Tech Transforms

In this fast-moving and deeply candid episode of Tech Transforms: So What?, host Carolyn Ford reconnects with technologist and enterprise architect Trac Bannon to examine what has changed inside the Department of Defense since their last conversation just 60 days earlier. What emerges is a picture of an AI ecosystem accelerating at extraordinary speed — where acquisition behavior, trust, governance, and operational readiness matter far more than organizational charts.

The discussion dives into the Pentagon’s evolving AI consolidation efforts under CTO Emil Michael, the growing influence of the Chief Digital and Artificial Intelligence Office (CDAO), and the rapid deployment of generative AI tools across government-furnished devices through genai.mil. Trac shares firsthand observations about how AI adoption is changing the way government teams review work, collaborate, and make decisions — while also raising concerns about overreliance on AI-generated output, information overload, and the expanding trust gap between humans and machines.
The conversation then shifts into one of the most provocative topics in cybersecurity today: Anthropic’s controversial Mythos model — an advanced cybersecurity AI reportedly so powerful at identifying vulnerabilities that Anthropic restricted access to a select group of organizations. Carolyn and Trac unpack the implications of private companies controlling potentially transformative cybersecurity capabilities, the governance vacuum surrounding advanced AI models, and the blurred lines between national security, corporate influence, and AI competition.

They also tackle the Department of Defense’s proposed acceleration of $152 billion in AI and technology spending, debating whether rapid investment is necessary to keep pace with innovation or whether “fast money with slow governance” risks creating chaos, opportunism, and massive waste. Throughout the discussion, Trac emphasizes the importance of infrastructure, workforce upskilling, governance, and ethical oversight — warning that technology is evolving faster than institutions are prepared to manage.

The episode closes with a nuanced and thoughtful conversation about diversity in technology and defense environments. Rather than focusing on political rhetoric, Trac reframes the discussion around “thought diversity,” arguing that resilient systems require teams built from varied experiences, perspectives, and backgrounds. Together, Carolyn and Trac explore the difficult balance between merit, inclusion, operational readiness, and the evolving realities of workforce policy in defense and cybersecurity.

This episode is equal parts AI strategy briefing, cybersecurity ethics discussion, and real-time reflection on how quickly technology, governance, and society are colliding in the defense space.

Show Notes Links:
Trac's website: https://tracybannon.tech/
Trac's email: trac@tracybannon.tech
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/tracylbannon/
Anthropic Mythos leak: https://fortune.com/2026/03/26/anthropic-says-testing-mythos-powerful-new-ai-model-after-data-leak-reveals-its-existence-step-change-in-capabilities/
DoD $152B spending: https://federalnewsnetwork.com/defense-news/2026/02/dod-plans-to-spend-entire-152-billion-from-reconciliation-bill-in-one-year/
Judge blocks Anthropic ban: https://www.washingtontechnology.com/companies/2026/03/judge-blocks-dods-ban-anthropic-calls-it-first-amendment-retaliation/412451/
DEI executive order: https://www.washingtontechnology.com/companies/2026/03/federal-contractor-dei-initiatives-singled-out-latest-trump-executive-order/412456/

In this episode of Tech Transforms, Carolyn Ford sits down with Dave Raley, Chief Digital Business Officer at Marine Corps Community Services, to unpack one of the most persistent challenges in federal IT: why innovation moves so slowly and how that can change.

At the center of the conversation is Operation Stormbreaker, the Marine Corps’ only RAISE-certified software factory, designed to eliminate the inefficiencies that plague government technology deployment. Dave explains how agencies fall into a “maintenance trap,” where nearly 80% of IT budgets are consumed by legacy systems, leaving little room for modernization. The root issue, he argues, isn’t just technology, it’s architecture. By shifting from rebuilding infrastructure for every application to a shared platform-as-a-service model, Stormbreaker allows mission owners to inherit infrastructure, security, and authorization dramatically reducing both cost and complexity.

The impact is significant. What once took 12–18 months to deploy can now be achieved in minutes through automated pipelines, containerized workloads, and continuous authorization. Rey breaks down how this model transforms the notoriously slow Authority to Operate (ATO) process, enabling faster innovation without sacrificing security. The discussion also highlights how this approach lowers barriers for vendors, accelerates adoption of emerging technologies like AI, and creates a more agile, production-focused culture within government.

Beyond the technical architecture, the episode explores the cultural resistance to change across federal systems and the need to simplify complex cybersecurity processes for mission owners. Rey emphasizes that true modernization isn’t about new tools, it’s about rethinking how systems are built, secured, and delivered at scale.

Show Notes:
Dave Raley LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/daveraley/
Marine Corps Community Service: https://www.usmc-mccs.org/
White Paper: Clarifying Cloud Foundations: Understanding PaaS vs. IaaS
Operation StormBreaker: https://operationstormbreaker.usmc-mccs.org/

Today we shift the focus from cyber threats to a challenge that may be just as critical: how to communicate complex technology in a way that actually resonates. Joined by Dharma Pachner, Founder and Chief Creative Officer of Contrast & Co., the conversation explores why even the most advanced cybersecurity solutions fail if their value isn’t clearly understood and how better storytelling can change that.

Dharma breaks down the art and science of simplifying the abstract, showing how strong brand foundations, metaphors, and visual storytelling can transform highly technical concepts into ideas people immediately grasp. From replacing overused “binary code and padlock” imagery with meaningful visual systems, to building foundational brand ideas that elevate messaging beyond features, the discussion highlights how clarity, emotion, and differentiation are essential in crowded tech markets.

The episode also brings these principles down to a practical level, offering exercises and frameworks that anyone—not just designers—can use to improve communication, whether pitching a solution, securing budget, or aligning a team. Ultimately, the conversation reinforces a powerful idea: in cybersecurity and beyond, success isn’t just about what you build—it’s about how well you make others understand, remember, and care about it.

Show Notes:
Contrast & Co - https://www.contrastandco.com/
Dharma Pachner - https://www.linkedin.com/in/dpachner/
INKY: https://inky.com
DarkWebID: https://www.darkwebid.com
CyCognito: https://www.cycognito.com
OWL Cyber Defense: https://owlcyberdefense.com
Worksheet: https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/36n0zjooq4pi7mlv6ugkt/OWL_podcast_worksheets.pdf?rlkey=ssdpyio5cqktsakz5s1vdogcu&dl=0

In this episode of Tech Transforms, Carey Lohrenz shares powerful lessons from her experience as the first female F-14 Tomcat pilot and author of Span of Control. Rather than focusing on aviation war stories, the conversation dives into how high performers navigate overwhelm, uncertainty, and pressure by narrowing their focus to what they can actually control. Drawing on both combat aviation and personal hardship, Carey reframes stress as a necessary component of performance—and offers practical strategies to manage it effectively.

The discussion explores how elite performers build resilience through training, prioritization, and teamwork—from cockpit checklists to the “meatball, lineup, angle of attack” mindset used in high-stakes landings. Carey also highlights the importance of shared load, trust, and even small moments of celebration in sustaining high-performing teams.

Ultimately, this episode is a grounded, relatable guide for leaders and professionals alike—showing how to stay focused, effective, and human when everything feels like it’s moving at once.

Show Notes:
Carey Lohrenz Website:
➤ https://careylohrenz.com/
Carey on LinkedIn:
➤ https://www.linkedin.com/in/careylohrenz/
Carey’s Podcast:
➤ Welcome to My Office: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/trailer-welcome-to-my-office/id1564095883?i=1000520362663
Carey’s Book:
➤Span of Control - https://a.co/d/04zCzjdf

Host Carolyn Ford sits down with Eric Monterastelli, technologist at ATP Gov and creator of the BLUF podcast, a new format designed to distill dense technical content into concise, decision ready insights.

Faced with an overwhelming volume of webinars, white papers, and vendor messaging, Eric saw a critical gap. Even seasoned technologists were walking away from 90 minute briefings unsure of what actually mattered. His solution is simple. Apply a military principle, Bottom Line Up Front (BLUF), to modern tech communication.
Eric shares how he transforms hours of complex material into 10 minute, highly digestible episodes that help decision makers quickly understand what a technology does, why it matters, and how it applies in real world environments.

In this conversation, we explore:

Key takeaway: In a world flooded with information, clarity is power. The ability to distill complexity may be the most valuable skill in tech today.

In this follow-up episode of Tech Transforms, Carolyn Ford continues her conversation with Michael Blake of Owl Cyber Defense, shifting from the theory of Zero Trust to the realities of implementing it. The discussion explores the first practical step, network discovery and why organizations are often surprised by shadow IT and legacy systems still operating inside their environments.

From there, Ford and Blake walk through the key stages of a Zero Trust journey, including microsegmentation, access management, and auditing privileges to prevent lateral movement and privilege creep. They also discuss the operational realities leaders face—budgeting, prioritizing critical assets or “crown jewels,” and ensuring organizations have the talent and resources needed to sustain a Zero Trust architecture.

The takeaway: Zero Trust isn’t a single deployment, it’s an ongoing journey that evolves alongside emerging threats and technologies.

Show Notes:
Michael Blake: https://www.linkedin.com/in/michael-blake-734b0a21/ | Email: mblake@owlcyberdefense.com
DoW resources https://dowcio.war.gov/Library/: security controls, checklist, self assessment, Penn test guidelines etc
Zero Trust | www.dau.edu
Dell Technologies Project Fort Zero to Transform Security | Dell USA
MITRE papers on evolving threats of giving AI access to network - https://ctid.mitre.org/blog/2025/05/09/secure-ai-v2/
Owl ZT resources: https://owlcyberdefense.com/zero-trust-cds/

Vendors that assist with ZTX, listen to the BLUF Podcast summaries to know if they might be able to help you: https://theblufpodcast.podbean.com/e/thebluf_episode12/ https://theblufpodcast.podbean.com/e/thebluf_episode13/

In this episode of Tech Transforms, Carolyn Ford sits down with Michael Blake of Owl Cyber Defense and Chris Rule of GME to unpack one of cybersecurity’s most misunderstood concepts: Zero Trust. What begins as a discussion of architecture quickly evolves into something broader, an exploration of mindset, modernization, and the reality that today’s networks must operate under the assumption that a breach has already occurred.

The conversation breaks down the core principle behind Zero Trust: minimizing the “blast radius” of a breach. Instead of assuming everything inside a network is safe, Zero Trust requires constant authentication, strict access controls, and segmentation so that even if an attacker gains entry, they cannot move freely across systems.

We explore common misconceptions, especially the idea that Zero Trust is a product that can simply be purchased and installed. In reality, it’s a whole-of-organization approach involving people, processes, infrastructure modernization, and ongoing monitoring. Legacy systems, skill shortages, and the sheer complexity of modern networks make implementation a long-term journey rather than a quick fix.

The discussion highlights why segmentation, boundary management, and cross-domain inspection remain critical even in a Zero Trust architecture—particularly in environments with legacy infrastructure, international partnerships, and tactical edge deployments. As AI systems and autonomous technologies increasingly interact with sensitive networks, the need to treat AI as another “actor” with controlled privileges becomes essential.

The episode concludes with practical guidance for leaders beginning their Zero Trust journey—from inventorying everything on their network and planning segmentation, to implementing role-based access controls, budgeting for modernization, and ensuring organizations have the skilled personnel required to sustain the architecture.
Ultimately, the takeaway is clear: Zero Trust isn’t a tool—it’s a strategy for operating in a world where persistent threats are the norm.

Show notes:
GME - www.gme.net.au
Owl Cyber Defense - www.owlcyberdefense.com
Modern Defense Architecture (Australia) - https://www.cyber.gov.au/business-government/secure-design/secure-by-design/modern-defensible-architecture
Chris Rule - https://www.linkedin.com/in/christopher-rule-fieaust-cpeng-gaicd-05600b30/
Michael Blake - https://www.linkedin.com/in/michael-blake-734b0a21/

In this special 2026 Predictions episode of Tech Transforms, Carolyn Ford is joined by Brian Carter, Scott Orton, Ralph Spa, and Michael Blake from Owl Cyber Defense for a no-crystal-ball conversation about the signals already flashing across cybersecurity, defense, and digital trust.

This isn’t speculation. It’s trajectory.

The group tackles the accelerating collapse of content trust in a world of deepfakes, AI-generated media, and short-form misinformation. As generative tools become indistinguishable from reality, they predict a sharp shift toward deep identity assurance—powered by behavioral biometrics, cryptographic validation, and provable content provenance. In a future where “guaranteed human” becomes a competitive advantage, digital identity won’t be optional—it will be foundational.
From there, the conversation moves into AI containment. The panel argues that we must stop treating AI like helpful software and start treating it like a privileged insider—with unpredictable outputs and real liability attached. The solution? Deterministic boundaries enforced in hardware. As Scott puts it: if you want to confine a tiger, you don’t build the cage out of meat.

The episode also explores:

Throughout the discussion, a clear thread emerges: software alone won’t save us. As systems grow more interconnected, autonomous, and AI-driven, trust must be anchored in hardware—simple, enforceable, and resistant to both human error and machine-scale attack.

The takeaway for 2026? Security leaders won’t lose because they lacked tools. They’ll lose because they trusted the wrong ones.

This episode challenges listeners to rethink modernization, containment, and what real trust looks like when machines are making decisions at machine speed.

Stay curious. The future isn’t waiting.

Shownotes
Scott Orton: LinkedIn | Email: sorton@owlcyberdefense.com
Brian Carter: LinkedIn | Email:bcarter@owlcyberdefense.com
Ralph Spada: LinkedIn | Email: rspada@owlcyberdefense.com
Michael Blake: https://www.linkedin.com/in/michael-blake-734b0a21/ | Email: mblake@owlcyberdefense.com
Owl Cyber Defense: owlcyberdefense.com
Download the 2026 Predictions Report: https://owlcyberdefense.com/resource/decision-advantage-forecast-five-security-shifts-in-2026/
Story - Power Ranger Hacker: https://futurism.com/artificial-intelligence/tinder-for-nazis-hacked

n this return episode of So What? on Tech Transforms, host Carolyn Ford reconnects with co-host Tracy Bannon to unpack one of the most significant structural shifts happening inside the Pentagon: the consolidation of R&D, AI, and data organizations under a single Chief Technology Officer. On paper, it looks like bureaucratic reorganization. In practice, it could redefine how innovation moves from research to battlefield deployment.

Tracy, who regularly briefs at the Pentagon, explains why this move is less about reshuffling boxes on an org chart and more about breaking down long-standing silos between research, prototyping, operational deployment, and data governance. By bringing organizations into tighter alignment, the goal is parallel execution with shared visibility, faster momentum without sacrificing mission integrity. But speed brings risk. Cultural friction between research environments (where failure is tolerated) and operational environments (where failure carries consequences) could become the real test of whether this consolidation succeeds.

Rather than leaving AI adoption to fragmented pilot programs or shadow experimentation, leadership is pushing controlled, enterprise-scale access. Carolyn and Tracy explore why offering multiple models matters strategically, how secure infrastructure is already in place to support it, and what it means when leadership says, “Use it—prove you can’t.”
They also examine the restructuring of Advana, the Pentagon’s enterprise data platform, and what its breakup signals about data ownership, governance, and the ongoing battle between centralized visibility and cultural resistance. The real friction point, Tracy argues, isn’t technology, it’s data stewardship, policy alignment, and whether organizations are willing to move from “my system, my risk” to shared mission accountability.

Throughout the episode, they return to the central question of the series: So what actually changes? They outline the signals they’ll be watching over the next three months, speed of adoption, policy adaptation, cross-organizational collaboration, and whether cultural barriers soften or harden under pressure.

This is a conversation for leaders navigating large-scale transformation, those wrestling with how to accelerate innovation without losing control, and how to align people, process, and technology when the mission demands both speed and accountability.

Show Notes:
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/Tracyylbannon/
E-mail: Trac@Tracybannon.tech
Website: https://Tracybannon.tech/
Breaking Defense: Pentagon Reforms R&D and AI- https://breakingdefense.com/2026/01/pentagon-rolls-out-major-reforms-of-rd-ai/
Tracy Bannon Blog: https://straighttalk4gov.org/
GenAI.mil Info: https://www.war.gov/News/Releases/Release/Article/4354916/the-war-department-unleashes-ai-on-new-genaimil-platform/
Advana background: https://www.ai.mil/Initiatives/Analytic-Tools/
Moltbook: https://www.moltbook.com/

Retired Rear Admiral Mark Montgomery joins Tech Transforms for a blunt, practical look at the cyber risks the U.S. keeps underestimating—and why “Uncle Rufus’s rail switch” may be the weak link that matters most. Montgomery breaks down military mobility as a national security problem hiding in plain sight: once equipment leaves the secure “Noah’s Ark” of a base and hits rural rail networks and switching systems, it enters a “Mad Max” environment with limited redundancy, limited cyber expertise, and huge strategic consequences.

From there, the conversation moves into what it would take to fix the problem before a crisis: recurring federal assessments, targeted grant programs for smaller operators, and the messy reality of congressional jurisdiction that slows action. Montgomery also makes the case for a dedicated Cyber Force—arguing the current “force generation” model across military branches can’t recruit, train, and retain cyber talent at the scale needed.

Finally, the episode tackles the cyber insurance market: why organizations are underinsured, why risk is hard to price, and why the most promising models pair insurance with real assessments, remediation, and recurring validation. Montgomery closes with updates on Cyberspace Solarium 2.0 progress, what’s stalled, what’s “backsliding,” and what measurable wins still matter—plus a rapid-fire “Tech Talk” round that includes Batman, battleships, and top-down cyber hygiene.

Show Notes:
Foundation for Defense of Democracies - fdd.org
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/mark-montgomery-b8932810/
Twitter: @MarkCMontgomergy
Cyber Insurance Reform Op-Ed: https://cyberscoop.com/congress-cyber-insurance-reform-op-ed
Cyberspace Solarium Commission Reports: https://cybersolarium.org

In this episode of Tech Transforms, Carolyn Ford sits down with Will Roper, one of the key architects of modern defense digital transformation, for a wide-ranging conversation that challenges a core assumption of today’s tech landscape: what if AI can’t scale because the Internet was never designed to support it?

Drawing on his experience leading Project Maven, overseeing the Air Force’s cloud adoption, and placing AI on a U-2 spy plane, Roper explains why the real barrier to AI adoption isn’t algorithms, it’s infrastructure. He explores how today’s Internet favors centralization, making it powerful for consumers but fundamentally misaligned with highly regulated, IP-sensitive industries like aerospace, defense, and critical infrastructure.

The conversation dives deep into sovereign data territories, zero-trust collaboration, and why data should never have to move in order to be useful. Using vivid analogies—from Formula One racing and digital twins to The Matrix, Roper outlines a new model for federated infrastructure that enables secure collaboration without sacrificing ownership, trust, or governance.

Carolyn and Will also explore digital certification, continuous airworthiness, and the idea of a “digital flight envelope,” where physical systems can validate and recertify themselves in real time, reshaping how safety, speed, and innovation coexist.

The episode wraps with rapid-fire Tech Talk questions, a philosophical discussion on simulations and trust, and a look ahead at what the next decade of technology may bring.

This is a must-listen episode for leaders rethinking infrastructure, AI readiness, and what it truly means to build systems that scale—securely, ethically, and intelligently.

Show Notes:
Email: roper@istaridigital.com
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/williamroper/
Summary "There is No Spoon" Talk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEcPlqImjWc
Dr. Roper’s Paper: There Is No Spoon - The New Digital Acquisition Reality https://www.af.mil/Portals/1/documents/2020SAF/There_Is_No_Spoon_Digital_Acquisition_7_Oct_2020_digital_version.pdf
Official Bio: https://www.af.mil/About-Us/Biographies/Display/article/1467795/dr-will-roper/

Istari
https://www.istaridigital.com/
Flyer One: https://www.executivebiz.com/articles/istari-digitals-flyer-one-x-plane-on-track-for-digital-certification-will-roper-quoted

Tech Transforms went live in front of an in-person audience (and simultaneously on the virtual platform and LinkedIn Live) for a special episode featuring Steve Stratton, retired Green Beret, former White House and Secret Service professional, and award-winning author of Skip Jack (included in attendees’ welcome package).

The conversation explored why storytelling beats “speeds and feeds” when it comes to helping leaders and teams understand technology, remember what matters under pressure, and create real decision advantage. Steve explains how story creates emotional connection, strengthens recall, and gives context that data sheets can’t. Together, the hosts dig into the OODA loop, using a visceral film clip from We Were Soldiers to illustrate what decision-making looks like in chaos—then fast-forward to the near-future battlefield described in Skip Jack, where leaders are overwhelmed by sensors, AI, intel feeds, and massive data volume.

A highlight is the reading from Chapter Five, where the commander describes mining high-threat networks and the dark web, relying on data diodes to stop malicious payloads hidden in media files, and pushing decisions to the point of information to speed response in a “nonkinetic war… at the speed of the internet.”

The episode closes with rapid-fire “Tech Talk” questions—night vision tech, dream casting for Nicky Fury, and fictional worlds worth visiting—before the live audience transitions into the event’s first mission brief.

In this special holiday episode of Tech Transforms, we’re joined by Mike Beckerle—Chief Software Architect at Owl Cyber Defense, co-creator of the DFDL standard, and a foundational force behind the Apache Daffodil open-source project. Mike’s career has been a masterclass in solving some of the most complex challenges in data interoperability and secure information sharing—often behind the scenes, but always with massive impact.

As he steps into retirement (though we’re not totally convinced he’ll slow down), we take a moment to reflect on the legacy he leaves behind—from his pioneering work at Tresys and Owl to shaping real-world standards that actually work.

This episode is a celebration of big ideas, mentorship done right, and the kind of quiet brilliance that transforms entire fields. As longtime colleague Stephen Lawrence said best:
“Mike didn’t just solve hard problems—he helped the rest of us learn how to solve them too.”

If you've ever wrestled with legacy data or wondered what true tech leadership looks like, this one’s a gift.

In this thought-provoking episode of Tech Transforms, host Carolyn Ford welcomes Janet Kang, a Silicon Valley entrepreneur turned nonprofit leader whose work sits at the intersection of AI innovation, ethics, and long-term societal impact. After building companies since age 13, launching multiple ed-tech ventures, and incubating AI-powered products in a corporate venture studio, Janet experienced firsthand the exhilarating speed and unsettling risks of deploying AI in real-world environments. Those experiences ultimately led her to join Just Horizons Alliance, a nonprofit committed to developing open protocols, ethical frameworks, and real-time auditing tools that help organizations build and deploy AI responsibly.

Janet shares candid stories from the early days of AI adoption, where models behaved inconsistently, guardrails lagged behind product timelines, and the pressure to scale fast often overshadowed deeper questions of safety and accountability. She explains why today’s biggest risk isn’t far-off superintelligence; it's the immediate, under-regulated integration of AI into education, healthcare, hiring systems, and public services. For younger users especially, she warns, AI already shapes communication, decision-making, confidence, and even identity and most tech leaders lack the tools to properly assess or mitigate those risks.

Carolyn and Janet explore why ethical AI requires more than thought leadership and policy statements. It requires action: adversarial testing, real-world simulations, contextual frameworks, and independent audits that account for messy human behavior, not just ideal use cases. They also discuss the structural barriers women face in tech, the mentors who “give up their seat” to make space, and the mindset shift that comes with parenthood thinking in decades, not quarters.
Looking ahead, Janet envisions a future where AI becomes “infrastructure, not the main character” as invisible and reliable as flipping a light switch because circuit breakers, safety layers, and accountability systems are finally in place. Until then, she calls on builders, executives, educators, and policymakers to take practical steps now: test relentlessly, understand failure modes, prioritize vulnerable users, and choose impact over speed.

This is an episode for leaders who want to innovate boldly and responsibly, those wrestling with how to balance progress with protection, and how to shape an AI-powered future worthy of the next generation.

Show Notes:
www.justhorizons.org
https://www.linkedin.com/in/kangjanet/
Pause superintelligence petition - https://www.axios.com/2025/10/22/superintelligence-ai-pause-yoshua-bengio

Books Mentioned
Empire of AI — Karen Hao
The Alignment Problem — Brian Christian
The Broken Earth Trilogy — N.K. Jemisin (recommended by Carolyn)

In this episode of Tech Transforms, host Carolyn Ford welcomes Connor Morley, Head of Security Research at Glasswall, for a deep dive into the spy-thriller world of modern file security. From malware hidden in images and PDFs to “polyglot” files that can appear as multiple formats at once, Morley exposes how attackers are redefining what a “safe file” really means.

They explore how artificial intelligence is supercharging phishing and social-engineering campaigns, making malicious messages nearly indistinguishable from legitimate ones. Morley explains the evolution of steganography—the art of concealing code inside digital images and why emerging threats like QR-code hijacking (“quishing”) have become one of the easiest ways to breach both corporate and personal devices.

But this isn’t a doom-and-gloom story. Morley shows how zero-trust file filtering and Content Disarm & Reconstruction (CDR) can neutralize hidden payloads without disrupting everyday workflows. He also reveals how these proactive defenses reduce “SOC noise,” giving security teams back valuable focus time and keeping threats from ever reaching end users.

From AI-powered deception to invisible payloads hidden in plain sight, this conversation uncovers the unseen layer of cyber defense and reminds leaders that innovation, not fear, is the best shield against tomorrow’s threats.

Show Notes:
• Whitepapers:
Polyglot Files: Unmasking Images & PDFs
Steganography: Smudging the Invisible Ink
QR Codes: Neutralizing Threats with CDR
• Webinar: File Analysis & CDR: Forging A Formidable Defense
• Website: https://www.glasswall.com/
• Connor Morley - https://www.linkedin.com/in/connormorley/

For our Halloween finale, Carolyn Ford invites two favorite “AI conjurers”, Dave Egts “Mr. X,” public-sector field CTO at Mulesoft, and Laura Klebanow, founder & chief storyteller at Show & Tell, into the Tech Transforms cauldron. Each brings a “secret AI ingredient”: Carolyn composes whimsical Suno-generated theme music (after a prompt-crafting detour through ChatGPT), Laura pushes image creation and Gemini’s career-planner for playful, practical use, and Dave reimagines Gemini’s children’s-storybook gem to craft customer-hero narratives, plus a Scooby-Doo-style Tech Transforms tale.

Then we stir in the shadows: misinformation at scale, AI “rights,” bioethics (organoids/bodyoids), job disruption vs. reskilling, and how creativity can demystify AI without sugarcoating risks. The trio closes with rapid-fire “treats & tricks,” classroom-to-boardroom starter tips (talk with AI, don’t just query it; red-team your ideas), and a reminder to “find your beautiful” use the tools to clear the junk so humans can do what only humans do.

Brewed takeaways

**Show Notes:

Dave Egts - LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/davidegts/

Laura Klebanow - Email: laura@showtell.io - LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/lauraklebanow/

Suno - https://suno.com/

My storybook: https://g.co/gemini/share/56bbf0498a84

Dave & Gunner Show: www.dgshow.org

In the “Thrills” side of our Halloween series, host Carolyn Ford and futurist Joseph Bradley shift from fear to possibility, exploring how AI can amplify human potential and unlock joy at scale.

Bradley introduces the “happiness paradigm,” the idea that AI’s true value isn’t just about productivity, but about helping people find more meaning, connection, and time for what matters most. From digital “twins” that make leaders more effective, to AI tools that give disabled creators new ways to express themselves, to cognitive cities designed around citizens rather than assets, this is AI as an amplifier of identity and humanity.

Instead of focusing on what we might lose, Bradley shows how leaders and organizations can build trust, align AI with values, and use it to create more satisfying workplaces, communities, and lives. If the “Chills” episode raised the hard questions, this one paints the vision of what’s possible when we get it right.

Mentioned in this episode:
Joseph Bradley - www.josephmbradley.com
Joseph Bradley’s book You to the Power of 2 (Pre-order: josephmbradley.com | ​​https://shop.u-x2.ai/)
The Happiness Paradigm- https://www.linkedin.com/posts/josephmbradley_happiness-successmindset-activity-7284796402122072065-Gl68/

The Curious Case of AI - A Two-Part Special (“The Chills”)
In this Tech Transforms Halloween “Chills” episode, host Carolyn Ford and futurist Joseph Bradley explore the eerie, but essential, questions AI raises. Using Star Trek as their guide, they look at how “identic AI”, technology that mirrors identity, preferences, and even purpose can feel both thrilling and unsettling.
Bradley, a strong believer in AI’s potential, points out that every powerful tool comes with risks if it’s misused. Together, he and Carolyn discuss what happens when efficiency is valued over happiness, how bias can creep in if we aren’t intentional, and why cognitive cities must be built with trust and ethics at the core. Think less “the end is near” and more “what safeguards do we need to make sure this future works for people?”
This episode sets the stage for leaders, innovators, and everyday users to think critically about how AI shapes identity, relationships, and society, while remembering that the choices we make now will decide whether the future feels like The Borg… or The Federation.

Mentioned in this episode:
Joseph Bradley’s book U to the Power of 2 (Pre-order: josephmbradley.com | ​​https://shop.u-x2.ai/)
Paperclip dilemma thought experiment - https://nickbostrom.com/ethics/ai
Smart vs. Cognitive Cities https://www.pwc.com/m1/en/publications/documents/cognitive-cities-a-journey-to-intelligent-urbanism.pdf
Questioneering: The New Model for Innovative Leaders in the Digital Age

In this episode, host Carolyn Ford sits down with Julie Laurin, a cyber threat intelligence consultant with the Mining and Metals ISAC. Julie brings two decades of expertise in software, a sharp eye for overlooked risks, and a deep curiosity about the intersection of humans and technology. Together, they explore the evolving landscape of cyber threats, from social engineering tactics like the Clickfix malware to the critical role of human behavior in cybersecurity.

Julie shares fascinating insights into the vulnerabilities of critical infrastructure, the geopolitical implications of mining and minerals, and the challenges of navigating leadership as a woman in tech. They also dive into the neurodiverse superpowers that thrive in the fast-paced world of cybersecurity and the importance of empathy in the digital age.

With humor, candor, and thought-provoking anecdotes, this episode will leave you rethinking the way we approach technology, security, and the human element. Tune in for a conversation that’s equal parts enlightening and entertaining. Stay curious and keep imagining the future!

Summary Notes
Julie’s LinkedIn Profile: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jlaurin/
Mining and Metals ISAC - https://mmisac.org/
ClickFix Analysis - https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/security/blog/2025/08/21/think-before-you-clickfix-analyzing-the-clickfix-social-engineering-technique/
ISO/IEC 27001 - https://www.iso.org/standard/27001

On this episode of Tech Transforms, host Carolyn Ford welcomes Antoine Harden, Regional VP of Federal at Sonatype, to unpack one of the most urgent challenges in federal cybersecurity: securing the software supply chain. With more than 25 years of experience at Oracle, Google, and now Sonatype, Antoine shares why software supply chain risks from SolarWinds to Log4j have pushed SBOMs (Software Bills of Materials) and continuous monitoring into the spotlight.

Together, they break down what SBOMs are (think nutrition labels for software), how mandates like Executive Order 14028 and frameworks like NIST’s Secure Software Development Framework (SSDF) and DoD’s SWFT are changing the compliance landscape, and why automation is essential to get from static ATOs to continuous authorization.

Antoine also explains how Sonatype uses AI and software composition analysis tools to close critical gaps in open source and AI-heavy environments, helping agencies shift left, reduce vulnerabilities, and accelerate secure delivery of mission-critical systems. Along the way, the conversation covers everything from JFK delays caused by vulnerabilities, to the risks of “ludicrous speed” AI adoption, to the surprising history of Project Pigeon in WWII.

For federal leaders ready to take action, Antoine offers one concrete step: start with a single mission-critical application, mandate an SBOM, and see what hidden risks you uncover.

Show Notes:
Connect with Antoine https://www.linkedin.com/in/antoine-harden-mba-035a441/
Executive Order 14028NIST Secure Software Development Framework (SSDF)
CISA Zero Trust Maturity Model
DoD’s SWFT (Software Fast Track Initiative)
Sonatype Resource Center

In this episode of TechTransforms, host Carolyn Ford sits down with Martin Stanley, Senior Advisor at NIST, to explore how AI is reshaping federal cybersecurity. They dive into NIST’s AI Risk Management Framework, the growing need for secure and resilient AI systems, and what it takes to build a “risk-aware” culture in government. Stanley shares insights on guarding against threats like model theft and prompt injection, how agencies are adapting zero trust principles for AI, and why explainability is essential in machine learning models. Whether you're new to AI governance or advancing your cybersecurity strategy, this episode offers practical guidance for navigating the evolving AI risk landscape.

Show Notes:
NIST AI resources: https://www.nist.gov/artificial-intelligence/ai-resources
AI Risk Management Framework https://www.nist.gov/itl/ai-risk-management-framework
NIST-AI-600-1: AI RMF Generative AI Profile https://airc.nist.gov/docs/NIST.AI.600-1.GenAI-Profile.ipd.pdf
Secure Software Development Practices for Generative AI and Dual-Use Foundation Models: An SSDF Community Profile https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.800-218A

Email: martin.stanley@nist.gov
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/mcs729/

*COTS vs. GOTS: What the Federal Mandate Really Means with Dom Perez
*
In this episode of Tech Transforms, host Carolyn Ford is joined by Dominic Perez, CTO of Curtiss-Wright Defense Solutions, to break down one of the hottest topics in defense tech: the federal government’s new COTS-first mandate.

What happens when agencies must justify government-off-the-shelf (GOTS) solutions in 60 days or lose funding? Dom shares what this means for acquisition teams, why the policy might create more confusion than clarity, and how commercial solutions for classified (CSfC) are transforming secure communications in the field.

From rugged mesh networks to “MacGyvered” mission-ready tech, Dom takes us behind the scenes of CSFC innovation, explaining how rapid deployment, lifecycle savings, and mission flexibility are driving real change.

If you’ve ever wondered how defense innovation happens at the speed of relevance or what’s really in that “Rubbermaid tote” this one’s for you.

Topics include:

Follow Dom Perez on LinkedIn for more insights and check out Curtiss-Wright’s whitepapers on modular open systems, CSFC, and edge AI.

In this episode of Tech Transforms, Daryl Haegley, Technical Director for Control Systems Cyber Resilience at the Department of the Air Force, shares insights from his nearly four decades of federal service, discussing the evolving landscape of cybersecurity for operational technology and control systems. He talks about the importance of creating a culture of security across government and industry, the challenges of modernizing legacy systems, and the urgent need to address cybersecurity gaps before adversaries exploit them. From developing a first-ever scorecard for facility cybersecurity to his mission of aligning cyber practices with national defense priorities, Haegley underscores the critical role of leadership, collaboration, and continuous innovation in securing the nation’s most vulnerable systems.

For an even deeper dive, here are additional resources for your convenience:
· Annual Threat Assessment Report: 2024 DNI ATA and 2025 DNI ATA
· Cyber Resilience Office for Control Systems (CROCS): Watch
· “OT: Lock It Down” Music Video: Listen here
· Articles Referenced:
Wired for Risk – SC World
Cyber Skills Gap – Federal News Network
Cyber OT training: [Article]

What happens when bureaucratic red tape meets bold collaboration? In this episode of Tech Transforms, Carolyn Ford is joined by Mat Cantagallo, Defense Director at Austrade, to explore how OWL, GME, and Austrade became the first to successfully leverage the AUKUS exemption, cutting through years of export restrictions to enable real-time defense collaboration between the U.S. and Australia.

From simplifying tech transfer to accelerating mission-critical training, this conversation offers a powerful look at how smart policy and strategic partnerships are setting a new benchmark for global security innovation.

If you’re in defense, cybersecurity, international trade, or just love a good story about making the impossible possible, this one’s for you.

Contact Mat https://www.linkedin.com/in/mat-c-a377937/

What does it take to trust AI in the highest-stakes environments and how do we make sure people stay at the center of every innovation?

In our milestone 100th episode, Lt. General Susan Lawrence, President & CEO of AFCEA International and former CIO of the U.S. Army, joins host Carolyn Ford for a compelling conversation about the future of national defense in an AI-powered world. Together, they unpack:

Whether you're in the public sector, tech, or defense, this episode is packed with powerful insights on innovation, leadership, and national resilience.

Why do phishing scams still work, even on the savviest among us? In this episode, host Carolyn Ford welcomes Bart McDonough, Founder of Agio and author of Cyber Smart and Cyber Guardians to break down the human side of cybersecurity. Bart shares practical tips to protect yourself and your organization from today’s most common threats, explains why a resilient cyber culture matters more than ever, and reveals how AI is shaping both the future of cyber defense and cybercrime. Packed with relatable stories and expert advice, this conversation is a must-listen for anyone who thinks they’re too smart to get hacked.

Key topics:

Why social engineering remains the top attack vector
How to build defense-in-depth at work and at home
Practical habits for better passwords and safer devices
The evolving role of AI in cyber threats and defense
Why a strong cyber culture starts with open, blame-free communication

Tune in and level up your cyber smarts today!

What do Dune’s spice trade, HAL 9000, and federal supply chains have in common? They all reveal how deeply our systems rely on trust—and how dangerous things get when that trust breaks down. I’m joined by Timothy Amerson, CEO of CASMO Consulting, former Chief Information Security Officer at the Social Security Administration, and Army veteran, to explore why Supply Chain Risk Management is no longer just a CISO concern. From insider threats to shifting geopolitical pressures, Tim brings sharp, actionable insight for leaders navigating today’s complex cyber landscape. If you’re serious about moving from compliance to real resilience, this episode is for you.

When military leaders say, “Get me some of that AI,” what are they really asking for? In this episode of Tech Transforms, host Carolyn Ford is joined by Capt. M. Scott Austin, a Fellow at the Carnegie Mellon Institute for Strategy and Technology and a U.S. Coast Guard veteran. Together, they unpack what “prompt engineering” really means—not just for AI users, but for mission-driven leaders.

Capt. Austin challenges the hype, emphasizing the need for clear problem definition, strategic alignment, and human-centered design when applying AI in defense and beyond. They explore how AI can “buy back time,” why empathy is a critical leadership skill in tech adoption, and whether C-3PO or R2-D2 is the better model for agentic warfare.

You’ll hear:

Whether you're building policy, coding tools, or just trying to avoid another expense report, this episode will expand your thinking about AI’s role in high-stakes environments.

Show Notes:

In this special Tech Transforms + ATARC crossover episode, Carolyn Ford talks with Frank Indiviglio, Chief Technology Officer at NOAA, about how AI, data science, and high-performance computing are transforming weather forecasting, climate modeling, and ocean research. Frank shares how NOAA uses tools like REMUS underwater vehicles, balances open data with cybersecurity, and drives innovation through cross-sector collaboration.

Resources & Links:
🌐 Learn more about NOAA’s AI initiatives: noaa.gov/ai
🔗 Connect with Frank Indiviglio on LinkedIn: Frank Indiviglio

Tune in for insights on the future of AI, oceans, and innovation!

What if we could trust the data flying out of streetlights, drones, and smart thermostats — right from the source? In this episode of Tech Transforms, Randy Clark breaks down the principles of zero trust data and its transformative power for smart cities, IoT, and AI at the edge. Randy shares why protecting data packets (not just networks) is critical for security and innovation—and how it opens up new opportunities for collaboration, compliance, and even battlefield awareness. Tune in for a fascinating conversation on the future of digital trust.

In this special crossover from the Federal Tech Podcast hosted by John Gilroy, I’m excited to share a powerful conversation featuring Tim Fahl, CTO at Owl Cyber Defense. Tim dives into how cross-domain solutions are playing a crucial role in boosting cyber resilience across federal agencies—enabling secure information sharing in even the most sensitive environments.
We explore how Owl Cyber Defense is bridging security gaps, ensuring that mission-critical data can flow safely and efficiently between networks of differing classifications.
If you’re passionate about securing federal systems and fascinated by the intersection of innovation and infrastructure, this episode is a must-listen.
Originally aired on the Federal Tech Podcast. Huge thanks to John Gilroy for the opportunity to bring this conversation to the Tech Transforms audience.

Guest: Award Winning Author Steve Stratton, Retired Green Beret, Former Secret Service Agent, Cybersecurity Expert, Author of Operation Skipjack

Summary:
In this special episode of Tech Transforms, part of our ongoing Skipjack Series, host Carolyn Ford reconnects with Steve Stratton to discuss his latest story: Operation White Heron. Building on the world of Operation Skipjack, this installment dives into the often-invisible frontlines of modern warfare—where shaping operations, secure communications, and real-time intelligence determine outcomes before the first shot is ever fired.

From special forces training with partners in the Pacific to disinformation campaigns and environmental sensors used for threat detection, Stratton breaks down how fiction rooted in reality can help decision-makers reframe the future of conflict. It’s a powerful conversation about leadership at the edge, data as a weapon, and the value of multi-domain coordination.

If you’re in national security, tech, or just curious how stories can shape strategy, this episode is for you.

Key Takeaways – Operation White Heron Episode
Conflict Doesn’t Start with Gunfire
Modern warfare is already happening—in cyberspace, in social media, and through economic and information pressure. Operation White Heron explores the reality of “pre-hostility” operations where shaping activities and influence campaigns define the battlespace before combat begins.

Operate at the Point of Information
Admiral Nikki Furry empowers her teams to make decisions where the data is collected—not after it's passed through layers of bureaucracy. This shift mirrors real-world changes in how the U.S. military and intelligence community are adapting to fast, decentralized decision-making.

Multi-Domain Awareness Requires Unconventional Sensors
From tidal sensors to AI-enhanced intel fusion, the story shows how unconventional data sources—when securely correlated—can detect threats others might miss. The key is recognizing that anything connected to the environment can become part of your sensor network.

Real-Time Data Sharing Is the New Tactical Advantage
Tactical data has a short shelf life. Whether stopping swimmers from landing on a hostile coast or responding to disinformation in real-time, secure and fast communications between allied forces is a game-changer.

Useful Fiction Makes the Tech and Stakes Real
By embedding real technology—like Owl’s PACSTAR kits and cross-domain guards—into a compelling narrative, Stratton helps readers understand the why behind secure communications, not just the how.

This Is a Continuum, Not a Moment
From pre-conflict shaping to full kinetic operations and post-conflict recovery, modern warfare requires continuous situational awareness, massive data ingestion, and the ability to act inside the adversary’s decision loop.

📘 Read the First Chapters Now — and Be the First to Read the Latest Installment: Operation White Heron
The Skipjack series continues. Start with the opening chapters already available—and be among the first to read Operation White Heron, launching May 5 at SOF Week.
👉 owlcyberdefense.com/operationskipjack

📬 Connect with Steve Stratton
📧 Email: stevenstratton@usa.com
🌐 Website: stevenstrattonusa.com
🔗 LinkedIn: Steve Stratton
📱 Instagram/X/Facebook: @StrattonBooks

In this episode, Carolyn welcomes back Dave Egts, Field CTO at MuleSoft, to explore the transformative power of AI in 2025. They dive into Dave’s top five AI predictions, with a special focus on the rise of agentic AI—AI that doesn’t just suggest, but acts. Dave explains the difference between generative AI and intelligent agents, why integration via APIs is the key to agent success, and how government agencies can prepare now.

Listeners will learn:

📌 Show Notes:

Guest: Dave Egts, Field CTO at MuleSoft, a Salesforce company
🔗 Follow Dave on LinkedIn

🎧Listen to the Dave & Gunnar Show

Key Topics:

[00:00] Intro & Dave’s blog: “5 AI Predictions for 2025”

[03:00] What’s an AI agent? Why they’re different from GenAI

[07:30] Real-world examples from Salesforce: Agentforce in action

[14:00] The importance of APIs for agent success

[15:45] Government use cases & security considerations

[18:00] Internal AI agents that reduce toil (meeting schedulers, IT help, expense reports)

[22:00] Cylon references & the power of digital labor in public sector

[29:00] Small Language Models: Why smaller might be better

[36:00] LLM Routers explained

[38:00] Fun Tech Talk Q&A (Superpowers, overhyped trends, sci-fi names)

Resources Mentioned:
📖 Dave's Blog: 5 AI Predictions for 2025: Opportunities Tech Leaders Must Seize This Year

💡 Trailhead Learning Platform from Salesforce: Learn to build your own agent

🤖 Help.Salesforce.com – Try Agentforce

📺 Forbidden Planet (Robby the Robot)

🐒 Monkey’s Paw story reference

What if the next global conflict begins not on the battlefield, but in cyberspace?

In this thrilling episode of Tech Transforms, host Carolyn Ford welcomes author, former Special Forces operator, and intelligence professional Steve Stratton to discuss Operation Skipjack—a useful fiction thriller that feels ripped straight from today’s headlines. This isn’t just a story; it’s a wake-up call.

Set in one of the world's most volatile geopolitical hotspots, Operation Skipjack explores a high-stakes cyber warfare scenario where adversaries leverage stealth technology, artificial intelligence, and quantum computing to disrupt global military operations. While the narrative is fictional, the threats, technologies, and strategic maneuvers are real—many of them already in development or active use.

What You’ll Learn in This Episode:

🚀 The Real-World Tech Behind the Fiction: Every piece of technology in Operation Skipjack—from quantum radar to cross-domain security solutions—is either operational, in prototype, or on the near horizon. Learn how emerging innovations are shaping modern defense strategies.

🕵️ Why “Useful Fiction” Is More Than Just a Story: Unlike traditional fiction, useful fiction blends real-world intelligence, defense strategies, and cutting-edge tech into an engaging narrative. Find out how military leaders and decision-makers use fictionalized scenarios to prepare for real threats.

🌍 The Cyber War That’s Already Happening: Steve Stratton reveals why cyber warfare isn’t a future possibility—it’s a daily battle being fought in the shadows. From state-sponsored hacking to AI-powered cyber attacks, the game has changed, and national security is on the line.

🔒 The Role of Cross-Domain Solutions in Defense: Discover how Owl Cyber Defense’s technology is ensuring secure, real-time data transfers in high-risk military environments—and why this matters in a world of increasing cyber threats.

🎥 If Operation Skipjack Became a Movie: Who would play Admiral Nikki Fury? Steve and Carolyn share their dream cast picks for a blockbuster adaptation of this intense cyber thriller.

Exclusive Access to Operation Skipjack
Operation Skipjack will be officially unveiled at Distributech on March 24, 2025, but you don’t have to wait.

🔗 Get exclusive early access to the full chapter! Sign up at owlcyberdefense.com/operationskipjack/ to receive your copy as soon as it’s released.

📢 Stay Connected:

Follow Owl Cyber Defense on LinkedIn for updates.
Connect with Steve Stratton at [stevenstrattonusa.com](stevestrattonusa.com)

Final Thought:
This episode isn’t just about a book—it’s about the future of warfare, technology, and national security. Are we ready for what’s coming?

🎧 Listen now and stay ahead of the cyber threats shaping tomorrow’s battles.

🔒 How do we secure software in an era of open-source dominance and AI-driven threats?

On this episode of Tech Transforms, Scott Orton and Mike Mehlberg join Carolyn Ford to explore the future of secure software development. They tackle:

✅ The Power of SBOMs – Why software transparency is a game-changer (and why some companies still resist it)
✅ Open-Source Risks – How attackers exploit vulnerabilities in widely used packages and what to do about it
✅ Rust Programming Language – The case for transitioning to a more secure, memory-safe coding environment
✅ AI in Software Development – How AI is transforming cybersecurity, from automated vulnerability detection to mitigating risks before they happen
✅ Cross-Domain Solutions – The push toward hygienic networks and a proactive approach to security in classified environments

They also discuss real-world security threats, including a recent open-source software attack that nearly went undetected. Plus, Scott shares his vision for AI inspired by non-human intelligence (think squids and insects! 🦑).

