(vibrant music) >> Hi, I'm Peter Burris, welcome once again to another CUBE Conversation from our Palo Alto studios. Recently, we had FortiGaurd Labs here on theCUBE talking about a regular report that they do on the state of the security industry. And once again, we've got Anthony Giandomenico. >> Yeah, good. >> Here to talk about the most recent, the Q1 update. First of all, tell us a little bit about FortiGaurd labs, where's this come from? >> So FortiGaurd Labs actually is the threat intelligence organization of Fortinet, so what we do, is we keep track of the tactics, techniques, and procedures of the adversary. And make sure that we have detection methodologies to be able to stop all those tactics, techniques, and procedures. >> Peter: So you're the ones that are collecting the data that's right from the ground to help everybody keep up to date on where the threat's are likely to be, set priorities. So that's what this report does, right? >> Absolutely, it's something we do on a quarterly basis, and it's really, you know, we're looking at billions of events that we're observing in real time, you know, production environments, and what we're trying to do is identify the top application exploits, malware, and botnets, and what we want to be able to do is find different types of trends that then can be able to translate into helping organizations fortify their environments. >> Peter: Alright, so here, this is the Q1, 2018, people can get access to it. >> Anthony: Yeah. >> What's the top line change? >> Anthony: Yeah, well at a high level, I think, you know, one the actual cyber criminals, they're evolving, their attack methodologies to be able to increase their, you know, success rate as well as being able to increase their infection rate. So that's one thing, you know, the other thing, obviously we always have to talk about ransomware. That, you know, seems to be a very hot threat these days for cyber criminals to make money. Now, that threat isn't going away. We did see a slight decrease though, where the adversaries were more interested in hijacking, you know, systems to be able to mine for crypto currencies as opposed to taking that machine hostage and demanding a ransome. >> Peter: Really? >> Anthony: Yeah, believe it or not. >> I'm a little bit, I mean ransomware just seems like it would have so much potential, and crypto currencies are, well they're interesting. Tell us a little bit about why that's happening. >> What seems to be the indicators? >> Yeah, well, you know, like I said, ransomware isn't going away, I think they're going to continue to use that to make money. But from a crypto jacking, you know, perspective, we did see the uptake last year in our Q4 report. It was about 13 percent of the organizations actually reported some type of crypto jacking attack. Fast forward to this report, and it nearly doubled. Actually, over doubled to, you know 28 percent, so that's about one in four organizations that are actually impacted with this particular threat. Now, what I think is interesting about this particular threat, is the way it evolves, right. 'Cause it's so new, it's always looking back at, its other successful, you know, predecessors to be able to determine how can I be more stealthy, and how can I get my, you know, malware, or my, you know, payload out to all the different sort of systems. So, you know, an example of that is phallus malware. Phallus malware is very stealthy. It's starting to use phallus malware techniques, it'll use scripts to inject their actual payload into memory, nothing on disc, so it makes it a lot more difficult to be able to detect. Now, how do I get my payload out to all the other, you know, workstations? Well, it takes a one two punch combination that, you know, Petya used last year. It's leveraging, um, there's this open source technology called, you know, minicats, steals different types of credentials and does something called pass the hash. Passes the hash credential out to those other systems, and then it gains access. That way it can actually pass the actual malware from system to system. If that fails, and then goes back to identifying different vulnerabilities that it could then exploit. One vulnerability it does looks for is eternal blue, which was a vulnerability that was so graciously given to us from shadow brokers. So those are the ways they're starting to be more effective and be more stealthy, and also being able to propagate a lot faster. >> Peter: And crypto currency obviously is one of the more extreme things because you take over the computer resources without necessarily stealing any data. You're just grabbing computer resources. >> Anthony: Yeah, what's interesting, I don't want to actually kind of go off topic here, but that' another conversation. Is crypto jacking actually a threat or not? Right, 'cause all it's really doing is stealing, you know, CPU resources, so, you know, so people say. So that's a whole 'nother discussion to actually get into is, is it actually really a threat or not? >> Well, you're able to get access to a computer, presumably you're able to get access not just for that purpose, but many others. >> Exactly. >> So that's probably an indication, you may have a problem. >> Yes, yes. >> Let's talk about ransomware. You said ransomware's not going away. Ransomware, most folks are familiar with it. What is it, what's the report suggest? >> You know Peter, did you realize that this month is the one year anniversary of WannaCry? Don't know if you remember that or not, but, you know, WannaCry was very infamous for, not necessarily the payload, but by the way that it actually was able to spread so fast and affect so many different