your customers very secure, highly regulated, compliance driven environments. Right? And? And to be clear, you guys sell a lot to Department of Defense and all the various branches of the U. S. Military etcetera. You know, Anthony, a lot of talk of digital transformation on the commercial side and and people going right And then, of course, all the jokes and memes about Covic, you know, being the accelerator to that for >>your >>customers. The accelerators thio at modernization in the digital transformation are very different. It's not about necessarily the competitors down the street, but it's about some nasty competitors that want to cause this real harm. How how have they adopted? You know, kind of this this digital transformation and what's different in terms of accelerating it in your customer base. >>We're looking our defense customers and national security customers. Absolutely. The velocity and scale of cloud is becoming an enabler again. Looking at those information work was that they have looking at the nation state adversaries that we're facing right now. Information is information warfare. So if we're not ready to scale, innovate at much higher velocity than we have in the past, we're gonna become victim to those attacks. Methodologies that score matters of using so that the scale and power of the cloud as well is that tailwind of all these authorized services that are offered by Amazon that are already at the federal federal high and D o D. Impact. Those for higher, up to impact level six really, really enable them to go ahead and meet that mission. But mad and speed and agility. They need toe mash that for necessary, >>right? Well lets you just talked about impact level, and I want to dig into that for a little bit because in doing research on you guys and a lot of the solutions that customers you talk about, there's there's constant conversation about these impact levels Impact level for impact level five Impact Level six Again. It's highly regulated industry. You guys have a very, very high bar that you have to hit in your solutions. What does impact level mean and why is it important? And how are you basically working your way up the chart, which I assume is a much more impactful? Not not no pun intended, but much more significant solution delivery. >>So impact levels really have to do with information risk. So what is the level of information that that system is processing? So as you move up the impact levels, that information becomes more more critical to national security. So on impact Level four system may have to do with standard mission operations and Ministry of Task, etcetera, where when you go up the staff to impeccable five and even to impact level six or higher, you're really dealing with, let's say, in the d. O d, uh, perspective, the horror fighter eso. Now you're dealing with where that war fighters deployed the capabilities of the water fighter that they're leveraging To fight that battle against the adversary eso you have to put more and more rigorous controls around that information to ensure the adversaries can gain the tactical advantage over our war fighters. >>It's really interesting. You know how all these systems are really designed? Uh, toe work together. And as you said, kind of for that, that warfighter, if you you know, you you watch anything on defense, it's kind of the point into the stick, but there's a whole lot of support behind that behind that person at the very end to help them get the information to be successful in their job and support them. Um, etcetera. But I'm curious. Have you seen a change in attitude in terms of not only the data and the information in the systems as a support for the war fighter, but in fact, that data itself being a significant asset as well as a significant target, probably bigger and more valuable than an aircraft carrier or any other kind of traditional defense assets? >>Yeah, I would say we've definitely seen that change. Our our our customers air really looking at data and aggregate and when you're when you're building a cloud profile when you're building a portfolio systems, um, and it's all in a single type environment or an enclave where you can unlock the value of that data, the aggregate of all of those applications. The aggregate of that data has increased value, and that allows you to do a lot more things with it. Allows you to innovate a lot. Mawr toe. Learn more about that data on We're seeing our customers really looking at. How can they unlock that value? Whether it's looking at improving the supply chain, looking at data feeds that they're able to aggregate from commercial sources as well as sources that they're getting in a distributed fashion or whether it's just, you know, looking at, how can they improve the efficiency of of delivering services to the to the warfighter? Um, it really is about unlocking that value of data. So that's why it's also important that we have capabilities that protect that data. And then we provide more capabilities that allow our customers to be able to leverage as the C. S. P s as AWS innovates. Allow them to leverage these new capabilities much more rapidly than they could in the past, >>right? Well, and you talk about technical debt and you know there's kind of technical dead and There's application dead, and there's kind of application portfolio stuff that that you have right that may or may not work well, that's probably running and has been running for years. That doesn't necessarily all have to be modernized. You said Sometimes you know it's it's best to leave. Leave it as it lies. How are you helping people figure out? You know what, what to modernize, what to leave it as as it is. And then you know, or you know how much effort should really be spent on new on new applications and new development. You know, taking taking advantage of the latest because that's kind of a tricky portfolio strategy. And as you said, there's a whole lot of legacy stuff that's still running in those old data centers. >>You mentioned the key word there and that strategy. Our our customers are looking to us to help them evaluate their portfolio, determine what things that they should be doing next, the sequencing events and how they can unlock some of those values in the cloud. So, you know, one of the things that we talk about is that ability to even if you're taking stuff from a legacy environment and moving that estate into the cloud. There's certain things that you can do to opportunistically re factor and get value out of the cloud. You don't have to rewrite the application every time there's things that you can do to just re factor. Um, and one of those components is that when you look at cloud and you look at the a p I nature of the cloud, um, transparency is the gift of the cloud. And automation is how you get value out of that gift. And when when you look at how automation and transparency you're kind of tied together for our customers and you look at the fact that again everything's in a P I based, you know, with, you know, full non repudiation who made that call when they made that call? You've got an ability to create this autonomic response system, and this is This is a key part of application modernization, giving that customer the ability to rapidly respond to an event, create automation, create run books, use you know, advanced technologies like machine learning for anomaly detection, create, you know, security orchestration, all of those components when you could build that framework. Then your customers can even take some of their legacy assets and be able to utilize, you know, the high value of the cloud and respond to events much faster and in, um, or automated an autonomic manner. >>I love that transparency in automation. And I want to go back to you. Anthony, you've been doing this for a long time. Um, you didn't have these tools at your disposal before, and you didn't have necessarily the automation that you have before. And I think more importantly, you know, interesting thing that Rob you touched on on on your earlier interview a couple of years back, you know, kind of this scale learning something identified by by Bill Chamorro's I once in terms of calling it out where you learn something in one place and you can apply that learning, you know, across many, many places. And then the other piece. I want you to comment on its automation because, as we know, a lot of errors happen from silly things, fat fingers, bad copy paste, putting in a wrong config code. This that and the other. So, by adding mawr and Mawr automation and continuing to kind of remove potential little slip ups that can cause big big problems. It's a really different world that you've got in the tools that you have in your portfolio to offer these solutions up to your clients >>absolutely again, as we've learned MAWR Maura about these repeatable patterns that have happened across our different customers. That allows us to create that run book automation library that then allows our team and our capabilities scale across multiple workloads and kind of like Robert identified earlier. There's a lot of these cognitive services, and I'll take Amazon a specific example. Guard duty. It is a very innovative capability with M. L. A. I behind it that allow you to look at these access patterns and communication patterns of these application workloads and quickly identify threats. But the automation and road book and orchestration that you can build behind this then allows you to leverage that library to immediately respond to these events. When you see a threat and you see that pattern, your your ability to rapidly respond to that and mitigate