🔹 If you're in software development, cybersecurity, or tech leadership, this episode is a must-listen!

📲 Connect with Scott and Mike on LinkedIn for more insights.

🎧 Listen now and stay ahead in the world of secure software and cyber defense!

💡 Is blockchain just for crypto bros, or is it the future of financial security?

In this episode, Carolyn Ford welcomes Don Spies, CEO of Outrider Analytics, to unravel the complexities of blockchain intelligence. They discuss how digital assets are transforming crime fighting and how law enforcement agencies use blockchain analysis to track illicit activity—from fraud and ransomware to cyber warfare and terrorist financing.

Pop culture meets cybersecurity as Don speculates how blockchain could change classic crime stories like Ocean’s 11 and shares his vision for a blockchain-themed thriller (Encrypted Justice, anyone?).

Key Topics Covered:
✔️ Blockchain 101 – Explained like you’re in eighth grade
✔️ How criminals leverage digital assets & how investigators track them
✔️ Real-world cases of financial crime solved through blockchain
✔️ Common misconceptions about cryptocurrency & security risks
✔️ The role of government regulation in shaping the future of digital assets

Listen now to discover how blockchain is reshaping global security!

🔗Learn more about Don Spies and Outrider Analytics

Explore the transformative potential of AI in this compelling conversation with retired Lieutenant General Michael Groen, former director of the Joint Artificial Intelligence Center (JAIC). General Groen discusses how AI is reshaping industries, national security, and human potential. He delves into the challenges of fostering innovation in large organizations, the necessity of cultural shifts, and the critical role of leadership in navigating this technological revolution. Whether you’re an AI enthusiast, a tech skeptic, or just curious about the future, this episode will inspire you to imagine the possibilities.

How do we empower warfighters with real-time, secure communication in the most challenging operational environments? In this episode of Tech Transforms, Carolyn sits down with Dan O'Donohue, VP of Secure Communications at Owl Cyber Defense and retired U.S. Marine Corps Lieutenant General, to explore the cutting-edge of tactical network technologies. With firsthand experience leading Marine Forces Cyber and Joint Force Development, Dan discusses the evolution of secure data exchange, the integration of AI, and the significance of adaptability in disrupted environments.

Discover how secure communication networks drive operational success, how cross-domain solutions enhance coalition interoperability, and why a modernized, data-driven military is essential in today’s battlespace. Whether you're a tech enthusiast or a leader seeking insights on the future of tactical networks, this episode will transform the way you think about secure communications.

Tune in for expert perspectives and actionable takeaways from one of the foremost leaders in the field.

In this episode of Tech Transforms, Tracy Bannon, a software architect and researcher at MITRE, dives into the exciting potential and challenges of using generative AI in the Software Development Lifecycle (SDLC). Tracy explores how AI can revolutionize workflows, enhance testing, and even act as a collaborative team member. From addressing human trust issues with AI to building decision-making tools, Tracy shares her journey in navigating the evolving role of generative AI. Tune in for actionable insights and learn how careful integration of AI can unlock innovation while maintaining security and trust.

Key Topics Covered:

Sponsor:
This episode is brought to you by OWL Cyber Defense, leaders in secure data transfer solutions for critical networks.

In this episode of Tech Transforms, host Carolyn Ford welcomes back Kris Saling, the Director of Talent Analytics and Data Strategy for the U.S. Army, to discuss her new book, Data-Driven Talent Management. Kris shares how analytics is reshaping recruitment, retention, and employee engagement across both the public sector and private industry, providing leaders with powerful tools to build stronger, more motivated teams. From the value of non-monetary incentives to the evolving role of AI in hiring, Kris reveals practical ways data can transform talent management. Whether you're in marketing, cybersecurity, or beyond, this episode is packed with actionable insights on creating a people-first workplace. Join us for a deep dive into the future of workforce management!

Jason Miller is the Executive Editor of Federal News Network and has covered the federal technology space over the course of five Presidential administrations. He brings his wealth of knowledge as he joins Tech Transforms to talk about AI, the top things government agencies are working towards this year and his predictions around FedRAMP changes. Jason also pulls on his decades of experience as he discusses events that changed the nation's approach to cybersecurity and the longstanding need to have data that is better, faster and easier to use.

Key Topics

Cybersecurity Evolution: Examining Technology's Political Neutrality and AI Commitment Through Administrative Changes

Consistent Focus on Cybersecurity Evolution Across Political Administrations

Jason expressed a clear conviction that technology issues are largely immune to political fluctuation and are a continuity in government agendas. Reflecting on his experience across five administrations, he noted that the foundational technological discussions, such as cloud adoption, cybersecurity enhancement and overall IT improvement are fundamentally preserved through transitions in political leadership. He highlighted that the drive to enhance government IT is typically powered by the resilience and dedication of public servants, who generally carry on valuable reforms and initiatives regardless of the sitting administration's politics. These individuals are essential to sustaining progress and ensuring that technology remains a key priority for effective governance.

Federal IT Policies Consistency:"No one comes in and says, I'm against AI, or cloud is bad, move back on premise, or cybersecurity, defund cybersecurity. I think those are the issues that stay the same." — Jason Miller

Executive Orders and AI Adoption

Addressing the specifics of executive orders, particularly those influencing the implementation and development of artificial intelligence (AI), Jason examined their historical persistence and their potential to shape operational practices in the government sector. He and Mark discussed how the stability of AI-related orders through various administrations is indicative of a broader governmental consensus on the integral role AI holds in modernizing federal operations. Despite changes in leadership, the incoming officials frequently uphold the momentum established by their predecessors when it comes to leveraging AI. Indicating a shared, bipartisan recognition of its strategic importance to the government's future capabilities and efficiencies.

Cybersecurity Evolution: Zero Trust Principles and Network Security Challenges in Federal Agencies

Zero Trust and Cybersecurity Budgeting

During the podcast, Carolyn and Jason delve into the current trends and expectations for federal cybersecurity advancements, with a particular focus on zero trust architecture. Their discussion acknowledged that agencies are on a tight schedule to meet the guidelines set forth by the Office of Management and Budget, which has highlighted 2025 as the target year for civilian agencies to embrace specific zero trust requirements. While the Department of Defense has until 2027.

Moving past the traditional perimeter defense model, zero trust principles necessitate an ongoing and multifaceted approach to security, which includes sizable budget implications. Jason underscored the importance of the 2024 fiscal year. Noting it as the first time federal budgets are being crafted with clear delineations for zero trust capabilities. This shift in focus is exemplified by the rollout of endpoint detection and response (EDR) technologies. Vital components in this architecture that ensure rigorous monitoring and real-time responsiveness to cyber threats.

Understanding the Cybersecurity Evolution

Jason underscored the complexities of network security as federal entities confront the expanding cybersecurity landscape. Highlighted was the layered approach needed to fortify cybersecurity, starting with IAM. This segment illuminated the government's drive to update antiquated systems with modern identification and credentialing processes to better regulate access control. The discussion spilled into a critical analysis of data layer security, emphasizing the necessity for agencies to marshal their applications and data against unauthorized access. Furthermore, Jason hinted at the broader horizon of security measures, which now includes OT and IoT devices. The intertwining of these technologies with standard IT infrastructure adds layers of complexity for security protocols. The conversation shined a light on the massive task that lies ahead as agencies work to comprehend and safeguard the expanded network perimeters and develop strategies to encapsulate a variety of devices under a comprehensive cybersecurity shell.

The Evolution of AI in Cybersecurity:"We can take data that was 3 years ago or data over the last 3 years and look for trends that we can then use for our future. I think what they're looking for now is more real time, more immediate, especially if you think about, like, cybersecurity." — Jason Miller

Innovations and Challenges in Tech Reporting

Timeliness in Problem Reporting

Jason believes that being proactive is vital when it comes to identifying and addressing potential issues within federal agencies. He highlighted that by the time an oversight report, such as those from the Government Accountability Office or an Inspector General's office, is made public, the concerned agency has likely been aware of the issue and has already taken steps to address it. This underlines the criticality of immediate agency reactions to problems. In the context of these reports, Jason suggested reading the agency's responses first. They provide the most current view of what's happening and the actions taken, often making them more newsworthy than the findings of the report itself.

ACT-IAC and AFCEA Gatherings Key to Cybersecurity Evolution Dialogue

Without specifically endorsing any one event, Jason acknowledged the importance of various industry gatherings where government and industry leaders convene to discuss pressing topics. He emphasized the ACT-IAC and the AFCEA events as beneficial arenas that enable him to engage deeply in conversations that can lead to actionable insights and meaningful connections. He also mentioned that these events provide an opportunity to interact with federal agency leaders outside the formal constraints of an office setting. This can lead to more open and candid exchanges of ideas and experiences within the government tech community. The ACT-IAC conferences and AFCEA's branch-specific IT days, according to Jason, yield particularly high-value discussions that contribute to both immediate news items and broader thematic reporting.

Probing the Cybersecurity Evolution

Jason's Insight on Federal Tech Trends

Jason brings a wealth of knowledge specific to federal government technology trends. He highlights AI as a prevalent topic within current discussions. His emphasis on AI signifies the shift from its former buzzword status to a fundamental tool in federal IT arsenals, especially regarding applications in cybersecurity and immediate data analysis. Jason notes that this mirrors the pattern of past tech trends in the industry, where initial hype evolves into concrete implementations. The conversation underscores the fact that while AI is gaining traction in strategic planning and operations, it is critical to discern genuine AI adoption from mere marketing.

AI Shift Reflects Cybersecurity Evolution and Predictive Technology Integration in Government Operations

As the conversation progresses, Jason, Carolyn and Mark explore how the vigorous enthusiasm around AI aligns with patterns observed during the advent of previous technologies. The cycle of tech trends typically begins with a surge of excitement and culminates with the practical integration of technology within government operations. Jason points out that although AI is the topic du jour, the government's drive towards embracing real-time and predictive capabilities of AI is indicative of its elevated role compared to earlier technology hypes. This shift spotlights AI's increasing value in enhancing operational efficiency and decision-making processes across various federal agencies.

Appreciating Government Employees:“There's so many great people who work for the government who want to do the right thing or trying to do the right thing, that work hard every day, that don't just show up at 9 and leave at 5 and take a 2 hour lunch." — Jason Miller

The FedRAMP Overhaul Debate

Rethinking FedRAMP

FedRAMP's reform was a critical topic addressed by Jason, who noted industry-wide eagerness for revising the program's long-standing framework. Not only has the cost of compliance become a pressing issue for businesses aiming to secure their cloud solutions, but the time-consuming journey through the certification labyrinth has compounded their challenges. Advancements in technology and a shift towards better automation capabilities have supported the argument for modernizing FedRAMP. The white paper presented by the General Services Administration responded to such pressures with the goal of making the process more efficient. Jason also mentioned a legislative angle with Representative Connolly's involvement, marking the congressional ear tuned to the private sector's concerns about the program's current state.

Predicting the Future of FedRAMP

Moving forward, while discussing federal efforts to enhance cloud security protocols, Jason described the nuances in predicting FedRAMP's evolution. He cited the Department of Defense's actions as a positive development, in which they suggested frameworks for accepting FedRAMP certifications reciprocally, depending on security levels. This reciprocity aims to foster mutual trust and reduce redundancy in security validations. However, Jason exercised caution in providing a timeline by which tangible reforms might materialize for businesses pursuing FedRAMP accreditations. Despite the uncertainties, he recognized automation, specifically via OSCAL, as a potential accelerant for the much-needed reform, bringing about quicker, more cost-effective compliance processes.

Tracking the Cybersecurity Evolution: From 2006 Data Breach to Contemporary Data Protection Strategies

Analyzing the Cybersecurity Evolution Post-2006 Veterans Affairs Data Mishandling

Jason provided context on the evolution of cybersecurity. Drawing from an incident in 2006 when the Veterans Affairs department mishandled tapes containing sensitive data of millions of veterans. This episode, he explained, was an eye-opener, underscoring the importance of data security within the federal government. The aftermath was a pivot towards greater openness about cybersecurity issues. Moving away from a more secretive posture to one where sharing of information became essential for strengthening overall security. What we observe now is a more concerted effort within government circles to collaborate, engage with industry partners, and cultivate a proactive stance on cybersecurity threats, with agencies actively communicating about and learning from security incidents.

Emphasizing Data Protection

The conversation highlighted the criticality of data protection as it has become the nucleus of many governmental operations and decision-making processes. Since the intrusion into the Office of Personnel Management's records, there has been a palpable shift, gearing towards more robust data safeguards. Jason pointed out how being well-informed about such dynamics is crucial. Entailing an immersion in various activities such as attending industry events, networking with key players, and thorough analysis of inspector general and Governmental Accountability Office reports. Such proactive engagement helps in staying abreast of the current and emerging landscape of federal technology, especially the methodologies and strategies deployed to protect the troves of sensitive data managed by government entities.

About Our Guest

Jason Miller has served as executive editor of Federal News Network since 2008. In this role, he directs the news coverage on all federal issues. He has also produced several news series – among them on whistleblower retaliation at the Small Business Association, the impact of the Technology Modernization Fund and the ever-changing role of agency CIOs.

Episode Links

Can you spot a deepfake? Will AI impact the election? What can we do individually to improve election security? Hillary Coover, one of the hosts of the It’s 5:05! Podcast, and Tracy Bannon join for another So What? episode of Tech Transforms to talk about all things election security. Listen in as the trio discusses cybersecurity stress tests, social engineering, combatting disinformation and much more.

Key Topics

Navigating the Disinformation Quagmire

Dissecting Misinformation and Disinformation

Hillary Coover brings attention to the pivotal distinction between misinformation and disinformation. Misinformation is the spread of false information without ill intent, often stemming from misunderstandings or mistakes. On the other hand, disinformation is a more insidious tactic involving the intentional fabrication and propagation of false information, aimed at deceiving the public. Hillary emphasizes that recognizing these differences is vital in order to effectively identify and combat these issues. She also warns about the role of external national entities that try to amplify societal divisions by manipulating online conversations to serve their own geopolitical aims.

Understanding Disinformation and Misinformation:"Disinformation is is a deliberate attempt to falsify information, whereas misinformation is a little different." — Hillary Coover

The Challenges of Policing Social Media Content

The episode dives into the complexities of managing content on social media platforms, where Tracy Bannon and Hillary discuss the delicate balance required to combat harmful content without infringing on freedom of speech or accidentally suppressing valuable discourse. As part of this discussion, they mention their intention to revisit and discuss the book "Ministry of the Future," which explores related themes. Suggesting that this novel offers insights that could prove valuable in understanding the intricate challenges of regulating social media. There is a shared concern about the potential for an overly robust censorship approach to hinder the dissemination of truth as much as it limits the spread of falsehoods.

The Erosion of Face-to-Face Political Dialogue

The conversation transitions to the broader societal implications of digital dependency. Specifically addressing how the diminishment of community engagement has led individuals to increasingly source news and discourse from digital platforms. This shift towards isolationistic tendencies, amplified by the creation of digital echo chambers, results in a decline of in-person political discussions. As a result, there is growing apprehension about the future of political discourse and community bonds, with Hillary and Tracy reflecting on the contemporary rarity of open, face-to-face political conversations that generations past traditionally engaged in.

The Shadow of Foreign Influence and Election Integrity

Challenges in India’s Multiparty Electoral System

In the course of the discussion, the complexity of India's electoral system, with its multitude of political parties, is presented as an example that underlines the difficulty in verifying information. The expansive and diversified political landscape poses a formidable challenge in maintaining the sanctity of the electoral process. The capability of AI to produce deepfakes further amplifies the risks associated with distinguishing genuine content from fabricated misinformation. The podcast conversation indicates that voters, particularly in less urbanized areas with lower digital literacy levels, are especially vulnerable to deceptive content. This magnifies the potential for foreign entities to successfully disseminate propaganda and influence election outcomes.

Election Integrity and AI:"Misinformation and disinformation, they're not new. The spread of that is certainly not new in the context of elections. But the AI technology is exacerbating the problem, and and we as a society are not keeping up with our adversaries and social media manipulation. Phishing and social engineering attacks enhanced by AI technologies are really, really stressing stressing the system and stressing the election integrity." — Hillary Coover

Countering Foreign Disinformation Campaigns in the Digital Age

With a focus on the discreet yet potent role of foreign intervention in shaping narratives, Hillary spotlights an insidious aspect of contemporary political warfare, the exploitation of media and digital platforms to sway public perception. This influence is not just limited to overt propaganda but extends to subtler forms of manipulation that seed doubt and discord among the electorate. As the podcast discussion suggests, the consequences of such foreign-backed campaigns could be significant, leading to polarization and undermining the foundational principles of democratic debate and decision-making. The potential for these campaigns to carry a vengeful weight in political discourse warrants vigilance and proactive measures to defend against such incursions into informational autonomy.

Addressing the Impact of Disinformation Through AI's Historical Representation Bias

Tackling Disinformation: AI Bias and the Misrepresentation of Historical Figures

The discussion on AI bias steers toward concrete instances where AI struggles, as Tracy brings forth examples that illustrate the inaccuracies that can arise when AI models generate historical figures. Tracy references a recent episode where Google's Gemini model was taken offline after it incorrectly generated images of German soldiers from World War 2 that did not match historical records. Similar errors occurred when the AI produced images of America's Founding Fathers that featured individuals of different racial backgrounds that did not reflect the true historical figures. These errors are attributed not to malicious intent by data scientists but to the data corpus used in training these models. This segment underscores the significant issues that can result from AI systems when they misinterpret or fail to account for historical contexts.

The Necessity of Addressing AI Bias

Continuing the conversation, Hillary emphasizes the importance of recognizing and addressing the biases in AI. She advocates for the vital need to understand historical nuances to circumvent such AI missteps. Both Hillary and Tracy discuss how biased news and misinformation can influence public opinion and election outcomes. This brings to light the critical role historical accuracy plays in the dissemination of information. They point out that to prevent biased AI-generated data from misleading the public, a combination of historical education and conscious efforts to identify and address these biases is necessary. The recognition of potential AI bias leads to a deeper discussion about ensuring information accuracy. Particularly with regard to historical facts that could sway voter perception during elections. Tracy and Hillary suggest that addressing these challenges is not just a technological issue but also an educational one. Where society must be taught to critically evaluate AI-generated content.

The Challenge of Community Scale Versus Online Influence

Combating Disinformation: The Struggle to Scale Community Engagement Versus Digital Platforms' Reach

The dialogue acknowledges the difficulty of scaling community engagement in the shadow of digital platforms' expansive reach. Hillary and Tracy delve into the traditional benefits of personal interactions within local communities, which often contribute to more nuanced and direct exchange of ideas. They compare this to the convenience and immediacy of online platforms, which, while enabling widespread dissemination of information, often lack the personal connection and accountability that face-to-face interactions foster. The challenge underscored is how to preserve the essence of community in an age where online presence has become overpowering and sometimes distancing.

Navigating the Truth in the Digital Age:“Don't get your news from social media. And then another way, like, I just do a gut check for myself. [...] I need to go validate." — Hillary Coover

Impact of Misinformation and Deepfakes on Political Discourse

The episode reiterates the disquieting ease with which political discourse can be manipulated through deepfakes and misinformation. Showcasing the capabilities of AI, Tracy recalls a deepfake scam involving fake professional meetings which led to financial fraud. These examples underscore the potential for significant damage when such technology is applied maliciously. Hillary emphasizes the critical need to approach online information with a keen eye, pondering the origins and credibility of what is presented. Both Tracy and Hillary stress the importance of developing a defensive posture towards unsolicited information. As the blurring lines between authentic and engineered content could have severe repercussions for individual decisions and broader societal issues.

Stress Testing and Mitigating Disinformation in Election Security Strategies

The Role of Stress Tests in Election Security

Hillary and Tracy discuss the importance of conducting stress tests to preemptively identify and mitigate vulnerabilities within election systems. These tests, which include red teaming exercises and white hat hacking, are designed to replicate real-world attacks and assess the systems' responses under duress. By simulating different attack vectors, election officials can understand how their infrastructure holds up against various cybersecurity threats. This information can be used to make necessary improvements to enhance security. The goal of these stress tests is to identify weaknesses before they can be exploited by malicious actors. Thereby ensuring the integrity of the electoral process.

Mitigating the Impact of Disinformation

The conversation emphasizes the urgent need for preemptive measures against disinformation, which has grown more sophisticated with the advent of AI and deepfakes. As these technological advancements make discerning the truth increasingly difficult, it becomes even more crucial for election officials to prepare for the inevitable attempts at spreading falsehoods. Through stress tests that incorporate potential disinformation campaigns, officials can evaluate their preparedness and response strategies. Including public communication plans to counteract misinformation. By considering the psychological and social aspects of election interference, they aim to bolster defenses and ensure voters receive accurate information.

Election Security Concerns:"Other instances are going to happen where criminals are gonna be impersonating legitimate sources to try to suppress voters in that case, or steal credentials, spread malware." — Hillary Coover

Importance of Proactive Approaches to Election Safeguarding

The exchange between Tracy and Hillary reveals a clear consensus on the necessity of proactive strategies for protecting elections. Proactively identifying potential threats and securing electoral systems against known and hypothetical cyber attacks are central to defending democratic processes. By focusing on anticipation and mitigation, rather than simply responding to incidents after the fact, authorities can improve election security and reinforce public trust. This proactive stance is also crucial in dealing with the spread of disinformation, which may be specifically tailored to exploit localized vulnerabilities in the electoral infrastructure.

Reflecting on the Challenges of Election Security in the Digital Era

This episode serves as a thorough examination of the challenges posed by digital communication in modern democracies. They delve into the dangers of misinformation and the manipulation of public opinion, highlighting how biases in AI can affect the information that individuals receive. They underscore the importance of stress-testing election systems against digital threats and recognize the complexities inherent to securing contemporary elections. The episode ultimately helps listeners to better grasp the ever-evolving landscape of election security and the continued need for informed, strategic action to safeguard democratic processes.

About Our Guest

Hillary Coover is one of the hosts of It’s 5:05! Podcast, covering news from Washington, D.C. Hillary is a national security technology expert and accomplished sales leader currently leading product strategy at G2 Ops, Inc.

Episode Links

Deborah Stephens, the Deputy Chief Information Officer for the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), “grew up” so to speak in the USPTO. Deborah led the USPTO on its agile journey. As the agency took on its “New Ways of Working, '' by moving people and resources closer to the work, she helped empower employees to build and deploy software. Deborah shares how she guided the agency through this 4-year change journey, gaining buy-in from the organization, which was proved by an engagement rate increase from 75% to 85%. Deborah also talks about what it means to be a HISP, running USPTO as a business that is entirely self-sustaining, and, in honor of Women’s History Month, the women who have inspired her along the way.

Key Topics

Growth in Patent and Trademark Requests

Surge in Applications at USPTO

Deborah Stephens highlights a significant increase in the number of patent and trademark applications received by the USPTO over the years. This growth, from approximately 350,000 to 400,000 applications in 2012, with numbers continuing to rise, underscores the vibrant culture of innovation and creativity in the United States. The upward trend of applications is a positive sign of the country's ongoing commitment to innovation. However, it also presents logistical challenges for the USPTO. Including the need to process a higher volume of applications efficiently while ensuring the quality of examination does not diminish.

Transition to New Ways of Working in U.S. Patent and Trademark Office:"And so in around late 2018, 19, we began our, what we referred to as our agile journey. We named it our New Ways of Working, which essentially is an entire USPTO effort. Including our business unit with 12 other business units, moving people and the resources closer to the work. Giving them that empowerment, to build, deliver, deploy software, product services for our business stakeholders, and that's both internally and externally." — Deborah Stephens

USPTO is Adapting to Increased Demand

In response to the growing demand for intellectual property protection, the USPTO has been proactive in seeking ways to maintain and improve service delivery. Deborah discusses the agency's approach to managing the influx of applications, focusing on scalability and efficiency. Despite the challenges posed by the increase in applications, the USPTO's designation as a High Impact Service Provider (HISP) has had minimal impact on its existing customer experience strategy. The agency's foundational commitment to delivering exceptional service to inventors and entrepreneurs remains steadfast. With an emphasis on continuous improvement and the adoption of new strategies to better meet the needs of the U.S. innovation community.

USPTO's Fee-Funded Model and Fiscal Strategy

USPTO’s Fee-Funded Operations

Deborah highlights the United States Patent and Trademark Office's (USPTO) operational model, which is uniquely self-sufficient. Relying entirely on fees collected from patent and trademark applications. This model ensures that the USPTO does not use taxpayer dollars, setting it apart from many other government agencies. By directly linking the agency's funding to the services it provides, the USPTO aligns its goals closely with the needs and successes of its primary users: inventors and businesses seeking intellectual property protection. This connection incentivizes the agency to continuously improve its processes and customer service. Additionally, Deborah mentions a tiered fee system that offers different rates for entities of various sizes. From individual inventors to large corporations. This structure is designed to lower barriers for smaller entities and encourage a wider range of innovation.

USPTO’s Budgetary Discipline and Management

Facing economic pressures such as inflation, the USPTO's approach to budget management becomes even more pivotal. Deborah discusses the importance of prioritization and strategic decision-making in maintaining the agency's financial health. Despite rising costs, the USPTO strives to keep its budget stable and even reduce it when possible, demonstrating a high level of fiscal responsibility. This is achieved through careful analysis of projects and initiatives, focusing resources on areas that promise the highest impact. The USPTO's disciplined budgetary approach not only ensures its operations are sustainable but also serves as a potential model for other federal agencies. By showcasing how to effectively manage finances in a challenging economic environment, the USPTO underlines the value of strategic planning and prioritization in government fiscal strategy.

Telework Readiness and Agile Transformation at USPTO

USPTO’s Transition to Telework Prior to COVID-19

Deborah highlights the USPTO's preparedness for telework well before the COVID-19 pandemic. With a significant portion of the workforce already equipped and familiar with remote working protocols, the USPTO had laid a robust foundation for telework readiness. This foresight into establishing a telework culture not only ensured the continuity of operations during unprecedented times. It also underscored the agency's commitment to leveraging modern work practices. The transition to a fully remote working environment, necessitated by the pandemic, was thus more seamless for the USPTO than for many other organizations. Demonstrating a proactive approach to business continuity planning.

Introducing Change in Remote Work Environments:"There were every 2 weeks of what we refer to as, lunch and learns. And in the beginning, I was the prime speaker, saying, here's our New Ways of Working. Here's the structure. Here's how we're gonna move our processes, our procedures, and people would join in. And it was all remote. I'd have a big TV like producer kind of studio, and I'd be in front of the blue screen and talking to them about this change at least every 2 weeks, if not, sometimes more." — Deborah Stephens

Agile Transformation and Cultural Shift at USPTO

The shift from traditional waterfall methods to agile methodologies marked a significant transformation within the USPTO. Deborah emphasizes that this transition was not merely about changing project management techniques. It involved a deeper cultural shift within the organization. Achieving buy-in from both individuals and teams was crucial to fostering an environment that embraced agility, empowered employees and encouraged rapid deployment of products. Key to this cultural transformation were regular remote meetings and employee engagement surveys. This played a significant role in understanding and enhancing employee satisfaction. The notable increase in engagement levels from 75% to 85% during this period of change illustrates the effectiveness of the USPTO's approach in not only implementing agile methodologies but also in cultivating a culture that is receptive and adaptive to change.

Tech Landscape and Patent Filing Insights at USPTO

USPTO’s "Fail Fast, Fail Forward" Approach

Deborah shares the USPTO's dynamic approach to technological innovation, encapsulated in the mantra "fail fast, fail forward." This methodology allows the USPTO to quickly test new ideas and technologies, while learning from any setbacks, and refining their strategies efficiently. By fostering an environment where experimentation is encouraged and failure is seen as a stepping stone to success, the agency ensures that it remains at the forefront of technological advancements. This approach is crucial in a rapidly changing tech landscape, as it enables the USPTO to adapt and innovate continuously. Deborah highlights how this philosophy has led to a more agile and responsive IT infrastructure within the agency. One capable of meeting the demands of modern patent and trademark processing.

The Value of Mentorship:"I think you need to establish your go-to network of mentors, and don't be afraid to become a mentor." — Deborah Stephens

Emphasizing Customer Feedback in Patent and Trademark Submissions

Carolyn brings attention to the importance of customer feedback in the process of patent and trademark submissions at the USPTO. Deborah explains how the agency values the insights gained from customer experiences and actively seeks out feedback to improve services. Through a variety of channels such as webinars, outreach programs and direct communication through customer service teams, the USPTO gathers valuable input from those who navigate the patent and trademark submission processes. This dedication to understanding and addressing the needs and challenges of its customers has led to significant enhancements in the USPTO's support structures. Deborah further discusses educational efforts aimed at demystifying the complexities of the patent filing process. Thereby making it more accessible and navigable for inventors and businesses alike.

Digital Transformation at USPTO

USPTO’s Move from Paper-Based to Digital Systems

Deborah played a significant role in transitioning the agency from a paper-based application system to a fully digitized process. This monumental task involved not just the scanning of existing paper documents, but also includes integrating OCR technology to make historical patents searchable and accessible in digital form. Despite the sheer scale and potential logistical challenges of digitizing vast amounts of data, the initiative marked a pivotal moment in the agency's history. This transformation was not without its hurdles. Initial resistance to change was a significant barrier that needed careful navigation. However, through strategic planning and a commitment to modernization, the USPTO successfully overcame these challenges. Leading to a more efficient, accessible and streamlined patent application process.

Efficient Budget Management at the USPTO:"Being able to maintain our budget or even maybe decrease the overall budget by 1%, but yet inflation going up 8, 9%, we've been able to do that. And it's about prioritization, and that's part of our New Ways of Working." — Deborah Stephens

About Our Guest

Deborah Stephens is the Deputy Chief Information Officer (DCIO) for the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). She has served at the USPTO for more than 30 years in multiple leadership roles, during which she has worked to improve the automated tools and informational resources that facilitate electronic processing of patent applications. In her current role, Deborah is the principal advisor to the Chief Information Officer (CIO) and responsible for managing day-to-day operations of the Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO) with significant oversight on information technology (IT) stabilization and modernization efforts. She guides teams towards continual improvements in IT delivery for maximum value to all stakeholders.

Episode Links

As technology rapidly evolves we as a nation need to anticipate the attacks that may come about as a result of that innovation. Travis Rosiek, the Public Sector CTO at Rubrik and former Leader at the Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA), joins Tech Transforms to talk about how the government’s approach to technology and relationship with industry has evolved over the last twenty years. He also discusses compliance, including FedRAMP compliance, managing the vast amount of data that is generated daily across the government and industry, and the importance of the U.S. Government building cyber resilient systems. Catch all this and more on this episode of Tech Transforms.

Key Topics

Evolving Cybersecurity Practices: A Shift to 'Cloud Smart' Strategies

Travis's Perspective on Cloud Misconceptions

Travis discusses the early days of cloud adoption, which were often fueled by misconceptions about its benefits. The migration toward cloud computing was commonly believed to be a cost-effective solution that would reduce expenses and simultaneously enhance security. However, he points out that this was not always the case. Many organizations have since realized that the initial cost of moving to the cloud can vary greatly based on specific use cases and applications. This realization has led to a strategic shift toward what Travis refers to as a "cloud smart" approach. Highlighting the need for a more discerning and tailored evaluation of how cloud resources are utilized.

The Role of Commercial Companies vs. Government in Problem-Solving:"Industry is great about solving problems. You know, driving that capitalism type of culture, building capabilities, selling solutions. And they're quicker to implement, adapt and deploy capabilities where the government is very slow in implementation of these you know, they can figure out the problem." — Travis Rosiek

The 'Cloud Smart' Strategic Approach

Taking a "cloud smart" approach indicates a maturation in the perception of cloud services by government agencies and businesses alike. Rather than a blanket strategy of cloud-first, Travis indicates that there is now a more nuanced consideration of when and how to use cloud services. He underscores the importance of aligning cloud adoption with an organization's unique needs. Including the potential scalability, security and cost implications. This approach suggests a collaborative and informed decision-making process. Recognizing that the cloud offers a variety of solutions, each with different features, advantages and trade-offs that must be carefully weighed against organizational goals and objectives.

Navigating Cybersecurity Practices in Cloud Migration

The Balance of Technical and Non-Technical Implications in Cloud Migration

Travis discusses the intricacies involved in organizational cloud migrations. Emphasizing that these undertakings are not solely about technological transitions but also encompass a variety of non-technical considerations. The shift to cloud-based services goes beyond mere data storage and infrastructure changes. It affects strategic business decisions, financial planning and operational workflows. Necessitating a comprehensive evaluation of both the potential benefits and the challenges. Organizations must be acutely aware of the detailed shared responsibility models that cloud service providers outline, which delineate the security obligations of the provider versus the customer. Understanding these responsibilities helps in effectively managing the risks associated with cloud computing.

The Importance of Human Oversight in AI:"But you still can't take the human out of the loop." — Travis Rosiek

The Demand for Advanced Cybersecurity Practices in Multi-Cloud Environments

Travis highlights a significant challenge in the cybersecurity landscape, which is the scarcity of skilled professionals equipped to manage and protect complex multi-cloud and hybrid environments. As organizations increasingly adopt a mix of cloud services and on-premises solutions, the demand for cybersecurity practitioners with the necessary expertise to navigate this complexity grows. However, attracting and retaining such talent is difficult due to competitive job markets and the limitations of government pay scales. This is compounded by the extensive skill set required for modern cloud environments, including not only security but also knowledge of cloud architecture, compliance and various cloud-specific technologies. Travis underscores the need for specialized personnel capable of addressing the advanced cybersecurity concerns that arise from this intricate, dynamic infrastructure.

The Evolution of FedRAMP Compliance

FedRAMP Compliance: A Shared Burden

Travis sheds light on the evolution of the Federal Risk and Authorization Management Program (FedRAMP), a government-wide program that promotes the adoption of secure cloud services across the federal government by providing a standardized approach to security assessment, authorization and continuous monitoring. While it is often perceived as a costly and time-consuming barrier for vendors seeking to serve government clients, Travis emphasizes that the journey to FedRAMP authorization is not the sole responsibility of vendors. Government sponsors engaged in this process also bear a significant load. This dual burden requires commitment and collaboration from both parties to navigate the complexities involved in achieving FedRAMP compliance.

Strategic Cybersecurity Practices to Navigate FedRAMP Compliance Challenges

Travis goes into further detail regarding the collaborative challenges of attaining FedRAMP compliance. On the government side, a sponsor’s role in shepherding vendors through the process can be incredibly taxing due to staffing and resource constraints. Furthermore, the procedural nature of the FedRAMP framework can prove to be a linear and lengthy ordeal for all involved. Travis suggests that greater investment to ease the procedural efforts for government stakeholders could potentially improve the efficiency of the overall process, helping it to mature and ultimately relieving some of the burden for both vendors and government sponsors.

Addressing Data Volume and Security Risks in Modern Cybersecurity Practices

Data Categorization and Classification

Carolyn highlights the daunting challenge of classifying the vast amounts of data that individuals and organizations are responsible for. Travis acknowledges this burden, especially given the exponential growth of data in today's digital landscape. He underscores that as data multiplies rapidly and spreads across various platforms – from cloud services to mobile devices – accurately categorizing and classifying it becomes more critical yet more difficult. Ensuring the security and proper handling of this data is paramount as mismanagement can lead to significant security breaches and compliance issues.

Cybersecurity in the Era of Cloud and Mobile Computing:"If you can't answer some of those basic questions on visibility, you're gonna struggle protecting it." — Travis Rosiek

Adapting Cybersecurity Practices to Combat Data Volume Surge

Travis points to a report produced by Rubrik Zero Labs that sheds light on the continuous surge in data volume within organizations, often experiencing growth by significant percentages over short periods. This expansion amplifies the challenge of safeguarding critical information. Moreover, the need to provide accurate access control increases in complexity when data resides in a hybrid environment. This includes multiple clouds, on-premise servers, and SaaS applications. The continuous monitoring and protection of data across these diverse and dynamic environments present an ongoing challenge for data security professionals.

Complexities in Data Access Controls

Carolyn and Travis discuss the need for visibility in distributed data environments, as knowing what data exists, where it is stored and who has access to it is fundamental to securing it. Travis advocates for the NIST Special Publication 800-160 as an additional resource that can guide organizations toward building cyber resilient systems. Its principles of anticipating, withstanding, recovering and adapting offer a strategic approach to not just responding to cyber threats. It also prepares for and prevents potential data breaches in complex IT and data environments.

Strategic Alignment of Cybersecurity Practices with Governmental Objectives and Zero Trust Principles

Aligning Cybersecurity Practices with Governmental Objectives

When considering the acquisition of technology within government entities, Travis highlights the importance of aligning with governmental objectives. Especially when it pertains to national defense, scalability becomes a paramount factor, as the technology adopted must cater to expansive operations and adhere to rigorous standards of security and efficiency. In the military and defense sectors, technologies must not only serve unique and highly specialized purposes but also be viable on a large scale. Travis notes that achieving this balance often requires a nuanced approach that can accommodate the specific needs of government operations, while also being mindful of the rapidly evolving landscape of technology.

Cybersecurity and Organizational Resilience:"Having a false sense of security, you know, in anything we build, overly trusting things or having a false sense of security, is probably our Achilles' heel." — Travis Rosiek

Emphasizing Security Principles and Zero Trust

Travis underscores the central role of security principles in the process of technology acquisition and he places particular emphasis on the concept of Zero Trust. An approach to cybersecurity that operates on the assumption that breaches are inevitable and thus requires constant verification of all users within an organization's network. Travis argues that adopting a zero trust framework is crucial for government agencies to protect against a vast array of cyber threats. By following this principle, organizations can ensure that their acquisition of technology not only meets current operational demands but is also prepared to withstand the sophisticated and ever-changing tactics of adversaries in cyberspace.

The ABCs of Technology Implementation

The Adoption, Buying and Creating Strategy

Travis reflects on a strategic approach he learned during his tenure at DISA, known as the ABCs. A methodology imparted by then DISA director General Charlie Croom. This strategy prioritizes the use of existing commercial technologies, emphasizing 'adoption' as the primary step. By leveraging commercially available tech, organizations can tap into advanced capabilities and integrate them into their operations swiftly. The 'buy' component encourages the procurement of already fielded technologies or platforms. This may not be commercially created but has been proven in practical governmental applications. Lastly, 'create' is seen as a last resort. Reserved for instances where the needs are so specialized or critical that a bespoke solution is warranted. Often due to unique use cases or strict national security concerns.

Strategic Balancing of Commercial Speed and Government Foresight in Cybersecurity Practices

In discussing the rationale behind the ABCs framework, Travis reveals the nuanced balance required in government tech implementations. While commercial entities' speed to deploy novel solutions can address particular gaps, government institutions often play a crucial role in identifying and tackling long-term, complex challenges. Especially in defense, the need to build solutions from the ground up may arise when existing products fail to meet the stringent requirements of security-sensitive operations. Conversely, commercial technology's versatility is a critical asset. This marked a shift from the government's historical tendency to primarily develop its own technology solutions. Travis urges organizations to use this strategic framework to make informed, prudent decisions that consider both immediate needs and long-term strategic objectives.

About Our Guest

Travis Rosiek is a highly accomplished cyber security executive with more than 20 years in the industry. He has built and grown cybersecurity companies and led large cybersecurity programs within the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD). His experience spans driving innovation as a cybersecurity leader for global organizations and CISOs, to corporate executive building products and services. His impact has helped lead to successful IPOs (FireEye) and acquisitions (BluVector by Comcast).

As a Cyber Leader in the U.S. DoD, he has been awarded the Annual Individual Award for Defending the DoD’s Networks. Travis currently serves as the Public Sector CTO at Rubrik helping organizations become more cyber and data resilient. Prior to Rubrik, Travis held several leadership roles including the Chief Technology and Strategy Officer at BluVector, CTO at Tychon, Federal CTO at FireEye, a Principal at Intel Security/McAfee and Leader at the Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA).

He earned a Certificate from GWU in Executive Leadership and graduated from West Virginia University with Honors while earning multiple Engineering degrees. He also was one of the first of ten students from across the nation to be awarded a scholarship from the DoD/NSA’s in cybersecurity. His pioneering mindset has helped him better secure our nation and commercial critical infrastructure. Additionally, Travis is an invited speaker, author (blogs, journals, books) and has also served on the NSTAC, ICIT Fellow and multiple advisory boards.

Sebastian Taphanel has spent his life on the cutting edge of technology and innovation. This week on Tech Transforms, Sebastian is sharing tales and lessons learned from his 20 years in DoD Special Ops and intelligence and 20 years implementing sound security engineering practices focused on implementing zero trust and highly resilient environments. Join Sebastian as he recounts his time in Special Forces taking his units out of the dark ages from secure fax communications to setting up an intranet, and how he continued with that innovative spirit through his 40-year career. He also shares his new passion, encouraging the industry to utilize disabled veterans to help fill both the cybersecurity and AI workforce gaps. They, after all, already have a call for the mission.

Key Topics

Enhancing Secure Communication and Cloud Environments in Special Ops

Special Ops Agility: Adapting to Remote Collaboration with Secure Cloud-Based Workspaces

Sebastian Taphanel’s experience spans twenty years in DOD Special Ops and Intelligence, followed by consulting in security engineering. The focal point of this episode is his role in advancing cybersecurity practices at the ODNI. Particularly emphasizing resilient cloud-based environments.

Sebastian describes the quick adaptation during the pandemic which led to the rollout of an ad hoc cloud-based workspace to ensure the ODNI's mission could endure despite the workforce being remote. GCC High, or Government Commercial Cloud High as conceived by Microsoft, is revealed as the successor to the initial setup. Providing a more secure platform managed strictly by U.S. persons. The approach highlighted the agility of cloud technology for remote collaboration within federal agencies.

Cybersecurity in Intelligence Sharing:"Essentially, reciprocity is a process and also a culture of accepting each other's risks. And that's really the bottom line on all that." — Sebastian Taphanel

Unfolding the GCC High Environment

The intricacies of implementing Microsoft Azure and M365 (Office 365) are detailed as Sebastian underlines their pivotal use in creating an intranet with controlled document sharing and editing. These implementations include robust Mobile Device Management. Then a BYOD Mobile Application Management system that protects sensitive data in government and personal devices. Thereby, ensuring operational security and flexibility.

Special Ops Communication Evolution

Sebastian advanced from using secure faxes for interstate communication within military units to establishing a multi-state secure WAN. This resulted in a significant leap in communication efficacy for special operations. Sebastian shared the potency of secure, cloud-based tools in streamlining and securing government communications. As well as their inherent adaptability to contemporary operational needs.

Zero Trust Implementation and Reciprocity in Security Controls:"Reciprocity, in some circles, it's a dirty word. Because everybody wants to do it, but nobody really wants to be first." — Sebastian Taphanel

The Shift to Cybersecurity Training and AI

Special Ops to Cyber Ops: Training Disabled Veterans to Bridge the Cybersecurity Workforce Gap

Sebastian recognizes the increasing importance of cybersecurity expertise in today's digital landscape. He points out the significant gap in the cybersecurity workforce and the untapped potential of disabled veterans who can be trained to meet this demand. This shift towards prioritizing cybersecurity skills reflects the industry's evolution as organizations increasingly rely on digital infrastructure. Thus, creating a fertile ground for cyber threats. By focusing on equipping disabled veterans, who already possess a strong sense of duty and protection, with the necessary technical skills to combat these threats, Sebastian believes that we can build a robust cybersecurity force that benefits not just the veterans but the nation's overall security posture as well.

Training Disabled Veterans for Cybersecurity and AI

Building upon his own transition from a military career to cybersecurity, Sebastian is passionate about creating opportunities for disabled veterans in the field. His experience has shown him that these individuals, with their ingrained ethos of national service, can continue their mission through careers in cybersecurity and artificial intelligence. Sebastian advocates for collaborations with major tech companies and training providers to establish programs specifically tailored for veterans. These developmental opportunities can help translate military competencies into civilian technology roles. As AI continues to influence various industry sectors, including cybersecurity, the need for skilled professionals who can leverage AI effectively is critical. By providing appropriate training and mentorship, Sebastian sees disabled veterans playing an integral role in shaping the future of cybersecurity and AI.

Special Ops Veteran Illuminates Zero Trust as a Data-Centric Security Model and the Strategic Role of AI in Cybersecurity

Zero Trust as a Data-Centric Security Model

In the evolving landscape of cybersecurity, Sebastian brings to light the concept of zero trust. A framework pivoting away from traditional perimeter security to a data-centric model. He highlights zero trust as a foundational approach, which is shaping the way organizations safeguard their data by assuming no implicit trust, and by verifying every access request as if it originates from an untrusted network. Unlike the historical castle-and-moat defense strategy which relied heavily on securing the perimeters of a network, this paradigm shift focuses on securing the data itself, regardless of its location. Zero trust operates on the fundamental belief that trust is a vulnerability. Thereby, anchoring on the principle that both internal and external threats exist on the network at all times. It necessitates continuous validation of the security posture and privileges for each user and device attempting to access resources on a network.

Zero Trust as a Data-Centric Security Model:“Zero trust now has essentially redrawn the lines for cybersecurity professionals and IT professionals. And I will say it’s an absolutely data-centric model. Whereas in previous decades, we looked at network centric security models.”— Sebastian Taphanel

Implementing Zero Trust in Special Ops

Zero trust extends beyond theoretical formulations, requiring hands-on execution and strategic coherence. As Sebastian explains, the principle of reciprocity plays a vital role in the context of security authorizations among different agencies. It suggests that the security controls and standards established by one agency should be acknowledged and accepted by another. Thus, avoiding redundant security assessments and facilitating smoother inter-agency cooperation. However, applying such principles in practice has been sporadic across organizations, often hindered by a reluctance to accept shared risks. Driving home the notion that strategic plans must be actionable, Sebastian underscores the critical need to dovetail high-level strategies with ground-level tactical measures. Ensuring these security frameworks are not merely aspirational documents but translate into concrete protective actions.

Special Ops in Cybersecurity: Harnessing AI and ML for Enhanced Defense Capabilities

Amidst rapid technological advances, artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) are being called upon to bolster cybersecurity operations. Sebastian champions the idea that AI and ML technologies are indispensable tools for cyber professionals who are inundated with massive volumes of data. By synthesizing information and automating responses to security incidents, these technologies augment the human workforce and fill critical gaps in capabilities. The agility of these tools enables a swift and accurate response to emerging threats and anomalies. Allowing organizations to pivot and adapt to the dynamic cyber landscape. For cybersecurity operators, the incorporation of AI and ML translates to strengthened defenses, enriched sense-making capabilities, and enhanced decision making processes. In a field marked by a scarcity of skilled professionals and a deluge of sophisticated cyber threats, the deployment of intelligent systems is no longer a luxury, it is imperative for the preservation of cybersecurity infrastructures.

Looking Ahead: Collaboration, Reciprocity and AI/ML Workforce

AI/ML as a Cybersecurity Force Multiplier

Sebastian highlights the untapped potential of artificial intelligence and machine learning (AI/ML) as critical tools that can amplify the capabilities within the cybersecurity realm. As Sebastian provides his insights on the importance of AI/ML, it becomes clear that these technologies will serve as force multipliers, aiding overwhelmed cybersecurity professionals dealing with vast arrays of data. The envisaged role of AI/ML is to streamline sense making processes and facilitate prompt, accurate cyber response actions to threats and vulnerabilities. Sebastian portrays a future where strategic use of AI/ML enables swift and informed decision-making, freeing cybersecurity operatives to focus on critical tasks that require their expertise.