machines. Now, that spreading, that worm-like spreading, kind of capability still exists here, you know. Today, you see a lot of different sort of threats using that, but what seems to be a bit different now is the combination of that ransomware payload along with more targeted attacks. >> Mm-hmm >> So, usually in a ransomware type of attack, you do some type of spammy campaign. You spam out that email, you know, and see what sticks. Well, these are more, a lot more targeted, so they're going to spend a lot more time doing, you know, reconnaissance on an organization and being able to find different vulnerabilities on the outside of the network. Once they actually come in, very methodical at how they're able to laterally move and put their actual malware on systems that they actually think, you know, well you know, however many systems they think they should actually have that particular malware on. Now, at this point, they hadn't actually executed you know, the actual payloads. So they have it on as many systems as possible, and once their ready (fingers snap). They flip the switch, and all those systems now are held hostage. That impact is much greater to the business. >> Peter: Now, when we think about the attacks, we think in terms of computing devices, whether it's a mobile device or PC device, or servers or what not, but are we seeing any changes in how people are attacking other computing resources within a network, hitting routers and other to try to drive more control over somebody's network resources? >> Well, I mean, we definitely see exploits that are actually hitting, you know, mobile devices, their hitting routers, um, a lot of IOT as well, but also web technology because, you know, web technology, there's so much external facing websites these days, you know, they're much easier targets. So we are seeing that. I would mention also that, it's up seven percent to 21 percent of organizations have actually reported mobile malware as well. >> And that is a especially difficult thing because your mobile applications are not just associated with a particular business, but other businesses as well. So you are both an employee and a consumer, and if your mobile applications get hit, that can have enormous ramifications on a number of different levels. >> Anthony: Yeah, absolutely, and I think sometimes, you know, in an organization where an actual consumer will have a phone, and they won't necessarily think it's the same as their workstation. So, it's like, oh, well not that much can happen on my mobile phone, right, not the same as on my workstation, but actually, it could be even worse. >> Peter: Yes, so if you think about some of the things that are on the horizon, you mention that we're seeing a greater utilization of different techniques to make money in some of the new domains, like jacking, uh, crypto jacking. >> Mm-hmm. >> Uh, there's still ransomware, still an issue, as folks go back and identify these different malware, these different security breaches, what are they doing to actually clean things up? Are we seeing folks actually cleaning up, or is there still just like, whack-a-mole, whacking things out, andt worrying about whether they go back and clean things up later? >> Anthony: Well, to basically answer your question, they are starting to actually kind of clean up, but, you know wait 'til you hear this, so what we try to do here, in this quarterly report, is we wanted to measure how quickly they were able to clean up that, you know, that particular threat. And what we found out, you know, we used botnet alerts. And we wanted to see how fast those botnet alerts actually got cleaned up. So what we were able to determine is 58 percent of all organizations, within 24 hours, were able to clean up that particular botnet infection. Which is actually pretty good. But, that 42 percent, it took them either two days or longer, you know, to be able to get that actual threat out. Actually, sometimes the threat really never even, you know, actually went away. Great example of that, is actually the Andromeda botnet. It's a threat that was brought down last year, but even though it's not there anymore, the infections on the workstations are still there, so we're still kind of getting those actual hits on that Andromeda botnet, and that actual threat >> for Q1, was one of the highest in prevalence and volume. >> Even if it wasn't necessarily doing damage, because we'd figured out how to deal with it, >> Right. >> but if it's there, somebody might find a way to use it again in the future. >> Absolutely, absolutely. >> So as we think about the next quarter, you doing this on every quarter, are there any particular areas that you think folks have to, they need to anticipate some of these changes, more of the same, different trends, or what about OT for example, as operational technology becomes increasingly part of that common technology fabric, how is that likely to be affected by some of these different attach types? >> In answer of your first question, I think we'll probably see a lot more of the same. And I think what we'll continue to see, you know there's this whole zero day market, I think it's getting more and more mature, meaning that we're going to see more and more vulnerabilities that are actually kind of zero day that have just been discovered or just been announced, and I think we're going to continue to see the adversaries take advantage of those newly discovered zero day vulnerabilities. You know, they'll take those actual, those exploits, you know, put 'em into their attack methodologies, to propagate faster and faster, so I think, organizations are going to have to make sure they can address some of those