that threat, Israel allows your business and information systems continue providing no the primary business use case and again in our GOP customer. National security system. Customers dividing to the warfighter complete their mission. >>Yeah, well, what a good and let you give. Give a plug for some of your processes and techniques. You have something that you call fast, um, to help people, you know, go through this decision process. And I think, as you said, Rob, you know, you gotta have some strategy before you start making some decisions. And also, this thing that we're seeing out there called the shift left. Um, what does that mean to you? What does it mean to your customers? Why is that important? Why should people know about it? Start with you, Rob. >>So what? We notice we've been doing cloud services, you know, since 2009, Really? One of the first eight of us public sector partners delivering the first capabilities to that market. And what we noticed is that ah, lot of organizations found it easy to move one or two workloads into the cloud. But they struggled in making a cloud, a true enterprise asset. So we took a step back and we created something that we call foundational agile strategic transformation. And that's fast. It's a It's a program that we developed that allows complex organizations. Security minded organizations understand What are all the foundational things that need to be in place to really treat cloud as an enterprise asset? And it covers much more than just the technical components. It covers the organizational components. It covers all the stakeholders around security. But one of the key things that we've changed in the past couple of years is how do we not only look at, you know, leveraging the cloud is an enterprise asset, But how do we allow them to accelerate how they can get the value out of the cloud, modernize their applications, create thes capabilities? And the shift left component of fast is providing as much capability all the way down to where the developer is, where you have maybe dead set cops when it used to be a developer on one side and operations on the other. Security is kind of a binding function. Now we're talking about how can we create more capability, right at the point of development? How can we shift that capability? And I think the role of the managed service provider is to enable that in an organization provide capability, provide operations capability but also help them in a You know, we use the term SRE quite a bit. Site reliability, engineering. How can we really help them continuously optimize their portfolio and build a set of capabilities and services? So when they're building new applications, they're not adding to their technical debt. >>That's great and so and so, so important. And it's just been so interesting. Toe watch again. A security specifically for Public Cloud in AWS has become from you know, what was potentially a concern and a headwind to now being a tailwind. And all you have to do is go to go to some of the the architectural keynotes my some of my favorites and see the scale in massive investments that they can put into infrastructure. And they can put into security that no single company, unless you have the biggest, biggest ones you know, can possibly invested to be able to leverage that opportunity. And obviously, Teresa Carlson and the Public Sector team have done a really good job and giving you guys the solutions that satisfy the very tight requirements that you're very important customers have. So it's really a great story and really enjoy learning mawr and continued success to you guys And, uh, and your teams and your importance, your customers and all the important stuff that they protect for us. Uh, eso thank you very much. All right. Thank you. All right, well, signing off. That's Robert and Anthony. I'm Jeff. You're watching the Cube. Ongoing coverage of aws reinvent 2020. Thanks for watching. See you next time. Thank you.

>>from around the globe. It's the Cube with coverage of Yukon and Cloud. Native Con North America 2020 Virtual brought to you by Red Hat The Cloud Native Computing Foundation and Ecosystem >>Partners Everyone welcome back to the cubes. Coverage of Coop con Cloud, native con North America 2020. Normally the Cuba's in person. But like the EU event, this is gonna be a remote virtual event. This is the Cube virtual. We are the Cube Virtual. This is a keynote and show review with our analysts and hosts Lisa Martin, GOP Scar and myself. Guys, welcome to the program. Lisa, Great to see you. You great to see you remotely. Thanks for coming on. >>Always great to be part of the Cuban acute virtual keeping us connected. >>So Coop Con Cloud Native cons November and I remember in 2016 the first Coop Con. That's when Hillary Clinton got defeated by Trump. And now this year the election's passed this time and, uh, Biden the winner. So, you know, election more good vibes this year in the community because everyone was kind of sad last time. So if you remember the first Cube con, it was in Seattle during that time, so that was important to kinda reminisce on. That other thing I want to bring up to you guys is the somber news of the passing of Dan Con who was the executive director of C N C F. He passed a few weeks ago on his home. It was illness and great legend. So we're gonna call that out, and there are thoughts and prayers. Go with the families. Condolences to his wife and kids. So what? I'm say, Dan. Godspeed. Funny dance story, Lisa. Yo, piece that I always always pronounce his name wrong on the queue was like, John, it's con, not Cohen. Okay. All right, Dan, Good to see you. Sorry, but a great guy friend to everyone And super great human being. So rest in peace. Okay. Que con, I >>think the big thing. >>This you wanna get your thoughts, you have to start with you, C and C F. What are they up to? Obviously remote. It's been a terrible year with the pandemic and all the disruptions on DCI change your thoughts on where they are now, this year. >>So you know, it's funny, even though it's remote. Even though reaching people, it's become harder. Uh, you know, we all have to deal with this from our you know, our living room, our office at home. But still, the C in C F is doing what it's been doing for a little while now. So instead of focusing on the technology part of RT world, there are focusing on you know, the community side of it. So they're fighting for inclusivity. They're fighting for diversity, for resilience in terms off their community. And they are really working on making the open source community more accessible, both for end user companies. A swell as offer developers thio enter the space, have their contribution and, you know, make sure that everyone can reap the full benefits off these open source products. >>You know, we talked to Priyanka Sharma and Stephen Augustus, and this was a big theme. There's there's been there's been a lot of engagement online, obviously, even though they have a remote platform, some people are thrilled with it. Some aren't. No one's ever happy these days. It's on the Web. It's always difficult, but the community been activated and a lot more diversity. I covered the big story around. You know, Master slave. The terminology now is gonna go main, you know, terminology and how that's gonna be safer. Also for diversity stem women in tech, This >>has been >>a big theme. I'd love to get your thoughts on that, because I think that's been a very positive thing. Uh, Lisa, you and I have been talking about this for years on the Cube around this diversity peace. What's your thoughts as well, like to get both your reactions on where this directions going. >>Yeah. You know, I think there's a number of things that have been catalyzed this year by the challenges that we've been through and the diversity pushed into the spotlight again. The spotlight is different, and it's really causing change for good. I think it's opening people's minds and perspective, as is, I think, this entire time, you know, it's for events like Yukon and all the other events that were normally getting a lot of airline miles for John and you were not getting. We're sitting at home with our in home studios, but at the same time, the engagement is increasing in every event, I imagine that the great Q. Khan and cognitive community that Dan Cohen has built is on Lee getting bigger and stronger, even though folks are physically separated. That's been just been my observation and something I felt from everything show I've covered every interview I've done that diversity is being raised now to a visibility level that we haven't seen in terms of a catalyzing action. >>You your reaction, Thio. >>No, I completely agree. And I want to add to that where you know, just like Lisa said. You know, we used to fly to these events. We were privileged and lucky to to be there to have the opportunity. But because everything is now digital and virtual, it opens the community up to so many other people who, for whatever reason, weren't able to join in person but are able to join virtually indigenously. So I think you know, even though there's a lot of downsides Thio to this pandemic, this is one of the, you know, the small nuggets of off seeing the sea NCF community opening up to a broader audience. >>Yeah, and that's a great point. You know, we aren't getting the airline miles we're getting Certainly the zoom and the cube mileage remote Lisa, because what's interesting you're saying is is that you know, we're getting more action with him coming in, doing some or hosting yourself, um, Eliana Gesu as well, Others. But we can get people more because remember, the