AI/ML as a Cybersecurity Force Multiplier: “I believe what’s going to be needed is the understanding, a training and culture that accepts AI/ML as an enabler.”— Sebastian Taphanel

Empowering Special Ops Veterans for the Future Cybersecurity and AI/ML Workforce

Sebastian asserts the urgency to prepare and equip individuals for the cybersecurity and AI/ML workforce. He envisions an actionable plan to invigorate the employment landscape, creating a resilient front in the fight against cyber threats. Sebastian calls for a strategic focus on training and knowledge dissemination, particularly for disabled veterans, to incorporate them into positions where they can continue serving the nation's interests in the digital domain. Recognizing the fast evolving nature of these fields, he stresses the need for a workforce that not only understands current technologies but can also adapt to emerging trends. Ensuring that collective efforts in data protection and cybersecurity are robust and responsive to an ever-changing threat landscape.

About Our Guest

Sebastian Taphanel blends a more than 20-year DoD Special Ops and intelligence career with more than 20 years of sound security engineering practices focused on implementing Zero Trust and highly resilient environments through the use of innovative technologies and common sense business practices.

The real question is, what doesn’t Dr. Amy Hamilton do? She’s currently the visiting Faculty Chair for the Department of Energy (DOE) at National Defense University and the DOE Senior Advisor for National Cybersecurity Policy and Programs, and has had previous stops in the U.S. Army Reserves, NORAD and U.S. European Command, just to name a few.

At National Defense University, Amy draws on all of this expertise to educate the workforce on AI and finding the right balance between automation and workforce training. Amy also explores how she teaches her students that cybersecurity has to be more than a 9-5 job, the balance of security vs. convenience, and how it will take the entire country getting on board to make the implementation of cybersecurity best practices truly possible. In this episode, we also dive into the realm of operational technology and the need to look to zero trust as we allow more smart devices into our lives and government ecosystems.

Key Topics

Leveraging AI and Automation for Cyber Innovation

Emphasizing Efficiency in the Generation of Abstracts

Dr. Amy Hamilton underlines the capabilities of artificial intelligence to streamline time-consuming processes, specifically the creation of abstracts. This innovation allows for a transition from mundane, repetitive tasks to pursuits that require a deeper cognitive investment. Therefore, elevating the nature of the workforce's endeavors. Dr. Hamilton's discussion focuses on the practical applications of this technology, and she cites an instance from the National Defense University's annual Cyber Beacon Conference. Here, participants were challenged to distinguish between AI-generated and human-generated abstracts, often finding it challenging to tell them apart. This exercise not only highlighted AI's proficiency but also introduced the workforce to the safe and practical application of this emergent technology.

How do we use AI in a way that goes from low-value to high-value work? If I'm not doing abstract, what other things could I be doing and spending my brain calories towards? - Dr. Amy Hamilton

Preparing the Workforce for Cyber Innovation

Dr. Hamilton stresses the necessity for workforce education in the context of AI and automation. Aiming for a future where employees are neither intimidated by nor unfamiliar with the advancing technological landscape. She illustrates the Department of Energy's proactive role in integrating AI into its training programs. Thus, ensuring that employees are well-acquainted with both the operational and potential ethical dimensions of AI deployment. Acknowledging the diverse range of operations within the DOE, including nuclear and environmental management, Dr. Hamilton notes that the appropriateness of AI application varies by context. Signifying the department's nuanced approach to the introduction of these technologies. Through education and exposure to use cases within a controlled environment, Dr. Hamilton envisions a workforce that is not only comfortable with AI but can also leverage it to enhance productivity and safety in their respective fields.

Cyber Innovation and Collaboration in Government Environments

Dr. Hamilton's Role at National Defense University

Amy serves as a crucial beacon for educating Department of Defense personnel on comprehensive government functions. With a focus on the distinct agencies and their interaction within the broader governmental ecosystem, she acts as a conduit, clarifying for her students the intricate dance of interagency collaboration. Grants of knowledge on how certain branches, like the Treasury, interact during cyber events. Or the functions of varied components within the agency, serve to demystify the convoluted nature of interdepartmental cooperation. Her teaching elevates students' comprehension of the interconnected roles and responsibilities that propel our government forward.

Environment for Cyber Innovation

At National Defense University, there's a particular distinction made between no-tolerance environments. Such as nuclear facilities, where repetitiveness and extreme scrutiny are valued over experimentation and open science labs that thrive on creativity and incessant innovation. Dr. Amy Hamilton underlines this dichotomy. She established the need for both the rigid reliability of technology in some contexts and the unabated exploration for new horizons in others. These contrasting settings ensure the Department of Energy's multifaceted missions are maneuvered through a lens of both caution and curiosity. Across a breadth of projects from the highly sensitive to the openly experimental.

Attracting Talent to Federal Government

The College of Information in Cyberspace, where Amy engages with the bright minds of the defense community, presents an academic path tailored for mid to senior career professionals. With a suite of master's degrees and certificate programs, the college not only imparts education but also fosters an ecosystem ripe for nurturing government leaders of the future. Despite the widespread perception of financial hurdles within government roles compared to private sectors, Dr. Hamilton articulates a potent alternative allure. The mission-driven nature of public service. This inherent value proposition attracts those who yearn to contribute to a greater cause beyond monetary gain, ensuring a continual influx of devotion and expertise within federal ranks.

So I think there's a huge amount of value of what flexibility of recognizing industry experience in cybersecurity can be very, very useful. But I also think, like, how do we attract people in the federal government when we don't have that kind of financial ability to reward? And I think it's reward by mission. - Dr. Amy Hamilton

Fostering Diversity and Cyber Innovation

Cyber Outreach and Advocating Diversity

Dr. Hamilton touches on the vital role of cyber outreach and advocating for diversity in the field of cybersecurity. She brings up Kennedy Taylor, who is making strides as Miss Maryland by combining her cyber expertise with her platform in beauty pageantry. She engages and educates young people, especially girls, about the significance of cybersecurity. Amy highlights the potential of such outreach efforts to challenge and change the stereotypes associated with cybersecurity professionals. By leveraging the influence of figures like Miss Maryland, there's an opportunity to inspire a diverse new generation of cybersecurity experts who can bring fresh perspectives to tackling the industry's challenges.

The Need for Cyber Innovation

Throughout the discussion, Dr. Amy Hamilton stresses the increased frequency and severity of cybersecurity threats that have surfaced recently. Acknowledging that the traditional cybersecurity models are faltering under these new strains. She calls for innovative thinking and proactive measures to be adopted. Amy notes that measures used in the past, such as security through obscurity, no longer suffice due to the complex and interconnected nature of modern technology. This new reality requires the cybersecurity sector to evolve and embrace zero-trust principles among other modern strategies to safeguard against the continually evolving threat landscape.

How do we correct, just swiftly get around to being able to apply those patches and things that we need to do? And we have to get better out of it because our adversaries are. Our adversaries were taking advantage of this every single day. - Dr. Amy Hamilton

Addressing Risk Aversion in Cybersecurity

In discussing the inherent risk-aversion in human nature, Dr. Hamilton points out that despite this tendency, convenience often trumps caution, leading to increased vulnerabilities. She suggests that the answer is not to shy away from innovation for fear of risks, but rather utilize it to enhance the safety and functionality of technological systems. Dr. Hamilton also highlights the crucial role that industry partnerships play in this context, suggesting that collaboration between government and private sectors is essential in developing effective and robust cybersecurity defenses. By working together, these entities can find the balance between convenience and security, ensuring a safer digital environment for all users.

Challenges in Implementing Cyber Innovation

Importance of User Experience in Cyber Innovation

Dr. Amy Hamilton brings attention to the crucial role that user experience plays when incorporating automation into the workforce. She contrasts the tedious and often frustrating nature of conventional cybersecurity practices, such as manually sifting through logs, with the potential ease automation can provide. Amy uses the example of e-commerce, where users intuitively navigate online shopping without the need for training to illustrate her point that intuitive design is key to user acceptance of automated systems. By adopting user-friendly automation, employees' tasks can be streamlined allowing them to focus on more complex and engaging aspects of their work.

And so I think that we need to really realize that user experience is important. - Dr. Amy Hamilton

AI and Automation in Everyday Life

Reflecting on her experience with AI in website design, Amy describes the simplicity and efficiency brought by AI-assisted tools that automatically generate content based on keywords. Thus eliminating the need for extensive technical knowledge in web development. This underscores the tangible benefits of automation for individuals without a background in coding. Moreover, Amy emphasizes the societal shift toward greater reliance on automated systems by referencing Disney World as a model of successful automation integration. The theme park's seamless integration of automated booking systems, fast passes and reservations highlight how well-designed automation can augment the customer experience and efficiency in large-scale operations.

Partnerships in Cyber Innovation

The dialogue shifts toward the collaborative effort required to tackle cybersecurity breaches. Dr. Hamilton mentioned the expansive SolarWinds incident as a key example where AI and automation have a role to play. Amy underscores the significance of industry partnerships and a unified national approach for enhancing cybersecurity. The incident illustrates that automated tools and AI are not only about convenience, they are instrumental in swiftly identifying and rectifying vulnerabilities in complex digital systems. By automating these processes, agencies can respond more effectively to cybersecurity threats, underscoring the need for automation that complements and enhances human efforts in maintaining security.

Educational Technologies

Amy advocates for the use of educational tools like Khan Academy, which can benefit children by offering a controlled environment for learning. She stresses the importance of early cybersecurity awareness, suggesting that exposure to best practices should align with the first use of digital devices. This early introduction to cybersecurity principles, aided by educational technologies, is vital in preparing the next generation to navigate the expanding digital frontier securely. Automation in education, therefore, serves a dual purpose, streamlining the learning process while simultaneously fostering a culture of digital safety awareness from a young age.

Executive Orders and Collaboration for Cyber Innovation

The Administration's Challenges in Artificial Intelligence Regulation

Dr. Amy Hamilton discusses the executive order on artificial intelligence. She acknowledged the inherent challenges of being a government pioneer in regulating groundbreaking technology. She compares the order to earlier attempts at cybersecurity regulation and the long-standing effects those have on policy today. Dr. Hamilton predicts that in hindsight, we may perceive today's orders as early steps in an evolving landscape. Given her past experience at the OMB executive office of the president, she understands the complexity of crafting policy that will need to adapt as technology progresses.

Collaborative Efforts for Cybersecurity Workforce Development

Dr. Amy Hamilton underlines the need for collaborative synergy between government and industry to foster a robust cybersecurity workforce. With growing intellectual property theft, especially from China, she stresses that safeguarding proprietary information is not just an industry burden but also a national and allied concern. Dr. Hamilton points out that partnerships with non-profit organizations play a vital role in shaping a national response to cybersecurity challenges. Such alliances are vital for maintaining cybersecurity and counteracting espionage activities that impact not only the US but also its international partners.

Public Awareness and Cybersecurity Breaches

Carolyn and Dr. Amy Hamilton echo a mutual frustration over the general public's lack of awareness regarding cybersecurity threats. They underscore the gravity of cybersecurity breaches and the espionage activities that target nations' security and economic well-being. Dr. Hamilton uses historical incidents to illustrate the ongoing battle against cyber threats and the need for heightened public consciousness. The discussion implies that bolstering public awareness and concern is pivotal in the collective effort to enhance national cybersecurity.

About Our Guest

Amy S. Hamilton, Ph.D. is the Department of Energy Senior Advisor for National Cybersecurity Policy and Programs. Additionally, she is the Visiting Faculty Chair for the Department of Energy at National Defense University. She served two years as a senior cyber security policy analyst at the Office of Management and Budget, Executive Office of the President. She served in the Michigan Army National Guard as a communications specialist and was commissioned into the U.S. Army Officer Signal Corp, serving on Active Duty and later the U.S. Army Reserves. She has worked at both the U.S. European Command and the U.S. Northern Command & North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) on multiple communications and IT projects.

She became a certified Project Management Professional through the Project Management Institute in 2007 and earned her Certified Information Security Manager certification in 2011. And she presented “The Secret to Life from a PMP” at TEDxStuttgart in September 2016. She taught Project Management Tools at Colorado Technical University and was a facilitator for the Master’s Degree Program in Project Management for Boston University. She is an award-winning public speaker and has presented in over twenty countries on overcoming adversity, reaching your dreams, cybersecurity, and project management.

Dr. Hamilton holds a Bachelor of Science (BS) in Geography from Eastern Michigan University, a Master of Science (MS) in Urban Studies from Georgia State University, Master in Computer Science (MSc) from the University of Liverpool, Master Certificate in Project Management (PM) and Chief Information Officer (CIO) from the National Defense University, and completed the U.S. Air University, Air War College. She completed her Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) at Regent University in its Organizational Leadership Program with a dissertation on “Unexpected Virtual Leadership: The Lived Experience of U.S. Government IT and Cybersecurity Leaders transitioning from physical to virtual space for COVID-19.” Amy’s motto is: “A woman who is passionate about project management, public speaking, and shoes.”

Episode Links

Have you heard? Data is the new oil. JR Williamson, Senior Vice President and Chief Information Security Officer at Leidos, is here to explain where data’s value comes from, the data lifecycle and why it is essential for organizations to understand both of those things in order to protect this valuable resource. Join us as JR breaks it all down and also explores the concept he dubbed “risktasity,” which he uses to describe the elasticity of rigor based on risk. As he says, “when risk is high, rigor should be high, but when risk is low, rigor should be low.”

Key Topics

Tracing the Cybersecurity Evolution and Data's Ascendancy

Evolution of Cybersecurity

JR provided a snapshot into the past, comparing cybersecurity practices from the 1990s to what we see today. With 37 years of experience, he recalled a time when IT systems were centralized and the attack surfaces were significantly smaller. Contrasting this with the present scenario, he spoke about the current state where the migration to cloud services has expanded the attack surface. JR noted an increase in the complexity of cyber threats due to the widespread distribution of networks. Plus, the need for anytime-anywhere access to data. He stressed the transition from a focus on network security to a data-centric approach, where protecting data wherever it resides has become a paramount concern.

Data Life Cycle:"So part of understanding, the data itself is the data's life cycle. How does it get created? And how does it get managed? How does it evolve? What is its life cycle cradle to grave? Who needs access to it? And when they need access to it, where do they need access to it? It's part of its evolution. Does it get transformed? And sometimes back to the risktasity model, the data may enter the content life cycle here at some level. But then over its evolution may raise, up higher." — JR Williamson

The New Oil: Data

In the world JR navigates, data is akin to oil. A resource that when refined, can power decisions and create strategic advantages. He passionately elucidated on the essence of data, not just as standalone bits and bytes, but as a precursor to insights that drive informed decisions. Addressing the comparison between data and oil, JR stressed that the real value emerges from what the data is transformed into; actionable insights for decision-making. Whether it's about responding with agility in competitive marketplaces or in the context of national defense, delivering insights at an unmatched speed is where significant triumphs are secured.

Importance of Data Security

JR Williamson on Data and "Risktasity"

JR Williamson stresses the heightened necessity of enforcing security measures that accompany data wherever it resides. As the IT landscape has evolved, the focus has broadened from a traditional, perimeter-based security approach towards more data-centric strategies. He articulates the complexity that comes with managing and safeguarding data in a dispersed environment. Where data no longer resides within the confines of a controlled network but spans across a myriad of locations, endpoints and even devices. This shift has rendered traditional security models somewhat obsolete, necessitating a more nuanced approach that can adapt to the dynamic nature of data.

The Value of Data in Decision-Making:"The data in and of itself is really not that valuable. Just like oil in and of itself is not that valuable. But what that oil can be transformed into is what's really important, and that's really the concept." — JR Williamson

Data Security Experiences

Both Mark and Carolyn resonate with JR's insights, drawing parallels to their own experiences in cybersecurity. Mark appreciates the straightforwardness of JR’s "risktasity" model which advocates for proportional security measures based on the evaluated risk. This principle challenges the one-size-fits-all approach to cybersecurity, fostering a more tailored and efficient allocation of resources. Carolyn, in turn, connects to the conversation with her history of grappling with the intricacies of data classification and control. She acknowledges the tactical significance of understanding which data warrants more stringent protection. Plus, the operational adjustments required to uphold security while enabling access and utility.

Data Governance and Security Strategies

Understanding Data Security and Lifecycle

JR emphasizes the importance of understanding the data's lifecycle. Acknowledging that comprehensive knowledge about how data is created, managed and ultimately disposed of is a cornerstone of effective cybersecurity. This involves not only recognizing the data's trajectory but also identifying who needs access to it, under what conditions, and how it may evolve or be transformed throughout its lifecycle. By establishing such a deep understanding, JR suggests that it becomes possible to design governance systems that are not only effective in theory, but also practical and integrated into the daily operations of an organization.

Strategy and Organizational Support

Transitioning from a theoretical framework to practical execution, JR discusses the necessity of an effective data protection model that can operationalize the overarching strategy. To accomplish this, an organization must develop a structure that aligns with and supports the strategic objectives. JR identifies that existing structures often serve as the most significant barriers when agencies work on implementing new cybersecurity strategies. Organizations must be prepared to confront and renovate legacy systems and management frameworks. This is a challenge that became increasingly evident as organizations rapidly shifted to cloud services to accommodate remote work during the pandemic.

Insights from Data Security and AI Impact

Transformation of Data into Actionable Insights

Like oil, data's true value isn't in its raw form. It is in the conversion process, which transforms it into insights for decision-making. He reflects on the progression of data turning into information, which then evolves into knowledge, culminating in actionable insights. Just as the versatility of oil lies in its ability to be refined into various fuels and materials, the potential of data is unlocked when it is analyzed and distilled into insights that inform crucial decisions. JR emphasizes that the effectiveness of insights hinges not just on accuracy. It is also on understanding the context in which these insights are applied. He suggests that these refined insights are close to competitive advantages. They enable quicker and more informed decision making in mission critical environments.

The Importance of Data Insight in Business:"Getting the insight in and of itself is important. But combining that insight with understanding of the problem we're trying to solve is really where the competitive advantage comes into play." — JR Williamson

AI's Speed Impact on Cybersecurity and Defense

JR expresses apprehension regarding artificial intelligence's acceleration and its implications for cybersecurity and defense. This unease stems from AI's capability to operate at a pace vastly superior to human capacity. Such rapid capabilities could lead to a perpetual struggle for cybersecurity professionals, who are tasked with defending against AI-driven attacks that continually outpace their responses. For organizations to not only protect themselves but also remain competitive, JR advocates for the adoption of similar AI technologies. By leveraging advanced tools, organizations can preemptively identify vulnerabilities and secure them before they are exploited by adversaries. He alludes to an emerging arms race in cybersecurity, driven by AI advancements that necessitate a proactive rather than reactive approach to digital threats.

Shifting Mindset in Data Security and Zero Trust Architecture

Broader Perspective on Defensive Data Security

Carolyn and Mark, touching on the complexities of cybersecurity, speculate about a potential paradigm shift. Rather than focusing solely on prevention, they wonder if the strategy might pivot towards containment and control once threats are within the system. JR agrees that in today's vast and interconnected digital environment, absolute prevention is increasingly challenging. Though cybersecurity has traditionally been likened to reinforcing a castle's walls, JR argues that due to the dispersed nature of modern networks and cloud computing, this approach is becoming outdated. Instead, organizations need to be agile and resilient, with security measures embedded within the data and applications themselves, ensuring they can quickly detect, mitigate and recover from breaches.

Dissecting the Concept of Zero Trust Architecture

JR expresses discontent with the term "zero trust" due to its implications of offering no trust whatsoever, which would stifle any exchange of information. He advocates for the terms "earned trust" or "managed trust" to more aptly describe the nuanced relationship between users and the systems they interact with. Security architecture, JR illustrates, should not solely rely on verifying users' identities. It has to account for the integrity and security posture of the devices and locations being used to access the data. By meticulously understanding which data are most sensitive and their lifecycles, organizations can ensure that access controls are rigorously applied where necessary. This is based on the type of data, the user's context and the access environment. This nuanced approach is fundamental in constructing a robust and adaptive zero trust architecture that evolves along with the organizational ecosystem.

About Our Guests

JR Williamson is accountable for information security strategy, business enablement, governance, risk, cybersecurity operations and classified IT at Leidos. JR is a CISSP and Six Sigma Black Belt. He serves on the Microsoft CSO Council, the Security 50, the Gartner Advisory Board, the Executive Security Action Forum Program Committee, and the DIB Sector Coordinating Council. He is also part of the WashingtonExec CISOs, the Evanta CISO Council, the National Security Agency Enduring Security Framework team, and is the Chairman of the Board of the Internet Security Alliance.

Episode Links

What will 2024 have in store for technology development and regulation? Our hosts, Carolyn Ford and Mark Senell, sat down with Roger Cressey, Partner at Mountain Wave Ventures, Ross Nodurft, Executive Director of the Alliance for Digital Innovation and Willie Hicks, Public Sector Chief Technologist for Dynatrace, to discuss their 2024 predictions. Discover what the experts think will occur next year in terms of FedRAMP, AI regulation, Zero Trust and user experience.

Key Topics

2024 Predictions for the Public Sector

Revamping of the FedRAMP Program

Ross predicts that in 2024, FedRAMP will be completely reauthorized based on a pending OMB memo that is expected to be finalized in late 2023. This revamp is intended to streamline and improve the FedRAMP authorization process to facilitate faster adoption of cloud-based solutions in government.

However, Roger believes the changes could temporarily slow things down as agencies take time to understand the implications of the new FedRAMP structure on their systems and assess risks. This could require investments from industry as well to meet new requirements that emerge.

FedRAMP 2024:"I think it's going to have a lot of agencies take a hard look at their risk and decide where they want to elevate certain high-valued assets, high-valued systems, high-valued programs, and the authorizations themselves are gonna raise in their level." — Ross Nodurft

Shift From Moderate Baseline to Higher Baseline of Controls

As part of the FedRAMP reauthorization, Ross expects many agencies will shift their systems from a moderate baseline to a higher baseline of security controls. With more interconnected systems and datasets, agencies will want heightened protections in place.

Roger concurs that the increased scrutiny on risks coming out of the FedRAMP changes will lead organizations, especially those managing high-value assets, to pursue FedRAMP High authorizations more frequently.

Increased Demand for a FedRAMP High Environment

Given the predictions around agencies elevating their security thresholds, Willie asks Ross whether the pipeline of solutions currently pursuing FedRAMP High authorizations could face disruptions from new program requirements.

Ross believes there will be some temporary slowdowns as changes are absorbed. However, he notes that the goals of the reauthorization are to increase flexibility and accessibility of authorizations. So over time, the new structure aims to accelerate FedRAMP High adoption.

2024 Predictions: Navigating FedRAMP Changes While Maintaining Industry Momentum

As Ross highlighted, the intent of the FedRAMP reauthorization is to help industry get solutions to market faster. But in the short-term, there could be some complications as vendors have to realign to new standards and processes.

Willie notes that companies like Dynatrace have already begun working towards FedRAMP High in anticipation of rising customer demand. But sudden shifts in requirements could impact those efforts, so he hopes there will be considerations for solutions currently undergoing authorizations.

2024 Predictions on Cybersecurity Trends

Zero Trust Framework

Roger discusses how zero trust architectures are progressing forward in adoption, even though the concept has lost some of its previous buzz. The zero trust memo is still in place, people are budgeting for zero trust and funding is starting to be allocated towards implementation.

As Willie points out, every agency he works with is developing zero trust strategies and architectures. However, he notes these architectures can be extremely complex, especially when adding in cloud and containerized environments.

2024 Predictions: Observability Critical for Security in Complex Cloud Environments

Ross echoes Willie's point that there is an increasing movement towards cloud-based environments. This is driving changes to FedRAMP to accommodate the proliferation of SaaS applications.

With more enterprise environments leveraging SaaS apps, complexity is being introduced. Ross predicts that to protect, understand and maintain visibility across such complex environments with many different applications, overarching observability will become a necessity.

Impact of the Shift Towards Cloud-Based Environments and SaaS Applications

The shift towards cloud-based environments and SaaS applications ties back to the FedRAMP changes and predictions from Ross. As agencies move to the cloud and adopt more SaaS apps, they lose visibility and observability.

Willie predicts observability will become "connective tissue" across zero trust architectures to provide that much-needed visibility across various pillars like devices, networks and users.

The Rise of User Experience in Government Systems:"I think we're gonna see more and more, of a focus on user experience because I believe with all the things we're talking about, user experience could be impacted." — Willie Hicks

Importance of Observability for Visibility and Understanding

Roger concurs that visibility is crucial for security because "you can't secure what you can't see." He notes that observability and understanding where data is and what apps are doing will become a prerequisite for achieving zero trust.

The Importance of Data Visibility in Security:"Well, I think it's gonna become table stakes, if you will, when it comes to security, because you can't secure what you can't see." — Roger Cressey

Carolyn highlights how visibility has been embedded in zero trust frameworks from the beginning. However, Willie predicts its importance will be even more prominent in 2024.

AI and Technology Innovations

2024 Predictions: Navigating AI Promise and Pitfalls in the Public Sector

Roger highlighted the tremendous upside that AI-enabled customer experience solutions could provide for government agencies in improving efficiency and service delivery. However, he also noted that any negative experiences resulting from these solutions would be heavily scrutinized and amplified. This indicates there may be cautious adoption of AI in government during 2024 as agencies balance potential benefits and risks.

The Importance of Reciprocity in Government Technology:"I just hope they have the wherewithal and the focus to push the right people in the right parts of both the Department of Defense and to the federal civilian side to think about how reciprocity impacts their availability in the marketplace technology or commercial technology solutions out there." — Ross Nodurft

Willie predicted there would be carefully orchestrated success stories around AI implementations, supporting Roger's point. This suggests that while innovation will continue, government agencies will likely roll out AI solutions slowly and target opportunities where impact can be demonstrated.

Increased Investment in Security and Product Innovation

Roger predicted that defensive cyber capabilities enabled by AI will draw greater attention and interest in 2024. Willie noted that AI is also being used in more advanced cyber attacks. Together, these trends indicate there will be an increased focus on using AI responsibly to enhance security while also defending against malicious uses.

On the commercial side, Ross predicted venture capital investment into AI will accelerate in 2024, driving constant product updates across language models and other platforms. This rapid product innovation seems likely to widen the gap with public sector adoption.

2024 Predictions: Balancing AI Progress and Governance in the Public Sector

While the panelists disagreed on the likelihood of major AI regulations from Congress in 2024, Willie predicted that high-profile incidents involving AI could build pressure for new laws, even if passage takes time. He and Ross suggested implementation of AI guidance for government agencies is more likely in the near term.

The Future Impacts of AI:"I think that the developers of AI are gonna continue to set the agenda, and the deployers, in other words, all the sectors as well as industry sectors, the developers, the deployers are still gonna be playing catch up." — Roger Cressey

Roger noted that negative experiences with AI in government would also spur calls for regulation. However, he said acting prematurely without understanding the impacts could pose challenges. Together, these perspectives indicate oversight and governance guardrails for AI will increase but could slow adoption if not balanced thoughtfully.

2024 Predictions: AI Policy Progress and Global Technology Leadership

Potential Dysfunction in Congress Impacting Regulatory Progress

Roger points out the significant disagreement between the House and Senate that could prevent Congress from finding common ground on AI regulation in 2024. The divide relates to whether the focus should be on continuing innovation or implementing more safeguards and oversight. Meaningful AI legislation at a national level would require lengthy deliberation and consensus-building that likely won't occur in an election year.

Potential Motivation for U.S. Innovation by China’s Advancements in AI

According to Roger, China's rapid advances in AI development and utilization could light a fire under the U.S. administration and Congress to accelerate American innovation in this area. However, the U.S. policy community also wants to ensure AI progresses responsibly. Roger argues China's AI capabilities could be an impetus for shaping U.S. strategy in 2024, balancing both innovation and risk management.

The Global Race for AI Dominance:"Where China is moving rapidly and creatively on AI development, adoption and deployment will be a jet fuel for motivating the administration and congress to do more regarding how can innovation on the U.S. side regarding AI move quicker." — Roger Cressey

Industry Adaptation to Change

2024 Predictions: Navigating Changes to FedRAMP and Industry Adaptation

Ross discusses some of the challenges the industry may face in adapting to the changes outlined in the anticipated 2023 FedRAMP reauthorization memo. He notes that while the intent of the memo is to streamline and open up the authorization process to allow more applications into the pipeline faster, implementing these changes could initially cause some disruption.

Ross predicts there may be a "learning curve" as agencies and vendors figure out how the changes impact their specific systems and day-to-day operations. This could temporarily slow things down until the new processes are fully understood. However, Ross expects that after this initial bumpy period, the changes will ultimately enable faster movement of applications through the FedRAMP process.

The Government’s Aim to Create a Process for a Smoother Transition

Ross highlights that the government's aim in revising the FedRAMP authorization process is to make it easier for agencies to access and leverage innovative cloud-based technologies. The memo revisions seek to create multiple pathways for obtaining authorizations, rather than just one narrow pipeline that applications must move through.

Discussing the Future of AI:"We gotta talk about, whether it's AI governance, whether it's innovation in AI, it's AI risks, and really understanding how do we balance all 3 of those in a way while we're still moving forward." — Roger Cressey

The hope is that these process improvements will pave the way for more small and medium cloud-based software companies to get their products authorized for use in government. This will give agencies more options and flexibility in adopting modern solutions. However, Ross cautions that in the short-term there may be some disruptions as outlined above.

Predictions for Significant Impact in 2024

In terms of predictions for 2024, Ross expects that the FedRAMP changes, combined with broader cloud migration efforts underway in government, will lead more agencies to request higher baseline security authorizations. Where they may have been comfortable with a FedRAMP Moderate authorization previously, Ross predicts agencies will now ask vendors for FedRAMP High in more and more cases. This will likely impact software providers who will have to adapt their systems and applications to meet the more stringent security controls.

About Our Guests

Ross Nodurft

Ross Nodurft is the Executive Director of the Alliance for Digital Innovation (ADI), a coalition of technology companies focused on bringing commercial, cloud-based solutions to the public sector. ADI focuses on promoting policies that enable IT modernization, cybersecurity, smarter acquisition and workforce development. Prior to joining ADI, Ross spent several years working with industry partners on technology and cybersecurity policy and several years in government, both in the executive and legislative branches, including Chief of the Office of Management and Budgets cyber team in the White House.

Roger Cressey

Roger Cressey is a Partner with Mountain Wave Ventures. He previously served as a Senior Vice President at Booz Allen Hamilton, supporting the firm’s cyber security practice in the Middle East. Prior to joining Booz Allen, he was President and Founder of Good Harbor Consulting LLC, a security and risk management consulting firm.

Mr. Cressey’s government service included senior cyber security and counterterrorism positions in the Clinton and Bush Administrations. At the White House, he served as Chief of Staff of the President’s Critical Infrastructure Protection Board from November 2001 – September 2002. He also served as Deputy for Counterterrorism on the National Security Council staff from November 1999 to November 2001. He was responsible for the coordination and implementation of U.S. counterterrorism policy and managed the U.S. Government's response to multiple terrorism incidents, including the Millennium terror alert, the USS COLE attack, and the September 11th attacks.

Willie Hicks

Willie Hicks is the Public Sector Chief Technologist for Dynatrace. Willie has spent over a decade orchestrating solutions for some of the most complex network environments, from cloud to cloud native applications and microservices. He understands tracking and making sense of systems and data that has grown beyond human ability. Working across engineering and product management to ensure continued growth and speed innovation, he has implemented Artificial Intelligence and automation solutions over hundreds of environments to tame and secure their data.

Episode Links

On this special So What? episode we go deeper in to some of the top stories being covered on the It’s 5:05! podcast with It’s 5:05! contributing journalist, Tracy Bannon. How are cybersecurity stress tests battling misinformation and aiding in election security? Is AI contributing to election disinformation? How is the CIA using SpyGPT? Come along as Carolyn and Tracy go beyond the headlines to address all these questions and more.

Key Topics

Importance of Cybersecurity and Responsible AI Use

Embracing Cybersecurity Measures and Privacy Protections

In their conversation, Carolyn and Tracy discuss the imperative nature of both individuals and organizations in embracing robust cybersecurity measures. As we live in an era where data breaches and cyber attacks are on the rise, the implementation of effective security protocols is not just a matter of regulatory compliance, but also about safeguarding the privacy and personal information of users. Tracy emphasizes the continuous need for cybersecurity vigilance and education, highlighting that it is a shared responsibility. By making use of resources like the CISA cybersecurity workbook, Carolyn suggests that individuals and businesses can receive guidance on developing a more secure online presence, which is crucial in a digital ecosystem where even the smallest vulnerability can be exploited.

Addressing Biases in AI to Align With Public Interest and Democratic Values

Tracy expresses concerns over the biases that can be present in AI systems, which can stem from those who design them or the data they are trained on. Such biases have the potential to impact a vast array of decisions and analyses AI makes, leading to outcomes that may not align with the broad spectrum of public interest and democratic values. An important aspect of responsible AI use is ensuring that these technological systems are created and used in a way that is fair and equitable. This means actively working to identify and correct biases and ensuring transparency in AI operations. Plus, constantly checking that AI applications serve the public good without infringing upon civil liberties or creating divisions within society.

Demystifying Cybersecurity:"We need that public understanding, building this culture of security for everybody, by everybody. It becomes a shared thing, which should be something that we're teaching our children as soon as they are old enough to touch a device." — Tracy Bannon

The Proliferation of Personal AI Use in Everyday Tasks

The conversation shifts towards the notion of AI agents handling tasks on behalf of humans, a concept both cutting-edge and rife with potential pitfalls. Carolyn and Tracy discuss both the ease and potential risks of entrusting personal tasks to AI. On one hand, these AI agents can simplify life by managing mundane tasks. Optimizing time and resources, and even curating experiences based on an in-depth understanding of personal preferences. Yet, Tracy questions what the trade-off is, considering the amount of personal data that must be shared for AI to become truly "helpful." This gives rise to larger questions related to the surrender of personal agency in decision-making. The erosion of privacy, and the ever-present threat of such tools being exploited for nefarious purposes.

CISA's Cybersecurity Workbook

Enhancing Accessibility with AI Use: Summarizing Complex Documents through Generative Tools

Tracy introduces the concept of leveraging generative AI tools such as ChatGPT to summarize lengthy documents. This innovative approach provides a way to digest complex material quickly and efficiently. For instance, users can feed a PDF or a website link into ChatGPT and request a summary which the tool will produce by analyzing the text and presenting the key points. Tracy emphasizes this method as a step toward making dense content like government reports or lengthy executive orders, more accessible. She also transitions to discussing CISA's cybersecurity workbook. Illustrating a movement towards the dissemination of important information in a format that a broader audience can understand and apply, not just tech experts. Tracy appreciates the effort by CISA to create resources that resonate with everyone's level of technical knowledge.

Comprehensive Guidance for Security Measures

The comprehensive guide provided by CISA, Tracy notes, is robust in offering detailed strategies for planning and implementing cyber security measures. The workbook does not shy away from diving deep into the assessment of potential cyber risks. It details leading practices that organizations can adopt. Planning for incident response is a highlighted area, acknowledging that security breaches are not a matter of if but when. The workbook thus serves as an invaluable reference for initiating proactive steps to fortify against cyber threats. This level of comprehensive guidance serves not only as a tool for implementing robust security measures. It is also a learning resource that promotes a widespread understanding of best cybersecurity practices.

Government's AI Use

Potential Introduction of Generative AI by the CIA

Tracy and Carolyn discuss the CIA's plans to potentially introduce generative AI through a program dubbed "SpyGPT." The idea behind this integration is to enable the parsing and understanding of extensive open-source data more efficiently.

Generative AI, similar in concept to models like ChatGPT, could revolutionize how intelligence agencies handle the vast amounts of data they collect. If implemented, this AI would be able to generate new content based on massive datasets. Providing insights that could be invaluable for intelligence processing. Carolyn raises comparisons to traditional methods of intelligence gathering, noting that such technological advancements could have helped in past events had they been available. In response, Tracy emphasizes the historic struggle of intelligence agencies to rapidly sort through surveillance information. A challenge that tools like SpyGPT could mitigate.

The Double-Edged Sword of AI Use in Predictive Analysis

A tool like SpyGPT has the potential to rapidly identify patterns and connections within data. This could lead to quicker and more accurate intelligence assessments. Carolyn points to the use of crowdsourcing information during the Boston Marathon bombing as an example of how rapid data correlation and analysis can be critical in national security efforts. The ability to predict and possibly prevent future threats could be significantly enhanced.

The Dangers of Internet Era Propaganda:"I can take any idea, and I can generate vast amounts of text in all kinds of tones, from all different kinds of perspectives, and I can make them pretty ideal for Internet era propaganda." — Tracy Bannon

However, as Tracy notes, the power of such technology is a double-edged sword, raising concerns about privacy, the potential for misuse and ethical implications. The conversation raises the specter of a "Minority Report"-esque future, where predictive technology verges on the invasive. Both Tracy and Carolyn agree on the tremendous responsibilities that come with the implementation of generative AI when it intersects with privacy, civil liberties and security.

Election Security

The Critical Role of AI Use in Election Security Stress Testing

Stress testing in the context of election security revolves around rigorously probing the voting system to uncover any flaws or weaknesses. This process requires collaboration between various stakeholders, including the manufacturers of voting machines, software developers and cybersecurity experts. Tracy emphasizes the crucial nature of these simulated attacks or real-world scenarios that help reveal potential points of exploitation within the system. Identifying these vulnerabilities well before an election can give officials the necessary time to address and reinforce weak spots. Ensuring the reliability and resilience of the electoral process against cyber threats.

The AI Use in Unveiling Election System Vulnerabilities

Tracy discusses the necessity of not just identifying but also openly revealing discovered vulnerabilities within election systems as a means to foster trust among the populace. Transparency in the security measures taken and the clear communication of vulnerabilities found, when managed properly, instill a higher sense of confidence in the electoral system's integrity. This approach also plays a pivotal role in countering misinformation. By proactively conveying the true state of system security and the efforts being taken to remedy issues. It can help to dismantle unfounded claims and skepticism about the election infrastructure from various sectors of society.

Exploring the Impact of AI Use in Deepfake Technology and Artificial Persona Creation

Capabilities of Deepfake Technology and AI-Language Models

Recent advancements in AI and deepfake technology have brought breathtaking capabilities. Primarily the power to manipulate audio and video content with astounding realism. Tracy emphasizes the profound implications of this tech. Specifically pointing to language models such as "Vall-E," which can simulate a person's voice from just a few seconds of audio input.

The Rise of Deepfakes:"Imagine what's gonna happen with the deepfake. Take a right? I can take your video. I can take your voice." — Tracy Bannon

This technology uses sophisticated algorithms to detect nuances in speech patterns. Allowing it to generate new audio that sounds like the targeted individual, effectively putting words into their mouths that they never actually said. This ability extends beyond simple mimicry. It propels the potential for creating audio deepfakes that can be nearly indistinguishable from genuine recordings. Such capabilities raise significant concerns about the reliability of auditory evidence and the ease with which public opinion could be manipulated.

Creation of Artificial Personas Using AI Tools

Tracy brings to light the increasingly effortless creation of false personas through AI tools such as ChatGPT, which is an iteration of AI language models capable of generating human-like text. These tools can fabricate compelling narratives and even mimic specific writing styles. It can create non-existent but believable social media profiles or entire personas. Tracy points out how these synthetic entities can be programmed to deliver credible-sounding propaganda, influence political campaigns, or sow discord by spamming internet platforms with targeted misinformation. The creation of these artificial personas signifies a dramatic shift in how information can be disseminated. Posing risks of eroding trust in digital communication and complicating the battle against fake news.

About Our Guest

Tracy Bannon is a Senior Principal with MITRE Lab's Advanced Software Innovation Center and a contributor to It’s 5:05! podcast. She is an accomplished software architect, engineer, and DevSecOps advisor having worked across commercial and government clients. She thrives on understanding complex problems and working to deliver mission/business value at the speed. She’s passionate about mentoring and training and enjoys community and knowledge-building with teams, clients, and the next generation. Tracy is a long-time advocate for diversity in technology, helping to narrow the gaps as a mentor, sponsor, volunteer, and friend.

Episode Links

As technology rapidly innovates, it is essential we talk about technology policy. What better way to get in the know than to have an expert break it down for us? Meet Ross Nodurft, the Executive Director of the Alliance for Digital Innovation. Ross dives in, explaining the evolution of FedRAMP controls and the recent, giant, AI Executive Order (EO) from the White House. Listen in to find out what this EO means for the government, the industry and the workforce as the U.S. attempts to implement policy ahead of AI innovation.

Key Topics

The Future of Government Technology: Shifting to FedRAMP High and Accelerating Cloud Adoption

Shift from FedRAMP Moderate to High for Sensitive Workloads

When FedRAMP was established over a decade ago, the focus was on managing the accreditation of emerging cloud infrastructure providers to support the initial migration of workloads. The baseline standard was FedRAMP Moderate, which addressed a "good amount" of security controls for less risky systems. However, Ross explains that increasing volumes of more sensitive workloads have moved to the cloud over time - including mission-critical systems and personal data. Consequently, agencies want to step up from moderate to the more stringent requirements of FedRAMP High to protect higher-risk systems. This includes only allowing High-cloud services to interact with other High-cloud applications.

The Evolution of Cloud Computing:"So right now, we're at the point where people are existing in thin clients that have access to targeted applications, but the back end compute power is kept somewhere else. It's just a completely different world that we're in architecturally." — Ross Nodurft

The Future of Government Technology: Streamlining FedRAMP for the SaaS-Powered Enterprise

According to Ross, the COVID-19 pandemic massively accelerated enterprise cloud adoption and consumption of SaaS applications. With the abrupt shift to remote work, organizations rapidly deployed commercial solutions to meet new demands. In the federal government, this hastened the transition from earlier focus on cloud platforms to widespread use of SaaS. Ross argues that FedRAMP has not evolved at pace to address the volume and type of SaaS solutions now prevalent across agencies. There is a need to streamline authorization pathways attuned to this expanding ecosystem of applications relying on standardized baseline security controls.

High-level Security Controls for Sensitive Data in the Cloud

Addressing Data Related to Students and Constituents

Ross states that as agencies move more sensitive workloads to the cloud, they are stepping up security controls from FedRAMP Moderate to FedRAMP High. Sensitive data includes things like personal HR data or data that could impact markets, as with some of the work USDA does. Willie gives the example of the Department of Education or Federal Student Aid, which may have sensitive data on students that could warrant higher security controls when moved to the cloud.

Ross confirms that is absolutely the case - the trend is for agencies to increase security as they shift more sensitive systems and data to the cloud. Especially with remote work enabled by the pandemic. So agencies with data related to students, constituents, healthcare, financial transactions etc. are deciding to utilize FedRAMP High or tailor Moderate with additional controls when migrating such workloads to ensure proper security and rights protections.

The Future of Government Technology: Navigating the Tradeoffs Between Cloud Innovation and Data Security

As Ross explains, FedRAMP High means you can only interact with other cloud applications that are also FedRAMP High. So there is segmentation occurring with more sensitive data and workloads being isolated via stricter security controls. However, he notes it is not a "bull rush" to FedRAMP High. Rather agencies are steadily moving in cases where the sensitivity of the data warrants it.

Willie then asks about the costs associated with these stricter cloud security authorizations, given even Moderate is expensive. Ross explains there are currently policy discussions underway about making FedRAMP more streamlined and cost-effective so that innovative commercial solutions can still sell to the government without having to completely re-architect their offerings just for these processes. The goal is balancing the accessibility of cloud solutions with appropriate security based on data sensitivity.

Modernizing Federal Government IT:"We need to stop requiring companies to have their own completely separate over architected environment. We want commercial entities to sell commercially built and designed solutions into the federal government." — Ross Nodurft

Laying the Groundwork: The AI Executive Order and the Future of Government Technology

Robust Framework for Future Policy and Legal Development

Ross states that the AI Executive Order is the biggest and most robust executive order he has seen. He explains that it attempts to get ahead of AI technology development by establishing a framework for future policy and legal development related to AI. Ross elaborates that there will need to be additional regulatory and legal work done, and the order aims to "wrap its arms around" AI enough to build further policy on the initial framework provided.

According to Ross, the order covers a wide range of topics including AI in critical infrastructure, generative AI, immigration reform to support the AI workforce, and government use of AI. He mentions the order addresses critical infrastructure like pipelines, hospitals, transportation systems and more. It also covers immigration policy changes needed to ensure the U.S. has the talent to advance AI. Additionally, it focuses heavily on government consumption and deployment of AI.

Mapping the Future of Government Technology

Navigating the Future of Government Technology

The AI executive order tasks the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) with developing guidance for federal agencies on the safe and secure adoption of AI. Specifically, Ross states that the order directs the Federal CIO and other administration officials to establish rules that allow government consumption of AI in a way that protects safety and rights. Before writing this guidance, the order specifies that OMB must consider the impacts of AI on safety-critical infrastructure as well as rights like privacy and fairness.

Ross explains that OMB recently released draft guidance for public comment. He says this draft guidance contains several key components. First, it establishes AI governance requirements, directing every major federal agency to appoint a Chief AI Officer and create an AI council with agency leadership that will oversee adoption. Second, it mandates that agencies take inventory of existing AI use and develop plans detailing how they intend to utilize AI going forward.

Requirements for Agencies to Appoint a Chief AI Officer

According to Ross, a primary governance requirement in the OMB draft guidance is that all major agencies assign a Chief AI Officer to spearhead their efforts. Additionally, he notes that the guidance orders agencies to construct AI councils with membership spanning functions like IT, finance, HR and acquisition. Ross specifies that these councils will be led by the Deputy Secretary and Chief AI Officer of each department.

The Uncertain Future of Government Technology

Collaboration, Prioritization of Assessments, Compliance, Monitoring and Validation

Ross highlights the need for collaboration between industry and agencies to address issues like prioritization, timing, specifics of compliance, attestation and who pays for and validates assessments. The order pushes the use of AI but lacks specifics that could slow adoption of widely-used technologies with AI. Ross notes this could introduce friction, slowing productive technologies when faster digital services are demanded. Better defining compliance pathways is needed to avoid nervousness using AI.

AI Ethics and Regulation:"You've got to run as close to live testing as possible, you've got to have human people factored into the decision-making engines." — Ross Nodurft

While embracing AI, the order does not detail how to facilitate adoption. Ross says this could cause confusion across agencies. His trade association ADI sees the need to add specifics around governance mechanisms to avoid inconsistencies. The lack of clarity risks friction and slowing AI incorporation, which Ross believes is imperative.

Balancing Innovation and Responsibility in Emerging Technologies

Demand for a Digital Environment and the Importance of Observability

Ross states that there is a quick move towards a digital environment across all services, driven by demand from millennials, Gen X and Gen Z. He emphasizes that everything needs to have an app or digital access now to engage users. Ross then highlights how Dynatrace provides important observability of these new cloud-based architectures, allowing agencies to understand usage, interactions and performance. He argues this is essential to properly managing digital services.

Ross worries that the new AI executive order guidance lacks specifics around compliance, which risks creating friction in adopting widely-used technologies like Dynatrace that have AI components. He states there is uncertainty whether tools like Dynatrace must be inventoried and assessed under the new policy. If so, there are many open questions around prioritization, timing, specific compliance activities, and who pays associated costs. Ross emphasizes that this uncertainty could hinder cloud adoption without more clarity.

