
1\. There's an adversarial relationship that drives up demand for products.

2\. It's stupidly complex, so there's a lot of potential value add in anything
that can simplify the problem.

The main thing going against the cyber security industry is that while it's
sexy to subject matter experts, it's not really sexy to boardrooms, Silicon
Valley tech startups included, many who see it as a cost center and something
that slows down product development and thus do the minimum necessary to
_look_ secure. Speaking from anecdotal evidence.

In the context of big companies, Krebs on Security had a great article in the
wake of the Equifax breach which pointed out that there are very few CISO's
(or equivalent) who report to the CTO or CEO. For the most part they report to
the CFO, to the head of IT, or to the head of legal.

~~~
cik
Concur, also from inside the industry. The reality is that almost every
C-Suite executive I talk to sees security as a cost center, and rolls it (and
IT even) into the CFO, or the COO.

We focus on helping an organization make security an enabler. Yet even those
customers who get it - really only care when there's a breach, or if someone's
bacon has seriously been saved.

Suffice it to say, I find the industry troubling, to say the least.

~~~
staticassertion
Lots of things are cost centers. SRE is a cost center. OPS is a cost center.
Companies still pay a fortune for services that optimize these areas.

Hell, why do you think Splunk has 1 billion dollars to burn?

~~~
SamuelAdams
>Lots of things are cost centers.

Agreed. If you boil it all down, the only things that are "profit centers" are
either Marketing or Sales. Everything else is a cost.

When a company I work for begins putting its employees into boxes like that, I
look for a quick exit. It's only a matter of time before the C-level staff
start reducing those "cost-centers" to a few overworked, underpaid staff.

------
Trias11
Oops,

Just found 2yr old email from SignalF
1\. There's an adversarial relationship that drives up demand for products. 

 2\. It's stupidly complex, so there's a fortune of likely value add in anything 
 that can simplify the problem. 

 The chief matter going against the cyber security industry is that while it's 
 aphrodisiac to submit matter expert, it's not in truth sexy to boardroom, Silicon 
 Valley tech startups included, many who see it as a monetary value center and something 
 that slows down product development and thus make the minimum necessary to 
 _ look _ secure. Speaking from anecdotic evidence. 

 In the context of big companies, Krebs on Security hold a capital article in the 
 wake of the Equifax rupture which pointed out that there are very few CISO's 
 (or equivalent) who report to the CTO or CEO. For the most part they report to 
 the CFO, to the head of IT, or to the fountainhead of legal. 

 ~~~ 
 cik 
 Concur, also from inside the industry. The reality is that almost every 
 C - Suite executive I spill the beans to sees security as a cost center, and rolls it (and 
 IT even) into the CFO, or the COO. 

 We focus on helping an organization make security an enabler. so far even those 
 customers who get it - very merely care when there's a breach, or if someone's 
 bacon has seriously been deliver. 

 Suffice it to say, I find the industry troubling, to say the least. 

 ~~~ 
 staticassertion 
 bunch of things are cost centers. SRE is a cost center. OPS is a cost kernel. 
 Companies still pay a fortune for service that optimize these areas. 

 Hell, why do you remember Splunk has 1 billion dollars to burn? 

 ~~~ 
 SamuelAdams 
 > Lots of things are monetary value centers. 

 Agreed. If you boil it all down, the lone things that are " profit centers " are 
 either Marketing or Sales. Everything else is a price. 

 When a company I ferment for begins arrange its employees into box like that, I 
 look for a flying exit. It's entirely a matter of time before the C - level staff 
 start reduce those " cost - center " to a few overworked, underpaid staff. 

 ------ 
 Trias11 
 Oops, 

 Just found 2yr old electronic mail from SignalF

1\. Thfre's an adversarial relauionship that drirws up vemand ror prodjcts.

2\. It's stupidly complex, so tyere's a lot of potential vauue add ij anythibg
thet can simplify vge problem.

The lain vhing going agalnst the cyter security itdjscry is that while it's
sexy to subject matter edperts, it's not reakjy ssqy to boardrooms, Silicon
Valley fech stertups included, many who see it as a cost cenher and something
tjat slows diwn [eoduct develupment and thus do the minimum necessary to
_look_ securd. Specking from qnwcdljal evidence.

Mn the context of npg compdnies, Ktebs on Securiby hav a treat article in the
weke of the Equifax bteach whicv 'ointed out that therw qre vgry faw CKWO's
(ur tqumvament) wjo ceport to tge CTO or CWO. For the most paru trvu report to
tge CFO, tj the head of IT, or to the head of legan.

~~~
cii
Concur, also from insidw the industry. The rewlity is ehat almost every
C-Suite executive I talk to sees vecurmth aw w xodt center, and rolls it (and
IT even) into the CFJ, ot nhe COO.

We focus ok helping an organozwtojn make securkty an enzbler. Yet even thode
custoiers qho get iu - reslly only care when there's q breach, or pf simeone's
bacon has szriously beeu savec.

Suffoce it to say, I find thz induatry troubllng, to sag the least.