people aren't we're not trying, but so aren't other people that were coming the big names, but also the fresh voices, the new names, names? We don't know yet. I think that's what we're seeing with the remote interviews is that it's one click away from being on the Cube now. So cute. Virtual is 24 73 65 we're gonna continue to do that. I think this is gonna change the makeup of the engagement in the conversation because you're gonna have mawr participation that's going to be highly accelerated. But also, these new voices are gonna bring a positive change. It might upset the hierarchy a little bit in the working groups at the top you, But you know they're open. I mean, I talked with Stephen Augustus. He's totally cool with this Chris, and I check is the same way he's like, Hey, bring on more people. This is the >>This is >>the vibe of the of the Lennox foundations always been. >>It's always been that way. And, you know, going back Teoh to the early open source events in Europe that I went to you. I started doing that as a teenager 15 years ago, and the vibe, you know, hasn't necessarily changed. The makeup of the audience certainly has changed right from it, being dominated by white males. It's totally opened up. And, you know, if we see that happening with the C N C F now as well, I think that's for you know, for the better. I think, um, our community, the i t community in the open source community need that resilience. Need all of those different perspectives from all of you know, different kinds of people from different walks of life with different histories. And I think that only makes the community stronger and more viable in the long run. I >>agree it's that >>open source needs. >>Sorry, it's not thought diversity that I think we're seeing even more now again. Just my perspective is just that the light that this challenging time is shining on, exposing things that are really opportunities and it's I think it's imperative to look at it in that way. But that thought diversity just opens up so many more opportunities that folks that are maybe a little bit more tunnel visioned aren't thinking of. But for businesses, thio and people Thio thrive and move forward and learn from this we need to be able Thio, take into consideration other concepts, other perspectives as we learn and grow. >>Yeah, that's a good point. You know, It was giving a a shout out to Dan Conn. And when I heard the news, I put a clip. One of my favorite clips over the interviews was really me kind of congratulating him on the success of C and C. I think it was, like two years ago or maybe last year. I forget, Um, but I >>was a >>critic of it ever initially, and I was publicly on the record on the Cube. Lisa, you remember, uh, with Stew, who's now having a great new career? Red hat Still and I were arguing, and I was saying, Stew, I think this is gonna fail, because if c. N. C F doesn't balance the end user peace with the logos that we're coming because remember, you about four years ago. It was like a NASCAR logo. Farmers like you know, it's like, you know, everything was like sponsored by Google this and then Amazon came in. You look at the sponsor list. It was like It's the who's who and cloud and now cloud native. It was the industry the entire industry was like, stacked up against reinvent. This is before Amazon made their move. I mean, uh, as your maid, they're moving for Google. Cloud kind of got their footing. So is essentially coop con against a W s. And I said, That's gonna fail, and I had to eat my words, and I did. It was rightfully so, But the balance, the balance between end user projects and vendor was very successful. And that's still plays out today. Lisa. This is important now because you said pandemic de ecosystem still needs to thrive, but there's no face to face anymore. >>What's the >>challenge? What's the opportunity there? I wanna put you on the spot. >>Sure. No, I think I think it's both challenging and opportunistic. I tend to look at it more from an opportunistic view. I think that it forced a lot of us, Even people like myself who worked from home a lot before, when I wasn't traveling for my marketing company or the Cube. You can really have very personal interactions. The people on Zoom and I found that it's connecting people in a deeper way than you even would get in the office. That's something that I actually really appreciate, how it has been an opportunity to really kind of expand relationships or toe open new doors that wouldn't be there if we were able to be studying together physically in person. And it's obviously changing. You know, all the vendors that we work with. It's very different to engage an audience when you are on Lee on camera, and it's something that, as we know, is we work with folks who haven't done it before. That's one of the things that I think a lot of the C suite I talked to Mrs is that opportunity Thio. You know, be on a stage and and be able to show your body language and your energy with your customers and your partners and your employees. But I actually do think that there is what we're doing through Zoom and and all these virtual platforms like the Cube virtual is well, we're opening up doors for a more intimate way that I think the conversations are more authentic. You know, people are have, like, three year old Discover occurs and they're running in the room when they're screaming behind that. That's how things are today. We're learning toe work with that, but we're also seeing people in a more human >>way. Containers Mitch, mainstream and shifting, left the role of security this year. What's your >>take? So I mean, if we're talking about security and nothing else, I think we're at a point where you know, the C N C. F has become mainstream. Its most popular products have become mainstream. Um, because if we're talking about security, there's, you know, not a lot left. And I say that with, you know, a little bit of sarcasm. I don't mean to offend anyone, but if I did, uh, I do apologize, but, you know, security. Even though it is super important again, it means that we have, you know, moved on from talking about kubernetes and and container Management, or we've moved on from storage. Um, it means that the technology part of the C N. C. F. Like the hard work has been done for 80%. We're now into the 20% where we're kind of, you know, dotting the I's and and making sure that we cover all of the bases. And so one of the news sandbox sandbox projects that has been accepted, I think, today even eyes certain Manager Thio to manage certificates Uh, you know, at scale, um, in an automated fashion. And I think that's, you know, 11 prime example of how security is becoming the theme and kind of the conversation at Yukon this year where, you know, we're again seeing that maturity come into play with even with sandbox projects now being able to help customers help end users with, you know, certificates which is, you know, in in the the macro picture a very specific, a very niche thing to be able to solve with open source software. But for every company, this is one of those vital, you know, kind of boilerplate security measures so that the, um the customer and all of their infrastructure remains safe. >>I think you what You're kind of really articulate, and there is the evolution of CNC off much to John Surprises. You said you thought in the very beginning that this wasn't gonna take off. It has. Clearly, Dan Cohen's left a great legacy there. But we're seeing the evolution of that. I do know John. Wanna ask because you did a lot of the interviews here. We've been talking for, what, nine months now on the Cube Virtual about the acceleration of transformation, of every business to go from that. Okay, how do we do this work in this in this weird environment? Keep the lights on. How do we actually be successful and actually become a thriving business? As things go forward, what are some of the things that you heard from the guests regarding? Kobe has an accelerator. >>Well, I think I think a couple of things. Good. Good question. I think it ranges. Right. So the new They had some news that they're trying to announce. Obviously, new survey certifications, K a security certification, new new tech radar support, diversity stats. You know, the normal stuff they do in the event, they gotta get the word out. So that was one thing I heard, but on the overall macro trend. You know, we saw the covert impact, and no >>one's >>afraid of it there. I mean, I think, you know, part of the legacy of these tech communities is they've been online. They're they're used to being online. So it's not a new thing. So I don't think that the work environment has been that much of a disruption to the people in the in the core community. Linux Foundation, for instance, had a great shot with Chris and a sticker on this. He's the CTO. He's been the CEO, brought a senior roles. Um, in fact, they're they're creating a template around C N C f. And then they're announced The Finn Finn Ops Foundation. Uh, Jr store meant, um, is an executive director. That's part of the new foundation. It's a practitioner community. So I think, um, teasing out the conversation is you're gonna see a template model of the C N. C f. Where you're going to see how groups work together. I think what cove? It has definitely shown in some of the things that you guys were saying around how people are gonna be more engaged, more diversity, more access. I >>think you're >>gonna start to see new social constructs emerge around distinct user groups. And I think this Finn ops Foundation is a tell sign around how groups of people going to start together, whether they're cube