Responsibility and Control Over the Use of AI Technology

Ross stresses that while AI technology enables incredible things, we have full control and responsibility over its uses. He states we must consider processes and safeguards that provide oversight and allow intervention over AI systems. Ross argues we cannot afford to deploy AI blindly, but highlights it is in our power to leverage these technologies to benefit humanity with appropriate guardrails.

Shaping the Future of Government Technology

The Future of Government Technology and Managing Change for Emerging Fields

Ross asserts today there is greater intention around anticipating risks from emerging technology compared to past eras. He advocates for building off switches and review processes that allow understanding and course correction around new innovations like AI. Ross states this considered approach is essential for nanotechnology, quantum computing and other exponentially advancing fields.

The Influence of Artificial Intelligence in Policy and Legal Development:"But artificial intelligence is now more than ever being built into everything that we do technologically." — Ross Nodurft

Ross disputes the concern that AI will replace jobs, arguing instead it will shift skills required by humans. He provides examples of comparable historical technology shifts requiring new expertise, like transitioning from horses to locomotives. Ross states AI moves job responsibilities in different directions rather than eliminating careers, necessitating learning new tools and approaches.

Establishing Processes and Organizational Structures for the Future of Government Technology

Ross highlights how the AI executive order establishes agency governance bodies to oversee adoption. He details required personnel like Chief AI Officers that must review and approve AI use. Ross states these processes aim to identify risks in using innovations like AI while still encouraging adoption. He argues this organizational oversight is a new paradigm essential for emerging technologies.

About Our Guest

Ross Nodurft is the Executive Director of the Alliance for Digital Innovation (ADI), a coalition of technology companies focused on bringing commercial, cloud-based solutions to the public sector. ADI focuses on promoting policies that enable IT modernization, cybersecurity, smarter acquisition and workforce development. Prior to joining ADI, Ross spent several years working with industry partners on technology and cybersecurity policy and several years in government, both in the executive and legislative branches, including Chief of the Office of Management and Budgets cyber team in the White House.

Episode Links

Have no fear, your new wingman is here! AI is by your side and ready to help you multiply your abilities. Patrick Johnson, Director of the Workforce Innovation Directorate at the DoD CIO discusses how his team is working to further implement AI ethically and safely in areas such as human capital to expedite finding talent. Patrick also shares his passion for building cyclical pipelines to ensure that talent, and ideas, flow seamlessly between the government and private sector. Join us as we dive further into AI’s benefits and how government and industry can be cyber workforce innovation partners.

Key Topics

The DoD's Cyber Workforce

Cyber Workforce Improvement Is Crucial

Patrick states that the Department of Defense's (DoD's) total cyber workforce, comprising military, civilian and industry partner contractors, is around 225,000 people. He notes that the DoD has the biggest gap in the civilian cyber workforce, which makes up about 75,000 people. According to Patrick, one of the key problems when bringing new cybersecurity technologies online is failing to adequately train the existing workforce on how to use and get value from those technologies.

Training and Upscaling the Current Cyber Workforce

Rather than pursuing full re-skilling of employees which can set them back, Patrick advocates for upskilling the current DoD cyber workforce. This involves assessing talent and capability gaps. Then providing the workforce with the necessary training to perform new technologies appropriately. Patrick states that partnering workforce members with automated processes like AI can help them become more effective by highlighting key info and threats.

The Importance of Training and Upscaling in the Cyber Workforce:"Well, it's great to put new technology on the table. But if you don't take the time to train the workforce you have in the programs or the systems you're bringing online, you lose that effectiveness and you don't really gain the efficiencies or the objectives that you need to be."— Patrick Johnson

Automation and AI

AI Is Seen as a Partnership With the Human Cyber Workforce

Patrick views AI as a partnership with the human workforce rather than a threat. He emphasizes that AI should be seen as a "wingman or wingperson" that boosts productivity and acts as a force multiplier. Patrick explains that AI excels at rote, tedious tasks allowing the human workforce to focus more on creativity.

AI Helps With Rote and Tedious Tasks

According to Patrick, AI is adept at attention-to-detail tasks that would be tedious for a human to manually perform. He provides the example of a cybersecurity analyst or defender whose productivity can be enhanced by AI highlighting anomalies in data that they should pay attention to. This allows them to catch more threats and intrusions coming through their systems.

The Rise of AI and the Fear of Job Loss:"AI can expedite that and do it really fast. It's about how do you fit in and use the technology that is there. So for individuals that are bent on just being one thing or doing a particular way, it's gonna be a struggle."— Patrick Johnson

AI as a Productivity Multiplier

Patrick argues that all organizations are understaffed and says AI is like "adding a person and a half" to your existing workforce. In his view, this boosts productivity significantly if the technology is utilized correctly. He believes AI's capabilities in assisting with repetitive tasks allow human workers to focus more on creative problem-solving.

AI as a Cyber Workforce Multiplier

AI Applied in Various Industries With New Jobs and Opportunities

Patrick explains that AI excels at automating repetitive, detail-oriented tasks, freeing up humans to focus on more creative responsibilities. As AI develops, Patrick believes new industries and opportunities will emerge. He references how industrial automation led to new maintenance jobs. Similarly, current AI advances likely indicate the rise of new industries needing workers to oversee AI systems.

Harnessing Talent in the Digital Age:"It'll work. If it works for cyber, why wouldn't it work for aviation, or why wouldn't it work for logistics? It's gonna work for just about any approach you wanna take."— Patrick Johnson

Current AI Advancements Focused On Non-creative Tasks

Willie agrees that true general AI with human-level creativity remains a distant prospect. He characterizes current AI as skilled at rote, non-creative work. While AI can simulate creativity by aggregating data, Willie argues it cannot independently demonstrate innovation as humans do. He believes consciousness and creativity constitute scientific frontiers we are far from unlocking in silicon.

Ethical Use of AI in Western Societies

Ethical Considerations in Western Societies

Patrick discusses how there is an ethical piece when it comes to AI and its use in Western societies. He notes that the DoD's Chief Digital and Artificial Intelligence Office, and their principal staff assistant, are really looking hard at the ethical use of AI. Patrick contrasts this to some of the department's peer competitors, without naming specific countries, who are not as worried about using AI ethically. He explains that in Western societies that have operated in a prosperous, peaceful way for almost 90 years, there is more concern about ethics with emerging technology like AI.

U.S. is Known for Creativity and Innovation

Patrick talks about how one of the strengths of the U.S. as a nation is the focus on creativity, innovation and free thinking. He says these characteristics allow new technologies to fully prosper and reach their potential. Unlike in some other systems where there may be more ulterior motives from the state or ruling party that limit capabilities. Patrick notes that some other countries utilize AI for better understanding their citizens, monitoring people and tracking behaviors without as much ethical concern.

AI in the Defense Department

DoD Exploring AI in Maintenance Schedules and Issue Tracking

Patrick notes that the Defense Department is currently using AI in enclosed systems to improve maintenance schedules and track issues. He explains that this allows them to leverage AI to expedite when certain maintenance actions need to be taken and monitor problems. While the department is still in the early stages of incorporating AI, Patrick emphasizes they are embracing it for these types of automatable tasks rather than avoiding it due to security concerns.

Embracing AI While Avoiding Security Risks

When discussing AI, Patrick acknowledges there are legitimate security worries given the sensitive nature of the Defense Department's systems and environment. However, he states these concerns should not deter the department from bringing AI capabilities to the forefront. Patrick argues the department needs to find ways to ethically and safely integrate AI so it does not pose risks. He mentions this is an area of focus for the Chief Digital and Artificial Intelligence Office.

The Role of AI in Cybersecurity:"It really is about looking at your talent and your gaps and then giving them the training they need to execute the new technology, appropriately."— Patrick Johnson

AI Used to Automate Human Capital Tasks

In terms of human capital functions, Patrick highlights how the department is already employing AI to streamline and automate certain talent management processes. For example, he explains they are using AI-enabled systems to expedite applicant-job matching and make hiring more efficient. Additionally, Patrick notes AI is helping align training offerings and certifications to the workforce skill gaps the department needs to fill. He emphasizes these applications demonstrate the promise of AI in automating tedious tasks that would normally take humans much longer to accomplish manually.

Measuring Impact and Maintaining Cyber Workforce Technology Balance

Using AI to Measure Program Impact

Patrick explains that they are using AI to track metrics like attrition rates, vacancy rates, losses and gains. This allows them to do predictive analysis to project future vacancy rates and take proactive action when needed. For example, Patrick can put up real-time data for leadership showing that if no action is taken, vacancy rates could rise from 17% to 37% in two years. This prompts leadership to address gaps proactively before problems become severe. Patrick envisions AI having an even greater impact by identifying talent gaps across the department and giving the services enough lead time to ramp up training programs accordingly.

Balancing Cyber Workforce and Technology

To balance workforce and technology, Patrick emphasizes the need to train the current workforce on new systems and technologies rather than expecting them to instantly adapt. He uses the example of implementing Zero Trust security, noting that deploying the technology alone is not enough if the workforce is not properly trained to leverage and maximize it. Patrick believes AI should be viewed as a "wingman" to augment human capabilities rather than replace jobs. Proper AI integration requires change management and culture change around utilizing automation.

Tracking Skills With 8140 Qualification Program

The 8140 qualification program tracks skillsets needed to perform critical cyber work roles across the department. By coding the entire military and civilian cyber workforce with work roles rather than just competencies, they gain visibility into the location of talent gaps. Work roles also allow them to incentivize critical positions rapidly. As they collect more workforce data, this program will enable sophisticated predictive analytics to get ahead of future talent and skill deficits.

About Our Guest

Mr. Patrick Johnson serves as the Director of the Cyber Workforce Management Directorate in the Office of the Deputy CIO for Resources and Analysis, Department of Defense (DoD) CIO.

In his role as Director, Mr. Johnson leads a dynamic team responsible for the Directorate’s expansive workforce management portfolio and program development supporting the broader talent management lifecycle for the Department’s cyberspace workforce. Directorate initiatives include the DoD Cyber Workforce Framework (DCWF) expansion, training and education program development (Cyber Scholarship, Cyber Exchange, etc.), Cyber Workforce Management Board (CWMB) facilitation, Cyber Excepted Service (CES) Personnel System, and the 8140 policy series implementation which establish enterprise baseline standards and requirements according to DCWF work role(s). At the OSD level, the Cyber Workforce Directorate's role is to leverage authorities and provide Department stakeholders with policies, programs, and tools to effectively recruit and retain a highly skilled cyberspace workforce.

Mr. Johnson previously served as the Chief, DoD Cyber Excepted Service where his leadership played a pivotal role in the development and implementation of the Cyber Excepted Service Personnel System, and ultimately mission expansion into today’s Cyber Workforce Directorate.

Mr. Johnson entered federal service in 2011, following more than 24 years of service in the U.S. Army. Prior to becoming the Director of the DoD CIO Cyber Workforce, Mr. Johnson served in a variety of positions in the Department, rising to his position today from his first role as Intelligence Combat Developer, with the U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command (INSCOM). In his expansive civil service career Mr. Johnson has also served as Deputy Director, Military Personnel DLA; Cyber Integrator, OSD Personnel and Readiness (P&R); Senior Program Manager (Retention), Deputy Chief of Staff Army G-1.

Mr. Johnson spent his early career in the U.S. Army, serving as a Military Policeman, Protective Service Agent, Military Police Investigator, and Career Counselor culminating in his role as Special Liaison with U.S. Army Intelligence Support Activity within the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC).

Episode Links

Meet the man on a mission to make software bill of materials (SBOMs) boring. In this So What? episode, Tracy Bannon and Carolyn Ford sit down with Allan Friedman the Senior Advisor and Strategist at the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA). Allan tells us about how he is working to change how all software on the planet is made and sold, no big deal right? Join us as we dive into the world of SBOMs, xBoMs, and Secure by Design.

Key Topics

Challenges and Implementation of SBOMs

Self-Attestation for SBOMs

Allan Friedman explained that there is currently a self-attestation model for SBOMs, where companies can sign a form stating that they have implemented SBOMs, rather than providing the actual SBOM data. This allows flexibility for organizations that are not yet ready to fully comply. However, it means buyers have to trust the attestation rather than seeing the SBOM details directly.

Secure Software Development Model Compliance:"The challenge there is turning the framework back into a compliance model. Because, again, at the end of the day, everyone wants to think about things. Right? Understand your risk, but you still need to make that yes or no decision."— Allan Friedman

Tracy Bannon noted some companies have concerns about sharing their SBOM data with customers, worrying that the customer may not have secure enough practices to properly protect the SBOM. Allan Friedman explained SBOMs do not need to be public - they can be shared privately between supplier and customer. Known unknowns in the SBOM can also help address concerns about revealing proprietary information.

Debate About the Risk of Sharing SBOMs as a Road Map for Attackers

Allan Friedman argued that sophisticated attackers likely do not need the SBOM, as they have other ways to analyze and reverse engineer software. Automated attacks also do not leverage SBOMs. He noted defenders actually need the visibility an SBOM provides into components and dependencies. There may be some risk of exposing attack surface, but the benefits seem to outweigh that.

The Importance of SBOM for Product Security:"If we had this, we had SBOM across our products today, it would save us thousands of hours a year Because whenever the next Log4j comes out, if you have a centralized machine readable, scannable system, It's not that hard." — Allan Friedman

Allan Friedman noted there has been some lobbyist pushback against SBOM mandates, often coming from trade associations funded by companies already implementing SBOMs. He said while healthy debate is good, many of the lobbyist complaints seem misguided or overblown.

The Potential Role of AI in Creating SBOMs and Its Implications for Security

Carolyn Ford asked whether AI could help automate SBOM creation, especially for legacy systems. Tracy Bannon cautioned that AI is not yet at the point where it can reliably generate code or understand large complex contexts. AI may eventually assist, but currently is not ready to take on SBOM tasks. As AI is software, it needs to be secured using the same best practices as other code.

Tracy Bannon explained SBOM implementation may be harder for organizations with large legacy codebases and multiple complex or siloed systems. However, even newer companies can struggle if they have not built SBOM processes into their SDLC. Allan Friedman noted while costs exist, especially for older systems, SBOMs ultimately save defender time and money.

Benefits of Better Engineering Processes

Allan Friedman said some organizations view SBOM mandates positively, as it gives them budget and justification to reengineer antiquated processes. Overall, SBOMs provide incentives and reasons to follow modern secure software practices.

Tracy Bannon emphasized that any mandated change involves costs, which need to be acknowledged. But driving adoption of SBOMs and secure development practices is still an important improvement goal. Organizations should be supported in this transition.

Government Requirements and Standards

Complexities of US Government Requirements for Software

Allan explains that the executive order issued requirements that all software sold to the US government would need to meet certain security practices, like having separate development and build environments and using multi-factor authentication. While these may seem basic, turning the NIST framework into concrete compliance requirements has been challenging. The government pushed for a quick definition of SBOMs, while agencies said it would take months. There's a need to balance the push for progress with the realities of implementing changes across complex legacy systems.

Open Source License Tracking:"And if you're an organization, you need to track which open source licenses are you using both in your open source and your code because there are strong rules for some of them."— Allan Friedman

For some parts of the software world, Allan notes that SBOMs are already considered standard practice. Modern developers with continuous integration pipelines can easily generate SBOMs automatically. The challenge is bringing along the organizations still using legacy tools and processes. Widespread adoption will take time. The goal is for SBOMs to become a boring, expected part of software delivery that doesn't require much discussion.

Timeline and Process Following the Executive Order

The 2021 cybersecurity executive order mandated the use of SBOMs but didn't define what they were. After pushing for a faster timeline, the government issued a minimum definition of SBOMs within 60 days. NIST then updated their secure software development framework with guidance. The next step is moving from framework to compliance model, with self-attestation as a starting point until more formal requirements are in place across agencies.

The executive order mandated SBOMs but didn't define them, so the government had to quickly issue a minimum definition of what constitutes an SBOM. This was a challenging process that required balancing perspectives from across government and industry. The public and private sectors need a shared understanding of what SBOMs are as adoption spreads.

Concerns and Solutions

Concerns From Corporations and Suppliers About Revealing Proprietary Information

Allan acknowledges there are concerns from some corporations and suppliers that providing an SBOM could reveal proprietary intellectual property or special sauce in their software products. Many organizations want to avoid exposing their competitive advantage or secret methods. Allan says the SBOMs do not need to be public - they can be shared directly and privately with the customer purchasing the software. There are also ways to designate known unknowns or gaps in the SBOM data.

The Importance of Software Bill of Materials (SBOM): "We're building the plane while we're flying it."— Allan Friedman

Tracy raises the concern she has heard that requiring companies to share SBOMs with customers could potentially expose their intellectual property if those SBOMs are not properly secured. She notes there have been many high-profile data breaches lately. This means vendors may be wary about sharing an SBOM with a customer if they lack confidence in that customer's data security practices. There needs to be trust between the entities exchanging SBOMs.

Claims Regarding the Majority of SBOMs Content Not Being Secretive

In response to concerns about IP exposure, Allan argues that for most large software projects, the bulk of what is contained in an SBOM does not represent core proprietary IP or secret sauce. As an example, he says that just listing common third-party libraries used does not reveal a competitive advantage. So fears may be overblown about SBOMs leaking meaningful intellectual property.

Given the valid concerns around proprietary code exposure and SBOM generation limitations, Allan advocates for the concept of designating "known unknowns". This would allow software providers to specify areas of the codebase or supply chain that have incomplete SBOM data due to proprietary restrictions or tooling gaps. Known unknowns enable transparency about the boundaries of SBOM coverage.

Software Supply Chain Security and SBOMs

Buffer Overflows and Memory Unsafety in Programming Languages

Allan Friedman explained that a large percentage of vulnerabilities arise from memory issues. Buffer overflows are a simple example, but there are thousands of variants that allow attackers to execute malicious instructions by tricking a system into accessing attacker-controlled memory regions. This memory unsafety occurs primarily in languages like C and C++ that lack memory safety protections.

Given the risks from memory unsafety, Friedman discussed CISA's vision of pushing more secure software development through the use of memory-safe languages. Languages like Rust and Go provide memory safety protections that prevent common categories of vulnerabilities. However, rewriting major legacy codebases will take time. CISA is exploring partnerships and incentives to accelerate adoption of memory-safe languages over the long term.

Group Dealing With a Large ADA Code Base and Other Languages

Tracy Bannon noted that some organizations, unfortunately, cut budgets by avoiding automated testing in favor of manual testing. But requirements like SBOMs remove excuses to not invest in automated processes and improved engineering.

Tracy Bannon mentioned there are ongoing conversations with the Department of Defense around extending the SBOM concept to data through "data bombs." While AI and algorithms are software, data artifacts like model cards and data cards also need supply chain transparency.

Bannon highlighted that she works with a group managing a complex codebase including not only a substantial amount of ADA, but 13 other languages layered onto the system. This exemplifies the challenges of legacy systems.

Friedman explained that CISA's director and CISO have been pushing the secure by design initiative to make software more inherently secure out of the box. He provided examples like moving away from hardening guides and instead selling software locked down, with optional integration instructions.

About Our Guest

Allan Friedman is a Senior Advisor and Strategist at the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA). He coordinates the global cross-sector community efforts around software bill of materials (SBOM). He was previously the Director of Cybersecurity Initiatives at NTIA, leading pioneering work on vulnerability disclosure, SBOM, and other security topics. Prior to joining the Federal government, Friedman spent over a decade as a noted information security and technology policy scholar at Harvard’s Computer Science Department, the Brookings Institution, and George Washington University’s Engineering School. He is the co-author of the popular text Cybersecurity and Cyberwar: What Everyone Needs to Know, has a C.S. degree from Swarthmore College, and a Ph.D. from Harvard University.

Episode Links

In the final, crossover episode of our three-part Halloween series, Eric Monterastelli, Public Sector SE at Delinea, Founder, Crew Chief of Gran Touring Motorsports and Host of the Break/Fix Podcast, joins Carolyn Ford and Tracy Bannon to discuss the scary reality of car security. Is your car spying on you? Can a nefarious actor take over your car? Does your car know your deep personal data like your immigration status, race and more? Hint: It can and it does.

Key Topics

The Intersection of Cybersecurity, Car Security and the Ghostbusters Mission

Ghostbusters Mission: Car Security & Car Hacking

Eric Monterastelli talks about how cars have evolved to include more computing technology, which opens them up to potential attacks. He gives the example of a Jeep that was hacked to shut off while driving, demonstrating the real dangers.

Tracy Bannon contrasts U.S. car manufacturers that use many third-party components versus Tesla's more integrated system. She argues Tesla's approach may lend itself to more car security. The hosts explore different potential attack vectors into vehicles, like Bluetooth connections.

Mozilla Participants Share Automotive InfoSec Insights

Eric Monterastelli shares findings from a Mozilla report about the wide range of deep personal data that can be collected from cars. Including things like facial expressions, weight, health information and more. The hosts are alarmed by the privacy implications.

Tracy Bannon advocates that car manufacturers need to make cybersecurity a priority alongside traditional safety. She indicates cars are data centers on wheels, collecting information that gets sent back to big cloud data centers. They emphasize the need for vigilance from car owners about what information they allow their vehicles to collect.

Concerns About Data Collection in Modern Vehicles

Modern Car Security: Braking, Speed and Steering Patterns

Eric discusses the extensive data that is now collected by modern vehicles, especially EVs. He notes that information is gathered on things like stopping distances, brake pressure applied, vehicle speed and overall driving habits. This data is no different than the type of driver performance analysis done in race cars. Automakers are collecting real-world usage data from customer vehicles to analyze driving patterns and vehicle responses. Tracy adds that the average new vehicle contains over 100 different computers and millions of lines of code that are all networked together. This networked data covers areas like powertrain functions, safety features and infotainment systems. All of this interconnected data presents opportunities for tracking very detailed driving behaviors.

Privacy Risks in Driving: Collecting Personal Data and Concerns

Eric cites a concerning report that modern vehicles can potentially collect extremely sensitive personal data simply through normal driving. Including information on immigration status, race, facial expressions, weight, health conditions and even genetic data. He explains that optical facial recognition software could be applied to cameras already present in many vehicles. Other data like weight and health metrics can be gathered from sensors in seats or wearable devices synced to the vehicle. The interconnected nature of modern vehicle computers and far-reaching data collection enables mining of very private user information that goes well beyond basic driving statistics. Carolyn reacts with disbelief at the potential extent of personal data gathering described.

Car Security Comparisons Between Traditional Manufacturers and Tesla

Challenges in U.S. Car Manufacturing Component Compatibility

Tracy explained that traditional U.S. car manufacturers have said they use components from hundreds of different distributors and providers. These components were not necessarily created to work together, unlike the approach taken by Tesla. Since traditional manufacturers are buying piece A and knitting it together with piece B, piece C and piece D, there can be integration challenges. The components may not align well since they were not designed under the same umbrella with a holistic approach.

Comparing Tesla's Integrated Approach to Enhance Car Security

Tracy contrasted the traditional manufacturers' approach with Tesla, which has created everything under one umbrella. Tesla told any component providers what the requirements were and how the components needed to align to what Tesla needed. This holistic approach within Tesla results in more seamlessly integrated and likely more secure vehicles compared to cobbling together components from many different organizations.

Tesla's Privacy Concerns:"But Tesla, there's been reports and there's been investigations showing that they can turn on the cameras inside the car and see what you're doing. They've been spying on people. There's been all sorts of allegations that have been thrown out there." — Eric Monterastelli

Combining Car Parts from Various Sources Raises Security Risks

Eric and Tracy discussed how having disparate systems talking over a common bus and language can introduce vulnerabilities. While a proprietary closed system like Tesla's may have risks if it is fully hacked. Assembling many components from different providers can also have downsides. There are more potential holes or vulnerabilities when piecing together parts from various organizations. Compared to having everything designed and built under one umbrella.

Integration of Systems in Modern Cars

Unified Mainframe Powers Modern Electric Vehicles, Replacing Separate Components

Eric discusses how newer electric vehicles like Teslas, Ford Mach-Es, and Porsches have a single mainframe that controls and interacts with all the components of the vehicle. In contrast, older cars had separate systems for the engine/drivetrain and infotainment that did not necessarily communicate with each other. For example, in a 2000s Chrysler, the infotainment system running the radio was separate from the encrypted Bosch system controlling the engine. Integrating all these components into one mainframe makes the new electric vehicles more convenient but also introduces potential vulnerabilities.

Single Computer Control and Car Security Vulnerabilities Explored

Tracy elaborates that the average new car today has over 100 different embedded computers. plus modules networked together and communicating via a CAN bus system. So there is one central computer that can interact with the engine, transmission, safety systems and infotainment features. While this integration is designed for efficiency and effectiveness of the software systems, it also means one access point can potentially control multiple components of the car. This is different from older cars where systems were more isolated from each other. The interconnectedness makes modern vehicles potentially more susceptible to cyber attacks.

The Vulnerabilities of Modern Vehicles:"For me, that's a scary reality. And it actually has shied me away from buying the newest of the new cars even though there are some really exciting things out there because what am I opening myself up to, if I buy a Ford Mach-E or a Tesla Model 3 or something else." — Eric Monterastelli

Vulnerabilities and Risks in Modern Cars

Integrating ML and AI into Cars through Computing Advancements

Eric discussed how cars have evolved significantly in engineering since the early 1900s. He highlighted that around 2000, more powerful computing technology like ML and AI computers were integrated into vehicles to make decisions about engine performance and interact with various systems. This advancement allowed for additional "creature comforts" in cars. But also opened them up to potential attacks and vulnerabilities that older cars did not face.

Future of DUI Prevention:"It's gonna become standard issue like power windows and remote locks and things like that where you're not even gonna be able to drive and operate a vehicle if it senses that you're in any way inebriated or under the influence." — Eric Monterastelli

Modern Vehicles' Complexity Heightens Vulnerabilities and Security Risks

Eric further acknowledged that consolidating disparate systems into one mega computer, while making things more convenient, also introduced vulnerabilities. With everything controlled by one mainframe, the attack surface is larger. He contrasted modern vehicles to cars from the mid-2000s, where engines were still separate from entertainment systems. Now they are fully integrated, which provides more connectivity but less isolation among components.

The Electric Vehicle Boom and Its Impact on Digital Systems

According to Eric, the rise of electric vehicles has led to even more potential issues, as they rely even more heavily on electrical systems and digital connectivity like over-the-air updates. Features that make EVs exciting also make them more susceptible to cyber threats compared to traditional internal combustion cars. The reality that EVs open owners up to unknown risks has made Eric shy away from the newest vehicles.

Differences in Car Security Among Manufacturers

Contrasting Tesla and Porsche Systems: Unified Communication vs. Proprietary Approach

Eric compared Tesla's interconnected systems to Porsche's components from various suppliers like Bosch. He said Tesla has full access to proprietary systems through the air, while Porsche uses a CAN bus for disparate systems to communicate. The closed nature of Tesla's system makes it completely open to them.

Tracy added more context, mentioning Porsche is connected to VW and Audi, who work with Bosch for many electromechanical parts like sensors and multifunction interfaces. She reiterated that these disparate systems in Porsche communicate via a CAN bus system.

Eric acknowledged Tracy's point that both brands use a CAN bus for the back-end electrical system. However, he still sees more risks with Tesla having full access to a closed proprietary system through the air versus Porsche's various supplier components that don't directly communicate beyond the CAN bus.

Risks of Personal Data Storage in Cars

Storing Personal Data in Car Infotainment Beyond Phone Disconnect

Tracy explained that even after disconnecting your phone from a car's infotainment system, personal data like contacts and GPS history can remain cached in the system. She warned that simply pressing "disconnect" does not purge the infotainment system of your data. Eric added that unless you fully wipe the system, your data remains stored even after trading in or selling your car. He gave the example of someone pulling a used head unit from a junkyard car, and upon powering it up having full access to the previous owner's contacts and address history.

Cyber Security Perspective on Data Collection in Cars:"They can collect deep personal data such as sexual activity, immigration status, race, facial expressions, weight, health, and genetic information while you're driving." — Eric Monterastelli

Car Disposal Doesn't Ensure Personal Data Erasure from Head Unit

Tracy shared that her husband takes extensive precautions to prevent others from accessing personal data, such as degaussing old hard drives before disposal. She explained these same precautions should be applied to cars, since simply trading in or scrapping a car does not mean personal data is removed from components like the infotainment system. Eric affirmed this concern, stating that short of an EMP blast, data remains recoverable from the car's memory chips even after the car changes owners. He advised thoroughly wiping car systems before sale to prevent exposing personal information.

About Our Guest

Eric Monterastelli is the Public Sector SE at Delinea, Founder and Crew Chief of Gran Touring Motorsports and Host of the Break/Fix Podcast. He has more than 18 years of experience in information technology, specializing in systems engineering, virtualization and software development. His previous stops include Dynatrace, BAE Systems, Raytheon, the Department of Defense, LogRhythm and Symantec, among others.

Episode Links

In the second episode of our 3-part Halloween series, Grant Schneider, Senior Director of Cybersecurity Services at Venable and former federal CISO, discusses the frightening implications of insider threats, how we are protecting critical infrastructure, and what it was like working on cybersecurity in the White House under both President Obama and President Trump.

Key Topics

Introduction to National Cybersecurity Awareness Month

Purpose of Raising Awareness About Cybersecurity

Grant explained that one of the great things about National Cybersecurity Awareness Month is exactly raising awareness and providing an opportunity to hopefully spend time thinking about and discussing cybersecurity. He noted that for organizations already focused on cybersecurity daily, the awareness month may not raise their awareness much more. However, many organizations don't constantly think about cybersecurity, so for business leaders and executives who may now recognize the existential threat a cyber incident poses, the awareness month offers a chance to have important conversations they may have previously avoided due to lack of understanding.

National Cybersecurity Awareness Month:"You're only one bad kind of cyber incident away from your organization not existing anymore."— Grant Schneider

Opportunities for Organizations to Have Conversations About Cybersecurity

According to Grant, leaders who don't grasp cybersecurity risks may personally fear initiating conversations to ask what the organization needs to do to address risks. National Cybersecurity Awareness Month provides an opportunity for these leaders to have the necessary conversations and gain education. Grant said the awareness month is a chance to discuss basics, like implementing multifactor authentication, patching and updates. He observed that much of the content produced for the awareness month focuses on cybersecurity fundamentals, so it allows organizations to dedicate time to shoring up basic defenses. Overall, Grant emphasized National Cybersecurity Awareness Month facilitates essential cybersecurity conversations for organizations and leaders who otherwise may not prioritize it consistently.

Evolution of Insider Threat in the Intelligence Community

Screening Out Bad Actors During the Hiring Process

Grant explains that in the early days of his career at the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), insider threat mitigation focused on screening out bad actors during the hiring process. The belief was that malicious insiders were either people with concerning backgrounds trying to get hired, or nation-state actors attempting to plant individuals within the intelligence community. The screening process aimed to identify and reject potentially problematic candidates.

Nation-State Actors Planting Individuals Within the Community

He mentions the possibility of nation-state actors attempting to plant malicious insiders in the intelligence community through the hiring process. This underscores the perceived risk that foreign governments would try to insert spies or saboteurs into the ranks of U.S. intelligence agencies.

Shift Towards Insiders Becoming Whistleblowers

Grant then discusses how over time, the nature of insider threats shifted more towards insiders becoming whistleblowers driven by ideology or moral objections. He cites the Manning and Snowden cases as examples of this shift. Rather than foreign plants, these were trusted insiders who went on to leak classified information out of claimed conscience.

Importance of Not Making Negative Generalizations About Whistleblowers

While describing this evolution, Grant is careful not to make generalizations condemning all whistleblowers. He maintains that whistleblowing serves an important function in society.

Snowden’s Different View on the Community’s Work and His Actions

In Snowden's case specifically, Grant characterizes his mindset as believing the intelligence community's lawful work was actually wrong. This led Snowden to take matters into his own hands by leaking classified materials.

Importance of Diversity of Experiences for Personal and Professional Growth

Actively Seeking Out Different Experiences Within Current Role

Grant emphasized the importance of seeking diversity of experiences, even within one's current job. He advised not constantly changing jobs, as that may look unfavorable on a resume. However, within a role, one should actively volunteer for new projects and tasks that provide exposure to different skills. Being willing to say "yes" and take on unfamiliar work leads to becoming a more versatile, well-rounded employee.

Saying Yes to New Opportunities

Grant recommended that when presented with new opportunities at work, such as a manager asking for someone to work on a certain project, the best approach is to always say yes. Even if the work does not seem interesting or relevant, accepting the challenge provides a chance to learn new skills. Saying yes demonstrates eagerness to expand one's capabilities.

The Importance of Diversity of Experiences:"Diversity of experiences, and whatever it is you're working on, when your boss, your coworkers say, hey, we're looking for someone to work on this, always say YES. I wanna go work on that as well."— Grant Schneider

Becoming a Well-Rounded Employee and Leader

According to Grant, embracing diverse experiences allows professionals to build unique skill sets and make themselves stand out. Having broad exposure equips individuals to work effectively on varied teams and projects. It enables adaptability that makes one a more valuable contributor. Grant emphasized that diversity of experience helps shape well-rounded leaders who can thrive in any environment.

View Work and Life as a Scavenger Hunt for Acquiring Skills

Grant suggested viewing one's career progression as a scavenger hunt to collect talents and capabilities. Being strategic and purposeful about pursuing different opportunities maximizes growth. Grant urged professionals to reflect on the skills they want in their toolbox and then leverage jobs and other life experiences to intentionally develop expertise across multiple areas.

The Consequences of Cyber Incidents and the Growth of Cybersecurity

Increased Consequences of Cyber Incidents

As Grant explained, when he first joined DIA, there were no connections to the unclassified internet in the building. Over time, every employee had both unclassified and classified computers to connect to various networks. As more devices were connected to networks, the potential consequences of a cyber incident grew. With more reliance on technology and interconnected systems, a cyberattack could cause major disruptions to operations. Grant noted that this increase in risk led to a greater focus on cybersecurity within both government and private sector organizations.

The Consistency of Approach Towards Technology and Cybersecurity across Administrations:"In my opinion, technology and cybersecurity has not been very politicized. And really going back from Bush to Obama, to Trump and to Biden, in my opinion, we've seen a good bit of consistency around the directions, the people have been headed."— Grant Schneider

Creation of Dedicated Security Operations Centers

Grant discussed how the growing risks from cyber incidents led to the creation of security operations centers focused on monitoring threats. Whereas IT operations teams had previously handled security, cybersecurity emerged as its own discipline requiring specialized skills and 24/7 vigilance. Organizations established dedicated security operations centers tasked with detecting and responding to security events around the clock. This represented a major shift as cybersecurity transitioned from a purely policy function to an operational capability within organizations.

Cybersecurity as a Distinct Operational Entity in Public and Private Sectors

Over the years, cybersecurity evolved from an information security policy role to a distinct operational entity, according to Grant. This transition occurred in both the public sector and private sector as the nature of threats changed. Cybersecurity is now recognized as requiring its own set of skills and continuous monitoring separate from traditional IT operations. Grant noted that this shift has continued with cybersecurity capabilities and staffing growing significantly across sectors.

Understanding and Manipulating Information in Cyberspace

Increasing Availability of Data and AI Tools

Grant discussed how there is more and more data available now as compared to the past. He also mentioned how AI tools allow people to analyze and understand this data in new ways. For example, AI can help determine what information or messages are most likely to resonate with someone based on what is already known about their views and preferences. Grant suggested that the combination of more data and better AI-enabled analysis means information can be tailored and targeted to individuals in new ways, for good or bad purposes.

Delivering Messages That Resonate With Individuals, Regardless of Truth

Building on the availability of data and AI tools, Grant noted how messages can now be crafted in a customized way for each person. He said that tools allow understanding of what is believable to each individual. Then messages can be created that align with existing beliefs and preferences, regardless of whether the messages are factually true. Grant gave the example that false information could potentially be spread this way if the content resonates with what someone already thinks.

Society’s Acceptance of Divisive and Blunt Opinions

Grant suggested that technology capabilities enabling tailored messaging are emerging alongside the increased societal acceptance of divisive, controversial and blunt opinions being shared publicly. He noted that norms seem to have changed from when there were more things people didn't express out loud. Grant proposed that this societal shift combined with technological capabilities that can take advantage of divisions creates risks in terms of information manipulation.

About Our Guest

Grant Schneider’s entire 30-year career has focused on our nation’s security. Grant spent more than 20 years at the Defense Intelligence Agency, seven of which he served as the CIO. He then spent six years in the Executive Office of the President during the Obama and Trump administrations, focused on all aspects of federal and critical infrastructure cybersecurity. During that time, he served as a Senior Director for Cybersecurity Policy on the National Security Council staff and most recently as the Federal CISO. For the past three years, Grant has served as Senior Director of Cybersecurity Services at Venable, helping companies from across all sectors enhance their cybersecurity programs through the development and implementation of risk management programs as well as assisting with the preparation, response, and recovery from various cyber incidents, including ransomware.

Episode Links

In the first episode of our 3-part Halloween series, Dave Egts, Mulesoft Public Sector Field CTO at Salesforce, details what's scaring the public sector most and how Salesforce is utilizing - and securing - AI to improve customer experience with their Einstein Trust Layer. Additionally, Carolyn and Dave dive into the spooky worlds of brain cell chips, mind-reading AI and more.

Key Topics

Quotable Quotes

Considerations for the Public Sector While Using AI: "As you're going on your AI journey, you've got to be looking at the EULA [End User License Agreement] and making sure that, okay, if I give you data, what are you going to do with it?"

On Bias & Disinformation in Generative AI: "There were some previous studies that show that people are more likely to go with the generative AI results if they trust the company and they trust the model. So it's like, 'Oh, it came from Google, so how can that be wrong?' Or 'I'm trusting the brand,' or 'I'm trusting the model.'"

About Our Guest

David Egts is MuleSoft’s first-ever Public Sector field CTO. Outside of MuleSoft, David is the founding co-chair of the WashingtonExec CTO Council, where he advises numerous companies on working with the public sector. David has received numerous industry-wide recognitions, including as an FCW Federal 100 winner, a FedScoop 50 Industry Leadership awardee and one of WashingtonExec’s Top Cloud Executives to Watch. He has won multiple employee honors from Red Hat, Silicon Graphics and Concurrent Technologies Corporation.

Episode Links

Dave & Gunnar Show Episodes

Additional Links

In this So What? episode, Jon Pelson, author of the best-selling book "Wireless Wars," discusses China’s impact on the telecommunications space. He also shares the frightening security concerns around Chinese components in 5G networks and discusses why the FCC's ban on these components may not be enough.

Key Topics

Quotable Quotes

On Huawei's Tower Placement: "Our nuclear missile bases, our special operations command at the nuclear sub base are all served by Huawei cell equipment." I said, 'That's impossible. They have like 0.1% market share. How could they have every nuclear missile site?' I started looking into it. The reason I called the book 'Wireless Wars' is because it's a war that's being fought through what appears to be business means. This is not business." -Jon Pelson

On Why We Should Protect Data:"People say, 'I have nothing to hide.' Especially the younger generation says, 'Look, my privacy, in that regard, is not that important.' I was asked at the end of an interview, 'What would happen if China got control over us the way they're trying to?' I said, 'You don't have to scratch your head and do scenario planning. Look at places where China has control over the population.' -Jon Pelson

About Our Guest

Jon Pelson spent nearly 30 years working as a technology executive, including serving as vice president at Lucent Technologies and chief of convergence strategy for British Telecom. His work with China’s telecom industry during this time led Pelson to write his best-selling book "Wireless Wars" China’s Dangerous Domination of 5G and How We’re Fighting Back."

Episode Links

On this special episode, Willie Hicks and Carolyn Ford discuss the Billington Cybersecurity Summit, as well as insights from panels, led by Willie, on workforce automation and zero trust.

Key Topics

Quotable Quotes

On the Human Factor: "I think this is always the case, that the human's usually going to be the weakest link. We're always the weakest link. But that's why that constant reverification is so critical."

On Generative AI: "We can't fear these things like generative AI. We've got to embrace it. We've got to use it. We've got to figure out how to use it and use it right and use it appropriately. But we have to figure out how to use it because you know who's using it? Our adversaries."

About Our Guest

Willie Hicks is the Public Sector Chief Technologist for Dynatrace. Willie has spent over a decade orchestrating solutions for some of the most complex network environments, from cloud to cloud native applications and microservices. He understands tracking and making sense of systems and data that has grown beyond human ability. Working across engineering and product management to ensure continued growth and speed innovation, he has implemented Artificial Intelligence and automation solutions over hundreds of environments to tame and secure their data.

Episode Links

Sandi Larsen, Vice President, Global Security Solutions at Dynatrace, joins our host Carolyn Ford to share her perspectives on the relationship between zero trust and defense in depth. She also discusses her storied career, leadership and what it's like to be a woman in technology (although she dislikes the term). Additionally, Sandi shares her advice on identifying mentors, finding your voice and battling imposter syndrome.

Key Topics

Quotable Quotes

On Finding Inspiration: “You just can't sleep on these pivotal people in your career whether they're ahead of you or beside you or even behind you, I’ve been inspired by people that I am mentoring.”

On Having Mentors: “Find mentors, they are just invaluable and will be throughout your whole entire career, no matter what stage you're in. At the beginning, at the middle, later in your career, they will always be indispensable for you.”

On Using Your Voice: “Speak up. Just have a voice. And if that voice in your head is planting doubt, don't listen to it. If it's coaching you on what to say and what not to say, and being wise about that, listen to that. But if it's planting seeds of doubt, you've got to you have to push it aside. And you have to take that step. Because if you don't, you might be missing out on the next best thing.”

About Our Guest

Sandi Larsen currently serves as the Vice President of Global Security at Dynatrace. Prior to joining Dynatrace in November 2020, Sandi held various positions, including sales and systems engineering roles in cybersecurity and financial services organizations.

Episode Links

Tom Billington, CEO of Billington CyberSecurity and Producer of the Billington CyberSecurity Summit, joins Carolyn and co-host Mark Senell to discuss the upcoming 14th Annual Billington CyberSecurity Summit, what goes into creating a valuable community for both the government and the commercial sector, and the important topics that will be the basis for this year's conference.

Key Topics

Quotable Quotes

On Founding Billington Cybersecurity Summit:"I really started this business to be distinctly patriotic, to provide a serious dialogue in a way that I felt wasn't really being done at that time...So breaking into the federal cybersecurity community, to be honest, was hard as an entrepreneur. We had to build trusted relationship after trusted relationship. Over the course of 14 years, it's become decidedly easier now, now that we have had the privilege of having those trusted relationships."

On Zero Trust: "Many of the areas that zero trust encompasses have been around since the profession has existed in cybersecurity. But at no other time has the U.S. government proclaimed the importance of this overarching field as it has in the last few years. So it becomes important for the government. It becomes important for the industry leaders who serve them."

On International Cyber Collaboration:"So it's not just the U.S. team sport. It's an international team sport. The partnership with our international allies is crucially important."

About Our Guest

Before launching his company in 2010, Tom Billington spent nearly two decades producing hundreds of events, publications and articles for four of the world’s leading media companies: Reader’s Digest, Phillips Business Information, BNA (now Bloomberg BNA) and Thomson Reuters. Now, Tom is the CEO and Founder of Billington CyberSecurity, a leading independent education company founded in 2010 with an exclusive focus on cybersecurity education. Every year, he hosts the Billington Cybersecurity Summit, which is known as the world's leading government summit on cybersecurity with the unique educational mission of convening the who's who in cybersecurity: the senior leadership from the U.S. government, our allied partners, and their industry and academic partners.

Episode Links

Ann Dunkin, Chief Information Officer (CIO) at the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), joins Carolyn and guest host Willie Hicks to discuss the National Cybersecurity Strategy and what it takes to secure a large agency like the DOE, as well as how agencies balance cybersecurity compliance and risk management. She also highlights the DOE's role in the Partnership for Transatlantic Energy and Climate Cooperation (P-TECCC) and the agency's relationship with its industry partners.

Key Topics

Quotable Quotes

On the Collective Defense: "The principles of collective defense, which underlie the cybersecurity strategy are incredibly important. That concept that we can't individually be safe, we have to work together. Once upon a time, you'd say, oh, if my cybersecurity's better than the guy down the street, they'll go down the street and forget about me. And we just can't do that. We're too interconnected. There's too much work we do together. There's too many interconnections between our systems. We absolutely positively have to develop that collective defense. In addition, part of that collective defense is ensuring that the burden of defense falls to those most able to deliver on that." - Ann Dunkin

On balancing risk vs. compliance: "The reality is we can't do all the compliance. And so we absolutely have to look at risk to prioritize it. But I would argue that you should always look at your risk and balance that against your compliance exercises. Because number one, if you do all the compliance and then you start risk mitigation, you may be missing something big. But number two, because you probably don't have enough money to do all the compliance anyway." - Ann Dunkin

On workforce development: "I firmly believe that we need pathways to move people in between the private and public sectors. And we need to make it easier for people to cycle between those places over the course of their career to leave government, to come back to government and to learn from each other. And also for the government through DOE and through other places to help build a workforce within the government that looks like America. And then to help the rest of America grow their workforce capabilities." - Ann Dunkin

About Our Guest

Ann Dunkin serves as the Chief Information Officer at the U.S. Department of Energy, where she manages the Department’s information technology (IT) portfolio and modernization; oversees the Department’s cybersecurity efforts; leads technology innovation and digital transformation; and enables collaboration across the Department. Ms. Dunkin is a published author, most recently of the book Industrial Digital Transformation.

Episode Links

Dr. Aaron Drew, Technical Director for the Supply Chain Management (SCM) Product Line at the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Office of Information and Technology, joins Carolyn to discuss the challenges of supply chain, modernization and risk management. Dr. Drew outlines the steps an organization can take to modernize and maximize applications for end users as well as capitalize on data analytics to better prepare our nation for times of need.

Key Topics

Quotable Quotes

On identifying a need for a new tool:"If the tools you had before don't address that shift [in business], that change of dynamics, then that's when we have this gap. That's that delta between how you did business then and how I expect to do business tomorrow that will signify or call that ignition of this solution acquisition process." - Dr. Aaron Drew

On understanding user needs:"Either you are meeting them [users] where they are, which is very important, or you've lived it, which allows you to relate and commiserate with those who are working across a day-to-day basis, that's what's going to bring you organically to the problem. That's going to allow both parties then to own the solution."- Dr. Aaron Drew

About Our Guest

Dr. Aaron J. Drew is the Technical Director for the Supply Chain Management (SCM) Product Line at the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. Previously, Dr. Drew simultaneously served as the Chief Engineer & Chief Architect for the Financial Management Business Transformation Special Program Office (FMBT-SPO) and the Chief Engineer & Chief Architect for the Supply Chain Modernization Program. 

Episode Links

Tracy Bannon, Senior Principal/Software Architect & DevOps Advisor at MITRE, returns to Tech Transforms for our So Whatsegment to discuss all things generative AI. Following Tracy's presentation at the RSA Conference 2023, she and Carolyn discuss everything from software development lifecycle to the potential that various AI models may have.

Key Topics

Quotable Quotes

Definition of generative AI:"Generative AI is under the umbrella of large language models. And a large language model is just that. It is a model where vast amounts of text data have been fed in and it uses statistical analysis to figure out the likelihood that words or phrases go together." - Tracy Bannon

On generative AI models: "It's only as good as the information that's going in, garbage in, garbage out."- Tracy Bannon

Generative AI advice:''Know that we have to really get focused on the ethics of using these tools. Know that there are big security risks, but get familiar. Get familiar. It isn't going to take your job today. It is going to augment many jobs, but it's not going to take them completely away."- Tracy Bannon

About Our Guest

Tracy Bannon is a Senior Principal with MITRE Lab's Advanced Software Innovation Center. She is an accomplished software architect, engineer and DevSecOps advisor having worked across commercial and government clients. She thrives on understanding complex problems and working to deliver mission/business value at the speed. She’s passionate about mentoring and training, and enjoys community and knowledge building with teams, clients and the next generation. Tracy is a long-time advocate for diversity in technology, helping to narrow the gaps as a mentor, sponsor, volunteer and friend.