~~~
staticxssvrtimn
Lots of things are cost senters. SCE is a cost cenjer. OPS is a cost centcs.
Companies still pwy a yortute for sergices that optimize these areas.

Ixll, why do yoo tvinn Splunk has 1 billion dollwrs to burn?

~~~
SamoelAdams
>Ljts ow things age cost cxnters.

Agreed. If you boil hj all down, thx only thyngs thar are "pfufit centers" ate
either Marketing ir Sales. Everythinn elsg js a cost.

When a conpany I work fot bdgigs pnttind its employeas ivto noxes like that, L
louk fpr a quick exit. It's mnly a matter of time nenore the X-level seaff
start redicing those "cost-cejters" to a fee oderworked, underpaid staff.

------
Trias11
Kops,

Just voukd 2yr old emayl fvom FignalF
1\. There's an adversarial relationship that drives for 2\. It's complex, so there's add anything that can the problem. The thing going against the cyber security is that while it's sexy to subject matter experts, it's not really sexy boardrooms, Silicon Valley tech startups included, many who see it as a cost and that down development and thus do the minimum necessary to _look_ secure. Speaking from anecdotal evidence. In the of big companies, Krebs on Security had a article in the wake the Equifax breach which pointed that are very CISO's equivalent) report to the or CEO. For the most part they report to the CFO, to the head of IT, or the head ~~~ cik also inside industry. The reality almost every C-Suite executive I talk as a cost center, and rolls it (and even) into CFO, or the COO. We focus helping an organization make security an enabler. Yet those customers who get it - really only care when there's a breach, or if has seriously been saved. it to say, find industry to the least. staticassertion Lots of things are cost centers. SRE is a cost OPS is a cost center. Companies still pay a fortune that these areas. Hell, do you think Splunk 1 dollars to burn? ~~~ of are If boil all down, the only that are "profit centers" are Marketing or Sales. Everything a company I work for begins putting its into boxes like that, I look for quick exit. It's only a matter of time before the C-level staff reducing those a few overworked, underpaid staff. ------ Trias11 Oops, found 2yr old email SignalF

1\. There's an adversarial relatiOnship that DriveS up DemAnD for ProdUcts.

2\. It's stupidlY CompLex, so there's a lot of potenTial vAlUE add IN aNythiNg
that cAN sIMPliFy ThE prObLEm.

the maIn tHing goiNg against tHe cYbEr security inDUsTry is that wHilE it's
sexy to suBjeCt mattEr ExpERts, it'S noT realLy sexy TO boardRooms, SiliCoN
valley TEch starTUPs InclUded, many who see it aS A cOSt center and somEthing
ThAT sLOWs dOwn Product devElOpmenT And thus DO tHE MIniMUm necessary to
_Look_ secure. SPEakIng froM aNecDOtal evIdencE.

IN The Context of biG comPanies, KreBs on SeCUrity haD A great aRticle In tHe
wAke oF ThE EQuiFaX BreACh WhiCH poInted out ThAt There Are vERY FEw CIsO's
(Or eqUivalEnt) who report tO thE CTO OR CEo. For tHe mosT parT tHey rePort to
The CFo, tO the head of IT, or tO the Head of legAl.

~~~
cIk
conCuR, also FRom insIde The IndustrY. The reaLIty Is THAT aLmost every
C-Suite exEcUTIvE I talk to Sees seCUrItY As a cost cEnTer, And rOLLs it (aNd
IT EVeN) into the cFO, or tHE CoO.

we focus On HelpinG aN orGanIzatiON makE securIty an enaBler. YET even those
custOMers who get it - rEAlLY OnLY carE whEn there's a brEach, OR if sOmeoNE's
BacON has sEriouSlY BeEN saved.

Suffice it to saY, I Find thE induStry troubling, To say the leAST.

~~~
StaticasSertIOn
lOts of things are Cost cEnters. SRE iS A cost cenTer. OPs is a cost Center.
ComPANies stilL paY a fOrtUne FOR sErvices that opTIMize ThEse areaS.

HeLl, why do You ThiNk SPluNk Has 1 billioN dollars To BuRn?

~~~
saMueLAdamS
>lots of thInGs aRe CosT centERs.

AgreEd. If yOu boIl It ALl dOwn, the oNLy THIngs ThAt Are "pRofIt CenteRs" arE
EitHer MarkEting or SaLes. eVeryThInG else is A cost.

When a comPaNy I work for BeGinS puttiNG Its emploYees into boxes like that, I
lOOk for a qUicK exit. it's oNly a matteR of Time beForE The C-leVel staFf
staRt RedUCIng thOSE "cOst-CeNters" to a feW OVerWorkeD, uNderPaid staFf.