newly discovered vulnerabilities fairly quickly. Now, as we switch the, you know, the OT side, you know, we didn't see a lot of attacks if you look at the percentage of the overall attacks, however, you know, OT, if there is an actual successful attack, I think it's, you know, worth saying that it's >> a much larger impact, right. >> You have a major problem. >> You know, my concern is, these different types of trends that are coming together. One, OT is starting to connect to other networks, which means they're going to eventually be accessible from the internet, which makes it a lot more difficult to be able to protect. At the same time, we're seeing nation states continue to focus on compromising OT systems as well. So, I don't know what's going to happen in the coming months and years, but the trends aren't actually looking so good right now. >> So if you were to, if we had a CIO sitting here right now, and you were talking about this report, what are the, first off, how should they regard the information, what should they be doing differently as a result of the information that the reports are viewing? >> Yeah, I mean, I would say, one, we always talk about this, it's easier said than done, but you know, going back to the basics, and making sure that you have good cyber hygiene and being able to identify vulnerabilities that exist in your environment, and that, you know, me just saying that sounds kind of simple, but that really means identifying all the assets that you have in your environment that you're responsible for protecting, number one, and then being able to, you know, identify the vulnerabilities that may exist on those things. That's uh, it's not the easiest thing to do, but I think it's something that really should be focused on. At the same time though, threats are going to get into your network. That's just a, you know, that's a given. So being able to make sure that you can identify, you know, threats within your environment is extremely important, and then, once you identify them, what's the processes for you to go ahead and actually respond and clean up those particular threats? That really is going to be the key. I know it's at a high level, it's much deeper than that. But that's where you start. >> Alright, Anthony Giandomenico, Tony G, >> Tony G. >> thanks very much once again for being on theCUBE and talking to us about FortiGuard's Q1, 2018 report from Fortinet. >> Awesome, well thanks for having me. >> You betcha, so, Anthony Giandomenico (laughs) a senior strategist researcher at FortiGuard labs, Fortinet, talking to us about the 1Q 2018 report. Once again, this has been a CUBE Conversation thanks for listening. (vibrant music)

(upbeat music) >> We are back, approaching the finish line here at Supercomputing 22, our last interview of the day, our last interview of the show. And I have to say Dave Nicholson, my co-host, My name is Paul Gillin. I've been attending trade shows for 40 years Dave, I've never been to one like this. The type of people who are here, the type of problems they're solving, what they talk about, the trade shows are typically, they're so speeds and feeds. They're so financial, they're so ROI, they all sound the same after a while. This is truly a different event. Do you get that sense? >> A hundred percent. Now, I've been attending trade shows for 10 years since I was 19, in other words, so I don't have necessarily your depth. No, but seriously, Paul, totally, completely, completely different than any other conference. First of all, there's the absolute allure of looking at the latest and greatest, coolest stuff. I mean, when you have NASA lecturing on things when you have Lawrence Livermore Labs that we're going to be talking to here in a second it's a completely different story. You have all of the academics you have students who are in competition and also interviewing with organizations. It's phenomenal. I've had chills a lot this week. >> And I guess our last two guests sort of represent that cross section. Armando Acosta, director of HPC Solutions, High Performance Solutions at Dell. And Matt Leininger, who is the HPC Strategist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. Now, there is perhaps, I don't know you can correct me on this, but perhaps no institution in the world that uses more computing cycles than Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and is always on the leading edge of what's going on in Supercomputing. And so we want to talk to both of you about that. Thank you. Thank you for joining us today. >> Sure, glad to be here. >> For having us. >> Let's start with you, Armando. Well, let's talk about the juxtaposition of the two of you. I would not have thought of LLNL as being a Dell reference account in the past. Tell us about the background of your relationship and what you're providing to the laboratory. >> Yeah, so we're really excited to be working with Lawrence Livermore, working with Matt. But actually this process started about two years ago. So we started looking at essentially what was coming down the pipeline. You know, what were the customer requirements. What did we need in order to make Matt successful. And so the beauty of this project is that we've been talking about this for two years, and now it's finally coming to fruition. And now we're actually delivering systems and delivering racks of systems. But what I really appreciate is Matt coming to us, us working together for two years and really trying to understand what are the requirements, what's the schedule, what do we need to hit in order to make them successful >> At Lawrence Livermore, what drives your computing requirements I guess? You're working on some