Episode Links

Alan Gross, Solutions Architect & Tech Lead at Sandia National Laboratories, joins Carolyn to talk about how DevOps is being leveraged to support the Department of Energy's contractor operated research lab. Alan dives into some of the initiatives at Sandia National Laboratories, and how he is applying his personal philosophy around user experience ops, or "UX Ops," to support the mission.

Key Topics

Quotable Quotes

Alan on DevOps: "DevOps is about trying to deliver quickly and learn from your mistakes as fast as you can. So shifting left is part of that philosophy. If you have security issues with your software, you want to know about that as quickly as possible, because if you've already deployed to production, it's almost too late." - Alan Gross

On what advice Alan would give to new developers:"It's about failing fast and failing forward...How quickly can you learn new things, get new code and new products out in front of your users, and understand how they engaged with that." - Alan Gross

About Our Guest

Alan works as a full stack developer and technical lead at Sandia National Labs, with six years of experience in web technologies development. He develops within Python, Angular and .NET ecosystems, with a focus on enabling the developer experience at Sandia with novel solutions for the labs’ diverse development, software governance, security and business intelligence needs. Alan leads a team that is committed to reducing technical debt by emphasizing DevSecOps, modern application architecture (such as microservices) and data-driven outcomes.

Episode Links

Paul Scharre, Vice President and Director of Studies, at Center for a New American Security (CNAS), joins Carolyn and Mark to dive into his newest book, Four Battlegrounds: Power in the Age of Artificial Intelligence. From the first time he recognized the power AI could hold, to the ways AI may put us on a path to global peace, Paul offers valuable insight and perspective on the field of artificial intelligence and machine learning.

Key Topics

Quotable Quotes

On Paul's main focus when working at the Pentagon:"How can we use robotics to help create more distance between our service members and threats?" - Paul Scharre

Role of humans in AI:"Having data and computing hardware, having chips alone, doesn't get you to some meaningful AI tool. You also need the human talent" - Paul Scharre

On adversary AI advancement:"Fundamentally, both the US and China are going to have access to AI technology, to robust AI ecosystems, big tech companies, startups within each country, and the bigger challenge is going to be: How does the military take this technology, work with its civilian AI scientists, and then translate this into useful military applications?" - Paul Scharre

About Our Guest

Paul Scharre is the Vice President and Director of Studies at the Center for a New American Security. Prior to this role and becoming an award-winning author, Scharre worked in the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) where he played a leading role in establishing policies on unmanned and autonomous systems and emerging weapons technologies. He led the Department of Defense (DoD) working group that drafted DoD Directive 3000.09, establishing the department’s policies on autonomy in weapon systems. He also led DoD efforts to establish policies on intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance programs and directed energy technologies.

Episode Links

This week, Michael Edenzon, Co-Founder of Fianu Labs, joins Tech Transforms to talk about why automated governance is so critical to mission success. Michael also provides some great insight into his recently co-authored book Investments Unlimited.

Key Topics

Quotable Quotes

On what counts as evidence in the context of software governance:"Our real focus in that regard is trying to get people to realize that evidence isn't just this random metadata that's captured from here and there, but instead it's going through all of the enrichment and providing all of the context that's necessary for an auditor to come and reproduce those results that you're using to base your enforcement off of." - Michael Edenzon

On how automated governance relates to Authority to Operate:"It [automated governance] is a method for achieving the ATO. So it can accelerate your ATO process and it can help you reach it faster, but what automated governance really is, is a means of achieving continuous ATO." - Michael Edenzon

About Our Guest

Michael Edenzon is a senior IT leader and engineer that modernizes and disrupts the technical landscape for highly-regulated organizations. Michael provides technical design, decisioning, and solutioning across complex verticals and leverages continuous learning practices to drive organizational change. He is a fervent advocate for the developer experience and believes that enablement-focused automation is the key to building compliant software at scale.

Episode Links

In this episode of Tech Transforms, Nihal Krishan, tech reporter at FedScoop, discusses how and where the American government is lagging behind in technology, but there is a focus on modernization to improve the situation. We also talk about the need for comprehensive data privacy legislation and how budget caps may impact government agencies' modernization initiatives. Additionally, we explore concerns surrounding TikTok's ownership and data privacy, as well as the addiction and potentially harmful effects of the platform. We also touch on the importance of respecting sources as a journalist and provide a few podcast recommendations. Finally, we look at the challenges in understanding algorithms used by TikTok and how they could be used to promote divisive content. Join us to learn about these transformative topics in the tech world!

Introducing Our Guest, Nihal Krishan

Nihal Krishan is a journalist who has covered the controversies surrounding TikTok. He highlights the privacy violations committed by the company when it accessed journalists' personal information to control their narrative. Krishan also acknowledges the legitimate fears surrounding the app since TikTok's parent company is based in China. However, he notes that there is no objective evidence of the Chinese government misusing American data obtained through TikTok. He raises the question of whether American social media companies are any better at safeguarding data than TikTok. Krishan argues that the debate over TikTok highlights the need for data privacy legislation in Congress.

Key Topics:

Episode Highlights:

Quotable Quotes From Nihal Krishan

TikTok and the potential for social media manipulation:"If we allow this to go forth unchecked, it could reach a point where TikTok just continues to get more and more popular. And then they start sowing seeds of discord." — Nihal Krishan

"The Addictive Power of TikTok":"It is highly, highly addictive... hours, days, years, it just gets better and better at giving you exactly that little delicious treat that makes your mind go gaga with pleasure or go dark with fear and play at the human mind." — Nihal Krishan

The Importance of IT Modernization in Government:"I think it's important to remember that from the industry's perspective and for many Americans, the American government is still severely lagging behind when it comes to technology." — Nihal Krishan

Nihal Krishan, Tech Reporter at FedScoop joins Carolyn for a special two-part episode to talk about some of the hottest topics in government tech. In Part 1, Nihal gives some eye-opening insight on all things ChatGPT including security, privacy, and national bans.

Episode Table of Contents

Episode Links and Resources

Col. Candice Frost, JIOC Commander at United States Cyber Command joins Carolyn and Mark to talk about her journey as a lifelong-learner, and how she is applying her skills to the innovative work at Cyber Command. From the importance of public-private partnerships, to teaching our kids healthy cyber security habits, Col. Frost offers her valuable insights on how we can all think innovatively and better secure our nation.

Episode Table of Contents

Episode Links and Resources

Commander Jonathan White, Cloud and Data Branch Chief at the United States Coast Guard joins Carolyn and Mark to talk about the groundbreaking developments his team is doing with C5I. Commander White stresses the importance of public-private partnerships, and gives tips on how agencies can better approach the future of technology.

Episode Table of Contents

Episode Links and Resources

Stephen Magill, Vice President, Product Innovation at Sonatype dives into the complexities of open source and software security. Find out how government agencies are utilizing open source, and what Sonatype is doing to help secure our most trusted software.

Episode Table of Contents

Episode Links and Resources

Billy Mitchell, Editor-in-Chief at FedScoop joins Carolyn to discuss surveillance, national intelligence, the benefit of partnerships, and more. Billy gives his perspective on today's hot topics in federal technology, and what he thinks may be coming next.

Episode Table of Contents

Episode Links and Resources

Dan McCune, Deputy Chief Information Officer at U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs joins Carolyn and Mark to discuss the transformative work happening at the VA. With millions of end users, Dan explains how his dedicated teams are working to make the VA better, faster, and safer for our veterans.

Episode Table of Contents

Episode Links and Resources

Dimitris Perdikou, Head of Engineering at the UK Home Office, Migration and Borders joins Carolyn and Mark to discuss the innovative undertakings of one of the largest and most successful cloud platforms in the UK. With over 3,000 technical users, and millions of end users, Dimitris sheds some light on his experience with SRE, User Experience, and Service Monitoring.

Episode Table of Contents

Episode Links and Resources

Jamie Holcombe, Chief Information Officer at USPTO joins Carolyn and special guest host Willie Hicks to talk about Zero Trust, PMO, encryption and more. Listen in to learn about the innovative steps USPTO has taken to develop New Ways of Working.

Episode Table of Contents

Episode Links and Resources

Willie Hicks, Dynatrace’s Federal Chief Technologist recently appeared on the Federal Tech Podcast. It is such a great interview we wanted to make sure our Tech Transforms audience got to listen. Enjoy this crossover episode with Federal Tech Podcast!

Episode Links and Resources

Ep. 42 Vulnerability Management for Federal Systems

Federal Tech Podcast

Willie Hicks

Nicolas Chaillan joins Carolyn and Tracy to shed some light on his experience in the Air Force and gives his thoughts on government movement in the past year. Nicolas talks about the importance of social media privacy and protection.

Episode Table of Contents

Episode Links and Resources

John Curran, Executive Editor at MeriTalk joins Carolyn to discuss 2022 technology trends and shares his predictions for federal technology in 2023.

Episode Table of Contents

Episode Links and Resources

Andrey Zhuk, Federal Security Architect at CTG joins Tech Transforms to unpack the topic every agency is talking about: cybersecurity mandates. Listen in to learn more about Andrey's recent eBook breaking down who mandates affect, why they are important, and how agencies can successfully meet requirements.

Episode Table of Contents

Episode Links and Resources

Duong Hang, Deputy Director at the Department of Defense Platform One joins Tech Transforms to address a topic that's been circulating recent headlines: Psychological Safety. Listen live as Carolyn and Tracy learn how agencies and organizations can implement psychological safety to improve retention and operations.

Episode Table of Contents

Episode Links and Resources

Paul Puckett, Director of the Army’s Enterprise Cloud Management Agency joins Tech Transforms to shed some light on one of government technology's most used buzzwords: Zero Trust. Listen in as Carolyn and Tracy learn what it really means to remove implicit trust and how agencies are prioritizing user experience and data protection.

Episode Table of Contents

Episode Links and Resources

Ross Wilkers, Senior Staff Reporter at Washington Technology talks to Carolyn and Mark about some of the hottest topics in government technology news. With insight on the 2023 Defense Funding Bill, government contracting and Alliant 3, Ross provides a unique perspective on what defense IT teams may see in the coming months.

Episode Table of Contents

Episode Links and Resources

Amy Belcher, Independent Software Vender Sales and Go To Market Leader at Amazon Web Services joins Tech Transforms to talk about her team's mission to satisfy compliance for agencies across the globe. With speed to deployment, flexibility and security, Amy and her team support organizations maximizing local control and global reach.

Episode Table of Contents

Episode Links and Resources

Colin Demarest, Defense Networks and Cyber Reporter at C4ISRNET joins Tech Transforms to talk about some of his recent articles focused on 5G, aerial networks, and upcoming Capability Sets. Listen in as Carolyn and Mark learn about the ever-evolving field of defense and what emerging technology can do to support the mission.

Episode Table of Contents

Episode Links and Resources

Daniel Chenok, Executive Director at IBM Center for The Business of Government joins Carolyn and Mark to talk about the importance of AI in the field. From democratizing data to improving office operations, application research is a key component for any government agency looking to integrate artificial intelligence into their mission.

Episode Table of Contents

Episode Links and Resources

Rick Stewart, Chief Software Technologist at DLT Solutions joins Tech Transforms to give insight on Open Source, Platform One, and DORA initiatives. Listen in as Carolyn and Mark learn about the importance of focusing on the right metrics when managing security bottlenecks.

Episode Table of Contents

Episode Links and Resources

Old Ways of Doing Things

Carolyn: Today, we get to talk to Rick Stewart, a good friend. Rick Stewart is a Chief Software Technologist at DLT for more than 34 years. Do you really want me to tell people that Rick? That makes you sound super old?

Rick: No, it has some relation to the old way of doing things, traditional ways.

Carolyn: He knows the old stuff and the new stuff with 34 years of diverse experience in the IT industry. He’s progressing through technical and leadership roles in telecommunications, mobile entertainment, the federal government, and the manufacturing industries. Today, Rick is joining us to talk about DevOps research and assessments, or DORA, a term that is new to me. He’ll also talk about the four key metrics for increasing efficiency and delivering service. He will discuss how Platform One has advanced the cultural transformation to DevOps.

Mark: Welcome Rick. By the way, Rick started this when he was six.

Carolyn: That's right. I'm going, to be honest. I've been in the industry for a while, and I have never heard the term DORA. DevOps Research and Assessments make sense. I just haven't heard the acronym. They have four key metrics for increasing efficiency in delivering service. Those metrics are deployment frequency, lead time for changes, change failure rate, and time to restore to service. Will you unpack those for us?

Rick: It's interesting that you say that because I attend several different events and conferences where we have, especially in the public sector, astute people that have lots of experience.

Security Metrics As a First-Class Citizen

Rick: They're on this journey of DevOps or in the public sector. It's more DevSecOps, bringing security up as a first-class citizen. They were talking about the things that they capture, the journey that they're on, and their improvements. On one of these occasions, DORA was brought up. I think it may be a Q&A panel. It was surprising that a lot of them didn't know what this organization does, especially being so well versed in the cultural transformation, not knowing some of the things to focus on. I thought it was really important to shine a light on.

Carolyn: Is it a federal organization?

Rick: No, it's more of a community-based organization, an industry-based organization. We've got people like Jez Humble and Gene Kim and others that are involved with this. What they do is, they go out and they do surveys of not just the public sector, but the private sector, all organizations globally. They basically give them surveys and they talk about their experience, where they're at in the spectrum of their journey, and what they have discovered through this analysis. It's a really deep, long analysis.

There's a book called Accelerate that was done by Nicole Ferguson. She has a PhD and took lots of painstaking analysis of these organizations and these teams and asked them a series of questions. What it boiled down to is there are a lot of traditional metrics that have been ingrained in the industry that are useful somewhat, becoming less useful over the years, like lines of code when we're talking about mainframe and the complexity and function points, etc. As the industry has changed into more service-oriented or even micro-service-oriented architectures, those types of metrics are less useful.

Development Teams and Operations Teams in Unison

Rick: So, when you're talking about a cultural transformation of getting development teams and operations teams working in unison and collaborating together, these four metrics were decidedly important to focus on in order to strive more towards that collaborative effort. These indicate the ability to deliver software with high quality and the ability to rectify any changes or security vulnerabilities and rectify them quickly. I'll go through each one of them. Deployment frequency is how often an organization successfully releases a product to production. A product in this case could be a service, could be any kind of workload, or an application. There are differences to that.

There's an old saying that says, if something is difficult to do, do it more often and you'll get better at it and it will become less difficult. So this deployment frequency talks to that. You have to measure how many times you're deploying a particular change into production. That way, you can, A, determine your impact, the value you're having on your stakeholders, but also the ability to measure how frequently you can deliver that value.

I'll go back and forth between the private and public sectors. The public sector industry days are very interesting to me. It’s not only because that's the space I'm working in, but more importantly, it crystallized the importance of service delivery and frequency and speed. It was a Navy captain that was giving an industry because they wanted to develop a DevOps prototype. One thing that struck me was I can't wait two weeks while I'm in the middle of the Mediterranean, potentially in a firefight, to get a release, a change to an application that's not working properly.

Focusing on the Right Security Metrics

Rick: That manifested for me the importance of focusing on the right things. You have to look at your frequency and where you're deploying these changes. It’s not just through enhancements and value, but to rectify issues, defects, and security vulnerabilities.

Carolyn: Are you seeing the government agencies embrace these four metrics?

Rick: I think they've embraced a hundred different metrics, but the industry is telling them, just like it's telling them to move towards DevOps or DevSecOps, to focus more on these. Get rid of the 300-page system security procedures, that's a waste of time because you're not getting value.

Carolyn: When you say the industry's telling them, who's industry?

Rick: Industry would be the developers that are in the private sector, that are in the Netflixes, the AWSs, the industry leaders, the Googles. Those that can deploy changes and take advantage of disruptive technology and innovative services quickly. They are recognized as thought leaders in terms of what should be a measurement in terms of measuring teams' productivity when they're on this journey to DevSecOps.

Mark: Are these standards something that the DORA organization came up with? Like you talk about the industry standards, do you know where they're getting the standards from?

Rick: The deployment frequency is standard. It's always been around. You mentioned the 34 years. I've known about deployments ever since I started doing software.

Carolyn: But the DORA organization sounds like it has boiled down to these four most important metrics. You're saying from industries like Netflix, like AWS, Amazon.

Rick: Google.

Carolyn: They've looked at best practices, the metrics that really matter, and DORA said, these are the four that matter most.

Collaboration Across Multiple Teams

Rick: They can link back to the collaboration across multiple teams, which is the essence of DevOps or DevSecOps. Because these teams have different disciplines, they have different priorities, they have different measurements within their own teams, and if you can measure that you're getting better at deploying more frequently, it indicates that you're collaborating more with these teams. You're getting more rapid in terms of moving that thought from code to application to delivery quicker.

Mark: Are there metrics that they've come up with to determine what increasing efficiency means? Or are they kind of like work groups that look at thinking through what an organization might be dealing with?

Rick: Well they're looking really at the number, the sheer metric. And they divide it into four different categories of performance. You have your elite performances, I mentioned like the Netflixes, the Googles, etc. They're deploying multiple times a day, which Mark I'm sure you know in the public sector, multiple times a day, it's like a utopia for a public sector entity. They're usually talking once every six months, once every year.

They better make it successful or else they have to marshal all those resources again. You're talking about time, money, not being able to provide value, those types of things. When you're looking at the measurement of the metric itself, you're trying to categorize it to allow you to move up this hierarchy, if you're a low performer, you're maybe doing it once a week or once a month or once every six months. That's not optimum. How do you move up? You try to increase your ability to deploy faster. What does that mean?

Security Metrics That Need Improvement

Rick: Talk to more groups. Get them into a room. What are the bottlenecks, the areas that need improvement? How do you work together even when you're in a different company? In the public sector, you might have different contractors, and different companies doing various different pieces of this. So it's very important to foster that collaboration so that you can deploy more. That should be the goal. How do I deploy more and faster?

Mark: One of the things that have me thinking is how can organizations strive to get to the next tier of performance in each of these benchmarks?

Rick: Other metrics lead or feed into these four different metrics. For example, your lead time for changes, which is the next metric that they talked about. This is more developer speaking, more technical. When I commit my code saying this has passed all my testing, I've got it through my team. They've looked it over. It's passed all the tests and I've committed that branch or that version of my change onto the main version control. Previously, when you developed a release, a deployment to go to production, everybody, all your developers, would make their changes and be committed to that particular release branch.

That has subsequently changed with this movement towards agile and making things more frequent, smaller deployments where each developer would have their own little branch. Once they finished their little piece of the world and passed all the regression testing, they would commit their code to the branch. Using automation, they would move that change from building the application, through test environments and pre-production, to user's test, getting approval user test, and deploying into production.

Applying More Automation

Rick: Getting that time faster allows you to deploy more frequently. That one feeds into the other. In order to focus on moving up the chain, you need to apply, in my opinion, more automation. These are very repetitive tasks.

If you've ever developed code before or you've ever developed software, it’s the combination of artistry and engineering in a beautiful dance. Because you're trying to be an artist, you're trying to be creative. You're trying to figure out what's the most elegant way to put something together but there are certain engineering tasks that have to be done. If you don't do them, it will bite you in the rear end later on down the line.

That is, constantly test, constantly scan, and constantly do the mundane tasks that allow your code not only to be elegant but to be maintainable. It’s also correct in terms of requirements and hygienic in terms of not introducing vulnerabilities.

Carolyn: But that mundane consistency, you automate all that?

Rick: Yes. If DevOps, DevSecOps is the movement or the journey, automation is the key ingredient to allow you to move faster.

Carolyn: You feel like these four metrics are sufficient but listening to you talk, there are four big rocks. And then there's a whole bunch of metrics that fall underneath each of them.

Rick: Yes. But they should be feeding into increasing your frequency, decreasing your lead time for changes, and making that smaller. Your change fail rate, you want to make that as small as possible. There are ways that you can do this with automation. Then the time to restore service or the mean time to repair, I've heard mean time to restore, mean time to resolve, mean time to remediate.

Catastrophic Failure

Rick: So MTTR, the R is interchangeable, but it means the same thing. The change failure rate is when the DevOps, DevSecOps teams deploy into production. Was that a catastrophic failure such that you had to roll back or remove that change because you're making it worse than what it was before? Speaking of industry, I was in the telecommunications industry. We were doing a lot of white-labeled systems for the wireless industry, all the big ones, the Verizons, the AT&T, etc.

They have very strict procedures on when deployments occur within windows. It's usually between 2:00 AM and 4:00 AM on a Tuesday or a Wednesday, just enough to break up your week and make developers and operations miserable. Between those two times, if there was any failure deploying your new code, no matter how important it was, you back it out. You roll it back and you try again either the next day or the next week or the next window that they had. That gets grueling. What happens if you do have a major catastrophe or a major issue with your system or your new change or your fix? It could take weeks before you can get that out.

Meanwhile, you're not producing any value from enhancements to that application because they stay behind the failed deployment. So you need to reduce that change failure rate, hopefully, to zero and the elite performers do this. They do this with many different methods. One most popular is a blue, green deployment. What they do there is, let's say you have version one of an application and it's running in production. Everything's fine.

Security Metrics to Test Operational Functional Capabilities

Rick: Now you have version two, and you want to enhance it or fix it. You deploy version two alongside your version one deployment. One blue and one green. You can test offline your new version two to ensure that it meets the requirements. It's working properly and it scales all the different operational functional capabilities that it needs to do. Then when you're happy about that, you can switch it over or you can produce a certain amount of traffic to get real traffic to it. So make sure it behaves properly. When it does, you just stop traffic to the old version and put all the traffic to the new version seamlessly with no downtime.

Carolyn: Do developers ever play games in a test environment where they blow it up on purpose so they can see how fast they can restore?

Rick: It should be part of the culture and the methodology that DevOps or DevSecOps teams have. When somebody asked me, I said, "I'm a pessimistic optimist." Meaning I want things to occur properly, but I know Murphy's involved with everything. So, let's test it before we go live because if we don't test it there, it will cause havoc.

Coming from that environment where you get one or two shots, once, twice a week, you want to make sure that you measure twice, cut once. That measure twice is testing in the test environment, and pre-production environment, so that when it gets to production, you're pretty confident that your change will work. It will be resilient enough to maintain production traffic.

A Drift Within the Industry

Rick: One other point I think is a good one, I've always advocated that pre-production environments should mirror production environments. There's been a drift within the industry in terms of developers. Well, I can develop in this environment and I can push it to this environment. It looks slightly different but I'll maintain some changes here and I'll make it work. Then when it goes in production, it might be a third different environment. That's really a fool's errand, that's going to result in a bad experience. Luckily, there's some automation that makes that gap between the differences between production and pre-production a whole lot easier and a whole lot more narrow.

Mark: Speaking of automation, you've talked about this in blogs. You talked about Platform One and how it leverages new technologies and automation. Can you dig into this a little bit? First, tell our listeners what Platform One is.

Rick: Platform One is an innovative Air Force environment that is built on the Kubernetes orchestration and management framework. Now I'll explain that in a second. The second one is that it requires development teams to deliver their services, and even the tools that develop their services, in containers. Containers are, you can think of them as small virtual machines that only have application needs installed in them.

Mark: Like a modular approach.

Rick: Think of it as a widget. From an operational standpoint, they all look like several different widgets. Each one of those widgets could be a completely different language, dependency, structures, etc. inside. But from an operational capability, it is much more efficient because you can deploy these widgets as independent, generic items.

Deploying Security Metrics Using Scheduling Techniques

Rick: You can deploy them using scheduling techniques that make sure that an application's needs are deployed on a host within the Kubernetes environment. It has the appropriate resources to serve that application and enough resources that it can scale if it has too many requests coming to it. It can descale or become less in order to take advantage of resources, etc. But the application itself could be myriad languages or constructs from applications.

It’s really nice in terms of crystallizing or making concrete some of the notions that came out of the agile movement, which was each task that comes across a developer's desk shouldn't always be a Java application per se or pick a language because that's what the operational team can support.

The notion that the best technology should be used for the task at hand really makes a developer's life a lot easier. You can pick maybe a lighter-weight language or an application to create or solve the task. Then deploy it and not worry about the operational risk of not having dependencies or anything that the application needs once it goes further in product pre-production and down into production.

We're talking...

Willie Hicks, CTO of Public Sector at Dynatrace joins Carolyn and Mark to unpack the recent ATARC event: Improving the User Experience in a Zero Trust World. At this federal breakfast summit, sponsored by Dynatrace and Amazon Web Services, we heard from some of the most prominent technology leaders focused on Zero Trust including Nicole Willis, Jamie Holcombe, Mickey Iqbal, and more. Listen in as Mark and Willie give highlights and takeaways from the event. Be sure to follow the link in the show notes to see the full event On-demand!

Episode Table of Contents

Episode Links and Resources

Guest Speakers at the ATARC Event: Improving the User Experience in a Zero Trust World

Carolyn: So today we're reviewing top takeaways from ATARC 's Federal Breakfast Summit, Improving the User Experience in a Zero Trust World. Which those two things, user experience, and zero trust, are kind of a direct conflict for me, but we'll get to that. The conference was sponsored by AWS and Dynatrace, and it's available on-demand for our listeners at ATARC.org. Also, we have Willie Hicks, our Federal Chief Technologist at Dynatrace.

Willie, you were a keynote speaker at the event. I'm too biased to say you were my favorite so I won't say that. I mean, everybody was really good. Jamie was super exciting. Let me just review who our speakers were.

So our keynote speaker around zero trust was Grant Schneider. He brought a really interesting perspective because he's former white house. So he was the senior director of cybersecurity services. So former federal CISO, and now he's in industry at Venable. Then we had our next keynote around the user experience was the very entertaining Jamie Holcomb. He's the CIO at U.S. Patent and Trademark office. And then my favorite, Willie, Federal Chief Technology Officer here at Dynatrace. Then we had a panel that brought the user experience and zero trust together and how we reconcile those two and how they work together. And on that panel, we had Nicole Willis, Chief Technology Officer, OIG, at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Is User Experience Unrelated to Zero Trust?

Carolyn: Jamie came back on the panel. We had Mickey Iqbal, he's the Public Sector Solution Architect and Chief Technologist at Amazon Web Services. Willie on the panel. And then we had our moderator, Tom Suder, who's fantastic. He's been in this business so long that he had a lot of really good insights too.

Now that I've given our listeners the overview of who participated, first of all, I was thrilled to see that we had a packed room. We had a standing room only, and that was really, really nice to see. It was lovely to have people in person and to be able to interact with one another personally.

So, all right, let's get to the first question. Today, Mark, you're less of a co-host. I want to hear your opinions about what your takeaways were from that day. So around the user experience and zero trust, did you have any aha moments? What were your favorite moments? Tell me your feelings about the day.

Mark: Well you know, from my perspective, coming from industry and Dynatrace, I think we think of end-user experience as something different related to zero trust. So we think of it differently.

Carolyn: And at odds with each other.

Mark: Yes. Well, I get the feeling more and more, it's more how the end-user navigates the security protocols and processes to accomplish the end goal. Which is not their problem of zero trust, which would be the agency's problem.

How the End-User Navigates the Security Protocols

Mark: And so the agencies think of end-user experience in that light as opposed to we think of it in a different way as it relates to somewhat the same. But how end users are impacted by their interaction with applications on the internet and things like that. So I guess it's a little bit like that.

Carolyn: Did you get the sense that's how our government thought leaders that were speaking at the summit? Is that how they think of it? Or do you think that's more about how industry and we as end-users think of it?

Mark: I think that's how we think about it. I think they think about it in the former.

Willie: Yes. I definitely agree.

Carolyn: The government leadership. So Willie, talk to me more about that.

Willie: Yes. So I agree. I think it is interesting because I think our panel, and I got to talk to the panel a little bit afterwards as well. I think that Jamie from PTO standpoint and Nicole, just by kind of how they were, not just the keynote, but how we were interacting on the panel, they actually do get it.

For example, I got to have a great conversation with Nicole. It was one of those things where she was kind of talking about the service that she was trying to provide to the citizens. Because a lot of people who use HHS services and so forth, Medicare, Medicaid, those kinds of things, they might be older. They might be having a very difficult process to log into a system, to get access to a system, to get your basic information.

We’re Protecting the System, Not the User Experience

Willie: She seemed very sensitive to that, in understanding that we have to have a better user experience. And I think I got that from Jamie but at the same time, we talked about agencies as a whole and the government as a whole. There is an issue, not just zero trust. But even before this real big push for like Shields Up with CISA and all of the zero trust. We build these systems, we put up our authentication and all the things that we're going to do to protect the system, not really factoring in the customer, not really even thinking about it.

It's about protecting the system. The idea is about the system, not really about the customer, don't really care. We just want to make sure we protect the system.

At the end of it, we might be making the system so difficult that no one can even access it. Nobody wants to take the time, the 45 minutes it takes to set up an ID and jump through all the hurdles to get to an ID. So I think that from a larger standpoint, and just talking on the panel, they admitted that there are a lot of systems out there. A lot of public-facing, citizen-facing systems, and backend systems that need a lot more focus around the customer experience. And again, not just around zero trust, this is just in general about just the basic usability of the system, if that makes sense.

Zero Trust Should Be a User Experience Enabler

Mark: It does, you know, I can't remember if this was in a sidebar conversation after the event or if it was during the event, But they talked about multifactor authentication and how they were almost just forced to take the plunge. And somebody said, "We're just going to do it." At the end of the day, they're like, "Oh, wow. Okay, this word works. It's not that difficult. It's not that tough for end-users."

Carolyn: Well, and do you know what’s funny, is when I hear security, so zero trust is all about security to me as an end-user. And whenever I hear security, that makes me feel a little puke-y. Because I think that means that my experience is going to be really awful as an end-user, to your point, Willie.

However, Willie, you make the argument at the event that zero trust can and should make the end-user, my user experience, better and make the practitioner's experience better. So there's more than one end user. There's the end-user of the systems, then there's me trying to get into the systems, and can you talk a little bit more about that? And did you get the sense that our government speakers feel the same way? That zero trust really should be a user experience enabler?

Willie: Right. So, that's an excellent point. I do agree with that. And I think the panel as a whole agrees with that too.

Again, if you look at the principles, the mindset around zero trust, the mindset around architecture, architecting zero trust framework, it's an all encompassing type of scenario.

Understanding Your Customer’s User Experience

Willie: It's not just like we're buying MFA or you get single sign-on and this, this and this, and you've got zero trust. It's really a whole mindset. I think Nicole actually mentioned this. With everything they do, especially with zero trust, they're thinking about user experience at the beginning of the process.

So things like multifactor authentication as Mark already pointed out. When you have a robust multifactor setup, that is going to actually enable you to make your end user's life easier. Because once they log in, once they validate, whatever those multiple factors that they use to validate that user, once that I can trust you or you, and the device that you are on is a valid device, then now you can have access to this cloud application. Or you can have access to this internal system or that authentication token can be passed around.

There might still be a validation process, but it should be external. You shouldn't see it as the customer. It should all be kind of going on in the background. It's constantly validating you. So I think that idea was there, but also I did counter though, the point that, yes, it should be better. But how do you know it's better if you're not measuring it?

If you don't understand today your customer's user experience, how do you know it's gotten better when we implement these new systems? How do you know it hasn't gotten worse? How do you know that there really isn't a problem? I gave an example as part of my keynote.

Monitoring User Experience

Willie: I didn't mention the agency name, but several months ago I tried to set up a multifactor authentication for a system with some of my personal information on it. This was a government system. And after about 45 minutes of filling out a form, putting in my government ID, waiting for an identifying number to come back on my phone, which never showed up. Trying to go back and reestablish and start it over again.

Literally after 45 minutes and then the system telling me to call this number to try to do this manually. I was like, "I'll just go in and do what I need to do." So again, do I think either this agency that I was working with just didn't know how bad the customer experience was, or they just didn't care. And my hope is that it's just they didn't know.

Mark: I think that's probably it.

Carolyn: I think it might be a little bit of both. Because they have to have the security in place. They have to use those systems too.

Mark: Yes but they're typically technical people..

Carolyn: Yes. So is Willie.

Willie: Well yes, but I love the customer, so I always focus on the customer. No, but seriously, that's the one thing. To your point, it might be a little bit of both that and let me take that back. I know from experience, it probably is a little bit of both in that.

Making the User Experience Easier

Willie: There is this idea that, okay, we have to tolerate some bit of inconvenience to allow us to have a secure system. Now, I think what I went through was the extreme.

Carolyn: Is it?

Willie: Well, and unfortunately it might not be, but at the end of the day, there is this idea, you have to tolerate this thing. But I also made the point during the keynote that industry has solved some of these.

Like if you look at the financial sector, for example. I used the example of trying to set up MFA on this government system versus setting up MFA on my bank account. And when I was forced to do that, obviously they had tested this system 15,000 times. Because when I went in, by the time I was forced to go for my really insecure password and I should have better passwords. But I went from that password to having to set up my MFA, I was thinking it was going to be a long process. The bank was about to put me through this long process. It took me less than 45 seconds. It took me about a minute. Most of that time was me waiting for a response back on my phone.

As soon as that was over, now, literally whenever I log in, I get a text message on my phone. I hit a button, I'm logged into the system. Those kinds of things. And I think Jamie even brought up the point that at some point we need to get away from even multifactor and have more biometrics. It should become even easier like we have a thumbprint reader or something like that.

OMB Is Pushing to Move Too Fast

Carolyn: Yes. But I don't want anybody to kill me for my eyeball so they can break into my system.

Willie: Yes, you've been watching too much Netflix. I think that was that Thor, one of the Marvel movies?

Carolyn: I'm sure it's more than one. So there's an article that cites a study, the article is called How Federal Agencies Can Implement a Secure and User-Friendly Zero Trust Architecture. It states that nearly four out of five federal cybersecurity decision-makers, they know there's an urgency. They want to implement zero trust. However, 87% of them say the white house and the OMB are pushing to move too fast. Mark, I know you have an opinion about this. So talk to me about that pushing to move too fast. Are they? Should they be?

Mark: Yes, they should definitely be pushing. I think that the white house has to push fast because I feel like we're probably five years behind where we should be today to feel comfortable. If they don't push, then you're going to have agencies across the government be at different levels of maturity. They're going to be all over the place.

So you're going to have gaps and things like that. If you leave it up to the agencies to go at their own pace, it's kind of like the concept of, you don't need it to be a hundred percent perfect, but you need it to be 75% perfect. Then we'll work on the remainder of the 25% that's not perfect and get it there.

Done Is Better Than Perfect

Mark: So we have to push. It was almost like the way agencies adjusted when the pandemic hit, they didn't have a choice. And they had to deal with remote workforce. They had to do it. They had to digitally transform and modernize and it made them do things out of their comfort zone that I think that they have to do.

So there needs to be a push. I feel like when you hear experts across the government, talk about this, that it's just got to be a very modular, agile approach to doing it and billing it. So that has technology advances and changes and things change that they can pull things in and out. They can move things around and bring things in that work together and that kind of stuff to get to where they need to be.

Carolyn: Yes. Done is better than perfect because perfect never gets done, is one of my favorite quotes. And you just said something, I was going to ask you and Willi. So we think that the white house should push hard. Yes, they're pushing. If they don't, then we're never going to get started. Then you said something about a modular approach to do this well. So is that the sense that we got from our speakers at the summit, is that one of the solutions that we heard from them?

Willie: So I'm thinking, and the modular approach or what I took away from the conversation and also with what Mark was saying. I think it was Jamie who has kind of taken this approach of, we need to use kind of agile development methodologies in this process.

Minimum Viable Security

Willie: In the agile mindset, there's this idea of the MVP, the minimum viable product. This is really something that we see a lot of an industry, kind of getting that minimum built product out there to get into the market. Then start iterating through functionality and fixes and so forth as you find them and improve the product rapidly. Rapid improvement of the product.

I think what Jamie was kind of alluding to was this idea of minimum viable security, where you've got to start somewhere. We can't just plan and nothing ever gets done. But get the minimum viable out there and then start iterating through basically building that framework with a more agile type process. Also this would impact the end-user.

We talked about customer experience. Learning from these first iterations, what worked, what didn't work, how do we make it better? Obviously, you have to make it secure enough. You don't want to just leave the gates open. You don't want to put something out there that is insecure. But we're never going to reach a point where it's just Nirvana, everything's in place. Everything's secure. Nobody's ever going to get into our systems because that's just fallacy.

I mean, this is an arms race. As soon as we find some way to, secure a system, there are hundreds and thousands of hackers out there. State-sponsored ones, people living in their basements, whatever, all trying to break into these systems. So it's just kind of back and forth. So we've got to constantly iterate. We've got to constantly build on what's worked in the past and what didn't work in the past. That's kind of what I took away.

How to Ensure Zero Trust Does Not Disrupt the Employee User Experience

Mark: I think those are two things that work against each other. Because I have to imagine there's a tremendous amount of pressure on your average federal government agency, CIO and CSO, to do it right, to plan and make sure it's right. Because some of these agencies, they don't have room for error. We've heard this, not just on the panel at the event, but we've heard this from past podcast guests that some of these agencies, they can't fail. The attacker keeps coming at them and they have no margin for error.

Carolyn: But isn't that why we do like sandboxing and we set up staging servers and we run the scenarios? Let's fail and fail fast and do it in a safe environment that's not out in the wild. We've addressed this a little bit, but what are the steps to take to ensure that zero trust does not disrupt the employee user experience?

Willie: My personal take on it. This is kind of what I talked about in my keynote.

First of all, you've got to measure, you've got to observe, you've got to know what your experience is. So observation and testing. Something we are notoriously bad at unfortunately, and we've seen this time and time again where we don't do sufficient testing of a new product, to the user experience. Like if I'm implementing a new authentication system, whatever it might be, test it, have simulations run quality checks....

This week, Carolyn is joined again by Bob Stevens, AVP Public Sector at GitLab, this time to talk about the power of hyperautomation. Listen in as Carolyn learns what can be gained through fast, accurate application security.

Episode Table of Contents

Episode Links and Resources

What is Hyperautomation

Carolyn: I'm excited to welcome back Bob Stevens, Area Vice President of Public Sector at GitLab. Bob is a seasoned veteran in public sector technology with over 36 years of experience.

As the AVP at GitLab, he is responsible for helping government organizations become more productive, efficient, and effective. Bob has experience on both the industry and the government side of things. Prior to industry, he served in the United States Air Force as a computer specialist at the White House Communications Agency.

Today, we are going to talk about artificial intelligence, machine learning, and what hyperautomation is exactly. Why Bob thinks it will be 2022's biggest trend. Bob, welcome back to Tech Transforms.

Bob: I'm happy to be here. Thank you. Appreciate it.

Carolyn: I'd like to talk about an episode that you just did with GovExec Daily. And on this episode, you mentioned that hyperautomation will be 2022's biggest trend. I'm going to be honest. I haven't really heard hyperautomation. And I get automation. I can deduce what hyperautomation is, but I would love for you to explain it to me. What's the difference between automation, hyperautomation, DevOps, all of that?

Bob: Yes, I mean, it's the strict definition of the word.

It's rapidly identifying, vetting in automated processes in order to produce whatever it is that you're working on as fast as you possibly can. And it trends today because if you think about the government space, they have a lot of compliance issues that they need to deal with.

The Benefits of Hyperautomation

Bob: If they can automate those compliance processes and ensure that when they build software, in the end it's going to be compliant and they don't have to go back and vet it. I mean, that's going to save them a world of time.

Carolyn: Are you talking about missed compliances, automating some of those missed controls? There's 300 of them, I think.

Bob: Yes, those. I think you're talking about FedRAMP.

Carolyn: Yes. One of. Or authority to operate has all of those. Right? I mean, I don't know all the details.

Bob: Yes, no. There's the STIGs. That the government has to put all software through and that's all about compliance. The government has to get the authority to operate, ATOs, for everything that they run.

Carolyn: And renew them every two or three years.

Bob: Or sooner. It depends on how much of a change occurred in the application. If you can hyperautomate all of that by the use of AI or machine learning. Again, and so by the time you produced that software, all those compliance issues are addressed. You know they're addressed because you've got confidence in the system and the way that it was done. It didn't require as little human intervention as possible, which is unfortunately, where some mistakes are injected.

Then you've saved a world of time and you've made life really, really easy for the folks that are doing the development. As well as the folks that are using the applications in the end. Because they don't have to sit and wait to get the authority to operate, which sometimes can take a year.

The Bad News: We Haven’t Tried Hyperautomation

Carolyn: Is the differentiator between automation, DevOps, and hyperautomation really adding in, automating those compliances? And are you telling me that that hasn't happened before now?

Bob: Unfortunately, it has not happened. I mean, that's evident by the fact that the government still has to produce ATOs and they still are doing STIGs at the end of the development cycle. Unfortunately, it hasn't happened.

I think the government will embrace it and has started to embrace it. And therefore, will embrace hyperautomation, otherwise referred to as DevOps automation. Because it's really during the DevOps process that all that automation occurs. But it is going to continue to have focus.

Compliance is just one area. Security is another one. If I can ensure that when I'm done with my software development, it's free of vulnerability or known vulnerabilities. Then again, the developers can help the security folks be more supportive of those applications and getting them out to users faster, rather than having to put them through some other processes or manual processes in the end. Hyperautomation, it's not going to go anywhere. It's only going to build and become more important for everybody.

Carolyn: What's made it a thing now? First, my head's still spinning that we haven't automated a lot of these controls. But what's made it a thing now? Are there new tools coming online or did somebody just go, "Oh, you know what would be a good idea?"

Bob: It's a combination of both. It's the collision of DevOps with compliance built-in. Just having the ability to do that. This gets back to what we spoke about last time, which is the building of a platform, where all 10 aspects of the development life cycle are incorporated into one platform.

Misconceptions About How Hyperautomation Can Be Used

Bob: And now I can start to include things, like ensuring that code is vulnerability-free when it's complete. Ensuring that I've met all compliance requirements during the process, rather than waiting till the end and doing all the tests. It's a combination of both. It's new tools, new capabilities, as well as the fact that somebody said, "Hey, wouldn't it be a great idea to combine these?"

Carolyn: Yes. Right. Why haven't we been doing this in like forever? Are there any misconceptions about how hyperautomation can be used?

Bob: Well, I'd love to say that it's going to be the end-all, be all for everything, but it's not. It never is. And they'll always require some manual intervention at some point or some additional thought that needs to be required. But that just means we get to continue to iterate on it, which is part of the GitLab culture. We put things out in small batches and then we iterate them in order to get them closer to perfection. Rather than wait for perfection before we introduce whatever it is that we're working on.

Carolyn: I think you already kind of answered this, but is there a point where DevOps and hyperautomation overlap? Are they kind of the same thing? Are they two sites? How do they work together?

Bob: Yes. I think there's overlap, which is why I was saying that it's also referred to as DevOps automation.

Carolyn: Yes. It is the same thing, kind of?

Bob: Yes.

Carolyn: Okay. You did the interview just this February of 2022 with GovExec Daily. Do you think much has changed in hyperautomation, just even in the last two to three months?

What Has Changed in Hyperautomation

Bob: I think it has. I can tell you just from a GitLab perspective, you can now use our tool for some of those compliance, automated compliance processes that we talked about.

Carolyn: What kind of lift is that to get, for example, GitLab to make it so the government will accept that automation?

Bob: Yes. That's a good question. You know what? I have not been through that process yet.

Carolyn: But I would imagine you got to do an ATO kind of process on the automation side, so the government can accept it. Right?

Bob: Yes, no, that's true. I mean, they take our software and put it through the ATO process. What tool could you use to put ours through that would give us an ATO in the end? It's to your stacking tools, upon tools, upon tools.

Carolyn: Yes. Or maybe it's just eyeballs on it saying, "Yes, this works."

Bob: Yes. Again, back to our culture. I mean, transparency is key and we're going to be 100% transparent with the government or any entity that uses our technology. And we're going to show them exactly what's happening under the covers so that they're fully aware and can make their assessments.

I already know the government is embracing. Just as an example. I mean, they're required to produce a software bill of materials in the end. Because a developer can pull libraries from anywhere, it's important to build that software bill of materials in order to assure compliance. Well, our tool will build it for you.

AI and Machine Learning’s Part in Hyperautomation

Bob: We'll tell you where all those libraries were pulled from and produce the list. So that you don't have to go back or keep track or do some sort of manual process. I can tell you the government has embraced that. I mean, they want that to be an automated process. They don't want somebody going back through what could be hundreds of thousands of lines of code to figure out where did it actually come from?

Carolyn: Yes. I mean, talk about a security risk, to not know everything that was involved in building it. And then I would imagine, if you've got a tool that builds your SBOM, it's got to be aware as things get updated. The next version of the software, that's part of it.

Bob: Yes. I mean, that's where AI and machine learning really play a major part. Because you're right. We've got to know about every library that can be discovered out there and was written.

Carolyn: My chief technologist, Willie Hicks, likes to correct me when I interchange machine learning and AI. Is one used as part of this process more than the other? Do they both have their place? Because you've mentioned both, machine learning and AI.

Bob: Yes. I mention them because they're part of hyperautomation. I'm not going to tell you I'm an expert on either one of them. And of course, they can often have different definitions or be used interchangeably. I think to answer your question, I'm going to say it depends. Depends on who you're talking to at that particular time.

Blink

Carolyn: That makes sense. Well, we are coming up against time again. I'm going to thank you for your time. But before I let you go, I want to throw some more tech talk questions at you. I won't give you the same tech talk questions that we did last time. Let's go with books. Who was the author that you mentioned last time?

Bob: James Patterson.

Carolyn: Okay. Do you like Tom Clancy too? Sorry. He makes me think of Tom Clancy.

Bob: I have read Tom Clancy. Honestly, he uses too many words, so I don't read.

Carolyn: Right? You can skip a whole chapter and not miss the story. But okay, good. On the same page there. But do you have a favorite genre of books? Is it thriller?

Bob: Well, it is the criminal thrillers. Those are interesting to me because I guess, maybe that's the way my mind works. I'm trying to figure out what the end is long before I get to the end. I think that's what engages me quickly. I also like any leadership book that can help you be better.

Carolyn: Do you have a favorite or some favorites?

Bob: Yes. One of my favorites is Malcolm Gladwell’s Blink. I know people like to go to his Tipping Point, but I think Blink is the best one. Blink is really all about you trusting your gut. Because if you've done something for long enough, you're an expert. Therefore, you should trust your instincts. And I don't think that happens all the time. I think people question themselves and others. And I just think that book does a really good job of leading you towards trusting you.

Intuition

Carolyn: Yes, I agree. I mean, I think that we have an intuition. That intuition gets a bad rap. That it's not knowledge, but it is. It's knowledge that we've built up over the years that I think we can respond to faster than our neat computers that sit on top of our shoulders can compute. We've got that knowledge somewhere that we've gained over the years. And maybe it is even encoded into us through centuries of our ancestors learning to run from the bear.

Bob: Yes. I've heard. For me, it's wisdom. That's what we've gained is wisdom.

Carolyn: Yes. There we go. That's a better word.

Bob: Yes.

We need to trust that wisdom. We also need to impart that wisdom. That's part of our responsibility to our coworkers or our families, friends, whatever, whoever it is that you're engaged with.