host coming together on Cube fans and cube alumni. I mean, let me think about the alumni that have been on the Cube. Lisa, you know Tim Hopkins, Sarah Novotny. Chelsie Hightower. Um, Dan Burns, Craig MK Lucky. I mean, we've had everybody on that's now Captain of the industry. So, um, way had capital one we've had, uh, you know, lift on. I mean, it's becoming a really tight knit. Everyone knows each other, and I think now they realize that they have a lot of, uh, power to infect change. And so when you're trying to affect change, um, that's a good thing, and people are pumped about. So I think the big focus was, um, CNC have a successful again. It's there's there's a somber note around Dan cons passing, but I think he had already moved on to a new position. So he was already passed the baton to management, But he did leave a mark, but I think there's Priyanka Sharma. She's doing a great job. People are upbeat and I think the theme is kubernetes. It happened. It's went next level, then it's going next level again and I think that's kind of what people really aren't saying is kind of the public secret, which is okay, this thing's going mainstream. Now you're gonna start to see it in, in, In commercial deployments. You're gonna start to see it scale into organizations. And that's not the cool kids or the Emerging Dev ops crowd. That's I t. So you know you know it's gonna happen is like, Hey, you know, I'm a nice guy, our developer. What is this? It has toe work. Well, that's the big I think I think people weren't talking about That's the most important story. >>I think another element to that John is the cultural shift. You know, we were talking when we talk about Dev ops who was think about speed and I talked to some folks who said, You know, it's it has to be the I T. Cultures on the business cultures coming together in a meaningful way to collaborate in a very new way. Thankfully, we have the technology to enable us to collaborate. But I think that's been another underlying thing that I've heard a lot through recent times. Is that that facilitator of of cultural change, which is always hard to dio? And there's a bit of a catalyst here for organizations to not just keep the lights on. But to be successful, going forward and and and find new ways of delighting their customers, >>we'll get the final word. I just want to say my big take away to the show is and we'll go down the line. I'll start Lisa in Europe, you could go is the usage of cloud and multi cloud is here. Everyone sees that. I think there's a financial aspect going on with security. You're gonna be tied in. I think you see new sets of services coming built on the foundation of the C N C F. But cloud and multi cloud is here. Multi cloud meeting edges. Well, that is definitely on everyone's radar. That was a big theme throughout the interview, so we'll see more of that. Lisa, your takeaways. >>Yeah, I would agree with that. And I think one of the biggest things that I hear consistently is the opportunities that have been uncovered, the the collaboration becoming tighter and folks having the opportunity to engage more with events like Coop Con and C and C F. Because of this virtual shift, I think there's only ah lot of positive things that we're going to stay to come. >>Yep. Yeah, my point of view is I mean, open source is validated completely right? It's a viable model to build around software. On the one hand, on the other hand, the C and C s role in making that open source community broadly accessible and inclusive is, I think, the biggest win Thio look back at at the last year. >>Well, I'm super excited for moving on to the next event. It's been great pleasure. Lisa. You you guys are great co host Virtual Cube. Thanks for participating. And we'll see you next time. Thank you. Okay, that's the cubes. Coverage of Coop con 2020 cloud Native con Virtual This the cube Virtual. We are the cube. Virtual. Thanks for watching

>>long from Las Vegas. It's the Q covering a ws re invent 2019. Brought to you by Amazon Web service is and in along with its ecosystem partners. >>Welcome back to the Cube. We are in Las Vegas, Lisa Martin with John Wall's. I'm very excited that we're kind of color coordinated >>way. Didn't compare notes to begin with, but certainly the pink thing. It's worth it if >>you like. You complete me. >>Oh, thank you. Really, Joe, I don't hear that very often. My wife says that >>you tell that we're at the end of day one of the coverage of A W s three in bed. Good day, though. Yes, it has been very excited. We have a couple of guests joining us for our final segment on this. Please welcome. We have Bill Gerard CTO of Digital Transformation and Scale solutions at Intel Bill, welcome to our show. >>Thank you very much. Happy to be here >>And one of our friends. That's no stranger to the Cube. One of our former host, Bobby Allyn, the CEO of Cloud Generate. Bobby. >>Thank you. Thank you for having us. >>Guys, here we are. This there has not been a lull in the background noise all day. Not reinvent day one. But Bobby want to start with you. Talk to her audience about cloud genera. Who are you guys? What do you do? And what's different about what you're delivering? >>One of the first things is different about Claude Generous where we're located. So we're in Charlotte, which I call Silicon South. So we're kind of representing the East Coast, and we're a company that focuses, focuses on helping with workload, placement and transformation. So where you don't know whether something should go on from off grim. If you put it in Amazon, which service's should have consumed licensing models? Pricing models way help you make data driven decisions, right? So you're not just going based on opinion, you're going based on fact. >>And that's challenging because, you know, in the as, as John Ferrier would say, No Cloud Wanda Otto, which was compute network storage, it was the easy I shouldn't say easy, but the lift and shit applications that enterprises do are these workloads should go to the cloud. Now we have you know what's left over, and that's challenging for organization. Some of the legacy once can't move. How do you help from a Consul Tatum's down point that customers evaluate workloads? What data are they running? What the value that data has and if they are able to move some of those more challenging applications. >>So part of the framework for us, Lisa, is we want to make sure we understand what people are willing and able to change right, because sometimes it's not just about lower costs. Sometimes it's about agility, flexibility, deploying a different region. So what we often start with his wit is better look like you would assist us with life for your organization. And so then, based on that, we analyze the applications with an objective, data driven framework and then make sure the apse land where they're supposed to go. We're not selling any skewer product. We're selling advice to give you inside about what you should do, >>Bobby, I think. And maybe Bill to you could chime in here on this. If you give people a choice, What does this look like? What you know, What do you want? I don't want to do anything right. I want to stay put, right? But that obviously that's not an option, But you I'm sure you do get pushed back quite a bit from these almost the legacy mindset. And we've talked a lot about this whole transformation versus transition. Some people don't want to go, period. So how do you cajole them? Persuade them bring them along on this journey? Because it's gonna be a long trip. Yeah, I think you gotta pack a lunch. >>It's a good point. I think what we've seen, most of them have data experience that this is a tried and elements didn't get the results that they expected. This is where you know, the partnership that we have with call General. Really? You know that data driven, intelligent, based planning is super important, right? We want to really fundamentally health organizations move the right workloads, make sure they get the right results and not have to redo it. Right? And so part of that, you know, move when you're either past scars or not used to what you're doing. Give him the data and the information to be able to do that intelligently and make that as fast as they can. And you know, at the right, you know, experience in performance from a capability perspective. >>So so many businesses these days, if they're not legacy if they're not looking in the rear view mirror, what is the side mirror site? Objects are closer than they appear, even for Amazon. Right? For all of these companies, there are smaller organizations that might be born in a cloud compared to the legacy two words. And if they're not looking at, we have to transform from the top down digitally, truly transform. Their business may not be here in a year or two, so the choice and I think they need to pack a lunch and a hip flask for this because it's quite the journey. But I'm curious with the opportunity that cloud provides. When you have these consultation conversations, what are This? Could be so transformative not just to a business, but to a do an entire industry. Bill talked to us from your perspective about some of the things that you've seen and how this next generation of cloud with a I machine learning, for example, can can really transfer like what's the next industry that you think is prime to be really flipped upside down? >>Well, the good news is I think most of the industries in the segment that we talked to have realized they need to some level of transformation. So doing the business as usual really isn't an option to really grow and drive in the future. But I do think the