very, very big problems but a lot of very complex problems. How do you decide what you need to procure to address them? >> Well, that's a difficult challenge. I mean, our mission is a national security mission dealing with making sure that we do our part to provide the high performance computing capabilities to the US Department of Energy's National Nuclear Security Administration. We do that through the Advanced Simulation computing program. Its goal is to provide that computing power to make sure that the US nuclear rep of the stockpile is safe, secure, and effective. So how we go about doing that? There's a lot of work involved. We have multiple platform lines that we accomplish that goal with. One of them is the advanced technology systems. Those are the ones you've heard about a lot, they're pushing towards exit scale, the GPU technologies incorporated into those. We also have a second line, a platform line, called the Commodity Technology Systems. That's where right now we're partnering with Dell on the latest generation of those. Those systems are a little more conservative, they're right now CPU only driven but they're also intended to be the everyday work horses. So those are the first systems our users get on. It's very easy for them to get their applications up and running. They're the first things they use usually on a day to day basis. They run a lot of small to medium size jobs that you need to do to figure out how to most effectively use what workloads you need to move to the even larger systems to accomplish our mission goals. >> The workhorses. >> Yeah. >> What have you seen here these last few days of the show, what excites you? What are the most interesting things you've seen? >> There's all kinds of things that are interesting. Probably most interesting ones I can't talk about in public, unfortunately, 'cause of NDA agreements, of course. But it's always exciting to be here at Supercomputing. It's always exciting to see the products that we've been working with industry and co-designing with them on for, you know, several years before the public actually sees them. That's always an exciting part of the conference as well specifically with CTS-2, it's exciting. As was mentioned before, I've been working with Dell for nearly two years on this, but the systems first started being delivered this past August. And so we're just taking the initial deliveries of those. We've deployed, you know, roughly about 1600 nodes now but that'll ramp up to over 6,000 nodes over the next three or four months. >> So how does this work intersect with Sandia and Los Alamos? Explain to us the relationship there. >> Right, so those three laboratories are the laboratories under the National Nuclear Security Administration. We partner together on CTS. So the architectures, as you were asking, how do we define these things, it's the labs coming together. Those three laboratories we define what we need for that architecture. We have a joint procurement that is run out of Livermore but then the systems are deployed at all three laboratories. And then they serve the programs that I mentioned for each laboratory as well. >> I've worked in this space for a very long time you know I've worked with agencies where the closest I got to anything they were actually doing was the sort of guest suite outside the secure area. And sometimes there are challenges when you're communicating, it's like you have a partner like Dell who has all of these things to offer, all of these ideas. You have requirements, but maybe you can't share 100% of what you need to do. How do you navigate that? Who makes the decision about what can be revealed in these conversations? You talk about NDA in terms of what's been shared with you, you may be limited in terms of what you can share with vendors. Does that cause inefficiency? >> To some degree. I mean, we do a good job within the NSA of understanding what our applications need and then mapping that to technical requirements that we can talk about with vendors. We also have kind of in between that we've done this for many years. A recent example is of course with the exit scale computing program and some things it's doing creating proxy apps or mini apps that are smaller versions of some of the things that we are important to us. Some application areas are important to us, hydrodynamics, material science, things like that. And so we can collaborate with vendors on those proxy apps to co-design systems and tweak the architectures. In fact, we've done a little bit that with CTS-2, not as much in CTS as maybe in the ATS platforms but that kind of general idea of how we collaborate through these proxy applications is something we've used across platforms. >> Now is Dell one of your co-design partners? >> In CTS-2 absolutely, yep. >> And how, what aspects of CTS-2 are you working on with Dell? >> Well, the architecture itself was the first, you know thing we worked with them on, we had a procurement come out, you know they bid an architecture on that. We had worked with them, you know but previously on our requirements, understanding what our requirements are. But that architecture today is based on the fourth generation Intel Xeon that you've heard a lot about at the conference. We are one of the first customers to get those systems in. All the systems are interconnected together with the Cornell Network's Omni-Path Network that we've used before and are very excited about as well. And we build up from there. The systems get integrated in by the operations teams at the laboratory. They get integrated into our production computing environment. Dell is really responsible, you know for designing these systems and delivering