Carolyn: Well, great. You've inspired me to go back and revisit Blink because it's been a while. Well, Bob, thanks again for joining us and taking the time to share some insights with our listeners.

Listeners, thanks for joining us. Please be sure to visit the website for the show notes and references that Bob made. We also want to thank our sponsors Dynatrace. Visit dynatrace.com to learn more about how you can literally transform faster, smarter, and easier. Please share and like this episode.

Sara Jones, CEO of InclusionPro joins Carolyn and Mark to talk about all things diversity, equity, and inclusion. Sara explains gaps in authenticity and perception and gives tech leaders everywhere new goals to strive for when it comes to company culture.

Episode Table of Contents

Episode Links and Resources

Why We Always Go Back to Company Culture

Carolyn: Today I am really happy to have Sara Jones with us. Sara's a friend and we've spoken before. Almost all of our guests, even though we're talking about tech, they always go back to culture. We're going to talk about that with Sara today.

Sara Jones is the CEO of InclusionPro. She has over 20 years of experience in technology, business development, law, and leadership. You were a practicing attorney, right Sara?

Sara: For 10 years. I'm still recovering.

Carolyn: So as the CEO of InclusionPro, her mission is to guide leaders in building inclusive company culture that promotes team performance and team innovation. She's written a book recently called Inclusive Leadership and the Authenticity Gap, that we get to talk about today.

Sara: Thank you. And this is a fun opportunity for me to merge my love of technology with diversity, equity, and inclusion. As most folks know, it is pretty hard to do. I've had a couple of decades talking about this, so hopefully, we can share some really great learnings. Most importantly, I think for the folks listening that might be thinking "DEI again."

Carolyn: Which stands for?

Sara: Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion. A lot of things have shifted. I think a lot of folks come to this type of conversation with the old thinking in mind. I'd just like to invite listeners to get rid of what you know. Just be open to hearing some new thoughts around diversity, equity, inclusions, and things that we're able to do now that we weren't able to do even five years ago. That's my little plug for saying, "Open-minded today?"

InclusionPro

Carolyn: That leads really nicely into my first question about being a recovering attorney, your love for tech. What inspired you to create InclusionPro?

Sara: InclusionPro is the end of a long 20-year journey having diversity, equity, inclusion as part of my personal career journey. Now, it may not be part of everyone's and a significant part of that is because I did start in patent law. Having an engineering degree and a law degree, put me in an industry that had only 5% women and people of color. I get a lot of people that are like, "Oh, our industry has no women." I'm like, "Yes, I've been there."

I actually know what it's like. It's not like I came from academia or some area that was just flushed with a lot of diversity. I have lived this and I understand the impacts of it at a very personal level. But I also have been an executive. I know the challenges of being an executive, those operational aspects and how it really works in business.

There's some big misalignments that can happen that we need to talk about when we get to this idea of authenticity. What is the individual need versus the larger organizational needs? Those can be very complex, very hard. I think it's something unique that I've been able to understand over my time. That makes me uniquely positioned to be able to help executives in this journey where most of them haven't been in this conversation.

I think white men are more recently joining the conversation, which is very exciting. But you got a lot of employees saying, "What about social justice? What about this? I'm not seeing this statement. Where's this ERG, where's this, you're not committed."

How Company Culture Makes It Challenging to Be a Leader

Sara: It can be really challenging to be a leader. Being able to frankly, make a full-time living, doing diversity, equity, inclusion, it's not something I could have ever imagined would've happened 20 years ago. Happily, here we are and people are willing to invest the time and energy into doing this. I'm just thrilled that I can do this full-time and bring all that knowledge into the companies.

Mark: I'd really like to understand what you think that means and what we're doing. I was a little confused at first by the use of authentic or authenticity here.

Carolyn: I'm really interested to know what it means for the employee, for us, for me and why it matters to the bottom line for the company. I think a lot of times, that's what creates change. If it helps the bottom line, then we'll do it. I don't know if there's a tie in there.

Sara: What's interesting is that's actually the number one thing that executives want. When I work with an executive team, we actually go through an exercise that asks them, "What is the thing that you most desire out of all of these strategic outcomes?" So think about that. That's not actually a bottom-line conversation.

I, as an executive and a leader, would really like to be able to do this. It’s not because it's what we've always been saying is the right thing to do. We all know that. Let's just move forward past that because people aren't doing it. At the core, what I find is when you get leaders in a space where they can be self reflective, they actually just want to be themselves.

An Angel Double Position

Sara: It's so bizarre, but they want to be humanized too. They want to be able to try, and if they may make a mistake, executives get this kind of spotlight on them. We can debate the word unfair, but they have a spotlight on them. Even if they make a small mistake, people are going to notice and be like, "Those people, they don't get it. How can they be so disconnected?" Et cetera, et cetera. Imagine what that starts to do as leaders are trying to learn.

Let's say you're a white man. You've recently started learning about diversity, equity, inclusion, and you have folks that are expecting you to be perfect at it. That's a lot of pressure for leaders. By the way, I'm not perfect either. So we've created this interesting dynamic, not necessarily recently, but I think for leaders having to be on guard and in this angel double position.

Mark: Maybe more so for publicly traded companies.

Sara: Yes, public, but even private companies. This is any culture where leaders have this pressure.

Carolyn: Even government, I'm thinking about our defense leadership. I feel like they almost can't afford to be authentic.

Sara: That's exactly right. Now you're thinking about the give and take of what I am allowed to say. Do I have the freedom to say? How do you shift that? What happens is when you really curate the words that you say, you actually stop communicating. You stop having conversations with people and say, "If that's the reaction I'm going to get, I'm just not even going to try."

How Human Connection Stops in the Company Culture

Sara: So the learning stops, the engagement stops, the human connection stops in the company culture. That's been the whole problem to begin with. If we would just get together in a room, sit down and be able to have conversations, actually knowing and expecting people to make mistakes. Then how do we help people through that and help each other learn?

By the way, it's not just white men that are going to make mistakes. It's going to be people of color to make assumptions, it's going to be, LGBTQIA identifying people. We're all going to make mistakes because we're all human. We've created this interesting boundary around what's permissible and what's not permissible. It's really slowed down our ability to change culture within leaders or companies.

Now, what I'm not saying is say whatever you want, that's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that authenticity, the goal to reach that is really a journey. It's really like "We're going to help each other. We're going to learn side by side, because I, as the executive, don't know everything. You, as the new employee don't know everything either and it's okay, we're going to help each other out."

Now it's more of a partnered experience rather than what would be considered a top down. The leaders need to model or grassroots because neither works by itself alone. That's an example of the shift that enables more people within an organization to really be more authentic and reduce the misalignments that can help.

Carolyn: Is the authenticity gap more in the leadership or in the employees or everybody?

How Leaders Respond to Employees’ Desire

Sara: I would say it's how leaders respond to employees' desire for more inclusion. There's actually many options available to leaders. If they are not in touch with the way to get that true connection with their employees, they're more likely to create an authenticity gap. They're more likely to have people say, "They're doing it to check the box. They don't really mean it. They're doing it for marketing reasons, but they don't actually believe it." It's that sort of sentiment that you're trying to reduce. There's methods that produce that and there's also methods that create more authenticity.

Carolyn: I absolutely see how being authentic is good for your soul. Is it good for your company?

Sara: Yes. We're in the great resignation period. We have had some pretty rough business experiences. I think executives are just scrambling right now to figure things out. Some are saying, "I can't afford right now to do diversity, equity, inclusion." In my mind, if you're thinking of diversity, equity, inclusion, as something on top of your day job, you're probably thinking about it wrong in the first place.

It's really how we show up, how we make decisions, how we grow the business. It is not about just keeping employees happy. If you're just trying to satiate employees and that's very patronizing and it is felt, they know. They're not dumb. They know when leaders are just doing it to make it seem like they're doing it, but they're not really committed. The teams I work on usually have very genuine interests. I'm actually not working with folks that are just talking the talk. If they're talking the talk, I guarantee they will not hire me.

How to Make an Impact

Sara: That's just a fundamentally easy thing for me as a DEI consultant, to know who's genuinely committed, who wants to do the work, and who's not interested in doing it. My day-to-day is really more focused on those organizations and what they can do to make an impact.

I'm actually seeing the work going on inside of the organization. Some of that's a little bit more invisible to folks on the outside. That's the leadership challenge right there, it’s that communication piece and things like that. I don't necessarily go and approach, and says, "I look at the executive team or boardroom and I'm diversifying now”. You're going to get a lot of backlash."

That's absolutely not my approach. From an executive leadership standpoint, we know how hard it is to keep the ship running. Having a lot of changeover at the top is just not smart. So what is the learning, the growth and cap, and capacity we start to build on the leadership team so they can start to make decisions in a more deep, inclusive way? That's when you're going to start to see the real authenticity happen.

Sometimes it takes a year or two for change to happen. So if we're looking for immediate change, again it is reactive. What I'm trying to do is get folks to move from reactive to intentional. Again, we went from decades of "Let's invite a woman to speak and talk about her gender". How much did that make us mad? We're like, "Oh my gosh, I have a brain. Please let me showcase my talents, not talk about what it's like to be a woman".

A Company Culture Where a Person of Color Can Thrive

Sara: We want the same thing as men. It's not really that different, the things that I want for my career versus what a man wants in his career. So whether that's a person of color or anyone, we've got to get people better at seeing genius in a wider range of forms. That's the learning that leaders have to do. It’s to be able to say, you know, cybersecurity experts, don't just look one way. They don't talk one way or solve a problem one way, they actually solve it in a lot of different ways.

If they don't have that exposure, if they've not worked with a group of diverse thinkers, they're very unlikely. They're much more likely to hire, like if they really want to diversify, somebody based on an optic characteristic rather than an internal skills. It is ultimately the right way to hire whichever anyone wants.

Mark: How do we get more women and minorities involved in STEM early? By the way, getting people involved in STEM early doesn't mean that in a year you're now seeing results. You're probably seeing results a decade later. Something that I'm struggling with, as our company at Dynatrace grow, we are looking for diverse candidates that we would like to hire. I'm looking at the candidate pool and I see a disproportionate amount of white males in the candidate pool in technology.

I don't know how I can change that. It's significant. I've worked at companies in the past who are heavily involved in STEM and things like that, but I don't feel we're seeing the results of those efforts in the marketplace now. Maybe we will, and I'll be out of the marketplace by then.

The Truth About Company Culture and the Talent Pipeline

Sara: It'll be a decade from now, but how do I handle and deal with these kinds of things that I have to deal with today?

Carolyn: What Mark sees anecdotally, I'm guessing that's pretty universal. On the flip side in the marketing world, even though I'm in tech, when I go to hire, most of my peers are women, which I find very interesting. I would say 80, maybe 90% are women.

Sara: Here's a couple of thoughts and I guess I'll just get real honest. It's interesting because I've been doing this work for 20 years.

The observation of the talent pipeline is very common and it is actually not true. What typically that comment comes from is a lack of self reflection on the company culture. Just because you are not getting candidates means candidates don't want to apply to you. That's just the end.

People are like, "What, why wouldn't they? We're awesome." If you're awesome at hiring white men, good for you, A+. But that's where the perception gap comes in. You actually fail at hiring women, you get an F. This is where the leaders have to sit down and start to get really honest with themselves because my network is full of women in tech, full of it.

So anecdotally, I could sit here and say, "I actually know hundreds and thousands of women in technology. You don't know any? So, who's right and who's wrong?" We both have our life experiences. It's just that I've made the intentional work and decision to include in my personal network, a lot more women in tech. They are there. You just haven't done the work to build your network. So that's the moment of honesty.

Authenticity Gap

Sara: Now this is where the authenticity gap comes from. I can say that as an outside consultant. Unless you listen and hear that, and accept the ownership and responsibility instead of deflect and say, "Well it's because the talent pipeline isn't full, instead of, "Wow, we are not getting women applying to our company. We are doing something wrong. We're actually really great at targeting white men."

I've had people say, "I don't want to change things because I just don't believe in targeting women and people of color." I'm like, "You're already targeting white men." That is an interesting statement if all you're hiring is white men because the talent is there. It's just, are you willing to do the work to find it and really bring it into your network in a meaningful way?

What happens if you watch the research, people will make a decision before they ever hit the submit application button. Just because you are not getting applicants is not a reflection at all of the true talent pool. Leaders somehow have decided that, "Oh, well, there's nothing I can do because there's just no talent out there.

Mark: I see your point. It's probably up to me to be more active in that process. As I was thinking through your explanation on this, we have an internal resource, a talent recruiting team. They're the ones who get the candidates and bring them to us.

Sara: The talent decides to go where they can thrive. If you think about that, why are they choosing not to come to your company? There's something about how you're describing or the interactions where they can't get that sense of thriving.

Strategic Risk Management

Sara: It is actually a strategic risk management skill if you think about it. So I have a law degree and an engineering degree. I'm not s**. What we're doing is, we're looking at these cues that companies are giving off.

We're making a risk management assessment of "Is that where I want to spend my time and energy? Is that where I think they're set up to actually help me thrive? Do I really feel like it's going to be an emotionally exhausting place to work?" Because "No, thank you. I'm not even going to hit apply."

BYU did some interesting research where they had job postings and they had one job posting that said, "Was very neutral." They had one job posting that said, "We really encourage people from all backgrounds, diversity, please apply." Then they had another posting that talked about their inclusive culture. Now I'm not saying this exactly right. You know, but Mark, which one do you think got the most submit application clicks? They might not have gotten hired, but they got the most submitted application clicks.

Carolyn: What are our choices again?

Sara: Neutral. We want all these types of diversity, please. If you meet these diverse identity, care characteristics, please apply. Or the third one is, we have a mission and inclusion. It’s a really important part of our culture and more of that type of statement.

Mark: I would assume the latter.

Carolyn: Me too. The third one?

Sara: You are right. It got more applicants. This is actually a Goldman...

Join us on Tech Transforms Federal News Round-up segment, So What? Hosted by Carolyn Ford and Tracy Bannon. This week, we talk to Elizebeth Varghese, Global and Americas Leader – HR Transformation Client Offerings at IBM about one of the biggest topics in federal news: remote work. Listen in to find out how agencies can implement a smarter protocol, how remote work impacts the trust equation and the role technology can play in the workforce culture.

Episode Table of Contents

Episode Links and Resources

The Future of Work for Federal Employees

Carolyn: This month, we're hosting Elizebeth Varghese, Global & America's Leader: Client Offerings in Talent and HR Strategy at IBM. And outside of IBM she's an active board member at South Asian Youth Action, a nonprofit providing after-school programming, education, and college support.

She was recognized as Global Top 100 Influencer in HR for 2020. And we are glad to have you joining us today, Elizebeth, to discuss returning to the office, the great resignation, and companies potentially switching to a four-day workweek hybrid, all of that. Welcome Elizebeth, how are you?

Elizebeth: Great, thank you so much, Carolyn. Wonderful and delighted to be here. Great to be back on here with Tracy as well, friend from a couple of years ago as we've been going through some of these pandemic podcasts. So thank you for inviting me and I am looking forward to this.

Carolyn: Yes, well this one's going to be a fun one and it might get a little heated. I've already seen some stuff on LinkedIn. I'm like, oh, that gets my blood boiling about returning to the office. And I want to start off with a question, there's an article called "Three ways the future of work must change for federal employees."

The article states that at the end of the day, we need to have an IT and HR Alliance. This was due to exceptional communication between the agency's chief information officer and HR functions. In your experience, is the relationship between IT and HR something government agencies need to improve on? And industry too?

Does the Relationship Between IT and HR Need Improvement?

Elizebeth: Now what we've seen, the pandemic is highlighted so nothing new. This was happening for a while. I have to preface it with that. Because I think in lots of our conversations we hear this thing about, hey, this is what the pandemic caused.

The pandemic caused a lot of suffering and hardship for many people, but it highlighted things that were in play for many years. And the fact the intersection of HR data and how IT's using it and accessing it has been an eternal problem. It's been going on for many years.

But things came to a head when we were forced to be virtual in the federal sector and in the commercial sector. People realized that that intersection hadn't really been explored. It hadn't been addressed. It hadn't been managed in a sufficiently coherent fashion.

There were a couple of reasons for that and some folks in the federal sector or commercial, the reason I say that is because this is a universal problem. It's not endemic just to one sector and we should take that. But when the pandemic hit, there were lots of tropes. Even before that around what can be done remotely, what data can be accessed in what fashion, what is secure and not.

What the pandemic highlighted is that those issues were not really based upon real cybersecurity issues or access issues or single sign-on issues. They were really managed or impacted by cultural constructs of where work can be done.

A great example of this is if you think about our friends on Wall Street, you could not do investment banking or trading from remote work. It's impossible. There were so many reasons for that, all of them good.

Subcultures and Subgroups During Remote Work

Elizebeth: But come March 15th monitors were shipped to basements in Westport and patios in Westchester county and Wall Street just continued. So we really found that it wasn't, can it be done? It was more of do we want it to be done?

I think that is the question that was highlighted through the pandemic in the federal sector as well. Are we really understanding what technology can do and are we using it to really manage HR data? So that's kind of what I've seen. Tracy, would love your thoughts too. I know you've been working at this intersection for a while as well.

Tracy: It struck me as strange when the pandemic hit because I've had remote teams. I think it was 2009, 2010 was completely remote work with global teams, everybody geographically dispersed. So it was first nature to me, but I never realized with other IT workers how much they did not get that opportunity.

So when we got into the pandemic and I realized different organizations. I changed my job just before the pandemic and what I was starting to realize is how campus-centric or office-centric some of the cultures could be.

Even inside a big organization you can have subcultures, subgroups that really do form these tight bonds. Whether it's going out to lunch or whether it's meeting up at the water cooler or what have you, there is or was this sense. It was a cultural sense that they built together. And that was hard for them, hard for everyone to learn, how do I emulate that? How do I replace that now that I am on remote work?

How People Collaborate in a Remote Work Setup

Tracy: So Elizebeth, if you and I are going to walk to the water cooler and we were going to make a deal or we were going to talk about something or some new topic that we want to research, how did people do that? Or how did they start to do that during the pandemic? What did some of the research show on how people are engaging now?

Elizebeth: People have engaged, as you said, remotely even before the pandemic. There were virtual teams and there were lots of collaboration tools. But I’ll give you an example. The experience that I have as an IBM employee, much like you Tracy we have employees all around the world working on very complex things.

People without having ever met each other or worked in the same room and that was really happening through technologies. Whether it's Slack or chat messages or online Wiki forums. Or what we call Lighthouse at IBM where we share intellectual capital. There were lots of different ways people were connecting.

So what happened in the pandemic is that the companies that had some of the cultural constructs around it is okay to engage that way. Or it's common to make friendships or have friendships evolve over distances and remotely, found that they just moved seamlessly into that.

The companies that struggled with that, again, were less about having the technology and more about people being used to engaging, forming relationships, forming friendships and collaborative pods without technology.

The Question to Ask to See if Remote Work Can Be Done

Elizebeth: So again, it's less about the technology and more about how we work together. And I think we see this, I have teenagers, now they're used to texting versus making a phone call. Now if you are used to texting, it's a lot easier to never have a phone, you don't need the call function. So it's really a habit, it's a way we think about how we communicate, how we are comfortable communicating. I think that is a learned behavior.

So I've learned to text more because I have teenagers. I call them when I need to but you get my drift. I think similarly in organizations, if you're able to provide different channels and different ways of access, we find that people actually learn and embrace them. They do make deals, they plan vacations without having met each other.

We've had experiences where we had kids come in fresh from undergrad or grad, working together in collaborative pods using technology, planning ski trips. Never met each other but a great group that works together. They're all partnering and operating as a team.

So it can be done. The question is who chooses to be in that situation? Or who's comfortable with that kind of maybe job interview process? Lots of people are taking jobs in the pandemic and after without ever physically meeting their teams. So I think that would be my challenge to all of us, not the why but the why not? Why can't we do it?

Technology Etiquette in Remote Work Setup

Carolyn: So I'm like you, Tracy, I've worked remote. I live in Utah and I've supported teams that support the federal government for the past 15 years. So I've worked remote since 2010. Most of the time going into the office occasionally which I always said, when I went into the office, those were the days I didn't get anything done.

And what was interesting for me, so this comes back to the culture thing, when everybody went remote was the abuse of the technology. What I mean by that is I felt like we needed to train ourselves in etiquette. Don't text me at three o'clock in the morning. I had to train myself. That's my responsibility to make sure my phone is on silent, do not disturb when I go to bed.

But also I was so good and am so good at getting in the zone and really focusing. The Slack messaging and stuff, I nearly lost my mind when everybody went remote. Because it was constant barrage, constant interruption and there was no time.

You had to get into the zone, into the flow. And it's definitely gotten better, but what do you think about that? Elizebeth first, do you have anything to say about that? And then Tracy I'd love to hear your thoughts.

Elizebeth: That's a great example because actually personally I have the same experience and I think lots of my clients do. Because one, if you're across different time zones, everyone's Slacking you when they're working. So I had to learn, me personally, I had to turn the notifications off. I had to discipline myself to not reply in the moment, but wait and even if I looked at the texts. Because I couldn't bear to not look at it, but tell myself not to.

And in some instances I think also, be cognizant. That sometimes we are responding or we are sending a text because I don't want to forget I'm working now and I make a note of it. But the person at the other end is receiving it and thinking, oh my God, I have to reply. It's an unseen, unexpected pressure that we may not be conscious about. Because we are not doing it to get a response back.

Work-Life Balance Expectations in a Remote Work

Elizebeth: So I think some of those things again require a different way of working. Like you're saying, when do we turn on, when do we turn off? And how much do we really listen to the implications of really having a remote workforce? Both in terms of whether you're in a different time zone or different work-life balance expectations.

Tracy: For a long time I have counseled those coming into their careers to be very specific about when they answer emails. Now I know that the first time that they get their corporate phone and it's connected that they're looking at it.

I realized that I had a responsibility to not send weekend emails. As a leader, they were immediately responding and I realized that I also had to train myself. Now I still do queue things up when I have time. I have had the blessing of being able to have some latitude with I'm going to focus a little bit more this evening. Because I'm going to go and do something with my daughter tomorrow morning. Had some flexibility.

So I have also trained myself to be very specific in my emails. I'm sending this tonight, please don't read or take action till tomorrow. I let them know this is not a rush. If I need somebody, they also know that I'm like a bloodhound and I will find them. We will get ahold of each other if it's truly something that is that much of an emergency.

Tailoring Remote Work Culture to Team Dynamics

Tracy: But you brought up another good point. Prior to the pandemic, except for very close work relationships, those work spouses, I did not text with anybody in the workforce. I would Slack, I would use any of the other tools that were available to me but not that.

When the pandemic started, I have two phones now. I never thought that I would be the two phone person. The work phone and the life phone. But I do. One of the reasons that that has become important is the ability, to your point Carolyn, to turn it off and put it over there because I'm now leaving this part.

Now that all sounds like that I have a really great division between career and life. For me, it's very intermingled, I'm thinking about it all the time. And so if I know that Carolyn is thinking about it. I might feel okay sending you a Slack message or a text message at six or seven at night. This is when I know that you're out there taking a walk or something.

So there is a bit of tailoring after you learn just the culture of it, your individual teams and people. But it's not coming in with rigid expectations, you've got to build that together because each team dynamic is so dramatically different.

Hybrid Work Model

Carolyn: Yes. So I want to talk about, the push now is people coming back to the office. So we talked about this already a little bit and there's a bunch of different models that are being proposed.

I want to talk about the hybrid work style first. There's an article, it's called "Hybrid work for many is messy and exhausting." And we'll put links to all of these too in the show notes. But it says that about 60% of offices will adopt a hybrid work policy this year. So Elizebeth, what policy changes have you seen within IBM or otherwise surrounding the hybrid work model? It sounds like you guys were already hybrid, to some extent.

Elizebeth: Our IBM HR folks are the best folks to answer this question. They've done amazing work over the years for a truly hybrid model because we've had different variations and policies.

What we've seen across the board is that organizations are making different kinds of policies. We have seen a trend definitely around the organizations that traditionally did not like remote work. Lots of organizations in financial services are expecting people to be back in the office. Expecting people to be back for a defined number of days and a defined set of days.

So people are being quite prescriptive about that, so we're definitely seeing that. And as we've seen in the news, there's also been quite a bit of pushback on some of those prescriptive policies. I think some of that is going to continue to evolve. I don't think that has been completely sorted out.

The Optionality of Work in Every Industry

Elizebeth: Now I think in the case of the federal government and really honestly every industry, what we're finding is that the optionality of work has increased. We've seen this in news. The smartest kids who were looking at going to become bankers in a particular well-known organization. I won't name. They are maybe thinking, you know what, I don't really care as much for the hours of work and the expectation that I will be in the office so I'm not going to do that. I'm going to go to a startup.

Now that plays out in the federal government as well. It has for many years in terms of how do we compete for the best talent? And there's a reason the government does need the best and brightest for practice of national security or science and space exploration, a variety of things.

The pivot has really then come to be more around, what's the best way to attract the best talent in our industry? And that's becoming the lens by which policy making is happening.

So the one other thing I just wanted to mention, there's an organization again I won't name. But as they looked at the variety of labs that they had across the country, pre-pandemic everybody had to be in the labs doing their work in their teams. But the pandemic required them to obviously be remote and the serendipitous outcome of that was that they found there was a lot more cross-pollination and sharing of information and collaboration across labs which they hadn't had historically. Because people tended to work with their own physical teams.

The Real Estate You Need to Give Up for Remote Work

Elizebeth: I say that because I think organizations have recognized that there's been much good to come out of the remote work and that the return to work answer is not a simplistic one of just get back into your offices. I'm curious to see what you both have seen too. It's really been an evolving strategy for most people, I think.

Tracy: I think that quite a number of people are asking why. If I'm interviewing with you or if I already work with you, just talk to me about the why. Some firms and some government agencies have a tremendous real estate footprint that they own, that they're not renting. They can't give that space up. So if you own that and you have a dramatic dependency on that, what do you do?

We're seeing that with higher education right now as well. They've got huge campuses and they found out that we don't necessarily need all the students on campus. What's the balance, what's the change off between it?

So I'm finding as we're interviewing, when we talk about work styles, when we talk about hybrid, when we talk about the possibility of being a full teleworker, that's the government term. It came around, I think it became law in 2010 that you could be a teleworker if you could show productivity.

Big Push in In-Person Protocol

Tracy: But as you are trying to talk it through, there are so many people asking me, well, what is the advantage that I have of being in person? What's the advantage that we will...

Bob Stevens, AVP Public Sector at GitLab joins Tech Transforms to talk about the imperative mission of DevOps to combine efficiency, speed and security. With emphasis on empowering teams to fail fast, moving security to the left, and a deep dive into Platform 1, you won't want to miss this episode!

Episode Table of Contents

Episode Links and Resources

DevSecOps’ Speed of the Mission

Carolyn: This week Bob Stevens, Area Vice President of Public Sector at GitLab is joining me. Bob is a seasoned veteran in public sector technology with over 25 years of experience. As the AVP at GitLab, he is responsible for helping government organizations become more productive, efficient, and effective.

Bob also has experience on both the industry and the government side of things. Prior to industry he served in the United States Air Force as a computer specialist at the White House Communications Agency. I am excited today to dive in and talk about the ways that we can use DevOps to modernize and secure government IT, and what the outlook for DevOps is. How are you doing, Bob?

Bob: I'm doing great. The weather's getting better in DC, so it's good to see the sun from time to time versus what we've had. But yes, doing fantastic.

Carolyn: Well, good to hear it. So let's just dive in. And let's walk through what DevOps is and why implementing these practices is critical to helping modernize and improve government IT?

Bob: Great. So I guess DevOps is combining efficiency, speed, and security all into one. And creating software at what I like to refer to as the speed of the mission for the government. The business side is a little different. But for the government, it's all about the mission and you being able to accomplish the mission faster and stay ahead of our adversaries. In the case of DoD and on the civilian side, it’s to ensure that all of the citizens that any given agency supports gets the best possible support that they can. If you look at the organizations like the Veterans Administration. You can imagine they've got a lot of applications that they've written.

The Platform the Government Is Looking For to Improve the Speed of the Mission

Bob: To help the vets accomplish what they need to accomplish in a timely manner. So DevOps really will help them to produce the software at speed, more securely, more efficiently, and provide the most or the best service that they possibly can to all of the veterans out there, just as one example.

Carolyn: So, you know Tech Transforms is vendor agnostic. And I would love for you to just take a couple of minutes and talk about how GitLab helps with that. And just what GitLab does. I've read the marketing statements and it's a little nebulous for me. I would love to have you explain what GitLab does and how it's helping agencies achieve this?

Bob: I appreciate that you're letting me do this in a vendor-agnostic community. I mean, there are a lot of tools that are required to produce software. But the way that the industry or the government in particular is heading, and you can see this in some of the articles that DoD has recently released. Is they're looking for one platform that encompasses the entire software development life cycle.

As you can imagine right now, I know agencies that have anywhere from 14 to 20 different tools that they're using. And the issue with that is that there's developers that like the tool that they like. So they bring their own and they develop their portion of the software. Unfortunately, when it all comes together, it doesn't always work because they've used different tools across the development organization.

And so, with the use of a single platform, you can ensure that at the end, everything is going to work. The nice thing is you can continue to bring some of those other tools. Because they integrate with the platform.

Speed of the Mission and Security Collide

Bob: Just as an example, JIRA, the government's using a lot of JIRA. And JIRA integrates with GitLab so that you can use them seamlessly together. So the developers that are using their favorite tools can continue to use some of those. It's just that it's going to be more efficient because in the end you're going to have an application that works out of the box.

Also what GitLab is trying to address is moving security to the left. Developers are a lot of times at odds with security folks because developers are tasked with developing code fast. They want to get it done quickly. And security folks want it to be done secure. So sometimes the two collide.

But when you're building a single platform and you allow, or you have the ability to move security to the left, which means, when I check in a line of code, I'm going to do a security scan to make sure that I didn't somehow introduce a vulnerability. If I did, I could fix it immediately rather than waiting until the end of the process. Then running security scans and realizing, I may have to go back through hundreds of lines or thousands of lines of code to figure out where that vulnerability was introduced and do the repair.

The other thing that I'll tell you is visibility. Not everyone has to be a developer to use the platform or GitLab. You can be in the executive branch and know nothing about how to write code. But you can see the process during the whole time. You can ensure that what's being produced is going to best meet the requirements of the people that it's being produced for. You don't have to wait till the end to produce the app.

The Very Important Role of the CIO and CISO in the Speed of the Mission

Bob: The users start using it. And they're like, "Oh my God, this is not the way that I wanted this to work." Or, "This doesn't work for me." Or, "It would've been nice to do this." It can be integrated during the process so that you can make sure that the application is usable in the end.

Carolyn: What you just said helps me understand what GitLab does a lot more than any reading I was going to do on my own. And it certainly sounds like a smarter way to do things. So you've written many articles and often you talk about the need for DevOps, DevSecOps, a big part of it is just cultural. And so is that starting at the CIO level? And if so, what are CIOs doing right now?

Bob: I mean, first of all, I have empathy for CIOs because they have so much thrown at them right now. It's incredible. I actually don't know how they are able to get as much done as they do. But having said that, I think most CIOs know that they need to move away from the legacy development waterfall to the agile software development world. And I think they're making gains towards that.

Bob: Nothing in the government moves quickly, but moving to agile, it does require a cultural shift. And that's where the CIO or the CISO plays a very important role because they've got to convince the organization that failure is okay.

Because when you fast fail, you actually make more progress than waiting till the end. Which is a cultural shift for any organization. That shift has to start at the CIO level. It can't start at the lower levels.

The Cultural Shift That Needs to Occur to Upgrade the Speed of the Mission

Bob: The lower levels have got to be empowered to fast fail to experiment in order to produce the best possible software application that they can.

Carolyn: So you talk about this in an article that I just read Modernizing and securing government IT through DevOps. You say that, "Federal CIOs embarking on a DevOps journey should embrace continuous integration, continuous delivery pipelines to reduce toolchain complexity, management, and maintenance." What can CIOs and CISOs do to embrace that statement? Because that's like you said, that's a lot.

Bob: It is, yes. And unfortunately they have many more mandates coming at them from OMB and NIST. Even though NIST doesn't generally put out mandates, more guidance. But they're starting to come forward with a few more mandates. And so I don't know how they're keeping up with it. They're doing the best that they can. But it's the cultural shift that needs to occur for the development life cycle. It's also the building of the platform.

I say this often, it's not really the money. And I think that CIOs can find money to buy tools. I think it is more of the resources and the cultural shift that needs to occur. And that's where the CIO can really have the influence, is to be able to provide the resources, be able to have the backing at that level for experimentation and fast failure. And it's not necessarily because they can get the Technology Modernization Fund. I mean, upgrading your DevOps world is modernization, so they can tap into funds. It's really the other things that need to be considered for the shift to the new DevOps environment.

How Platform 1 Helped in the Speed of the Mission

Carolyn: Do you have any good use cases or stories that you can talk about where you've seen this shift happen and this DevOps, this new process, this agile process be implemented?

Bob: Yes, sure. I'm going to go back to my Air Force roots, which makes me proud. The building of Platform 1 was a huge shift. And as a result, the Air Force is able to produce software so much faster than they were. And when they produced the applications in the end, they're closer to what the user needs in order to do their job. Because who better to inform the developer about what's required than the person that's going to use the application.

As an example, you can imagine there's a lot of software in the F-35, just tons of software. So who's the best person to tell the app developer what they need for flying that jet? It's the pilot. So if they can participate in the DevOps process and they can, in the way that things are designed in Platform One, then it's going to be a more efficient use.

Carolyn: Okay. You just said something about Platform One that made some light bulbs go off. That term gets thrown around a lot. I use it a lot. I didn't understand that the end-user was involved that way.

Bob: Oh yes. I mean, that's the beauty of building a platform or using a tool like GitLab. They have the visibility, they can see the software as it's being developed and can have input.

Carolyn: And they do participate? They'll look at it and say, "No, that's not going to work?"

End-Users’ Participation in Improving the Speed of the Mission

Bob: Sure. Yes, absolutely. And that's how you can take the use of an application from months or a year down to weeks or days. The modification of a software package could be done in hours versus the way that it was done in the past. So it's just a lot more efficient way to be able to produce a usable application in the end.

Carolyn: Okay. My mind's still spinning on this end-user can say, "No, that's not going to work." So for them to participate, are they actually using the end result somehow? So they use it the way they would really use it in the field, like through a simulator or something so they can test it kind of real life? And then, I mean, how does the pilot test and give feedback?

Bob: Yes. Well, a couple of ways. First of all, they have the visibility, they see the code being written. Although they don't necessarily need to understand what each line is, or how to write it.

Carolyn: Right. Well, because I would think the pilots, that wouldn't mean anything to them.

Bob: Yes. Like you said, they can see the simulation, but they can also see or respond to questions from the developer. They can see what the developer is thinking in regard to what they're producing. So all that's valuable information for them to be able to provide feedback. So again, in the end, the application works as expected and meets the requirement and the mission. It's all about the mission.

Carolyn: But spending time answering questions in a chat room about something developers doing. Is that part of their job description? Like every hour or every day they spend an hour responding to developers? How does that work?

Guideaux

Bob: Probably not, a little short story for you. Several years ago, I was in a meeting where a very high-level person in the Air Force said every airman will be a developer. And I thought they were crazy, absolutely crazy. But by producing a platform that allows them to participate, not necessarily write code, but participate, they can all be developers in a manner of speaking.

So I think that the Air Force has been able to come as close to accomplishing that as you possibly can. Which of course, again makes me proud. That's not to say the other branches aren't doing the same thing, they are. It's just, the Air Force was out in front of the other branches.

Carolyn: Yes. I have a whole new respect for Platform One now. I really did not understand that everybody was participating like that.

Bob: And yes. I have to point out Top Gun is the Navy, not the Air Force.

Carolyn: Thank you. Well, so in the same article that I referenced earlier, back to Air Force, you talk about Master Sergeant James Crocker. I don't know if you want to share his handle?

Bob: He goes by Guideaux.

Carolyn: Yes. His story and some of the stats that you shared with his story were pretty beyond impressive. I mean, they're almost like you say, that a hundred years of program time and software release timelines were reduced. You went from three to eight months for that cycle to just one week.

Bob: Yes. I mean, it's a great story, and he's built a great software factory. And he continues to run it today. He is a strong, strong advocate for a DevOps platform. And he's proven that it'll work. He continues to do that every day.

How Failure Was Embraced to Boost the Speed of the Mission

Bob: And again, he established the bar for speed to mission, and what they've been able to do there. We're going to continue to support him and get him whatever he needs to be able to help produce the applications the way that they have been for a few years now.

Carolyn: I want to revisit what you said about a culture of failing fast. Was he a leader in that? Because to me, that's not something that gets advertised about any of our defense agencies. That you would brag that yes, we fail all the time. That's part of our goal. That's part of our objective. So, if he was one of the first to embrace that, or how does that get embraced? I would imagine it's still resisted a lot to fail.

Bob: Well, I mean, yes. I mean, especially in the U.S., the word failure is bad. But it's how we learn and it's how we move forward rapidly. I'm in sales. I'm chartered with selling to the government.

And I'm always telling the team whenever they're involved in an opportunity is like, fast fail. If it's not really an opportunity, then move on, because you're going to waste your time. And frankly, you're wasting the government's time. So stop wasting their time.

So, it is a big shift. But like I said, Guideaux's definitely one of the people in the military, the Air Force that embraced it. He also had support from executives, which is required across the Air Force. It is a great story and I'm glad it's public so that I can talk about it.

The Future of DevOps

Carolyn: Yes, me too. So what do you think the future of DevOps looks like?

Bob: It gets back to the building of the platform. Where all tools are integrated and there's no more BYOT.

Carolyn: Device. I knew you weren't saying BYOB. Although, maybe we should.

Bob: It's really getting the teams to collaborate. Here's another great example of what the Air Force has done. They've put software factories in downtown, in cities, Austin, Salt Lake, many others, where they can find and retain top talent. This, I think is genius.

And they've given them an environment that they enjoy working in. I mean, honestly, some of the bases they're old, the buildings are old, nobody wants to go to them. But, if you can go to this nice fancy office in downtown Salt Lake City, then you're going to be a much happier person and more likely to show up and be productive. So, I think that's another thing that DoD has embraced is where they're building the factories, and the talent that they're able to attract and retain as a result of that.

Carolyn: Do they allow remote work in these software factories or does it all have to be on-prem?

Bob: No, they do. And that's another great thing to point out. Three years ago, if you said to me that the DoD was going to allow people to work at home, I'd say you were crazy. It's never going to happen. But the pandemic forced the issue. And now DoD has embraced it. I think that what they've found is that folks are perhaps more productive than having to commute and being in an office. A lot of good positive lessons learned as a result of remote work. I think that it's going to continue.

GitLab Is a Hundred Percent Remote

Bob: I don't know if you know this, but GitLab is a hundred percent remote.

Carolyn: How long? Is that just because of the pandemic or has that been a while now?

Bob: No, it's pretty much since inception. We did have an office for a few short months, which was closed. And I think that was about six or seven years ago now. So, we're quite proud of being an all-remote company, and the way that we've made that work.

There's been a lot of papers written on it. There's a lot of great information on our website that can help organizations understand what it takes to be an all-remote company. But one of the strong benefits from it is, if I'm looking for somebody with development skills, they can be anywhere in the world.

Carolyn: Exactly. You open up your talent pool just exponentially. And I've worked remote for 10 years and I've had to jump through the hoops and every year, fill out the paperwork. I've worked in government supporting the government mission for over a decade. It was a battle until the last two years. And now it's, everybody gets it.

But it's interesting because there's this movement right now to get people back into the office. And I'm just wondering what that's going to do to talent retention? If somebody had told me I had to go back into the office, I don't think I would do it, Bob.

Bob: Well, I think there's a negotiation that's occurring now, based on what I'm hearing with the companies that are trying to reestablish the office. There's a lot of pushback from the employees. And it's tough enough to get talent today. You don't want to create any other barriers.

What Bob...

Mike Maciag, Chief Marketing Officer at Dynatrace joins Tech Transforms to talk about the power of observability. Careful monitoring is of paramount importance for any successful operation, and observability can take your agency to the next level. Listen in as Carolyn and Mark get some tips and tricks for improving cybersecurity posture with the most accurate technology.

Episode Table of Contents

Episode Links and Resources

The Vital Role That Observability Plays in IT

Carolyn: Today, we get to welcome Mike Maciag, who is Chief Marketing Officer of Dynatrace. One of our own, one of the clan is here with us today. And as CMO, Mike is responsible for Dynatrace's global marketing organization. We're really excited to hear his expert opinion on observability and the vital role that it plays in IT, and especially the cloud.

Mike: Thank you, Carolyn. Mark, nice to be with you both today. And I know this is a long time in coming, but I'm excited to be sitting down and talking to you today.

Carolyn: We've been able to talk to a few of our guests a little bit about APM. And just recently we talked to a former CIO at VA. He is very bullish on APM, and he talked a lot about the advances that they were able to make in the VA with APM. Just that at least within the VA, APM moved from a nice to have to a must-have. And what I'd really like to hear you talk about, just to dive right in, Mike, is so there's the APM part. But then in my mind and I might be positioning this wrong. In my mind, I think that observability is like APM 2.0. But can you speak to that APM versus observability? What's the difference?

Mike: As long as we're talking about terms, we might want to mix monitoring in there as well. All terms that are thrown around, is it monitoring, is it APM, is it observability? And it's changed, it's changed a lot. Let me start with the simplest definition, then maybe we can unpack it from there. Think of observability as the umbrella term, as the broadest umbrella term that goes above all of this.

Monitoring, APM, Observability

Mike: Observability fully includes APM, and observability also subsumes monitoring, both of the things that we've been doing. There are kind of two megatrends in the industry that have been driving this move towards observability. One is the move to the cloud.

More and more systems are moving to cloud architectures, probably more important digitally native architectures. We're going from monolithic systems that we could understand, that we could see, that we could touch. We could understand what's happening with them into cloud increasingly complex, even multi-cloud architectures that are driven by microservices and the like.

The reason for that movement is it has made digital transformation, application development faster and easier in that regard. Which is this digital transformation fundamentally looking at everything that I've been doing in every aspects of my business. Whether it be on the front end or in the services I provide. Whether it be on the front end or in the backend machine to machine conversations is happening in cloud architectures. And we're trying to figure out how we can automate more of it and things are happening that way.

Does that make sense, just from a starting point, from observability’s umbrella, fully subsumed monitoring, fully subsumed APM, kind of in that the drivers being cloud and digital transformation making that happen. And I can get into more details.

Mark: That absolutely hits the mark. And we also say end-user performance or experience.

Mike: That's right.

Carolyn: Yes, that sets me straight. Because me saying that observability is APM 2.0 is wrong. APM, like you said, it's underneath observability. It might be, I guess, one way into implementing an observability platform into your organization, but it's not all of it.

Where the User Touches the Applications

Mike: Yes. When you say observability, kind of what pops into my mind is thinking through there's APM, there is infrastructure monitoring as part of that, what's going on in the infrastructure that's underneath it. There's, as Mark was kind of alluding to, digital experience management. Where does the end-user fit into this? And kind of making that happen.

Then you have increasingly even elements of systems that are achieving what they need to achieve have security in there as well. Because really, we think about a world where software works perfectly. The expectation is that we live in a world where software works perfectly. Now, that's a vision. It's a long way coming. But to make that happen on an end-to-end basis, you really need to bring all of those things in there.

APM, I often think about as the high ground in this, because APM is where the user touches the applications. It's where the business needs meet the IT needs of what's happening. And it's kind of what people can touch in that area. It's a very interesting place to enter. That obviously is an important part of it. But it's absolutely essential to have the infrastructure that's monitored underneath it and the user experience. At least specifically as you may kind of thought.

Mark: You mentioned a couple of different things. And in the federal market, there's two things. And if we have time, maybe we can talk about these. But one is the executive order that the president came out with at the end of the calendar year around end-user experience. It was something very new that we had seen coming out of the government. So maybe we can talk about that maybe a little bit later if we had time.

Infrastructure Monitoring Is Observability

Mark: But the second one, and you mentioned security, was zero-trust. The whole cybersecurity, and of course everybody's trying to figure out ways that they can improve their security posture. And people like Carolyn and I figure out how we can tap into the cybersecurity budgets that have been allocated to that.

Carolyn: Well, okay, for our listeners, I want to back up just a little bit and define APM. It's application performance monitoring. You made me realize that we didn't define that, Mike. Because when you said there's the infrastructure monitoring too. You're right, in my mind, application performance monitoring includes infrastructure monitoring, but not necessarily. That would be the observability.

Mike: Yes. Carolyn, just to not get too inside baseball and Dynatrace, I understand why you think about it that way. Because our APM does in fact include. We think of APM as full-stack. It goes all the way down to the infrastructure that it's monitoring. When people work with Dynatrace, they're getting that as part of included. So absolutely makes sense why you kind of giving your steeping of Dynatrace kind of thinks of it that way. The rest of the world does not, by the way.

They think of APM and infrastructure as two different things. You basically buy those off cardless. We don't think they can be separated. Because what you want to be able to do, I mean, the goal here is to simplify cloud complexity to the point where you can get a precise root cause answer if something were to go wrong. And drill all the way down to, "Here's a specific line of code that's making that happen." Or, "Here's the piece of infrastructure that's making that happen."

How Can We Better Position the Concepts of Observability and Federal

Mike: Let's say it's in a Kubernetes environment, just a container that spun down in a second. But it does that 60 times an hour, you need to be able to find that as it comes and goes. That's why you need to have full-stack as you kind of think about that.

Mark: You said some interesting things there, Mike, and I want to dig into this a little bit deeper. Because in the federal space, we feel like we're three to five years behind the commercial market. And the use of these concepts of observability, even APM, we rarely see RFPs coming out that have APM listed in it.

We might see infrastructure monitoring, we might see other terminology like that, but we rarely see these concepts. And the government has been in this transformation for years, moving to the cloud. Some agencies have had more success than others. Can we talk a little bit about how we might be able to better position the concepts and terminology of observability and federal better?

Mike: You mentioned three to five years behind, debatable exactly how many years. But the curve that the commercial space has gone through increasingly seems to be exactly the curve that the federal space is on. Which is with the moves towards moving to the cloud, whether they be trusted clouds or public clouds. The same kind of breakup of monolithic architectures has taken place.

When you break up the monolithic architectures, speed and scalability come with that, and flexibility come with that. And the other truth that I think you'll run into is complexity also comes with that. Guess what, no one, and I'm guessing the federal government is the same, is getting additional resources to monitor this in the old way.

Observability: When You’re Asking the Systems to Share

Mike: The idea that a system should be able to be monitored. You can understand whether the system is up or down and they go figure it out from their monitoring health.

When you move into observability, what you're doing is you're asking the systems themselves to share, to become observable, to put out data that says, "Hey, here's what's going on with me". And so that it can begin to understand in that way.

That's the purpose of trying to simplify that complexity. So that when you don't have greater resources to get your jobs done, you can still stay on top of it. The last thing that people want to do is get bogged down in monitoring and not be able to innovate. And be able to drive those new apps that are driving better services for citizens that are driving more security in DoD-oriented areas, et cetera. That's where this idea of observability is.

I'll even go one step further than that. Observability today does not include the concepts of intelligence and automation, but we think it should. And that's because this overwhelming amount of data that's being generated by these systems is really beyond the capability to the old ways. Where I'm going to put some data up on dashboards.