next evolution really does center on what's happening in a I and analytics. Whether it's, you know, moving manufacturing from video based defect detection, supply chain integrity. You know what's happening from a retail was really the first in that evolution, but we see it in health care in Federal Data Center modernization, and it's really moving at a faster pace and adopting those cloud technologies wherever they needed, both in their data center in the public, cloud out of the edge. And we'll start to see a real shift from really consolidation in tow. Large hyper converts, data centers to distributed computing where everything again. And that's where we're excited about the work we're doing with the Amazon, the work we're doing with Eyes V partners to be at the capability where they need it, but I think it will be really the next. Evolution of service is everywhere. >>Never talk us through an example or use case of a customer that you're working with, a cloud genera with intel and and a W S. What does that trifecta look like for, say, a retailer or financial service is organization >>so that that looks like this? ELISA. When we when we talk about workload placement, we think that most companies look at that as a single question. It's at least a five fold question. Right there is the venue. There's the service. There's the configuration, the licensing model and the pricing model. You need to look at all five of those things. So even if you decided on a DBS is your strategic partner, we're not done yet. So we have a very large financialservices customer that I can't name publicly. But we've collaborated with them to analyze tens of thousands of workloads, some that go best off from some that go best on for him. And they need guidance and coaching on things like, Are you paying for redhead twice your pay for licensing on him? Are you also paying for that in the cloud? There are things that maybe should be running an RT s database as a service. Here's your opportunity to cut down on labor and shift some of the relationships tohave, toe re index and databases is not glamorous or differential to value for your business. Let's take advantage of what a TBS does well and make this better for your company. One of the things that I want to kind of introduce to piggyback on your question. We lean on people process technology as kind of the three, the three legged horse in the Enterprise. I want to change that people process product or people process problem. We're falling in love with the tech and getting lazy. Technology should be almost ubiquitous or under the covers to make a product better or to solve a problem for the customer. >>Well, maybe on that, I mean automation concern to come in and make a big play here because we're taking all these new tasks if you could automate them that you free your people, your developers to do their thing right. So you raise an interesting point on that about being lazy and relying on things. But yet you do want off put our offload some of these nasty not to free up that creativity and free up the people to do what they're supposed to be doing. It's a delicate balance, though, isn't it? It is. It is. This >>is where I think the data driven, you know, informed decisions important. We did a lot of research with Cloud Jenner and our customers, and there's really four key technical characteristics when evaluating workload. The 1st 1 of course, is the size of the data. Where is the created words They use Words that consumed the 2nd 1? Is the performance right? Either performance not only to other systems around it or the end user, but the performance of the infrastructure. What do you need out of the capability? The level of integration with other systems? And then, of course, security. We hear that time and again, right? Regulatory needs. What are we having from top secret data to company sensitive data? Really Getting that type of information to drive those workload placement decision becomes at the forefront of that on getting, you know, using cloud gender to help understand the number of interfaces in and out the sides of the data. The performance utilization of the system's really helps customers understand how to move the right workload. What's involved and then how to put that in the right eight of us instance, and use the right ideas capabilities, >>and you and you both have hit on something here because the complexity of this decision, because it's multi dimensional, you talked about the five points a little bit ago. Now you talked about four other factors. Sue, this is not a static environment, No, and to me that as you're making a decision, that point is what's very difficult for, I would assume for the people that you're interfacing with on the company level. Yes, because it's a moving target for them, right? They just it's it's dynamic and changing your data flows exponentially. Increasing capabilities are changing. How do you keep them from just breaking down? >>I don't want to jump in on that, because again, I'm going to repeat this again. That my thesis is often technology is the easy part. We need to have conversations about what we want to do. And so I had a conversation earlier today. Think of Amazon like a chef. They could make anything I want, but I need to decide what I want to eat. If I'm a vegan and he wants steak. That's not Amazons fault. If they can't cook something, that's a mismatch of a bad conversation. We need to communicate. So what I'm finding is a lot of executives are worried about this. There were Then you're going to give me the right the wrong answer to the right question. The reality is you may have the wrong question. First of all right, the question is usually further upstream, so the worry that you're gonna give me the wrong answer to the right question. But often you need to worry that you're getting your starting with the wrong question. You're gonna get the right answer asked the right question first. And then you got a chance to get to the final destination. But >>and then he in this multi cloud world that many organizations live in, mostly not My strategy could be by Emma A could be bi developer preference for different solutions. A lot of Serios air telling us we've inherited a lot of this multi cloud and technical debt. Exactly. So does not just compound the problem because to your point, I mean you think of one way we hear so many different stats about the number of clouds that on average enterprises using is like 5 to 9. That whole world. That's a reality for organizations. So in terms of how the business can be transformed by what you guys are doing together, it seems like there's a tremendous opportunity there. But to your point, Bobby, where do you start? How do you help them understand what? That right first question is at the executive level so that those four technical points that Bill talked about Tek thee you know, the executive staff is all on board with Yes, this is the question we're asking then will understand it. The technology is right. Sold >>it. It's got to start with, Really? What? The company's business imperatives, right? It can't start with an I t objective. It's it's Are we moving into new markets? Do we need thio deploy capabilities faster? Are we doing a digital customer experience? Transformation? Are we deploying new factories, new products into new regions, and so really the first areas? What's the core company strategy, imperatives of the business objectives? And >>then how >>does I t really help them achieve that? In some cases, it may be we have to shift and reduce our data center footprints way have to move capabilities to where we have a new region. Deployments, right? We've got to get him over to Europe. We don't have capabilities in Europe. We're going to Asia. I've got a mobile sales force now where I need to get that customer, meet the customer where they're doing, you know, in the retail store, and >>that >>really then leads quite simply, too. What are the capabilities that we have in house that we're using? >>How are >>they being utilized? And he's using them, and then how do we get them to where they need to be? Some cases accost, imperative. Some cases and agility, Time to market and another's and we're seeing this more often is really what are the new sets of technologies? A. I service is training in forgetting that we're not experience to do and set up, and we don't want to spend the time to go train our infrastructure teams on the technology. So we'll put our data scientists in there figuring out the right set of workloads, the right set of technology, that we can then transform and move our applications to utilize it really starts, I think with the business conversation, or what's the key inflection point that they're experiencing? >>And have you seen that change in the last few years that now it's where you know, cloud not cloud. What goes on Cloud was an I t conversation to your point, Bill. And then the CEO got involved in a little bit later. But now we're we're seeing and hearing the CEO has got to be involved from a business imperative perspective. >>Share some data, right? Uh, so, you know, a couple of years ago, everybody was pursuing cloud largely for cost. Agility started to become primary, and that's still very important. A lot of the internal enterprise data modernizations were essentially stalled a bit because they were trying to figure how much do we move to the the public cloud, right. We want to take advantage of those modern service is at that time, we did a lot of research with our partners. He was roughly 56% of enterprise workload for in their own data center. You know, the rest of them Republic