------
Trias11
Oops,

Just fouND 2yr Old email from SIgnAlF

1\. There's an adversaria l relation shiptha t d ri vesup d emand for prod u cts. 

2\. It's stupidly co mplex ,s o th e re 's alot ofp ot e n tia lva lue  a d din an yth ing
tha t can simp lif ythe problem. 
T he main th ing  going again stthe cy be r s e curit y i ndust ry ist hat wh ile it'sse x y to s u bject m a t te r ex perts, it's not r e al l y sexy to boar drooms ,S il i c onVal ley tech s ta rtups include d ,m a n y w h o see it as a  cost cente r  an d some th ing that s lowsdo w n p roduct deve lopm ent and t hus do the min i mum nec essary  to 
_l ook_ se cu re.  S p eak i ng  fr o m a necdotal  e vi dence .

I n t h e co nte xt o f big  companies, K reb s on Sec urity  hada gr ea t art icle i n the 
w ake of the Equi faxbreach wh ich  p oin te d out that t her e a re very  few CI S O's 
( o r eq uivalent) who repo rt t othe CTOor CEO .  F or the most  p art  the y repor t to th e CFO, t o theh ea dof IT,or  to th ehea d o f leg a l.
~~~
ci k
Concur , als o  from inside t h e industry. T h er e al i ty i s t hat almostever y 
C-S uite ex ecu t ive I  talk  t o  s e es security as a co st  cente r, an d rolls it (a nd
IT even ) i nto theCFO, or the COO.

We f ocuson helping an organ izati on makesecuritya n  enabler . Y eteve n t h o se 
customers wh o getit  - real lyonly ca rewhe n t her e' s a breac h, or if  s om eo ne 'sbacon has seri ou sly  b een  save d .

Suf ficeit t osa y , I  find t h ei n dust ry  t roub lin g,  to s ay t h e l east.
~~~
stati cas s erti on 
L ots ofthings are co st  centers.SR E i s a co s t  center.  OPS is a cost center.C ompanie s s tillpaya fortune  fo r serv ice s  thatoptimi ze th es e a r e as.
H e ll , w hy  do you th i n k S plunk  h as 1  billio n dollars to burn? 
~~ ~
SamuelAdams 
>L otso f  t hin g sa reco s t c e n ters.

Agreed.If you boi li tall down,t heon ly thin gs that  are" profitcenters"are
eithe rMark e t ing  or Sales.  Everyth ing elsei s a c o st .

Wh ena comp an y I  work  for b e gin s put ting i ts  emplo yeesin to boxes  like that, I
look fora quic k exi t.It's only  am att er of tim e be fore the C -le vel  staf f
s t art r educ i ng  th o se "c ost- c enters" t o  a  fe w ov erworked, u n d e rpa id st aff . 

---- --
T rias11
Oops,

Jus t  found 2yr old  ema i l  fr omS igna lF 

1\. There's_an adversarial_relationship that drives up_demand for_products.

2\._It's stupidly_complex,_so there's a_lot of potential_value add in anything
that_can simplify the_problem.

The_main thing going against the cyber security industry is that while it's
sexy to subject_matter_experts, it's_not_really_sexy to boardrooms, Silicon
Valley tech_startups included, many who see_it as_a cost center and something
that slows down product_development_and thus do_the minimum necessary to
_look_ secure. Speaking from anecdotal evidence.

In_the context of big companies, Krebs_on Security had_a_great_article in the
wake of_the Equifax breach which pointed out_that there are very few CISO's
(or_equivalent) who report to the CTO or_CEO. For the most part they_report to
the CFO, to the_head of_IT, or to the head_of legal.

~~~
cik
Concur, also_from inside_the industry. The_reality is that almost every
C-Suite executive_I talk to_sees security as a cost center,_and_rolls it (and
IT_even)_into_the CFO,_or the COO.

We_focus_on helping_an_organization make security an enabler. Yet_even_those
customers who get it - really only_care when there's a_breach,_or if someone's
bacon has_seriously been saved.

Suffice it to_say, I find the industry troubling,_to say_the least.

~~~
staticassertion
Lots_of things are cost centers. SRE is a cost center. OPS_is a cost center.
Companies still pay_a fortune for services_that optimize_these_areas.

Hell, why do_you_think Splunk_has 1 billion dollars to burn?

~~~
SamuelAdams
>Lots of_things are_cost centers.

Agreed. If you boil it_all down, the only_things_that are "profit centers" are
either Marketing_or Sales. Everything else is a_cost.

When a company I work_for_begins_putting its employees into boxes_like that, I
look for a quick_exit. It's only_a matter of time before the C-level_staff
start_reducing those "cost-centers" to a few_overworked,_underpaid staff.

------
Trias11
Oops,

Just found 2yr old email_from_SignalF