I can look at the dashboards and figure out what's going on and have a good sense of what's going on. It's just not possible to stay on top of it that way. We think about it as moving to a world where we're providing answers. The answers are allowing people to automate more and get more out of their teams.

Mark: Well, that's a good answer.

What the World Is Lacking in Terms of Security

Mark: We'll get that out to the sales team right away. One of the things that you mentioned that we run into is security. Some of the customers that we have, have a very different or stringent, higher stringent security requirements than others. Obviously, as you can imagine. That's maybe a level of complexity we run into. It's certainly an issue. We see that come out a lot. Is that the same kind of answer that we would provide about security?

Mike: Yes. One of the things that we're seeing more and more of kind of in the security sphere is how do you think about security in real-time and finding precisely identifying security issues in production? We have all kinds of things in the world that try and keep the bad guys out, or the bad actors, or the bad code out. We have even more things in the world that test, and says, "Okay. Before I do a check-in, kind of do a static code analysis on this and understand whether it's got known vulnerabilities in it."

What the world has been lacking has been the idea of, "Okay, so now there's something out there. How do I know who has it, or what systems have it, and how do I precisely identify it and make it happen?" Log4Shell helped us see this kind of in very specific ways, later not as large of an issue. But Log4Shell showed the same thing. Which is all of a sudden there was a zero-day exploit that was out there. Or it was a zero-day exploit that was discovered in a very popular open-source package that could be manipulated. In the entire world, they find it and fix it overnight.

Identifying Vulnerability Through Observability

Mike: By providing observability on the whole stack and understanding where it existed, our customers at Dynatrace were able to find that instantaneously. The minute it was identified as a vulnerability, we could show specifically what was going on and at least helped people with the, "How am I going to get to the point where I know exactly what happened and I can close that door as fast as I possibly can?"

Now, as we move on, it gets to, "Okay, great. Now let's move it into, 'I'm going to take automatic action and do a remediation on that.'" And there's more and more of that going on. But security is playing an increasingly large role in this. We should really be talking about DevSecOps teams to correct myself, are increasingly expected to build security into the applications and in the infrastructure, and setting up and ensure through things like what we're doing.

Carolyn: How do you see observability fitting into DevSecOps?

Mike: It's an absolutely essential piece of it, and here's why. DevSecOps, just in the broadest, most simple terms is the idea that responsibility for all of this shifts left. When I say shift left, it used to be we'd write monolithic code, we'd throw it over the wall. The people would operate the code on the other side of it. And there'd be this finger-pointing game of, "It didn't work well. What I gave you worked. Your system must be messed up," et cetera.

The DevSecOps at the broadest sense is let's shift that responsibility left and give development the responsibility to build operability into reliability, resiliency into the product, as well as building the security of the product from the beginning.

How Observability Fit Into DevSecOps

Mike: To make that happen, you need to provide the instrumentation so that they know what's happening in production. Or what would happen in production when I put it in production.

Then if I can provide precise root cause and get it to the next level of like, "Not only did this go wrong, or could it go wrong, or there was a slowdown, but here's specifically why," I can go fix it faster. I want to be able to make this happen. And really the purpose behind all of this is the world wants and expects flawless and secure interactions. Whether that's a machine to a person or whether that's a machine to a machine, you expect it to be flawless.

That's a fair expectation. And as we go more and more digital with the world, and that's kind of the whole idea of digital transformation. That's why we expect this flawless result. In the commercial sector, it may be in many ways more forgiving than elements of the federal sector, where you guys are talking in your audience sense.

The idea of having something go wrong or making a wrong assumption in software that the interaction doesn't go right can be immense. It hits not hundreds, not thousands of users, but tens of thousands to millions, to hundreds of millions of citizens.

Mark: Well, it could be life dependent. I mean, and the DoD in the IC space where mission criticality means the life or death, it couldn't get any more gray than that.

Making Decisions With Precise Accuracy Is Required

Mike: Yes, that's absolutely right. A big part of this then is all of this data that these modern systems are putting out, it's like, okay, how do you take that data and you turn it into an answer so that you know specifically what's happening? And then once I have, if I can get my answers precise enough, how do I then automate based on that? So that I can get to a point of being able to automate as things go on?

Mark, to kind of go on your life and death scenario, it's like sometimes I talk about this from a self-driving car's perspective. Which is it's a car needs to observe everything that's going on in its environment in real-time to kind of make it happen. What's it like outside, what's the speed limit, where am I on the road? Are there other issues to deal with? But then it needs to make decisions, and it needs to make decisions with precise accuracy.

In order to automate, you need to be able to make decisions with precise accuracy. You can't approach a crosswalk in a self-driving car if that day ever comes, and be unsure whether it's a shadow or a pedestrian. You just can't and you need to get down to that.

It's no different than IT, and it's no different in the observability space. Which is if you're going to automate remediation and allow people to innovate, that's going to have to happen with very precise root cause and a positive AI that's kind of underneath it and those types of things.

Mark: Well, that's a great example of that, kind of putting in it context so everybody can understand.

Monitoring Versus Observability

Mark: Carolyn, if it's okay with you, I know that Mike started tapping into this whole DevSecOps concept and I wanted to ask a question about that. Maybe you could peel in and back a little bit further, Mike. And so in a recent article by Dark Reading, you stated that today's rapid pace of innovation coupled with the complexity of modern software development has elevated the need for automated orchestration.

Mike: Yes.

Mark: Can you talk a little bit about this and how do you see this changing for us?

Mike: Yes. I remember the entire context of the article. But I certainly kind of understand the subject and kind of what we're talking about that way. This complexity curve is not going to stop. As we go from monolithic architectures to cloud architectures. As we go to containers and microservices, as we go to multi-cloud, as we go to huge scale. These systems, we go to change that just does not stop. It's kind of a constant change.

These systems are all generating immense amounts of data. Both in the variety that they're generating, the volume that they're generating in the speed at which they're doing it. Basically what it says is things have to change in the way that you manage your systems.

We started at the top of this as monitoring versus observability. That's a good example of we just need to think, kind of change our mindsets as we're going to go through that. You have to change the way that the teams work as well. And that is getting the teams from reactive, "Hey, I've got a problem. How do I go fix it?"

Observability Data

Mike: To proactive looking and observability data, and anticipating what problems are going to come up and how do I address them before they impact end-users. Otherwise, people would just be completely buried and there'll be...

Richard Ford, Chief Technology Officer at Praetorian joins Tech Transforms to talk about the cyber security threat landscape. Red team versus Blue team is a common and effective threat protection practice, but what could cyber security experts gain from team Purple? Listen in as Carolyn and Mark learn about the importance of managing your attack surface, implementing multi-factor authentication, and protecting against cyber phishing attacks.

Episode Table of Contents

Episode Links and Resources

Our Biggest Cybersecurity Threat in the Last Quarter

Carolyn: So today our guest is actually an old friend, Richard Ford, who is Chief Technology Officer at Praetorian. For over 25 years, Richard has been able to design and implement NextGen product strategies and provide customers with the best threat detection available. Today, we're going to talk to Richard about the cyber threat landscape and what a good defense looks like.

Richard: Hi, it's nice to be back on a call with you Carolyn, and Mark, it's good to see you.

Carolyn: Yes, really good to have you today. So let's just jump right in. I want to know what your view is, what are our biggest cybersecurity threats? What does the cyber security threat landscape look like and how do we defend ourselves from it? So there's like three-part question there.

Richard: So, we're starting with an easy question. I think the threat landscape is incredibly messy and I think that the most important part to think about is change. So if you think about just the last quarter or two that we've gone through you had, like log4shell someone we're all running around looking for log4j vulnerabilities. Then it's Spring4Shell, which wasn't as serious, but was still pretty nasty if you were impacted.

The problem, we have this tremendous rate of change so the thing that was important to you yesterday may not be the thing that's important to you today. It's unlikely to be the thing that's most important for you tomorrow. So when we think about the threat landscape, the first thing to say is, if I give you an answer, it's like looking at a single, still image from a movie and telling you've watched the movie, right?

Cyber Security Threat Landscape

Richard: Then as soon as we go click, you know that threat landscape will change. With that said, I do think there are some common themes that keep coming back, right? So there's a threat we have around being desperately short of people. There's a threat around, we don't know what assets we have. Even if we did know what assets we have, we don't know what they're running.

Then the business conditions are driving us forward so quickly that it's difficult to keep security on the front burner. It sometimes drops to the back burner so we don't think about security as much. Perhaps, as how do I meet these business objectives that we have. I think this has created this sort of very unpleasant, perfect storm that will keep us well on our toes. I don't know, for the next couple of decades, it feels like.

Carolyn: So when you say that we're constantly moving forward, changing, at the same time, I mean, are we still dealing with like SolarWinds? So as we're having to look to the future, we're still dealing with all the shit that's happened even a year, two years ago. Is that true, or like, are we good? We took care of it?

Richard: No, it's definitely correct right, so all vulnerabilities never really go away. So you have all those things sort of trailing behind you like the comet has a tail, and new stuff coming at you.

I think to be a successful CISO or to operate the business successfully, what you need to be really good at is prioritization. So it's about dealing with what is the biggest risk for you right now.

Cyber Threat Landscape Varies Depending on Who You Are and What You Do

Richard: And I think that leads us to a very important point that we talk about cyber threat landscape. But it's different depending on who you are and what you do. So the biggest risk, for example, for government might be very different than critical infrastructure, might be very different for sort of mom and pop SME that's sort of operating the corner store. Each one of these has a different threat landscape that they live in, different risks and different risks to the business.

Not only that, but yes, this is all additive. So we still see scams for all vulnerabilities as we look at our threat intel. I remember going back a few years, there were viruses that used to trigger on certain days of the month or certain months of the year. For years afterwards, you would see these viruses fire up and start scanning things. Which means that there were still people out there who were still infected, which is just stunning to me.

Carolyn: Ah, the good old days when we knew the day that it was going to happen, the day of the month it was going to happen.

Richard: Yes exactly. I still remember the old Michelangelo virus, right? When it was like a trigger day was coming and everyone was counting down to what would happen on Michelangelo day. But I guess that just shows my age or perhaps the more positive spin is my longevity in the industry.

Carolyn: Your experience.

How Richard’s Experience on the Offensive Side Affected His Approach to the Defensive Cybersecurity Landscape

Mark: So speaking of experience, Richard, you have an interesting background. Because you have experience in both the offensive cybersecurity landscape and the defensive cybersecurity landscape. So can you talk a little bit about how your experience working on the offensive side has impacted or affected your approach to the defensive cybersecurity landscape?

Richard: Yes, so I think the offensive and defensive sides that are so intimately related, it's like thinking about two sides of a piece of paper. They're really one, you can't peel one side off a piece of paper, at least not very effectively.

So I think that to play a good defense, you have to have mastered offense.

I think we were chatting earlier, as we thought this through and we were talking about chess. It would be like me saying I was a chess master, but I can only play the white side of the board. I'm not very good at playing black or I'm a master at black. I'm not really very good with my white opening systems.

You have to be good at both to really be rounded out. I use chess as an analogy because it's an adversarial game and that's exactly the sort of wrestling around we do in the attacker space. So I don't think you can truly be good at defense without understanding the ways of the attacker.

I don't think you can be a great attacker without having a good understanding of the pain that your attacks cause to defenders. Because there are things I can do as the attacker that make certain defenses untenable, even if they're effective. In the sense that they stop me from getting in, but I can make it so it's really hard to use. Maybe I make it noisy for you.

Which Is Easier: Defense or Offense

Mark: Well, is it easier to play offense or is it easier to play defense?

Richard: Oh, that's definitely an easy question. Yes. So I'll say that I've never really lost playing offense. I'm sad to say that playing defender is much harder and we can talk about why, but it's definitely easier to be on the offensive side.

Carolyn: Let's talk about why.

Richard: Well, I mean, step one, it's more fun, right? Who doesn't like going on the offense. It's that adrenaline rush when you sort of manage to get your exploit past some of these defenses. But I think the other thing is that if you're a business, you have this very large attack surface, right? And all of it has to be secure and it has to be secure all the time.

So if you think about a pen test, a pen test might tell you that your attack surface at 7:55 PM on a Tuesday in April is perfect right? Can't get it. But an administrator spins up a box for testing or you miss patching something because a new vulnerability came out at 8:00 PM and suddenly you're vulnerable again.

So as an attacker, I'm pretty good at finding vulnerabilities today. But if I don't find a vulnerability today and it gets me into your system. I'll wait till tomorrow and I'll nail your system tomorrow. You have to be good 365 days a year, 24 hours a day. I have to be good once and I can just wait for you to slip up.

Mark: Do you guys do this in your current role? Do you play these games? You know, red team, blue team kind of thing?

We Are Not Taking Advantage of Team Purple

Richard: Yes, we absolutely do. Praetorian is a company, it’s a mix of product offering and services offerings. Our services offerings, we absolutely do red and blue teaming with some pretty large customers. One of the things that people don't take advantage of enough is a purple team, right? Which makes it less adversarial. So the thing with the red team is we're coming in, we're going to root your network. That's fun and there is value for the customer. But it's very adversarial. You're trying to catch me, I'm trying to wear.

What's really fun is a purple team where we're working on both sides of the line. We're working with the blue team to see if we can see it. And we're working as a red team to see if we can get it and that's a little bit more of a collaborative game.

So there's a lot of opportunity for knowledge transfer and learning to our customers. It's not just about, can we get in? Because we pretty much always do, it's about did you see it? And how can you improve your defenses so that when you're breached that way next time, you do better?

I think purple teams are actually underutilized in the industry. They do move away from this adversarial game to more of a collaborative game. I think they're more fun in some ways, too, and they have better business value.

Carolyn: Would you say that the purple team is where your own employees would fall? Like you've got your unintentional insider. You've got your admin that spins up some server that you didn't even know was coming and creates this vulnerability. So is that like, just as you're describing, I haven't heard the term purple team.

Do Employees Fall Under Team Purple?

Carolyn: But as you were talking about it, it made me think that's where we live as employees. Is that a fair statement?

Richard: Kind of. I mean, I think there's a lot of unintentional harm that we do as employees. A lot of well-intentioned moves lead to security risks. But a purple team is sort of when you blend, obviously, from the name. A red team where you've got a group of people who's trying to get in. Blue team, a group of people who's trying to stop you from getting in where you blend those. So it's more about, did you see the attack? It's about improving the defenses and the resilience of the system. As much as it is about breaching the system.

Mark: So, Richard, you've seen this kind of play out across government agencies and commercial industry. Who's better at it? Commercial or government?

Richard: So I think it's really hard to lump any large group of people into buckets, right?

Mark: He just went right down the middle. He went purple.

Richard: Yes. I mean, I think they have very different challenges for a start, right? But I think businesses range from really very, very good to really very, very bad . There are some targets that come across our radar when we're on the offensive side of the world where we're like, oh, that's a really hard target. These folks really know their onions, they really know what they're doing. We're going to have to pull out our A-game to find a win. There are other companies where it's like shooting fish in a barrel where the barrel is big and only contains fish.

Who’s Better in Playing Team Purple, Government or Commercial

Richard: Now the government is different. The government, especially when we're talking about the federal government, it's shocking to say this, it's a little bit more organized. Because there are certain standards that they're required to adhere to. So there's more sort of governance.

Now, there are still different levels within the government and especially when you get into state government and sort of governmental agencies that have complicated missions, NASA would be a good one if we want to chat about that because they have some very interesting mission requirements.

But I'd say, in some ways, the government is a little bit more homogenous than the top end. Some of our intelligence agencies, they have pretty solid security. The fact that you can legislate and you can enforce does make some of that a little bit easier. The flip side is that it's very difficult for the government to compete on salary with a top salary in an industry. So there's a sort of constant sucking sound from the business side of the house pulling top talent away from the government. So they definitely have challenges around staffing.

Mark: Well, you talked about staffing, this is the, like the second time you brought up people. As a challenge, can you talk a little bit about that? What you've seen, how maybe it can be addressed or how you've done that in the past?

Richard: Let's define the problem. Cybersecurity people are really expensive and they're hard to come by and they're hard to retain. If I was a mercenary, I could flip my job every 12 months and probably have a very nice raise sort of built into my paycheck and that's a problem.

What the Industry Can Do to Win as Defenders

Richard: There are only two ways to solve for that. You either need to get more people or you need to use technology to get better productivity out of the people that you have. The right thing to do of course, is both. You need to take that sort of left-hand and that right-hand approach. I think there's some interesting things that we can do in both that will dramatically improve the outcomes that we have as an industry.

Carolyn: Going back to being a defender. You know me, Richard, I like you to just tell me like how we fix this. So give me the McDonald's version, like top three things that government, industry can do for some quick wins as defenders.

Richard: So I think that it all starts the really honest assessment of where you are in your maturity. So there's no one size fits all. Especially in the business world, there are small companies who don't have endpoint protection. Or they're not following anything that's remotely like best practice with understanding even where they are. They haven't even asked the question of what is my cyber maturity?

So I think all these discussions start with a good measure of where are you on that curve because where you are defines what you should do. With that said, I think that most businesses get breached because of software rot. That's something that's hanging out there and it's unpatched and you don't even know you have it.

So managing your attack surface is incredibly important. I think moving to things like single sign-on and multifactor is incredibly important. And I think having a robust set of defenses around phishing, which is the sort of easiest, common way here.

Why Do We Need Single Sign-on

Carolyn: Still number one way, right?

Richard: Yes.

Carolyn: Like still today. It is the number one way.

Richard: Yes. I mean, because people are people and computers can be quite difficult to break. But getting somebody to send me 500 Steam gift cards because I texted them can be quite easy, right? Especially if you take your time in target selection. From a mathematical standpoint, if you think about it like a game, there's no cost of predation. If I text every one of your employees say, "Hey, this is Nathan, the CEO, can you call me back? I want you to buy some gift cards for surprise for accounting" and boy will accounting be surprised. You know, all it takes is one person to go, "Oh, it's the CEO. I'm so excited about that."

Carolyn: Yes, no, I just had this conversation with my mom this morning. I said, "Mom, there are people praying on our need to help with Ukraine right now. You're going to get asked for money from people who are bad people and who are stealing it and are not. But we're in this state of emergency right now where we all feel like we need to help. So we forget this good hygiene of don't respond to that."

Richard: Yes, exactly. So that's why I would say things like single sign-on a multifactor go hand in hand with phishing because they can reduce some of the risks of being successful.

Carolyn: Okay, but help me with single sign-on. Again, like I know it's good but if all my passwords are in one place, if they hack the single sign-on, then I'm really screwed. So tell me why it's more secure?

Why Single Sign-on Is Secure

Richard: So, as I like to remind customers, one ring to rule them all did not work out very well for Sauron in Lord of the Rings, right? So yes, you have a single point, that's scary. And if we wind back to the news cycle, we just had a little bit of an Okta scare. Which was a really interesting story. I mean, it was a third-party issue, it wasn't core Okta, but it was still pretty scary. It made people think a lot about the value of single sign-on. But what you're doing is you're trading one set of risks for another set of risks, right?

So the question is, if you don't have single sign-on, you probably have either password reuse run rampant. Or you have people getting breached because they gave up their username and passwords, they're not using multifactor. So in the sign-on, yes, you're putting your eggs in one basket, but then you need to watch that basket really carefully.

Carolyn: Oh, the multi-factor thing. That's key, right?

Richard: Yes. Multifactor is really important nowadays. I mean, we've all been sort of speculating about the death of the password for years. One day that prediction in a threat report's going to come true. Or we're finally going to get rid of usernames and passwords and do something that's a little bit more sophisticated. But the reality is, I think, we're stuck with it for a while, but yes, multifactor is a way to buy down risk around account breach.

The Things You Can Do to Buy Down the...

Join us on Tech Transforms Federal News Round-up segment, So What? Hosted by Carolyn Ford and Tracy Bannon. This week, we talk to Katy Craig, retired Navy Chief, now Adjunct Faculty at National University, & Director, Security Architecture at Aquia, Inc. about some of the biggest news in the federal space. Listen in to hear her thoughts around deep fakes, non-traditional warfare, and President Biden's recently released announcement to protect against cyber attacks.

Episode Table of Contents

Episode Links and Resources

Monthly Federal News Roundup

Carolyn: This week, we are launching our newest series, 'So what?' It is Tech Transforms' federal news roundup. Every month, Tracy Bannon, senior principal at MITRE joins me to unpack some of the biggest trending news topics in federal technology. Tracy, we've been trying to do this, make this happen for a while. I am so happy that this is our inaugural episode.

Tracy: Thank you. I'm really excited because there's so much incredible stuff going on and we keep talking and now we want to talk with others and I'm doubly excited to have a good friend and mentor with us today for our first episode, Katy Craig.

Carolyn: Yes, and Katy is a return guest. We've had her in the past on Tech Transforms and Katy is Acquia's chief of staff, cyber security expert, and retired Navy chief. Today, we're going to talk about, really the number one headline in the news these days.

We keep hearing terms like nontraditional warfare, which is essentially the fifth domain of cyber, and President Biden's recent cyber security fact sheet. And just what it all means, like why is it all happening right now? And I want to just go straight to President Biden's recent announcement, this fact sheet that is. It's titled 'Act Now to Protect Against Potential Cyberattacks'. I want to go to you Tracy, and just unpack this for us. What does it mean?

Federal News #1: President Biden’s Cyber Security Fact Sheet

Tracy: So I believe it was March 21st, the White House released this set of guidance and it is really practical, general guidance. And it really is focused on two different areas. It's kind of like for everybody, for corporate America back up your data, use multifactor authentication, encrypt your data. There's also a call to arms, to tech companies and software organizations that says, you know what, there's a NIST standard and we have an order out here, it's order 14028. We can provide all the links later.

But those two things, they're saying we got to get real about this. And the reason that it came out now is that we need to hear it now with all of the things that are going on in the Ukraine. It was an opportune time. We've had all kinds of security incidents and breaches and other things over the last year or two, but there are some shockers that are coming to the surface that made this very timely for the White House to release this guidance.

Carolyn: So you really feel like this guidance came out because of the war in Ukraine?

Tracy: I think it was probably teed up before that, probably for quite a while. None of goes very quickly. Any kind of guidance that comes out in this way has good generalized information. I would've put it out a year or two ago at least, if not before that. So for me, a little late to the game, but I'll take late because it's there and we've got to have a full-court press around this.

A Call to Federal Agencies, Industry, & Commercial

Tracy: I'll say the one thing that I found super curious in the entire set of materials was that there is a call that says, "Hey, all of you corporations, doesn't matter how big or small you are, get to know your local FBI field office or your CISA regional office." Which is your, I think it's cyber security and infrastructure security agency. I thought that was curious because it kind of meant to me, it was kind of a leading indicator that there might be more that's on the horizon that we're not anticipating, if I need to have a relationship with the FBI.

Carolyn: Interesting, this is a call to our federal agencies and to industry to commercial.

Tracy: It is absolutely. The first section is a call to corporate America. Hey, corporations do this and get to know your FBI field offices. The second part of it is all around tech companies and software companies. He doesn't necessarily directly say, "Hey you government agencies, hey DoD, hey IRS, hey any of your organizations." It's for the population. This is a broad sweeping set of recommendations.

Carolyn: Katy, do you want to comment on the significance of the timing and just this announcement in general?

Katy: Yes. I agree with Tracy that I think it's probably been in the works for some time, better late than never. I think the encouragement for agency or organizations and industry to reach out to CISA and FBI speaks to both pre-positioning for if something else does happen and we have to coordinate. It will be helpful for organizations to know their local FBI and CISA rep.

Executive Order 14028

Katy: But it ties back to the executive order that he released on zero trust, 14028, Tracy mentioned. There's guidance in there for government agencies to encourage vulnerability reports. Almost like if you find something vulnerable in our site or any of our systems or services, please tell us.

So this move toward transparency, it's new and it's not yet been codified. Don't forget, there are still some states where if you report a bug in a website, they can arrest you for violating computer privacy statutes and regulations.

So this is very curious because it's kind of out ahead of the legislation, but it really does point to, we need to be transparent. We can't have silos. We have to share the information across, especially if we're worried about critical infrastructure, like we are.

Carolyn: Okay. You've talked about this a lot, Katy, about trust in culture, our work environment culture, and you just said that if I report a bug, I can get arrested. How is this going to work? If we're being called to, if we see something, say something, and oh, by the way, you might get arrested. Did I just interpret that wrong?

Katy: No, you didn't. That's the conflict that currently exists and why government and the administration is making it very explicit and overt. Please get to know CISA, get to know FBI. I'm sure there's federal encouragement across the states to update their cyber legislation.

Federal News #2: Now Is When We Need More Trust

Katy: Because the law currently is like, if you hack, or if you use a system not for the intent that it was meant to be used for, the laws are currently written to punish the person who got in.

So it's a sticky wicket, something that I'm sure they're thinking about. But to me, that's what I hear the president saying. Like, we know that we have been very discouraging in the past when you let us know we had vulnerabilities in our systems. That time's over. We want to encourage, we want to have bug bounties, we want to splash on our pages that say, "If you find anything, let us know." And so I think that's really what's being discussed here. It's time for us to be more trusting and transparent between industry and government.

Carolyn: Okay. I see. So this fact sheet is hopefully a way to build some trust back.

Katy: It restates what's in executive order 14028, which encourages more transparency, which tells the federal government, you will be more welcoming to vulnerability report. So that is the direction we have to go in if we expect industry to do this with us. with the government.

Tracy: I mean, at the core center of this is getting back to trust, trust, and trust. Which is boy, that's quite a commodity right now. And I don't mean that in a negative way. I mean, it's hard to come by trust and trustworthiness at all different levels, interpersonal, corporate, governmental, government to government. It is messier than it has ever been. And yet now is when we need more trust than we've ever had, or at least the scaffolding to provide us with that trust.

The Catalyst

Tracy: I kind of think that's where you're going, Katy, is that this gives some scaffolding. If we're going to be transparent, this gives more scaffolding to people to react.

Katy: Yes. I mean you think about private industries, they're not required to. And so what incentives do they have to be open about a vulnerability they've discovered, right? So it's going to take some time for policy and legislation to catch up, but I agree. The scaffolding, it needs to be in place so at least there's a means and a method for sharing the information, especially if something major happens.

Tracy: And do you think any part of this was driven by, the timing of this was driven by what we're seeing in the Ukraine or any other catalyst moment?

Katy: Yes, I do, I think we've seen this before this isn't new, right? We can think about the last time critical infrastructure was brought down by cyber. There's been several incidents in recent history. I mean, we saw the signs, the intel was there, and when Russia annexed the Crimea, they used cyber also. I think all of us are seeing the impacts of the Russian invasion in Ukraine.

Some of the coverage, how certain American social media companies like immediately shut down. The fact that so much of our world economy is supported by cyber, by the networks, by internet protocol traffic, logistics is impacted, all of it. There's so many ways to hurt a state or a country. And cyber is a very low barrier to entry now.

How Important Is the Fifth Domain

Katy: And it's kind of like, what can you trust if anybody can get in there and start mucking around with your networks? I think the fact that Russia and Ukraine are at war, it's obviously a catalyst for why president Biden is paying more attention to the fifth domain, in my opinion.

Carolyn: How important is the fifth domain in any war, but specifically right now with the Ukraine?

Tracy: I think it's front and center. We're watching what's happening on the ground. We are seeing new technologies like the usage of drones, and so we're seeing six gen and other UASS. So the autonomous vehicles, unmanned autonomous vehicles. But at the end of the day, we're also seeing this dramatic impact on the different pieces of cyber, how we can impact the population, how we can impact the country, how we can shake the foundations in very different ways.

It's not only mucking with the network as Katy would say, it's not just that. Also, it's being able to find different ways to affect people groups. It's interesting, my daughter did some studies in how social media could help as there's new government uprisings. And she was looking in the middle east a number of years ago, and I paid attention to it a little bit, but didn't apply it in my day to day. Until this Ukraine thing popped up on the horizon and we started to realize how much you could influence a population.

I mean, think about the deepfake that came out in March about Zelenskyy. It was very poorly done, thank heavens, and he had already prepared for it. But here he is in this deepfake.

Federal News #2: Zelenskyy’s Deepfake

Tracy: If you're not familiar with what a deepfake is, they can sample enough of your different recordings of you and your voice to be able to put together an algorithm of you saying something.

And there have been some famous ones of Tom Cruise and other people that are wonderful and fun. This wasn't wonderful or fun. This was Zelenskyy saying, "Hey, countrymen, we're going to surrender." And he very quickly, immediately shot back so there was that fast credibility. It was poor quality, and he immediately was credible to come and say, "This is bunk. This is not me."

But just imagine, imagine as those deepfakes get better and better, that's got to scare people. Not just from a government perspective, but that has to scare corporate America as well. Katy, are you seeing people concerned about deepfakes or doing anything to obfuscate or to protect themselves or, what do we do about that piece? That's such a scare. For me, I normally don't believe something. I go and look at it. Well, now I'm going to look at it and now I find out that my reality is bunk.

Katy: Yes. I'm scared too. I don't even know how to respond. I mean my mind is churning like how would I validate it? Because I usually believe my eyes. I'm like you, I go and look it up. I want to validate what I'm being told or what I'm reading. And so these deepfakes are super concerning. I know that there are people who are less skeptical than I am, who just believe what they see or what they hear. I mean, like even in my own family. So I do get very, very worried about that type of technology in the hands of very skilled propagandists.

How Cyber Ties Into the Kinetic Part of Warfare

Tracy: There are a couple of companies that I'm learning about who are debunking deepfakes. They've got algorithmic techniques that they can figure out very quickly if it was manipulated.

Katy: Fantastic. That's what's wonderful about cyber, right? Something happens that we didn't know or didn't have before, and maybe it's used for bad. So up springs a counter force to fight for good. And so that's how the cyber domain keeps evolving. We don't even know yet what the future's going to hold really.

Carolyn: So yes, we talk about the deepfakes and they are very scary. And then I think about guys on the ground that are fighting with guns and dying. How does cyber tie into the kinetic part of warfare? So we hear this untraditional, nontraditional warfare. I was like, that's not right. So deepfakes definitely like the psychological part of it is devastating, but I feel like there's a tie into the kinetic part of it too, from the cyber angle. Can either of you, Katy, can you speak to that?

Katy: Everything's enabled by cyber, so it's not any different for armies and navies either. And you know, like Tracy was mentioning unmanned craft, autonomous vehicles, that is the future of warfare. When you think about like Navy ships out in flotillas, they chat. I mean to be sure there are fallback methods. But when you think about GPS and timing and how easily you can take down a force's ability to fight back by attacking a logistics chain. Or disrupting their air traffic control, all the systems, all the infrastructure that is facilitated by cyber then becomes part of the battlefield.

Lower Barrier to Entry

Katy: And so the fifth domain, cyber, being added to sea, airspace, and land that's in there for quite a while. I think DoD has been dealing with cyber as a war-fighting domain for well over 10 years. So now it's almost like in a lot of ways, it's still the same as the other wars in the past. It's just, we have better means and greater reach and technology is just making the battlefield and the war smaller. But psychological operations, propaganda, misinformation, those have always been part of the approach.

Carolyn: And easier to do because of cyber.

Tracy: It is easier.

Katy: Low barrier to entry.

Tracy: It's a much lower barrier to entry. Again, going back to the deepfake mentality, before it might have been a leaflet or a pamphlet, right? A couple of generations ago. I could choose to read that and say, it's bunk or it's real. But it's much harder when you are looking for right, we used to turn on the TV to get on news and the news was true. Now, what do we turn to? And I'm not talking about news sources. I mean, what if that deepfake, getting people to identify that as early as possible.

And Katy, you brought up something else about trying to reduce the number of humans on the battlefield. It brought to mind an example of a cybersecurity, one of many, many, many cybersecurity risks. If we're thinking about a drone, for example, if we're thinking about the ability to have unmanned weapons. So there's talk about what that's going to look like in the future.

Federal News #3: The Threat Model

Tracy: There are a number of different protocols that are being discussed on what you can and cannot do. But imagine the situation where they send an armed drone to take out a tank. From a cyber perspective, somebody taps into that and changes the algorithm. So it's not really seeking a tank. It's now seeking a school bus.

That potential is hyper-scary from that perspective when we think about tapping into networks. So the core of all of this, our ability to rapidly identify, predict, identify, and to deal with cyber is an amazing thing that we have to double down on. And I know, Katy you've been in this space for a long time dealing with that. But how does that change or do you think it changes? Do you think it amplifies what we're doing these days from a ZTA and from looking at the threat modeling? Does it change the threat model? Does it make it bigger?

Katy: Absolutely. It does make the surface bigger, but arming an autonomous vehicle with live ordinance and then pointing it at an adversary's infrastructure or enemy armored vehicle, I don't know how soon we're going to get there. There's just so much like international laws about armed conflict that I think would have to be revisited. It's still kind of a gray area when we cross from cyber to kinetic. Whether or not the nation is justified and you in escalating to kinetic, for example.

Even today we're not really responding or hacking back. If someone hacks us, we say we're defending forward.

We All Live in The Same House

Katy: Nobody's really stepped out there yet to clearly define how using cyber with kinetic impacts, how that's changing the laws of armed conflict. I don't think we're going to be able to answer that today either. But it's definitely introducing far more complexity and it's moving so much faster than we can actually codify and update laws and policies and treaties.

Tracy: And I think it's going to depend on the different nations, right? The different actors in all of this. My question kind of came from some reading I was doing. I read a book recently called 'The Kill Chain'. I think it's by Cameron Boozer. I'll find the name and post it out.

But that led me on a little bit of an afternoon Google chase one day, trying to understand. And there have been some recent tests by China that would point to them preparing and trying to figure out how they would do this....

Listen in for part 2 of our women's panel with Kris Saling, Chief Analytics Officer for the Army Talent Management Task Force and Director of People Analytics in the office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Manpower & Reserve Affairs), and Jazmin Furtado, Liaison at AI Accelerator and Data Strategy Lead at US Space Force. In this episode, Carolyn, Kris, and Jazmin get real about the power of the collective, emerging solutions, and the importance to assess and provide within federal government technology.

Episode Table of Contents

Episode Links and Resources

Meditation Is Really Good

Carolyn: We are in part two of our women in technology panel, with Kris Saling, Deputy Director of Army People Analytics, and Captain Jazmin Furtado a Data Strategy Lead at the US Space Force and Space Force Liaison at the MIT AI Accelerator.

On today's episode, we're going to dive more into government technology in general. I get Kris and Jazmin to do a little fortune-telling on where tech is headed. What advancements they've seen in their careers. And we get real with some salary talk. Just a little reminder, the views of Kris and Jazmin are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of their agencies. Now let's get to it on Tech Transforms with our women panel.

I know that meditation is really good for the monks that live in caves in India. And I know that I should probably do it. Until I saw the science behind it and what it can really do for my brain. I dabbled in it. I never fully embraced it. And once I started understanding why it was working and that there was true science behind it, man, I'm all in. I'm just thinking of just one example of things that are good for me in my life, that I've been able to embrace and bring into my life because I understand them. I understand how they work rather than like you said, Kris, the leadership saying, "No, we don't give a shit about how you got there. Just give us the answer."

Make The Process More Efficient

Carolyn: But now you're getting people who really want to understand why. I would imagine that the program for the answers that you've been spoonfeeding them. The programs are becoming a lot more powerful and effective. Because the people who are taking those in the past spoonfed answers. Now really understanding them can truly implement them at a level that is a lot more powerful. Is that true?

Kris: I would say that's definitely true because we're working on a couple of projects right now where we are trying to integrate machine learning into promotions and selections as a decision support tool. I'd never in a million years, would've thought we'd get a chance to work on that data and introduce something that is an algorithm into a just intrinsically human process.

But we have enough people thinking along this vein. We have enough people looking at the data we've collected about how we read records and how we read files. And they're like, "There's got to be an easier way to do this. There's got to be something we can do to support the board, to pull out the key insights. To package them differently, to display them differently, to sort." And they came to us with the question of how can we make this process more efficient?

And I just came back with exactly what the computer is supposed to do. It doesn't get tired, it doesn't get bored. Its attention doesn't wonder, and it can read things a whole heck of a lot faster than we can. So let's see how we can crunch your data a little bit better into more digestible packages for you to review.

A Long Way to Go For AI

Kris: So we keep the human in the process. We keep that comfort level, but now the humans have enough comfort with the machine process. It's not quite human-machine teaming yet. I'm hoping that we'll get to some true instances of human-machine teaming. But we've got an algorithm producing a product that's digestible and a receiver on the other end that trusts it.

Carolyn: So you guys both heavily involved in AI, Jazmin, what are the advances that you see coming up in AI? Be my fortune teller for a minute. What is the landscape looking like in the next year, three years, even five years. Where's it going?

Jazmin: I guess currently what we're seeing is a lot of actually pretty narrow cases of AI. I would say AI is at its current state, not as pervasive in all industries, as we probably would expect. It’s definitely very prominent in a select few industries. But there's quite a few businesses and just overall industries too, that just haven't embraced it to the same extent. And so we still have a long way to go until we see AI really integrated with a lot of our day-to-day work.

Carolyn: Why do you think that is? I don't want to derail. I want you to come back to that, but why?

Jazmin: So I think there's still nervousness by some groups that haven't used it or not as familiar with it. They are not sure how to use it. Or they don't know how it could immediately benefit their operations. Because they don't see the parallels or they don't understand how those parallels could apply in their day-to-day work. So that's a piece.

A Legitimate Concern

Jazmin: Also I think the lack of policy and regulation on AI technology. How to utilize and integrate AI technology into your business also scares a lot of people like, "Am I going to be sued? That's a legitimate concern. To what extent can I use this?

And it's also seen as an extra investment if I'm not using it now. I don't know exactly how it's going to benefit me. It's a coin toss if that's really going to help in the long term. I think some people may think of it like that. Then why would I put up that investment now, if what I'm doing is working for me for the meantime. So there's that near-term view as well.

Carolyn: So we conducted a survey. I worked with Market Connections to pull IT mission owners within the DoD and Fed CIV. And we asked them some of these questions. So what you just said, from your own experience is backed by the data, which we all love. Just that some of the biggest barriers that we saw IT mission owners site for not embracing AI.

First, they thought it was super important and then they needed it. But they hadn't implemented it. And they didn't really have plans to implement it, partly because they're scared of it. They don't understand it. There's a big learning curve. There's a perceived expense. And their challenges, interestingly enough, were finding root cause and accomplishing everything that needed to be accomplished with a limited staff.

I'm just sitting there going, "Hey, I can do this for you and you're not implementing it." So what you just said, like I said, has been validated. I'm sure not just by the survey that I did, but by others. So back to where are we going with AI?

Where Are We Going With AI

Jazmin: I think we're seeing a lot of pretty big breakthroughs in AI technology in the industries that AI's really being embraced. I think we all know about autonomous vehicles, for example.

Carolyn: Really are we going there?

Jazmin: I think it's just a matter of time.

Carolyn: Well, am I going to get an iron man suit then? Because that's what I really want.

Jazmin: That may be a little bit further away. Flying, like individual flying capability is a little bit further away for transportation purposes than recreational. But the autonomous vehicle I think gives technology or just autonomy there in navigation I think is advancing.

I think it is, that will be pretty transformative in terms of our job landscape. What we do on a regular basis. How much time is spent driving tour or driving to places, whether it be leisure, for business, and having that free time. I think a lot of people would buy into having that free time. Of course, there's still things to work out in that arena. But when that's ironed out, I think that'll be a pretty big breakthrough.

I don't know if it's more near term or not. But the concept of the metaverse. I think AI is going to be very important there. AI is very foundational to both of these areas. But I think with the metaverse it's going to provide opportunities for a lot of advancements in AI technology in terms of how it's utilized. With the creation of the metaverse, I know the concepts are still really new. But the potential for it to gather a lot of data and be able to create virtual world.

Exciting and Terrifying Possibilities With AI

Jazmin: It's going to be leveraging AI in ways that it wasn't thought of before. So I think those are really great areas for breakthroughs in AI.

Carolyn: Yes. And think about what it can do to the diversity and inclusion arena. Because we can be whatever we want in the metaverse. I can be a woman, but I can also be a lion if I want.

Jazmin: And interact. I know the possibilities are exciting, but also equally terrifying.

Carolyn: Yes. A little bit.

Jazmin: There’s so much unknown in that. But can't discount the impact that AI and technology is going to have in these arenas. Of course with great power comes great responsibility sort of thing. But I don't think there's any stopping it. It's just a matter of who's going to be at the table to help shape and mold those technologies. The who is the biggest part of it.

Carolyn: Yes. So Kris, you were nodding your head a lot and really a lot when it came to the metaverse. So what are you seeing? What's your prediction?

Kris: Oh goodness. It's hard to top things that Jazmin listed out. Those are kind of the ones that are top of mind. Looking in the personal space, one of the things we're studying is the psychology of human-machine teaming. I don't think it's science fiction I think a lot of it's happening right now, even with our limited AI. Since we have a lot of folks using virtual assistance of some kind to do any number of different functions.

Human-Machine Teaming

Kris: We have virtual chat. We have all these different types of things that we're already interacting with. And we've done a lot of exploration of what the ethics look like in this. I think that's the piece that's going to come up fast because the technology is just going to explode. We have tremendous innovators. Both for better or for worse are going to go out and develop amazing things.

I think if we don't think about how we're going to use these things and how we're going to expect them to interact with us. I just have a policy letter out for staffing on the use of personnel data for various purposes and various roles. And one of the roles we had to include was autonomous systems. What kind of data about our personnel are we going to share with these autonomous systems? Because they're going to be making decisions about how they interact with us.

So I see a lot of interesting things happening in that space. But it's one of the things we've got to get through simulation. We've got to get through the world of what if and figure out how we want these things to interact. What kind of capabilities we need to build in our humans to interact with them. Because I think restraining technology at this point, just Jazmin said, it's not happening.

Carolyn: Let's go back to Spiderman. With great power comes great responsibility. And I am so grateful that I am looking at two leaders in this space that I truly believe have our best interests. Our world, our children's best interest at heart and are going to use this power for good.

Are Women in Tech Paid Equal Like Their Male Counterparts

Carolyn: But I want to come back around to something that we talked about in our last episode. That's just the disparities that we've noticed in the workforce as a woman, challenges that we've run into. So statistics say that we are still not being paid. I hate that we're coming back to pay. But this is an important topic. That we are still not being paid the same as our male counterparts. Now I would hope that in the government, that might be better. But let me just ask you both. Do you think, do you believe that you are being paid exactly what your male counterparts are being paid? Kris, let's start with you.

Kris: We're not going to take the cheaters' rule out and say that because of law and statute, we have to be.

Carolyn: Yes.

Kris: So I think the bigger question is, it's not a monetary cost. It's an opportunity cost more than anything. I'm going to talk both about women and minorities progressing through the system. We see different kind of fall off points where we fail to retain them and we fail to progress. And when we look at it, it's not because of any kind of overt bias or anything that we could fix easily with policy. It's because they're not being brought in.

Again, kind of coming back to that topic about bringing into the network, bringing into the mentorship, bringing into the opportunities. They're either in branches or functions that don't typically get some of the all-star opportunities that allow them to progress rapidly. Or there are other things that kind of contribute to that opportunity cost.

An Opportunity Cost

Kris: So I think there are people who are moving through the space. There are people with very good reputations who are moving through the data space, especially. But I think as an organization, we kind of have to figure out how to broaden the talent bench that we're pulling from. So that we don't overly constrain who we're pulling from, for some of those opportunity positions.

Carolyn: You've seen that with the data that you're looking at, this is not anecdotal. This is not just, this is what I think is happening. This is what you're seeing at a very macro level with the data, the opportunity.

Kris: Yes, anytime we see the disparities, it's like we can almost directly pull back and look at who's in the organization? What functions are they performing? And as an army, we are very focused on command channels. And then anything that kind of falls in as staff or key enabler. Just even with the word enabler, you kind of classify that as secondary. It's something that is supporting my main effort.

We've been trying to challenge that a little bit. Just looking at what the future of warfare, multi-domain operations, enjoying all domain operations look like. There's a lot of digital in those domains. And a lot of the functional areas, a lot of the talent sets that we need are I think going to become a lot more front and center. If they haven't already. I think not at the risk of sounding a little bit doom and gloom, but we really need to focus on those areas. I would say we are, but I can't stop beating the drum to focus on those areas.

Are There Missed Opportunities for Being a Woman in Tech?

Carolyn: Do you personally think Kris that you've had missed opportunities throughout your career because you're a woman?

Kris: I wouldn't say because I'm a woman per se. I think it's more just because I'm an ORSA, I'm an Operations Research and Systems Analyst. And I'm not on a command track. So I've been lucky. I've had commanders who have seen some of the stuff that I do. They’ve seen my value and pulled me into positions where I can exercise that. But that's not true throughout my career field. So I don't necessarily want to say, "Hey, look what the Army's doing." Because they've empowered me to do all this stuff. I was like on one data point and I'm not a representative sample.

Carolyn: Yes. And just for listeners that maybe aren't familiar and you too correct me if I'm wrong. But especially in the DoD, the pay scale is whatever your rank is, that's what you get paid. It doesn't matter if you're a man or a woman or a person of color. And that's why Kris, it was a very good point that it's the opportunity that there's the disparity in. Because theoretically, that pay has to be the same across the board. Jazmin, how about you, as far as pay goes, we just kind of level set that, but have you noticed missed opportunities or anything else through your career?

Jazmin: So I've actually seen quite a few people in the technology realm. And I think this is echoing a lot of what Kris was saying in that, a lot of the incentives for tech professionals in the military are not equal. Or they're not at the same level as maybe more operational roles.

Monetary Incentives for Serving Longer

Jazmin: So as in like the air force gives you incentives. Pilots, you have incentives to stay in for a little longer, you get a little, I don't want to say carrots. But there are some monetary incentives to stay in and serve for longer. If some folks are trying to get out after their commitment. But you don't necessarily see that same incentive structure at all is different depending on what sort of career fields you're in.

And I think there is an effort and you see it in various ways that the services to try to flag people that do have technology specializations or technology backgrounds to try to focus on certain tech fields and operations research was one of them. To try to provide incentives for folks to stay in these fields. So we're seeing a little bit more. But it's definitely not as ingrained as the incentive structure that we see more in the operational community. I think that does play a role in that disparity, not so much from a gender specific realm, but from a job perspective, from a stem point of view.

But I think all of these, the various disparities we see really can be combated in part by increased transparency. So exactly what Kris is doing and providing the analysis and providing that information out to the masses of what the challenges are and leave it to the individual to determine what to do with it.

How is it going? This is hopefully unbiased. So this analysis, this is the information, this is the data, do with it as how you see fit. And that provides incentive for those that are being assessed to make sure that they are making the necessary changes to provide.

Tell People How Much You’re Making

Jazmin: Or to better their own organization in the long term and change their policies or procedures or incentive structure. To be able to keep and attract the talent that they need, which we need to attract the minority diverse fields.

So I think transparency not just on the analysis front, but also on just the pay, just to get broadly speaking outside the government, there are more and more applications now where you can see how much someone in your career field's making. And I think some people want to hold that close and like, "Oh, I don't want to share what I'm making." I'm very much a proponent.

Tell people how much you're making. Mentor people, tell them how much they should be expecting to make in these career fields? Because if you don't have that...

Women in tech unite on this special episode of Tech Transforms featuring Kris Saling, Chief Analytics Officer for the Army Talent Management Task Force and Director of People Analytics in the office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Manpower & Reserve Affairs), and Jazmin Furtado, Liaison at AI Accelerator and Data Strategy Lead at US Space Force. Carolyn, Kris and Jazmin discuss the impact of self-awareness and the importance of data education and fostering change when it comes to government technology.