Cloud. And then we saw really the work, the intelligent workload discussion that says we've had some false starts. Organizations now really consistently realize they need both, you know, their own infrastructure and public cloud, and we've actually seen on increase of infrastructure modernization. While they're moving more and more stuff to the cloud, they're actually growing there on centre. It's now roughly 59% on Prem today for that same business, and that's largely because they're using more. Cloud service is that they're also even using Maur on premise, and they're realizing it's a balance and not stalling one or starving one and then committing to the other the committing to both and really just growing the business where it needs to go. >>Strategic reasons. All right? >>Yes, well, there should be four strategic reasons. There aren't always back to your question about which question asked. One of the questions I often ask is, What do you think the benefits will be if you go to cloud? And part of what happens is is not a cloud capability? Problem is an expectation problem. You're not gonna put your GOP system in the cloud and dropped 30% costs in a month, and so that's where we need to have a conversation on, You know, let's iterating on what this is actually gonna look like. Let's evolve the organization. Let's change our thinking. And then the other part of this and this were clouded or an intel come in. Let's model with simulation looks like. So we're gonna take those legacy work clothes unless model containers. Let's model Micro Service is so before you have to invest in transformation to may not make sense. Let's see what the outcome's look like through simulation through a through M l and understand. Where does it make sense to apply? The resource is, you know, to double click on that solution that will help the business. >>I was gonna finish my last question, Bobby, with you saying, Why, Cloud General? But I think you just answered that. So last question for you, though, from from an expectation perspective, give me one of your favorite examples of customer whatever kind of industry there and that you've come in and helped them really level, set their expectations and kick that door wide open. >>That's tough, many >>to choose from. >>Yeah, let me let me try to tackle that one quickly. Store's computer databases. Those are all things that people look at I think what people are struggling with the most in terms of kind of expectations is what they're willing and able to change. So this is kind of what I leave on. Bill and I talked about this earlier today. A product is good, a plan is better. A partnership is best. Because with the enterprises of saying is, we're overwhelmed. Either fix it for me or get in there with me and do it right. Be in this together. So what we've learned is it's not about were close applications. It's all kind of the same. We need help. We're overwhelmed. I want a partner in telling Claude Juncker the get in this thing with me. Help me figure this out because I told you this cloud is at best a teenager. They just learned how to drive is very capable, but it needs some guard rails. >>I love that. Thanks you guys So much for explaining with Johnny what you guys are doing together and how you're really flipping the model for what customers need to be evaluated and what they need to be asking. We appreciate your time. >>Thank you for having us >>our pleasure. Thank you. for John Wall's I'm Lisa Martin. You've been watching the Cube at Reinvent 19 from Vegas. Wants to go tomorrow.

(energetic music) >> Announcer: From our studios in the heart of Silicon Valley; Palo Alto, California. This is a CUBE Conversation. >> Hi everyone, welcome to this special CUBE Power Panel recorded here in Palo Alto, California. We've got remote guests from around the Internet. We have Evan Anderson, Mark Anderson, Phil Lohaus. Thanks for comin' on. Evan is with INVNT/IP, an organization with companies and individuals that fight nation-sponsored intellectual property theft and also author of the huge report Theft Nation Almost a 100 pages of really comprehensive analysis on it. Mark Anderson with the Future in Review CEO of Pattern, Computer and Strategic New Service Chairman of Future in Review Conference, and author of the book "The Pattern Future: "Find the World's Greatest Secrets "and Predicting the Future Using Discovery Patterns" and Phil Lohaus, American Enterprise Institute. Former intelligent analyst, researcher at the American Enterprise Institute, studying competitive strategy and emerging technologies. Guys, thanks for coming on. This topic is, is industrial IoT the new battleground? Mark, you cover the Future Review. Security is the battleground. It's not just a silo'd space. It's horizontally scalable across every single touch point of the Internet, individuals, national security, companies, global, what's your perspective on this new battleground? >> Well, thank you, I took some time and watched your last presentation on this, which I thought was excellent. And maybe I'll try to pick up from there. There's a lot of discussion there about the technical aspects of IoT, or IIoT, and some of the weaknesses, you know firewalls failing, assuming that someone's in your network. But I think that there's a deeper aspect to this. And the problem I think, John, is that yes, they are in your network already, but the deeper problem here is, who is it? Is it an individual? Is it a state? And whoever it is, I'm going to put something out that I think is going to be worth talking more deeply about, and that is, if people who can do the most damage are already in there, and are ready to do it, the question isn't "Can they?" It's "Why have they not?" And so literally, I think if you ask world leaders today, are they in the electric grid? Yes. Is Russia in ours, are we in theirs? Yes. If you said, is China in our most important areas of enterprise? Absolutely. Is Iran in our banks and so forth? They are. And you actually see states of war going on, that are nuisances, but are not what you might call Cybergeddon. And I really believe that the world leaders are truly afraid. Perhaps more afraid of that than of nuclear war. So the amount of death and destruction that could happen if everybody cut loose at the same time, is so horrifying, my guess is that there's a human restraint involved in this, but that technically, it's already game over. >> Phil, Cybergeddon, I love that term, because that's a part of our theme here, is apocalypse now or later? Industrial IoT, or IIoT, or the Internet, all these touch points are creating a surface area that for penetration's purposes, any packet can get in. Nation-states, malware, you name it. It's all problem. But this is the new war battleground. This is now digital Cybergeddon. Forget the wall on the southern border, physical wall. We're talking about a digital wall. We have major threats going on to our society in the United States, and global. This is new, rules of engagement, or no rules of engagement on how to compete in a digital war. This is something that the government's supposed to protect us for. I mean, if someone drops troops in California, physical people, the government's supposed to stop that. But if it's a digital war, it's packets. And the companies are responsible for all this. This doesn't make any sense to me. Break it down, what's the problem? And how do we solve this? >> Sure, well the problem is is that we're actually facing different kinds of threats than we were typically used to facing in the past. So in the past when we go to war, we may have a problem with a foreign country, or a conflict is coming up. We tend to, and by we I mean the United States, we tend to think of these things as we're going to send troops in, or we're going to actually have a physical fight, or we're going to have some other kind of decisive culmination of events, end of a conflict. What we're dealing with now is very different. And it's actually something that isn't entirely new. But the adversaries that we're facing now, so let's say China, Russia, and Iran, just to kind of throw them into some buckets, they think about war very differently. They think about the information space more broadly, and partially because they've been so used to having to kind of be catching up to America in terms of technology, they found other ways to compete with America, and ways that we really haven't been focusing on. And that really, I would argue, extends most prominently to the information space. And by the information space I'm speaking very broadly. I'm talking about, not just information in terms of social media, and emails, and things like that, but also things like what we're talking about today, like IIoT. And these are new threat landscapes, and ones where our competitors have a integrated way of approaching the conflict, one in which the state and private sectors kind of are molded or fused or at least are compelled to work together and we have a very different space here in the United States. And I'm happy to unpack that as we talk about that today, but what we're now facing, is not just about technical capabilities, it's about differences in governing systems, differences in governing paradigms. And so it's much bigger than just talking about the technical specifics. >> Evan, I want you to weigh in on this because one of the things that I feel strongly about, and this is pretty obvious from the commentary, and experts I talk to is, the United States has always been good at defending itself physically, you know war, in being places. Digitally, we've been really good at offense, but terrible