to the laboratories. The laboratories then work with Dell. We have a software stack that we provide on top of that called TOSS, for Tri-Lab Operating System. It's based on Redhead Enterprise Linux. But the goal there is that it allows us, a common user environment, a common simulation environment across not only CTS-2, but maybe older systems we have and even the larger systems that we'll be deploying as well. So from a user perspective they see a common user interface, a common environment across all the different platforms that they use at Livermore and the other laboratories. >> And Armando, what does Dell get out of the co-design arrangement with the lab? >> Well, we get to make sure that they're successful. But the other big thing that we want to do, is typically when you think about Dell and HPC, a lot of people don't make that connection together. And so what we're trying to do is make sure that, you know they know that, hey, whether you're a work group customer at the smallest end or a super computer customer at the highest end, Dell wants to make sure that we have the right setup portfolio to match any needs across this. But what we were really excited about this, this is kind of our, you know big CTS-2 first thing we've done together. And so, you know, hopefully this has been successful. We've made Matt happy and we look forward to the future what we can do with bigger and bigger things. >> So will the labs be okay with Dell coming up with a marketing campaign that said something like, "We can't confirm that alien technology is being reverse engineered." >> Yeah, that would fly. >> I mean that would be right, right? And I have to ask you the question directly and the way you can answer it is by smiling like you're thinking, what a stupid question. Are you reverse engineering alien technology at the labs? >> Yeah, you'd have to suck the PR office. >> Okay, okay. (all laughing) >> Good answer. >> No, but it is fascinating because to a degree it's like you could say, yeah, we're working together but if you really want to dig into it, it's like, "Well I kind of can't tell you exactly how some of this stuff is." Do you consider anything that you do from a technology perspective, not what you're doing with it, but the actual stack, do you try to design proprietary things into the stack or do you say, "No, no, no, we're going to go with standards and then what we do with it is proprietary and secret."? >> Yeah, it's more the latter. >> Is the latter? Yeah, yeah, yeah. So you're not going to try to reverse engineer the industry? >> No, no. We want the solutions that we develop to enhance the industry to be able to apply to a broader market so that we can, you know, gain from the volume of that market, the lower cost that they would enable, right? If we go off and develop more and more customized solutions that can be extraordinarily expensive. And so we we're really looking to leverage the wider market, but do what we can to influence that, to develop key technologies that we and others need that can enable us in the high forms computing space. >> We were talking with Satish Iyer from Dell earlier about validated designs, Dell's reference designs for for pharma and for manufacturing, in HPC are you seeing that HPC, Armando, and is coming together traditionally and more of an academic research discipline beginning to come together with commercial applications? And are these two markets beginning to blend? >> Yeah, I mean so here's what's happening, is you have this convergence of HPC, AI and data analytics. And so when you have that combination of those three workloads they're applicable across many vertical markets, right? Whether it's financial services, whether it's life science, government and research. But what's interesting, and Matt won't brag about, but a lot of stuff that happens in the DoE labs trickles down to the enterprise space, trickles down to the commercial space because these guys know how to do it at scale, they know how to do it efficiently and they know how to hit the mark. And so a lot of customers say, "Hey we want what CTS-2 does," right? And so it's very interesting. The way I love it is their process the way they do the RFP process. Matt talked about the benchmarks and helping us understand, hey here's kind of the mark you have to hit. And then at the same time, you know if we make them successful then obviously it's better for all of us, right? You know, I want to secure nuclear stock pile so I hope everybody else does as well. >> The software stack you mentioned, I think Tia? >> TOSS. >> TOSS. >> Yeah. >> How did that come about? Why did you feel the need to develop your own software stack? >> It originated back, you know, even 20 years ago when we first started building Linux clusters when that was a crazy idea. Livermore and other laboratories were really the first to start doing that and then push them to larger and larger scales. And it was key to have Linux running on that at the time. And so we had the. >> So 20 years ago you knew you wanted to run on Linux? >> Was 20 years ago, yeah, yeah. And we started doing that but we needed a way to have a version of Linux that we could partner with someone on that would do, you know, the support, you know, just like you get from an EoS vendor, right? Security support and other things. But then layer on top of that, all the HPC stuff you need either to run the system, to set up the system, to support our user base. And that evolved into to TOSS which is the Tri-Lab Operating System. Now it's based on the latest version of Redhead Enterprise Linux, as I mentioned before, with all the other HPC magic, so to speak and all that HPC magic is open source