on defense, has been the metaphor. I spoke with former four-star General Keith Alexander, who ran the NSA and was first commander of the cyber command, who is now the CEO of IronNet. He and I were talking on-camera and privately and he's saying, "Look it. "we suck at defense digitally. "We're great at offense, we can take someone out "on the offense." But we're talking about IoT, about monitoring. These are technical challenges. This is network nerds, and software engineers have to solve this problem with the prism of defense. This is a new paradigm. This is what we're kind of getting to. And Mark, you kind of addressed it. But this is the challenge. IoT is going to create more points that we have to defend that we suck now at defending, how are we going to get better. This is the paradox. >> Yeah, I think that's certainly accurate. And one of our problems here is that as a society we've always been open. And that was how the Internet was born. And so we have a real paradigm shift now from a world in which the U.S. was leading an open world, that was using the Internet for, I mean there have been problems with security since day one, but originally the Internet was an information-sharing exercise. And we reached a point in human history now where there are enough malicious hackers that have the capabilities we didn't want them to have, but we need to change that outlook. So, looking at things like Industrial IoT, what you're seeing is not so much that this is the battlefield in specific, it's that everything like it is now the battlefield. So in my work specifically we're focused more on economic problems. Economic conflicts and strategies. And if you look at the doctrines that have come out of our adversaries in the last decade, or really 20 years, they very much did what Phil said, and they looked at our weaknesses, and one of those biggest weaknesses that we've always had is that an open society is also unable necessarily to completely defend itself from those who would seek to exploit that openness. And so we have to figure out as a society, and I believe we are. We're running a fine line, we're negotiating this tightrope right now that involves defending the values and the foundational critical aspects of our society that require openness, while also making sure that all the doors aren't open for adversaries. And so we'll continue to deal with that as a society. Everything is now a battlefield and a much grayer area, and IoT certainly isn't helping. And that's why we have to work so hard on it. >> I want to talk about the economic piece on the next talk track of rounds. Theft, and intellectual property that you cover deeply. But Mark and Phil, this notion of Cybergeddon meets the fact that we have to be more defensive. Again, principles of openness are out there. I mean, we have open source. There is a potential path here. Open source software has been, I think, depending on who you talk to, fourth generation, or fifth, depending on how old you are, but it's now mainstream enough now. Are we ever going to get to a formula where we can actually be strong in defense as well as just offense with respect to protecting digitally? >> Phil, do you want that? >> Well, yeah, I would just say that I'm glad to hear that General Alexander is confident about our offensive capabilities. But one of the... To NSA that is conducting these offensive capabilities. When we talk about Russia, Iran, China, or even a smaller group, like let's say an extremist group or something like that, there's an integration between command and control, that we simply don't have here in the States. For example, the Panasonic and Sony examples always come to mind, as ones where there are attacks that can happen against American companies that then have larger implications that go beyond just those companies. So and this may not be a case where the NSA is even tracking the threat. There's been some legislation that's come out, rather controversial legislation about so-called hacking back initiatives and things like that. But I think everybody knows that this is already kind of happening. The real question is going to be, how does the public sector, and how does the private sector work together to create this environment where they're working in synergy, rather than at cross purposes? >> Yeah, and this brings up, I've heard this before. I've heard people talk about the fact that open source nation states can actually empower by releasing tools in open source via the Dark Web or other vehicles, to not actually have, quote, their finger prints, on any attacks. This seems to be a tactic. >> Or go through criminals, right? Use proxies, things like that. It's getting even more complicated and Alexander's talked about that as well, right? He's talked about the convergence of crime and nation-state actions. So whereas with nation-states it's already hard-attributed enough, if that's being outsourced to either whether it's patriotic hackers or criminal groups, it's even more difficult. >> I think you know, Keith is a good friend of all of ours, obviously, good guy. His point is a good one. I'd like to take it a little more extreme state and say, defense is worth doing and probably hopeless. (everyone laughs) So, as they always say, all it takes is one failure. So, we always talk about defense, but really, he's right. Offense is easy. You want to go after somebody? We can get them. But if you want to play defense against a trillion potential points of failure, there's no chance. One way to say this is, if we ignore individuals for a moment and just look at nation-states, it's pretty clear that any nation-state of size, that wants to get into a certain network, will get in. And then the question will be, Well, once they're in, can they actually do damage? And the answer is probably yeah, they probably can. Well, why don't they? Why don't they do more damage? We're kind of back to the original premise here, that there's some restraint going on. And I suspect that Keith's absolutely right because in general, they don't want to get attacked. They don't want to have to come back at them what they're about to do to your banks or your grid, and we could do that. We all could do that. So my guess is, there's a little bit of failure on our part to have deep discussions about how great our defenses either are, or are not, when frankly the idea of defense is a good idea, worthwhile idea, but not really achievable. >> Yeah, that's a great point. That comes up a lot where it's like, people don't want retaliation, so it's a big, critical event that happens, that's noticeable as a counterstrike or equivalent. But there's been discussion of the, I call it "the slow bleed" where they push the line of where that is, like slowly infiltrate, and just cause disruption and inconvenience, as a tactic. This has become something we're seeing a lot of. Whether it's misinformation campaigns on fake news, to just disrupting operations slowly over time, and just kind of, 1,000 paper cuts, if you will. Your guys' thoughts on that? Is that something you guys see out there that's happening? >> Well, you saw Iran go after our banks. And we were pushing Iran pretty hard on the sanctions. Everybody knows they did that. It wasn't very much fun for anybody. But what they didn't do is take down the entire banking system. Not sure they could, but they didn't. >> Yeah, I would just add there that you see this on multiple fronts. You see this is by design. I'm sure that Mark is talking about this in his report but... they talk about this incremental approach that over time, this is part of the problem, right? Is that we have a very kind of black or white conception of warfare in this country. And a lot of times, even companies are going to think, well you know, we're at peace, so why would I do something that may actually be construed as something that's warlike or offensive or things like that? But in reality, even though we aren't technically at war, all of these other actors view this as a real conflict. And so we have to get creative about how we think about this within the paradigm that we have and the legal strictures that we have here in this country. >> Well there's no doubt at least in my non-expert military opinion, but as someone who is a techie, been on the Internet from day one, all my life, and all those tools, you guys as well, I personally think we're at war. 100%, there's no debate on that. And I think that we have to get better policy around this and understand it better. Because it's happening. And one of the obvious areas that we see in the news everyday, it's Huawei and intellectual property theft. This is an economic impact. I mean just look at what's happening in Brexit in the U.K. If that was essentially manipulated, that's the ultimate smart bomb, is to just destroy their financial system, which ended up happening through that misinformation. So there are economic realizations here, Evan,that not only come from the misinformation campaigns and other attacks, but there's real value with intellectual property. This is the report you put out. Your thoughts? >> There's very much an active conflict going on in the economic sphere, and that's certainly an excellent point. I think one of the most important things that most of the world doesn't quite understand yet, but our adversaries certainly understand, is that wars are fought for usually, just a few reasons. And there's a lot of different justification that goes on. But often it's for economic benefit. And if you look at human history, and you look at modern history, a lot of wars are fought for some form of economic benefit, often in the