things. It's not stuff, it may be things that we develop but it's nothing closed source. So all that's there we run it across all these different environments as I mentioned before. And it really originated back in the early days of, you know, Beowulf clusters, Linux clusters, as just needing something that we can use to run on multiple systems and start creating that common environment at Livermore and then eventually the other laboratories. >> How is a company like Dell, able to benefit from the open source work that's coming out of the labs? >> Well, when you look at the open source, I mean open source is good for everybody, right? Because if you make a open source tool available then people start essentially using that tool. And so if we can make that open source tool more robust and get more people using it, it gets more enterprise ready. And so with that, you know, we're all about open source we're all about standards and really about raising all boats 'cause that's what open source is all about. >> And with that, we are out of time. This is our 28th interview of SC22 and you're taking us out on a high note. Armando Acosta, director of HPC Solutions at Dell. Matt Leininger, HPC Strategist, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories. Great discussion. Hopefully it was a good show for you. Fascinating show for us and thanks for being with us today. >> Thank you very much. >> Thank you for having us >> Dave it's been a pleasure. >> Absolutely. >> Hope we'll be back next year. >> Can't believe, went by fast. Absolutely at SC23. >> We hope you'll be back next year. This is Paul Gillin. That's a wrap, with Dave Nicholson for theCUBE. See here in next time. (soft upbear music)

(upbeat electronic music) >> Narrator: Live, from Las Vegas, it's the Cube, covering Informatica World 2018, brought to you by Informatica. >> Okay, welcome back, everyone. This is the Cube's exclusive coverage, here in Las Vegas, at the Venetian Hotel. I'm John Furrier, co-host of the Cube, with Peter Burris co-hosting with me the next two days, wall-to-wall coverage. Our next guest is Richard Cramer, who's the Chief Healthcare Strategist for Informatica World, back from last year, had a great chat. We talked about data swamps and data lakes. This year it's about governance and the enterprise. Great to see you again, thanks for coming back. >> Thanks for having me back. >> Actually, healthcare, we can go on and on. Peter and I can rant about that, but this is really where the healthcare has had data challenges always. They've had regulations. Governance, some will say, maybe, maybe not. What's different this year, for you and your conversations? We talked about data swamps last year, and data lakes. Where is it this year? What's the conversation with customers in healthcare? What's happening? >> Well I think it really is a reflection of the maturity of people using data, naturally coming from a data swamp or a data lake. How do we keep it from becoming a swamp? You govern it. And so as people start to use data, which we're really coming into our own in healthcare, governance becomes the top topic. When I start to share data, and people ask me where'd this come from, what did it mean? And I'm not able to answer that question, that's a governance problem. And so we're really starting to see enterprise data governance and compliance come to the forefront of almost every one of my conversations. >> And where is the catalyst coming from? Is it some of the regulation? Is it some of the awareness? Is it in a moment where the straw breaks the camel's back, so to speak? Where is it coming from, the governance question? >> It really is coming from an executive level, where as we start to use data, we have more executive dashboards, there's a desire to actually make data-driven decisions, both for business purposes and clinical care, if you can't explain where the data came from and why, what it means when people ask you questions, they don't trust it. And so I think it really is, as we start to really use data for the first time, it needs to be reliable and trustworthy, and that's a governance problem. It's not a tool problem, it's not an architecture problem, it's a people or process problem, and that's governance. >> Well one of the things that's true about healthcare, is healthcare has been driving the vanguard of ethics in society, for probably a few centuries now. And it's starting to happen in technology as well. I think the whole concept of GDPR is made even that much clearer, as a consequence of people actually becoming a little bit more concerned about their health information getting into the hands of people they don't want to get access to that information. How is this relationship between healthcare, ethics, and now governance, starting to affect the conversations that you're having in healthcare and beyond? >> Well I think healthcare has had HIPAA, which is all about privacy and protection of information. We've had that for a long number of years, but that was really a data element, not an appropriate use, but hey, this data, you can't share without permission. Now we're talking-- >> And it wasn't about the subject, it was about the data that you controlled. >> That's right. And now we're really talking about, and genomic data is a big part of this, is the ethical use of data. Can I use this data appropriately? If I'm doing it for your benefit, and to help you care for yourself, yeah, I think we probably can. But it's a governance challenge, right? What data do I have? What am I allowed to use it for, for what purpose? And who has consented to that? We have a similar issue that if you're a hospital that also has a health plan, and you can share data about a patient from that health plan with that hospital. But how about a competing hospital across town? Well I can't share that data, potentially, because of regulatory reasons. So really, the need to know what data you have, what policies apply to that data, and be able to consistently and authoritatively govern that data, I think is really a good example of what's driving enterprise data governance and compliance. >> So on the compliance side, when you think about outside the United States, obviously GDPR Friday kicks in. That's creating a lot of awareness. >> Yes. >> What's the impact of that, if any, to healthcare? Is it no big deal, we've been there, we can handle this? They have the data issues. What are you hearing on that front? >> So really, two-fold. First, GDPR is probably the best representation of really good stringent, proper, consumer privacy data controls that exist. So even if you're not compelled to abide by GDPR, it's a great roadmap and it's a great model to follow, 'cause it's just good data discipline. We also have the good fortune at Informatica, that some of the leading healthcare organizations in the country, are our customers, and they happen to have footprints in Europe. And so they do in fact have a GDPR challenge. Do I have a patient from the EU that's coming to my U.S.-based facility? Do I have a U.S.-based patient that's in an EU facility? Do I have an EU licensed provider? The complexity of the GDPR challenge for some of our U.S.-based healthcare customers is pretty involved, and they're acutely aware of it. So I don't think there's been anything like GDPR in terms of data protection, that's existed in healthcare. >> Yeah, that's going to change the game. I guess, my gut feeling, again, you're the expert on this, but my feeling is that it will slow things down. It's mind-boggling that, I don't know, I'm a European patient going to a U.S. hospital, now something has to happen that didn't have to happen before. Or, is that, am I getting it right? >> I think that it holds the potential to get it to slow things down, if you treat it as a one-off. If you treat it as good data architecture, and you implement a system that that's just an artifact of how you manage data, it doesn't slow anything down, I think it makes things quicker. >> John: So the mandate is go faster. >> Because it's just the priorities. >> That's right. >> Well it sets a priority, and it forces you to have a good data architecture that operates like a well-oiled machine. >> But let me explain what I mean by that, 'cause it's very consistent with what you're saying. One of the biggest challenges about data is a lot of executives don't understand it, don't know what to do with it, can't treat it as an asset. GDPR, amongst other things, is forcing a consensus around what data can be to the business, what it should not be to the business, and that's helping to set priorities so that folks, you may be right, it may be a one-off basis. People may complain about it, but if it's used as an architectural direction, it may actually accelerate because it sets a consensus about what the priorities should be. >> Yes, and where you started is exactly why. It is a universally-understood business imperative that every executive knows. And the fact that underlying it is great data architecture, well that's just a bonus, 'cause it sets the priority correctly. >> But here's my challenge on that, because to create data architecture is aspirational for many, but not feasible in a short-term. So how do they get there? And then they want to have, hey, let's have some great data architecture. But what the Hell does that even mean? Some customers might be, I know hospitals might be more advanced, but there might, well maybe not, (laughing) but again, again, so take us through that. Some people might aspire for great data architecture, but it might take time to get there. >> So great data architecture, though, this is part of the generational market shift in data. And in the past, we had data silos, and data silos are bad, we must break them down and we must centralize and control data, as a path to value. That took a heck of a long time, and actually could not really be achieved. What's changed now is we accept silos are going to exist, self-service for data consumption exists, the problem is not now how do I centralize and control data within an inch of its life, to get value, the challenge now is how do I manage enterprise data as an asset, accepting that that's the landscape? A data catalog changes everything. >> Talk about the impact of that, 'cause this is super-important. It's not centralizing the data, it's just having a catalog with visibility into the meta-data, of all that data. >> Exactly right. So before, I didn't know where all of my data was, and data security being, and I, if I don't know I have it, how the heck can I secure it? Well with a catalog, for the first time, it's straightforward, simple, and easy, to know what data I have. You actually have a chance of securing it. So the answer, that's the path to getting real value with great data architecture, without taking decades to try and centralize and control. >> It's time for dancing. Richard, we got the music coming on. Last year it was data lakes, data swamps. That's awareness. Now it's enterprise governance, the catalog looking good from you guys. Congratulations. Good to see you. Thanks for coming on. >> Thank you very much. >> Alright, day one. Wrapping down, kicking off the Solutions Exhibit Hall here for Informatica World 2018. I'm John Furrier and Peter Burris. Stay tuned for more coverage, here from Las Vegas, it's the Cube. (upbeat electronic music)