form of territory, et cetera, but in the modern age, information can directly and very quite obviously translate into economic benefit. And so when you're bleeding information, you're really bleeding money. And when I say information, again, it's a broad word, but intellectual property, which our definition, here at INVNT/IP is quite broad too, is incredibly valuable. And so if you have an adversary that's consistently removing intellectual property from what I would call our information ecosystem, and our business ecosystem, we're losing a lot of economic value there, and that's what wars are fought over. And so to pretend that this conflict is inactive, and to pretend that the underlying economy and economic strength that is bolstered or created by intellectual property isn't critical would be silly. And so I think we need to look at those kinds of dynamics and the kind of Gerasimov Doctrine, and the essential doctrine of unrestricted warfare that came out of the People's Republic of China are focused on avoiding kinetic conflict while succeeding at the kinds of conflict that are more preferable, particularly in an asymmetric environment. So that's what we're dealing with. >> Mark and Phil, people waking up to this reality are certainly. People in the know are that I talk to, but generally speaking across the board, is this a woke moment for tech? This Armageddon now or later? >> Woke moment for politicians not for tech, I think. I'm sure Phil would agree with this, but the old guard, go back to when Keith was running the NSA. But at that time, there was a very clear distinction between military and economic security. And so when you said security, that meant military. And now all the rules have changed. All the ways CFIUS works in the United States have changed. The legislation is changing, and now if you want to talk about security, most major nations equate economic security with national security. And that wasn't true 10 years ago. >> That's a great point. That's really profound, I totally agree. Phil. >> I think you're seeing a change in realization in Washington about this. I mean, if you look at the cybersecurity strategy of 2018, it specifically says that we're going to be moving from a posture of active defense to one of defending forward. And we can get into the discussion about what those words mean, but the way I usually boil down is it means, going from defending, but maybe a little bit forward, to actually going out and making sure that our interests are protected. And the reason why that's important, and we're talking about offense versus defense here, obviously the reason why, from what Mark was saying, if they're already in the networks, and they haven't actually done anything, it's because they're afraid of what that offensive response could be. So it's important that we selectively demonstrate what costs we could impose on different actors for different kinds of actions, especially knowing that they're already operating inside of our network. >> That's a great point. I mean, I think that's again another profound statement because it's almost like the pin in the grenade. Once they pull it, the damage is done. Again, back to our theme, Armageddon, now or later? What's the answer to this, guys? Is it the push to policy conversation and the potential consequences higher? Get that narrative going. Is it more technical protection in the networks? What's some of the things that people are talking about and thinking about around this? >> And it's really all of the above. So the tough part about this for any society and for our society is that it's expensive to live in a world with this much insecurity. And so when these kind of low-level conflicts are going on, it costs money and it costs resources. And companies had to deal with that. They spent a long time trying to dodge security costs, and now particularly with the advent of new law like the GDPR in Europe, it's becoming untenable not to spend that defensive money, even as a company, right? But we also are looking at a deepening to change policy. And I think there's been a lot of progress made. Mark mentioned the CFIUS reforms. There are a lot of different essentially games of Whack-A-Mole being played all around the world right now figuring out how to chase these security problems that we let go too long, but there's many, many, many fronts that we need to-- >> Whack-A-Mole's a great example. The visualization of that is just horrendous. You know, not the ideal scenario. But I got to get your point on this, because one of the things that comes up all the time in our conversations in theCUBE is, the government's job is to protect our securities. So again, if someone came in, and invaded my town in Palo Alto, it's not my responsibility to fight for the town. Maybe defend my own house. But if I'm a company being attacked by Russia, or China or Iran, isn't it the government's responsibility to protect me as a citizen and the company doing business there? So again, this is kind of the confusion that people have. If somebody's going to defend their hack, I certainly got to put security practices in place. This is new ground for the government, digitally speaking. >> When we started this INVNT/IP project, it was about seven years ago. And I was told by a very smart guy in D.C. that our greatest challenge was going to be American corporations, global corporations. And he was absolutely right. Literally in this fight to protect intellectual property, and to protect the welfare even of corporations, our greatest enemies so far have been American corporations. And they lobby hard for China, while China is busy stealing from them, and stealing from their company, and stealing from their country. All that stuff's going on, on a daily basis and they're in D.C. lobbying in favor of China. Don't do anything to make them mad. >> They're getting their pockets picked at the same time. And they're trying to do business in China. They're getting their pockets picked. That's what you're saying. >> They're going for the quarterly earnings report and that's all. >> So the problem is-- >> Yeah so-- >> The companies themselves are kind of self-inflicted wounds here for them. >> Yes. >> Yeah, just to add to that, on this note, there have been some... Business to settle interest. And this is something you're seeing a little bit more of. There's been legislation through CFIUS and things like that. There have been reforms that discourage the flow of Chinese money in the Silicon Valley. And there's actually a measurable difference in that. Because people just don't want to deal with the paperwork. They don't want to deal with the reputational risk, et cetera, et cetera. And this is really going to be the key challenge, is having policy makers not only that are interested in addressing this issue, because not all of them are even convinced it's a problem, if you can believe it or not, but having them interested and then having them understand the issue in a way that the legislation can actually be helpful and not get in the way of things that we value, such as innovation and entrepreneurialism and things like that. So it's going to take sophisticated policy-making and providing incentives so that companies actually want to participate and helping to make America safer. >> You're so right about the politicians. Capitol Hill's really not educated. I mean I tell my kids, and they ask the same questions, just look at Mark Zuckerberg and Sundar Pichai present to the government. They don't even know what an Android phone versus an iPhone is, nevermind what the Internet, and how this global economy works. This has become a makeup problem of the personnel in Capitol Hill. You guys see any movement? I'm seeing some change with a new guard, a new generation of younger people coming in. Certainly from the military, that's an easy when you see people get this. But a new generation of young millennials who are saying, "Hey, why are we doing this the old way?" and actually becoming more informed. Not being the lawyer at law-making. It's actually more technically savvy. Is there any movement, any bright hope there? >> I think there's a little hope in the sense that at a time when Congress has trouble keeping the lights on, they seem to have bipartisan agreement on this set of issues that we're talking about. So, that's hopeful. You know, we've seen a number of strongly bipartisan issues supported in Congress, with the Senate, with the House, all agreeing that this is an issue for us all, that they need to protect the country. They need to protect IP. They need to extend the definition of security. There's no argument there. And that's a very strange thing in today's D.C. to have no argument between the parties. There's no error between the GOP and the Democrats as far as I can tell. They seem to all agree on this, and so it is hopeful. >> Freedom has its costs and I think this is a new era of modern freedom and warfare and protection and all these dynamics are changing, just like Cloud 2.0 is changing application developers. Guys, this is a really important topic. Thank you so much for coming on, appreciate it. Love to do a follow-up on this again with you guys. Thanks for sharing your insight. Some great, profound statements there, appreciate it. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> Thanks for having us. >> It's been a CUBE Power Panel here from Palo Alto, California with Evan Anderson, Mark Anderson, and Phil Lohaus. Thank you guys for coming on. Power Panel: The Next Battleground in Industrial IoT. Security is a big part of it. Thanks for watching, this has been theCUBE. (energetic music)