Episode Table of Contents

Episode Links and Resources

Introducing the Women in Tech: Kris Saling & Captain Jazmin Furtado

Carolyn: This week we are going full girl power, so Mark got uninvited. Today we have our Women In Tech panel featuring a couple of guests who have previously been on our show, Kris Saling, Deputy Director of Army People Analytics, and Captain Jazmin Furtado, a Data Strategy Lead at the U.S. Space Force and Space Force Liaison at the MIT AI Accelerator. Welcome back Jazmin and Kris to Tech Transforms to talk about your journeys in government technology.

I'm really excited to talk to both of you again, but before we get into that let me do a little housekeeping. So I just want to remind our listeners that the views of both Kris and Jazmin are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of their agencies. I'm just going to say that for myself, too. Because I warned this, too, before we started. I'm like, "I got some stuff I need to get out." And I want to be able to talk freely today.

Let's start talking about challenges that both of you have faced being a woman in the technology space. The fact that we even have to say, "Being a woman in the government technology space," other than, we're in the technology space and we kick ass. I hate that we have to do that but I still feel like we do. I'm already getting up on my soapbox. But, let's start with you, Kris. Some of the challenges that you've faced.

Kris: So, it's one of those where I don't want to say there aren't any challenges. But I've encountered so many of these challenges throughout my career. I just hit 20 years last summer, I'm going to hit 21 years this coming summer. Yes, it's almost the summer again.

Kris Saling’s Challenges for Being One of the Women in Tech

Kris: So it's been a long time of sitting there with the typical, the anxieties, the imposter anxiety, the "What is my balance between being assertive. And how do I not come off as, "Insert your," kind of "The common anxieties"? It really hasn't been all that different. I've been trying to figure out the right balance of how to present different things. How to present facts so that they are listened to. How to present data to an audience where not only do we have the schism between having an audience that's operational and I'm on the technical side. But sometimes it's very obvious that I know quite a bit more about the subject than the people I'm talking to.

I think one of the biggest challenges is I really didn't get to know myself and how I wanted to present these things. Because I was very much fixed on how to present that particular image until I really got into data education and started teaching people. That really helped me find a balance in how I wanted to talk about very technical subjects, both with a technical and a lay audience.

So I won't say it's overcome all the challenges. You still go out a lot of times, still the only woman sitting in the room. I do have a little bit of a reputation now that I can trade on. So I come into the room with a certain amount of that reputation. But I've seen a lot of cases where that hasn't been the case. Where people have come in and haven't quite known how to throw all those and hold their ground in areas where they're competent. How we make the opportunities to do that because that's where other opportunities come from.

Captain Furtado Shares Her Perspective on Being Part of the Women in Tech

Carolyn: Jazmin, have you felt that?

Jazmin: Yes, so a lot of the same things. I'm very aware of how I may be coming across. And depending on the level I'm speaking at, I have to maybe change the way I present something. Because I'm having to always pick apart and analyze what makes that person tick. I'm not saying that's maybe something specific to women. I feel like maybe everyone has to do that to some extent.

But of course, I only know from my perspective how much of my time goes into not just the content but just my body language, my tone, the inflection in my voice, the pacing of my words. Because a lot is taken away already from visuals and the unspoken. So there's already a front that I put on and that I present to people when I walk into a room. And there's already preconceived notions of who I am and what I can do. So having to overcome those is maybe an extra thing that others may not need to.

But I've thought about this a lot and I try to think about the other's perspective. I've come to realize that a lot of times, most of the times, there's not necessarily any ill intent behind how people perceive others. Maybe there's an audience that is not conscious of their own biases.

I think it's beneficial for all of us to check ourselves and check the comments that we make in the workplace. Because things that may be seen as teasing or something that's lighthearted may actually be eating away at the mutual respect that you have for another person. They may eat into the other person's credibility as a professional, as a leader.

The Imposter Syndrome Experienced by Women in Tech

Jazmin: So please be cognizant of these comments because these small things, especially in a public forum, they start eating away at that. And it's not appropriate in the workplace to be making these side comments and thinking that there's no consequence. So just as an input, I guess, for everyone out there, when you're speaking just be aware of your slang or colloquial. Be aware of the unintended consequences of some of the things that are being said.

Carolyn: I'm just going to admit this right upfront. I have found myself through my career. Because I've been in technology for 20 years now. Often the only woman in the room. I've felt like a little bit of an imposter. I started out in product management, definitely felt like an imposter there. Because I was interpreting what developers were saying, trying to understand what users needed. I was always the only woman in a sea of men. Then when I moved to marketing I suffered another kind of imposter syndrome where I thought, "I'm not really in the tech field, but I am." Like, "I need to be able to tell this story."

This is taking a really long time to get to my point. Throughout my career as I look back, I've noticed that I have done things and portrayed myself in a way and used language that I thought would make me fit in more, drink too much, swear like a sailor. But I have to say I love swearing. So I've just embraced that as part of what I really like and no longer consider that me attempting to fit in with the boys because I just like to swear. But other things, even what you were just saying Jazmin about being cognizant of slurs.

Fight Like a Girl

Carolyn: I grew up with a cold war Army dad. Believe me, I have some slurs. And I didn't even realize how offensive they were until pretty recently. Some of the stuff that has come out of my mouth, I'm like, "I can't believe I said that," and towards women. I used to say, "Fight like a girl" all the time as an insult, not as props. So have either of you noticed that?

Kris: So I think there's a lot of that, that's part and parcel. I've enjoyed my later years of being a little more senior ranking and a little more salty overall, of being able to call that out. And to stop people when they're making statements, or even making assumptions about anything having to do with women. Like, certain programs should be marketed this way towards women.

That's usually where I start throwing things at them figuratively because we're virtual. But try to at least get their attention and say, "Hey, guys, you just othered an entire 50% of the population, 17% of the Active Army population. But that still is a large percentage of people that you just said, 'All of these people think the same way.'"

One of the principles that we've been working on in talent management is getting away from the one-size-fits-all method of work and method of leadership. And that has really lent itself to fostering a lot of these discussions about how we work. In the Army at least, it's 1.4 million people when you consider all three components in our civilians, and they're all different and everybody is different.

Carolyn: Oh, so take it from a human approach, is that what you're saying?

Take It From a Human Approach

Kris: Shocking, isn't it? As opposed to the industrial model that we employed over the past 50 years where everybody is interchangeable. And we don't see you as a human. We see you as some kind of a cog categorized by your grade and your career field. Instead, let's look at you as a person. Let's do some, shocking again, human-centric design, and let's start seeing people as people for capabilities. Rather than what we assume comes with and based on people's personal biases.

They make a lot of assumptions that people come with a lot of baggage. So I think we're making some progress. Again, when I say we're making some progress it's like we're starting here. We know it still goes on heavily throughout the organization. But we're getting our foot in the door there.

Carolyn: So you're not going to admit to anything that you've done in the past?

Kris: Oh, you mean as far as things I've said or things I've done?

Kris: I just spent 12 years as a combat engineer. So that was the first 12 years of my army, work hard, play hard, swear hard, still swear hard. I have to remember sometimes that I'm in an office building.

Carolyn: Did you go into combat to prove something?

Kris: I graduated from West Point in 2001 and all the women that I trained with there, all the women I met in my officer basic course in our first unit, we always were under pressure to prove that we belonged. It was always the, "Oh, we're going to prove that we can do this and we can do that thing." But it was always earning your place and proving you belonged, which was a heck of a lot of pressure.

Women in Tech Experience a Lot of Pressure

Carolyn: Yes, the first has to be better, stronger, the first always has to. So what about you, Jazmin? Are you going to admit anything?

Jazmin: Well, I can't actually think of any examples but I know it has happened to me. And I don't think anyone ever perfects the self-policing of the agency. Check yourself before you make statements. But as long as the intent is there and the effort, at least, in some regard have measured. And the progress is being seen and being able to proactively catch things before you say something. Or recognize that a topic may not be the best one, maybe there's another topic to bring up, it's great.

I think in my previous job I didn't really appreciate the role that a person that's put in a leadership position or authority has over that culture. It's the little things that a leader does. The topics they bring up, the things that they decide to talk about just in a forum. What topic? Are you just going to talk about one topic all the time? Maybe sports, the stereotypical one. Who are you leading? Get to know them. What are the things that they're interested in and then as a leader, make sure that you can represent your team and their interests, and talk to them and connect to them in a way that is more comfortable for them.

So when I was at Kessel and I actually saw that quite a bit. There's a lot of these cultures that are pushing for psychological safety and the training that comes with it. And seeing it more in the workplace, making me more aware, it makes me take a look, "Oh, what are things I said before."

An Environment of Psychological Safety

Jazmin: And I'm still trying to think of an example but nothing comes to mind right now. But yes, I think those trainings have been really great because the people in specific roles have a big part to play in that.

Kris: Jazmin, if I can jump on one of the things you said about talking about the same topics all the time and here's how people connect. We've talked about that a lot in the return to the office, the people who are pressing for it and the people who aren't. A lot of the people who are pressing for it, we're finding some commonalities in the ways that they want to connect. And a lot of the workforce that they have who doesn't want to come back hasn't connected with what they feel like that office culture is.

So I think when you start talking about providing an environment of psychological safety and providing an office identity that people can connect to. How do we connect ourselves with that culture? We really have to think about that if we want people to maintain that connection, both remotely and when they come back to the office. Or if they come back to the office. I'm a big proponent of remote work. I just have to throw that in there.

Jazmin: Yes, and definitely it has to be very proactive. It's a lot of work to do that. And it takes people out of their comfort zones to push for certain topics, push for events, push for these kinds of forums to happen. It doesn't just happen by itself, you can't just will it. So yes, it's really great to hear.

Women in Tech to Fostering Change

Carolyn: So I'm going to put us all on the spot a little bit to foster this change. Because the truth is, at a macro level we are still grossly in the minority. So what have we done personally to help foster this change? Maybe an easier question is what have you seen leaders do to help foster this change or have they? Or are we still missing this? So, Kris, I know this is a focus for you because it's your job. What do you recommend? What's happening?

Kris: Are we talking about just making more opportunities, more mentorship? I'm going to guess, all.

Carolyn: All of it, is that where we start, just making more opportunities and how do we do that? I think what we're doing right now is an important thing because we're talking about it.

Kris: I think we're talking about it and we have three women in tech in this conversation who have been imminently successful in their own domains. And we've all been in domains where there's not a whole heck of a lot of us. We've had mentors who are male who have come in, who have seen something in us. Who have seen those qualities and have provided advice, who have provided guidance.

And every time, at least lately since I've been more aware of it, I've had a mentor provide that guidance. I've encouraged them to think about, "Why are you providing me that guidance? Is it because of this particular thing, that particular thing?" Let's reach out and look at all the people you have in your mentorship circle and figure out who's not there. What are the other kind of opportunities?

Pulling Other Women in Tech Into the Circle

Kris: And I've started learning to ask myself, I need to be better about it, it's like, "Who else can I pull into that circle?"

Carolyn: So are you mentoring then? Even officially, unofficially, you find people to mentor as well.

Kris: I do. I've had a lot of people talk to me. Because I work in a very interesting niche. There are a lot of people who try to figure out what exactly my job categories are. Because we're doing all the things, people analytics, we're doing talent management for the Army's data workforce. We're doing data education and there's been a lot of focus on just, "Who's going to take over the programs? Who's coming up?" Because they know at some point or another I'm going to retire. I'm going to go do something else. And I'm going to go start other projects. I'm going to try to carry on the somewhat entrepreneurial frame that I've looked at things in the Army with some other venture.

So I look around like, "Okay, who's coming up? Who's got interest in some of the same projects I'm working on? Who really wants to foster change? How can I bring them in and get them some of those connections and get them some of the experiences working with the different types of projects and project leads and leaders." And as I'm doing that I really want to make sure that I'm bringing in all of those perspectives. That I'm bringing in not just more of the same. Because we want new perspectives. We as an organization have said very emphatically that we want change. Now we just need to prove it by bringing in people who can make the change and who see things differently.

Good Mentor vs Bad Mentor

Carolyn: Well I love that you have a mentor and that you are mentoring. Jazmin, have you had mentors, male or female? Do you participate in some official or unofficial mentoring?

Jazmin: So I have had quite a few great mentors. I've had a couple of pretty bad supervisors take on leadership roles. I think what has distinguished them is the good mentor, the people that I really look up to listen. They figure out what motivates me. They really try to find what am I really looking for out of my career. And they don't look at what can I provide to their organization right now. That makes all the difference when you're not seen as just someone that outputs and delivers products.

I think the people that have been great mentors look at the potential that I can provide in the long term. And that being able to give me those opportunities that feed my own personal and professional growth does both things. It both helps myself and it helps the organization. Because I'm being put in the best capacity and being put to best use in the organization.

So like I said, I've had the opposite as well where folks are just, how do I say this? I am in this organization for two years. As much time as they can put into me doing that one and one job only, and my scope is this big, there's no way for me to say anything else around it. Because that role is really important to the organization and they need me to do X, Y, Z. And those are positions that I do not thrive in.

Women in Tech Are Helping Each Other

Jazmin: But from a mentorship or from a supervisory standpoint, if you don't get to know your people then you're going to realize the limitations that you put on yourself and your organization as a result, so, yes. In terms of me mentoring other people, I have found LinkedIn to be great. This is not a plug but it's the only way actually that I get to talk to people outside of my realm here. There are some events that I'll speak at via recruiting events or...

What does it mean for an agency to monitor applications with empathy to achieve successful mission outcomes? Bill James is the President of Federal Business LLC and FedSmarts LLC. He is also a former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Development and Operations in the Office of Information and Technology at the Department of Veterans Affairs. He joins Carolyn and Mark to talk about the importance of application monitoring, culture, and empathy when executing a mission.

Episode Table of Contents

Episode Links and Resources

Introducing Our Guest, Bill James

Carolyn: So today, our guest is Bill James. He is president of Federal Business LLC. In his previous role as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Development and Operations in the office of Information and Technology at the Department of Veterans Affairs, Bill led the VA's largest information technology organization to deliver enterprise-wide technology products and services to veterans.

He has been able to carry those skills into his current role as president of Federal Business LLC. And today, we're going to get Bill's perspective on why Application Performance Monitoring or APM is no longer a luxury, but a necessity. And he just recently put out a blog that, I'm going to nerd out here, I really like the blog. It's easy to understand.

One of the things he says in it, or some of the perspectives we're going to get from him, is how APM for VA software applications is necessary now and critical for the future. And how it helps the VA, and I'm going to throw in there, like any organization, any agency, avoid or recover from outages, increase VA OIT productivity and observability, offer insights into investments needed for innovation and understand and improve the customer experience of veterans. I love that last bit. The customer experience.

Bill: Thank you very much, Carolyn and Mark. I'm really happy to be here today, and you've touched one of my hot buttons. I'm really interested in all of it, how the technology ultimately relates and improves the end-user experience. Specifically and particularly, our veterans. And that's why I loved working at the VA so much.

Focus On Veterans’ Experience

Carolyn: Well, and that topic I feel like is especially timely Mark. Especially with the presidential executive order around user experience. I mean, you're kind on the cutting edge, Bill. I mean, you've been doing this before it was cool. You've been worried about the customer experience.

Bill: That's right. I grew up as a programmer, a coder, and as a mathematician. It was always interesting to me how we could build a code and write it. And we thought our job was done when we hit the end card, back in the day when we had punch cards.

But that wall, was frankly was a false wall, and what we never thought through, I think clearly enough into what that code actually did for the end-user. So I think with the new executive order and clearly the focus on the veterans' experience in the VA, that wall came crumbling down for me particularly. It was really a great place to work and a great place to exercise this whole idea of customer experience from the IT perspective specifically.

Carolyn: We're definitely going to dive more into that. Before we go there, for our listeners that may not be as familiar with application performance monitoring or APM, will you give us a quick definition of what that is?

Bill: Yes. It's the heartbeat of your systems, and specifically of software. So, many folks have gone to the doctor or seen these electrocardiograms, where they put these things on your chest and you have the little needle that draws how your heartbeat beat is beating.

What Is Application Performance Monitoring

Bill: Software needs that very same type of telemetry, where it can show everybody it's alive, it's working, it's working well. And then you can also take that very same monitoring capability and say, "Well, okay, fine. You think your software's working well in the black little box, how is the user experiencing it?"

So your software may be working, but the user network may be down so the user can't see the software, even if the software's running. This end to end understanding of what is working and how does it relate through all of the layers of technology to the end-user, and having the tools that really give you a dashboard to allow you to see that from a management perspective, see that monitoring data from a management perspective, that's APM. So in my view, it's the software EKG.

Mark: I think this is a very fascinating topic, not just because we work at Dynatrace, but because of what you've said and what I've read in your articles. I have seen resistance across other agencies, to adopt and to look at the world the way that you have described it. Why is that happening? Can you help us understand why we see this across other agencies?

Bill: I think that a lot of it is cultural. I used to say, and I still believe this, that DevOps equals empathy. And it's not just empathy for the end-user, but Dev and Ops, and the other phrase, DevSecOps, the development, the security, and the operations, grew up as stovepipes in the IT world.

Empathy: Monitor Applications and Care About Your Neighbor

Bill: And they still operate that way in a lot of ways. So empathy means you care about your neighbor. You care about the other parts of your organization and you obviously very much so, care about the end-user.

I think every organization, every federal agency, every company, needs to first of all, think about who your customers are. But secondly, internally, think about, how can our culture be inclusive and empathetic in the sense that, I don't live in a stovepipe, everything that I do affects somebody else.

It's more than just soft words because you can measure that and you should be able to monitor that. Which takes us right back down to, from a software perspective, the application performance monitoring. I want the software folks to care at three o'clock in the morning, if their software application goes down, I want them to be the first one to get the phone call, "Hey, your code broke."

And then the blog, I quoted my YBI YOI "You built it, you own it, right?" You don't drop and run. Once you build that code, you own it forever. And not only do you own it, but you own it with your partners, the security partners, and the operations partners. So I think APM gives that foundation for everyone to share a common view of what's going on. Therefore it begins to break down those stovepipes.

Carolyn: That goes back to what I mentioned before. One of the most important benefits to me of the DevSecOps is that everybody becomes responsible for that user experience. We take the onus off of the user. You gave an analogy of the airline pilot. I'm going to let you share that analogy.

The Aha Moment to Monitor Applications

Bill: Yes. So the idea is, imagine if you were a passenger on an airline and the pilot announced "I have no instruments in the cockpit, so please let me know if one of our engines stopped running." You're asking the passengers to let you know, because "Hey, I'm flying blind and I sure hope everything works out, but if it doesn't, please let me know." I mean, that's silly.

But that's how IT used to work, and to a large degree, in VA, it's very different now, we've changed, come a long way. But we have plenty of instruments that monitored networks and plenty of instruments that monitored computers. And of course, we had thermometers and data centers. We have all sorts of instrumentation around the computing part, but we didn't have much instrumentation or monitoring on the software part.

So the ops had a lot of instrumentation, not so much the Dev, not so much the applications. And so, when we came up to the delivery of the software supporting the mission act in June of 2019, I was nervous. Because we didn't have what we needed from a software monitoring perspective. We scrambled and cobbled together, a lot of things, but it's come a long way since then. And that was that aha moment for me really, it's the, "Oh my gosh. We don't have the instrumentation, the monitoring observability that we need on this code."

Carolyn: Well, I love what you say in the blog. I'm just going to read directly from the blog here. The software folks needed to feel like they were part of a larger team, the mission, right?

Bill: Yes.

The Onus of the User Experience

Carolyn: That was responsible for the end-users experience. So we take the onus off of the passengers, to let me know if there's an engine out and we own that. And it seems like, especially within government, the onus of the user experience has been on the end-user a lot and partly because where else are they going to go, right?

Bill: Exactly right. Trouble tickets, that was the way that the software folks knew when their application was down, was when a trouble ticket was issued by a user. "Hey, this is not working." And so it's like the pilot, when a passenger, raises his hand, "Hey, one of the engines is out." That shouldn't be the first time you hear that.

You should beat your users to the punch in terms of knowing what's going down when a disc drive is filling up or when some application is having problems and it has to be taken the entire perspective, from the code to the end-user. We have to be observant of what's going on.

And so exactly right. It's really, really critically important that we take measure of what's happening in our infrastructure and how our users are affected.

Carolyn: So, you mentioned that at the VA, you saw a lack of APM, the lack of APM exposed a cultural crack. What do you mean by that? Unpack the cultural crack that you saw?

Missing to Monitor Applications May Result in Cultural Crack

Bill: Right. So as the deputy secretary for DevOps, I saw both sides. I saw the development and then I saw the operations. And when you have a lot of the metrics and the instrumentation on the ops side, and very little on the dev side, to me, it exposes a responsibility gap.

And to your point, this is a joint responsibility and the whole idea of product management, which is something that the VA has pivoted to as opposed to project management, when you move to product management. That product idea includes everybody, your user, the inside developers, your operations. It is the manifestation in a lot of ways of this DevOps or agile way of life and way of developing and operating code.

So the cultural divide that I saw was that the software folks and I'm one of them by the way, would write the code, and what I call drop and run. They'd write the code and they would expect the operations teams to run it. Well, that's great.

And when things break, the software folks are the ones, in some cases, if there's a bug or some security exposure or something, they're the ones that get called. But the responsibility was pretty much on the operations side of the fence. So from a cultural perspective, I wanted to balance that. So everybody had a role, Dev, Ops and the user, nothing like having a great champion, a business champion who owns the operational responsibility of the outcomes, for example, of a specific piece of software.

But if you have that great team and they're bound together, that's the essence of a product team, as opposed to a project team where you have milestones and you have an end, right?

We’re All in This Together

Bill: Every project has an end, but that's not, in the software business, that's exactly the point. It does not end. You as a project manager for building an application, you build the application, and your responsibility doesn't end there and you get to move on to another project.

Yes. You get to move on to another project, but your responsibility for the previous project does not end. It endures. And you are now part of a team with the operations and the security and the end-user, to make sure that the end-user experience is good and frankly, great.

So that idea that we're all in this together, that we are a holistic team, not just chunks or pieces in a series of milestones, or that we are all in it together, forever together in service of the veterans. So that's a very passionate thing about anybody who works at the VA. Everybody that has heard me talk about that before, that working at the VA is like no other agency. Their purpose is so clear, like no other company, and it's so noble.

You feel good about working there and you get passionate about providing the services to the veterans that they've earned. So when you tie that fantastic noble objective, with the toolsets and the culture being able to deliver it, it's just a fantastic experience for me.

The Culture in the Veterans Affairs

Mark: Bill, do you feel like, obviously the culture helps with the mission because your end users are veterans and you want to support veterans, et cetera. So, I completely get that. Do you think having everything under your purview when you were there, helped make that happen, as opposed to maybe some other organizations within government?

Bill: Yes. I think yes. And I don't get the credit for that. We have some fantastic leadership, that moves VA in that direction. Frankly, we had some fantastic technology support. VA has a great digital service team there. They brought a lot of great new ideas. APM was one of them. I give them credit for that.

My friend, Steve Vito says, "Lead with your ears, not with your mouth. Everybody was born with two ears, one mouth, use them in that ratio." But in order to adopt those ideas, you have to be open to listening to them. Then from that perspective, having a DevOps organization, now it's DevSecOps organization, you do have all the levers in front of you to knit the culture and the toolsets and the objectives together. Frankly, that was really one of the reasons why we could do what we were able to do in VA and why they've continued to move ahead in a lot of great ways since that point.

I think a lot of other agencies, they absolutely should look at this DevOps model or the DevSecOps model and consider that. The other thing that's different that the VA had, that all the other agencies don't, is that we have a strong CIO in the VA, and they had the financial accountability and authority that was viewed in the CIO role, by the Clinger-Cohen Act.

The Challenge to Monitor Applications in DoD

Bill: A lot of other agencies don't have that single accountability from a budget perspective. So when you have the culture, you have the purpose and you have the ability to control the finances with a single governance model, that makes your life a whole lot easier. A lot of agencies don' have those very same authorities and powers imbued into the organization. So I think those are all necessary pieces of the puzzle.

Mark: Do you think that your colleagues on the DoD side of the house struggle with that? Because there's not that connection between the DevSecOps side of the house and maybe the mission owner, you wouldn't say line of business, but the mission owner?

Bill: I think so. As an IT person, it's hard, like in the DoD, for you to see the outcomes of your activity. So you might be writing a line of code, and maybe if you're in the air force, for example, you may have six or seven layers removed from still on target or some mission outcome. So it can be more difficult in organizations like DoD than in an agency like VA where the purpose is so absolutely very clear and crystal clear. We build kiosks or at least the software for kiosks that our veteran touches. That's very close to you as an IT person and you can see the outcomes directly, not so much in DoD, your outcomes are farther away and it's harder for you to see.

The Old Waterfall Model

Bill: Having said all that. I do believe that the idea of tying your operators and the users, for example, an air force pilot let's take the software person and the hardware, the operations infrastructure person, tying those three legs of the stool together, I think, produces the aha moments that you don't otherwise get when you live in your own little stovepipes. And so I would absolutely recommend that.

Mark: When you were on that side of the world, were they creating software factories at that time?

Bill: Yes, there were a few software factories, but it was still the old waterfall model. And so the software factories produced code that someone else implemented and operated. And so the software factories that the VA is building and a lot frankly, everybody's thinking about the idea of virtual software factories. But if you do that in an agile sense, in a DevOps sense, you get very different outcomes.

So let's build something today, that's fully instrumented and fully secure. But let's build and deliver something today as opposed to plan to deliver something perfect, maybe never. So the whole waterfall model I think really builds and frankly constructs a lot of these cultural boundaries that we try to erase in the DevOps.

And so, back to the APM, it doesn't matter what you build, and it doesn't matter what process you use if you don't know how it operates. If you have no observability, no insights into whether it's up or down, no understanding if it's alive or Dev. Two in the morning, I want to be able to not literally, but figuratively hear that heartbeat of the application that my code is running. And so it puts a smile on your face and you can sleep comfortably.

Applications Monitoring Is Integrated into the VA Process

Bill: But if it's not, I want to be the first to know. So that's a critical piece of operation, frankly. And it's something that ties you as a software builder to the operation in ways that frankly you don't get into in a waterfall model.

Carolyn: Do you think that the VA has now baked APM into their process? Like they're using it?

Bill: Yes. Policy-wise, yes. Tools wise. Yes, I think culturally, we still, the VA have a way to go. I mean, we made huge progress. I mean it’s night and day difference. But I think there's still a way to go there. The software inventory in a VA is huge. 800 to a thousand applications in the VA software inventory. A lot of that code is legacy code that has been and still works and runs OnPrem. And they still turn out the goods and batched jobs like it has for years.

So now you've got these applications. And I think a lot of agencies do these applications that are very successful in what they do and what they accomplish. How do you go back into those and introduce modern tools? Say like APM, how do you move, what I call the electronic alligator clips? How do you attach those to these old legacy...

Consolidation, innovation, and perspective all need to work together in government IT according to Eric Trexler, VP of Global Governments and Critical Infrastructure Sales at Forcepoint. IT acts as an enabler of business in the challenging landscape of government technology. Listen in to find out what Eric believes the United States IT space should be focusing on in order to stay ahead of the adversaries.

Episode Table of Contents

Episode Links and Resources

All About Innovation with Eric Trexler

Carolyn: Today, our guest is Eric Trexler, Vice President of Global Governments and critical infrastructure at Forcepoint. Eric is an expert in the technology industry with more than 25 years of experience with both the public and private sectors. And Eric and I used to host To The Point Cybersecurity podcast together. So today is actually a real treat for me to see your face again, Eric. So, good morning.

Eric: Good morning. And it's bizarre being back on the air with you, Carolyn.

Carolyn: So, today, we're going to talk about the perplexing and growing cost of cybercrime and how we can shift the paradigm. But before we jump into that, Eric, you have actually a pretty fascinating background. So, can you just tell us a little bit about your journey?

Eric: My journey in IT? Or where would you like me to start?

Carolyn: Let's not go all the way back to birth. Let's start at your Airborne Ranger days. How about that? And then how you got to where you are today. So yes, technology.

Eric: So, I was an aimless kid at about 17 with no potential to pay for college. No easy path at the time. And I said, I'm joining the army against my mother's wishes to become an Airborne Ranger.

The Requirement to Be a Navy SEAL

Carolyn: At 17?

Eric: Yes. She had to sign the paperwork so I could join the delayed entry program. The military throws at you when you have a high ASVAB score, that's the entrance. And I had a high ASVAB score. So, I saw the Navy and they wanted me to be a nuclear engineer. And I just wanted to be a Navy SEAL back in the day before people knew what the Navy SEALs were. But you had to pick a rating, I believe they call it in the Navy.

So, I'm sitting in front of the recruiter, and he's like, "Okay, but what do you want to do?" And I'm a dumb kid, I'm 17 years old. "I want to be a Navy SEAL." "Well, you can't do that. You have to have a rating. You have to have this skill at trade." And nothing, absolutely nothing was interesting to me.

So, I left. I went to the army recruiter and enlisted. Because they'd let me be an airborne, I was unassigned airborne, technically. How I became an Airborne Ranger? I didn't want to be normal and I was in jump school and talked to a gentleman and I didn't want to wear chemical gear. This was right at the end of the first Gulf War, and everybody was running around in MOPP suits. If you remember that MOPP suits? Hot, heavy, you can't see.

MOPP Gear

Mark: You can't breathe.

Eric: Same reason I didn't want to be in a tank or a ship or a plane. I wanted to be on my feet and I wanted to be able to move. And I was like, "I don't want to wear MOPP gear." The guy said, "Here's what you do." And that's what I did. So, I literally made the choice because I did not want to wear a helmet and I didn't want to wear MOPP gear.

Carolyn: You sound like my six-year-old niece, how she chooses what she wants to do is whatever that doesn't require shoes.

Eric: I was probably about as evolved at that point in time. Mark, you know what it's like to be a 17-year-old boy. I mean, you're really pretty low on the intelligent decision-making maturity scale, right?

Mark: Maturity scale.

Eric: I mean, you're just not there. It was a great choice and it's how I got into IT. Because in about '92 or so I started building computers. And we got a computer in probably '94. The first computer in my unit to run, just to manifest for drops, exercises. It was literally an electronic typewriter, the way these guys thought about it. I’m with a bunch of infantrymen.

I was the only guy in the unit who had new computers, the only guy, I built them for gaming. So, I volunteered for college. I said, "If you allow me to set up college courses for the detachment, 60 person volunteer detachment I was in, I will work in the operations department with a computer." And that's what I did and my career just took off from there.

The Journey From Army to University

Carolyn: How long were you in the army?

Eric: Four years, 17 weeks, and I think four days or something with my contract.

Carolyn: And then where did you go?

Eric: University of Maryland. So, it was a great ride. It was even before the amazing benefits the government gives you in the GI Bill today. The GI Bill in army college plan to go to a college fund. It was like $28,000 for four years of service. That was the optimal breakpoint. You could do five or six, but you really didn't get a lot. You got to like 32,000. And my goal was to go to college.

Mark: Did you go to college full time or did you kind of dual shift at school and work at the same time?

Eric: So, I probably got about a year in the military when I moved into operations and ran, I didn't run but I did a lot of the operations work with a couple of V6s. At the time I was an E-5. But then, when I went to college, I went full time and I worked somewhere about 40 hours a week. I had a kid. My first son was born at 20. So, I'm out of the military at about 22, and I had to keep the lights on. And I had to get my college education and get moving. So, I was working full time and I was working and I was going to school. I was doing probably 21 credit hours a semester on average.

The Innovation to Get Serious in Life

Mark: Yes, that'll make you grow up.

Eric: It's interesting. I have three boys and I think the maturity level as you watch them and their friends. Twenty-five is the magic age, in my opinion, plus or minus three years for maturity in boys, that's just Eric's principle here. Unless you have a kid at 20 and you're in the military and you don't have a lot of help. And then, you grow up really quickly. I stopped going to Nashville every weekend for parties and concerts. I stopped drinking. It was time to get serious about life and take on the responsibilities that I had. It was good.

Carolyn: What was your first job out of college?

Eric: So, I bartended a little bit until I got a job at Microsystems working on, I was a QA test engineer for all of two weeks. I don't think I ever told you this.

Carolyn: No, I'm learning new things.

Eric: It was absolutely miserable. I was the worst QA test engineer ever. So, I'm IT savvy. I can build computers. I've been building computers for years. I know the Windows operating system. I'm pretty good at what I'm doing for that age and that period of time in life. I couldn't sit still. I kept talking to the developers. I'm supposed to sit there and run test routines all day and look, I had a bank of three monitors, and I literally could not sit still. Two weeks later, I was like, "This isn't working." And my boss at the time, I can't remember her last name. It was Melissa. She was awesome. She says, "You're right." And we had customer service problems.

From Traditional Apples to Apple

Eric: So, we took an employee kitchen. We moved a bunch of computers and tables into it. And we became like an R&D faction that helped customer support issues. So, we got all the hardest issues because we sat in R&D. And it worked great for the company. It worked great for the customers, and most importantly, for me.

Because I was always talking to people and fixing problems and doing things as opposed to watching automated test scripts build all day. It was the most boring job ever for me. Actually, I sorted apples once for a day and my grandfather was a produce farmer. And he took me to this amazing job. I think it paid four bucks an hour to sort apples, and that was probably worse than the testing, Carolyn.

Carolyn: Worse than QA?

Eric: Yes, at least with the QA, I have computers.

Mark: I thought you were talking about the Apple computers.

Eric: No, I'm talking like Macintosh and ROM, and the traditional apples in Pennsylvania. And just moving on a conveyor belt and sorting and checking apples all day was like the most mindless activity and it just did not work for me. But you're getting a lot out of me that I would say many close family members and friends have never even heard.

Carolyn: All right. So, which brings us to today. Well, before you came to Forcepoint, were you at McAfee right before Forcepoint?

McAfee to Forcepoint

Eric: Yes. So, I worked at Micros and I got my MCSE. I was really good at databases. And I went to Sybase at that point, great database company. I had a friend bring me over. And then, I went to EMC after that and learned storage area networking at the best of the best. So, I've got database IT storage background servers, I built them. And then I went to Salesforce.com for a two-year PhD in the Cloud

This was a great experience and it was challenging at the same time based on the customers and the sheer growth there. That's all they cared about. So, then I went to McAfee and really took up the InfoSec or cybersecurity side of the business, which I've been doing for the last 12 years and it drives me crazy. Because we get further and further and further behind the adversary.

Mark: That's interesting that you bring up the whole Salesforce thing, because they were probably one of the first software service companies that were out there.

Eric: Certainly, at scale. And the scale there right now, Mark, is, I was looking the other day. I have a couple of friends there and I had lunch with a friend. I mean, what they're doing today, I could have never imagined in the 2008, 2010 timeframe.

An Enabler of the Business

Carolyn: So, Eric, you and I have been talking about cybercrime, cybersecurity for a while now. And you've written some recent articles, and you've been talking about it. I want to talk about the problem of cybercrime. And you just mentioned that we're getting further and further behind. And when you and I talked earlier, it just reminded me of the Alice in Wonderland quote, when she's in the Red Queen's race and the Red Queen tells her, "We have to run faster and harder here just to stay in place." And Alice is like, "Well, that's stupid." So, let's talk about the massive amounts of money that we're spending on cybercrime and cybersecurity, and what needs to change.

Eric: Yes, I can talk to some of that. I certainly do not have the answers on what needs to change. I thought you put that quote in because of me. Because it's actually something that my old CTO and CMO at McAfee wrote in a book called The Second Economy. They quote Alice, in that specific quote, in the context of cybersecurity.

So, we're just talking about my career, up until 2010, when I really joined cybersecurity, hardcore for the first time. I'd always build things.

IT is an enabler of the business, it builds things to make business run better, faster, cheaper, whatever it may be, but it's an enabler of the business.

First Mover Advantage

Eric: And you're always growing and building things. The problem with cybersecurity is you're getting further and further behind. You're not necessarily building things to make things better. You are kind of putting things together to try to prevent things from getting worse. It's almost the flip side of the coin, if you think of it that way.

Mark: Eric, do you think that the fact that we're getting further and further behind is a function of the discipline of cybersecurity and that we're just behind there? Or is it the fact that adversaries like China, Russia, Iran, are investing more? And General IT like encryption quantum computing or artificial intelligence and stuff like that. Is it more a function of that or the discipline of cybersecurity?

Eric: I really think it's both, Mark.

So, when you understand the rules of the cybersecurity world, the adversary gets first mover advantage. They get to decide every single time how they want to attack you, how often they want to attack you. They essentially get an unlimited number of tries. Because it's risk and treasure.

When you look at it, what's the risk versus the opportunity? That's the probability of cyber there and the risk is very low. You don't see a lot of people going to jail, you don't see a lot of people losing money in cybersecurity, you see them gaining. At the nation state level, you don't see a lot of sanctions and things like that, because of cybersecurity action. It's almost like there are no red lines, and they're just taken for granted.

Innovation and Consolidation

Eric: And if we're going to go into a country and surveil their networks, or our adversary steal our IP all the time, it's almost accepted, unfortunately, these days. So, you've got the adversary first-mover advantage, they get as many tries as they want. There are no silver bullets here. And then you look at the defender side, we don't have enough people, depending on who you look at data-wise, where cybersec.org is good. They'll show you we're probably a million-plus people behind on the cybersecurity side of just being able to hire. We don't seem to innovate and that's an interesting comment, if you're me, in an industry that has four or 5000 players.

But that leads to my next point, we don't consolidate. The industry really hasn't consolidated. If you look at most of IT, look at storage or I mentioned databases or operating systems or even networking, there are usually two or three key players. We don't have that.

And then, when you look at the incentive side of the equation for the defender. If you pick a tool, a cool tool, I'm going to take you back to 2012, sandboxing. Sandboxing was the end all be all as FireEye at the time. Kind of took what was in academic labs and productized it and marketed the hell out of it. Palo Alto did the same thing with the next-gen firewall to iterate on the firewall side. You take a tool that's really hot and really cool as an IT operator, a security operator, and you buy it and bring it into the business while you're doing pretty well.

A Quick Innovation of the Adversary

Eric: What's the efficacy rate? We're probably not able to measure that as businesses, most people don't care. And you just deployed a cool tool in 2012, called sandboxing. Well, the adversary quickly innovated around that. They had the ability to look for sandboxing, am I running in a virtual machine, is my malware running in a virtual machine. They put in things like time delays, which are really easy.

The sandbox isn't going to sit there for 30 hours and wait for your malware to activate, it's going to look for it to activate right away. So, I'll just put a seven-day delay in and you can quickly innovate around that. And that's okay. But the defenders aren't any much better for it, let's put it that way.

Now, if you're the person on the team who brought in that tool, you can probably go to a bank or another company and say, "Well, look at my resume. This is exactly what I did. Regardless of effectiveness, I can do the same thing for you and get a huge increase." Because we all know or I think most people know, the only people really making money in cyber, in general, are the employees.

But if you're on the defender side, if you're on the attacker side, if you're on the vendor side, maybe you could argue government employees aren't making as much as they could be. That would be accurate. But the employees are making the money. A lot of cybersecurity companies still today run at a loss.

There’s No Innovation Since 2012

Eric: So, we've got all these dynamics in the market that make it a really hostile environment, when as a business owner, or a network, cybersecurity defender or whatever it may be, you're just trying to protect information. You're just trying to protect business. It's a tough space.

And it's equally as easy for the adversary. If they want to steal something, if they want to make money, it's a pretty low risk, not so hostile environment. It's perplexed. It's really why I stay here. I'm not an IT anymore. I'm not building things really. We're falling further and further behind. I think there's an answer, but we don't have it yet. And to me, that's the ultimate puzzle that maybe by the end of my life, I'll have some clues to how to solve it. Well, I'm certainly not solving it.

Carolyn: So, you said a couple of things that I want you to unpack a little bit for me. So, you said in cybersecurity, we don't consolidate. What would that look like if we did? And then, you said something that really got me. You said we don't innovate. Are you suggesting we haven't innovated since the sandbox in 2012?

Eric: I'm not, but I'm thinking about it in a maybe a different way.

We Haven’t Seen Consolidation

Carolyn: What would the consolidation look like?

Eric: So, there are four or 5000 companies, right? We haven't consolidated like most of IT, like most businesses do. Michael Porter talks about industry clustering, and we've seen clustering, but we haven't seen consolidation.

Mark: If we have, well, half a dozen. We have half a dozen kind of players in our market compared to the cybersecurity space, four or 5000 is crazy.

Eric: Pick any space and they're probably 10 to 20 larger organizations. And there are dozens to hundreds of startups. And I think the market drives in that direction with venture capital, the private equity, all the investment, all the hype. The fact that you can launch a product. I mean, Splunk, I don't remember when they even became profitable. They were operating at a major loss. Not to pick on Splunk, there are majority of companies who do this. And look at the stock price and look at how they took off because they were going for market share.

Here I am at the time 2010, I left McAfee in 2018, the beginning of it. We were profitable, I believe the whole time. Not an interesting company, didn't have the funding we wanted to innovate the way we wanted to. It wasn't interesting in the...

Jennifer Ewbank, Deputy Director for Digital Innovation at Central Intelligence Agency joins Carolyn and Mark to talk about the unparalleled work in integration and integration she and her teams are doing. Jennifer talks about the importance of partnerships in IT, data and cybersecurity and how Digital Innovations, the newest branch of the CIA, is transforming security.

Episode Table of Contents

Episode Links and Resources

Jennifer’s Opinions on DDI’s Unparalleled Innovation

Carolyn: Today, our guest is Jennifer Ewbank, Deputy Director of CIA for Digital Innovation, also known as DDI. Jennifer is responsible for accelerating the development and integration of digital and cyber capabilities across all of the CIA's mission areas. We're so excited to hear from you today, Jennifer, and get your opinions on the DDI and its contributions to the CIA.

Jennifer: Thank you so much for the invitation, I'm really excited about our conversation today. I love nothing more than sharing a little bit about the great work that the men and women of the CIA are doing on behalf of the American people. To talk about how this intelligence landscape is changing dramatically along with the digital transformation we see around the world.

We're here on the 1st of March. I wanted to acknowledge that, as we have a conversation today about one of these topics I love tremendously. It's really critically important for the intelligence business, it is taking place against the backdrop of events unfolding in Eastern Europe. So, just about a week ago, Russian troops invaded a sovereign nation and brought war back to the European continent in a completely unprovoked act.

I just wanted to assure anyone who might be listening to the podcast that the CIA is intensely focused on our national security around the world. We're focused on that crisis and working as part of an integrated US government team to do what we can to bring about a rapid end to these senseless hostilities and the return of Russian troops to the Russian Federation.

Unparalleled Innovation on What Matters Most

Jennifer: I just wanted to ensure, whenever people listen to this, that they understand that we are focused on what matters most at the moment. I'm taking a few minutes out of an otherwise very hectic day to talk about this topic. It’s really important from a strategic perspective but is perhaps not the most urgent topic on our plates today.

Carolyn: Honestly, what you do is integral and so important to everything that you just mentioned. Let me see if I can get the words out right but in supporting the sovereign nation. What you do with the digital side of things and this mission, that cyber domain is incredibly important.

Jennifer: Yes, we've seen it play out a bit so far in unprovoked attacks on Ukrainian entities. Our role, sometimes, may not be known to those outside of the intelligence community and that's most of America. We work for the US government, we work for the US people, absolutely. But we also support our allies and partners around the globe. Any major challenge requires those partnerships to succeed. Anyway, that was my little PSA at the beginning.

Carolyn: Let's talk about your story. Let's talk more about your background, your role at the CIA. Describe the position and what the DDI is.

Jennifer: I can't imagine that most people would know what it is. I certainly knew very little about the CIA before joining it. Generally speaking, I lead the Directorate of Digital Innovation at CIA. It’s one of the five large directorates that comprise the whole of CIA. Some of these are going to be a lot more familiar to your audience and your listeners.

Intelligence Operations

Jennifer: The first is the Directorate of Operations. They conduct intelligence operations and information all around the globe. They work very closely with our partners and allies in all those countries.

Our Directorate of Analysis, they produce what we call all source analysis. Taking information from all over the place and weaving it together and producing objective analysis to inform policymakers about the key issues of the day and strategic issues. Our Directorate of Support is a truly extraordinary, probably an unparalleled innovation anywhere else organization. They do everything to keep this business running on a global scale.

So, it is HR, finance, logistics, medical services, anything you could possibly imagine and a global enterprise. Then we have our Directorate of Science and Technology which is probably our closest cousins in the organization. They develop technological capabilities to support our intelligence collection mission around the globe.

You might think of Q and Bond films but without as many high-speed chases or deadly firefights. Then there's DDI, the part that I oversee. If we think about the DS and T, our Directorate of Science and Technology, primarily focused on technology with a physical manifestation, we are that counterpart in the virtual or digital world. In essence, all the ones and zeros for the organization.

We are the agency's newest directorate and our mission spans are really broad spans. We've got data, data science, artificial intelligence, enterprise information technology, cyber security, cyber collection, cyber analysis and open source intelligence to support the CIA's mission in all aspects. We also have another really important role, we have established DDI University. That is a learning enterprise dedicated to raising the digital acumen of the CIA workforce as a whole.

Leverage the Unparalleled Innovation

Jennifer: So that we actually have a workforce that's ready to leverage all of these capabilities, whether they're technological experts or not. In terms of my background, I did come to this role through a non-traditional path. My own career spans well over three decades. Initially, as a foreign service officer with the State Department serving overseas with our diplomatic corps. Then later, and for the bulk of this time with the CIA but in the Directorate of Operations.

That is the organization that is posted all around the globe, working with our foreign partners, collecting insights that we feed into our analytic products here in Washington. Prior to this current role, there were a couple of key roles, I think, were formative. They do inform how I approach this job. One was spending the majority of my time overseas and serving as a chief of station. That is the officer that's charged with leading these integrated teams in the field. I do have, let's say a favorite job. I'm not supposed to have favorite jobs but I do along the way.

One of those roles was working in Washington overseeing all of the CIA's engagements inside the United States. Think about all of our partnerships with intelligence community counterparts, with US government departments and agencies, and with academia. But most importantly, I think for our conversation today, with the US private sector and industry, finding those valuable partnerships for both sides.

It's only six years old at this point. The DDI, as you call it, is, I would say, changing the very way we approach the intelligence mission. We're focused on this deep and meaningful integration of digital capabilities across all of the CIA's mission areas.

Integration of Digital Capability and Unparalleled Innovation

Jennifer: My role as deputy director of CIA for digital innovation is just that, the integration of digital capabilities across the entire mission. In that role, I have the opportunity, the pleasure of leading probably the most talented, creative and mission-focused workforce that I've ever seen.

Mark: You hit on a few things there. In a recent article that you did with the Cipher Brief, you mentioned how the DDI approaches partnerships with industry to create innovation hubs. Well, you didn't mention that but you talked a little bit about industry partnerships. Can you talk a little bit about how that partnership has helped contribute to the mission of partners harnessing data and artificial intelligence?

Jennifer: For context, and maybe this is implied in what I've said already, but DDI's work driving innovation and forging closer partnerships with industry is really essential to the future success of the CIA. Our focus continues to be on identifying those best in breed, cutting edge capabilities, commercially available solutions and exploring how we could rapidly leverage those to meet our evolving mission requirements.

There was a really great article on unparalleled innovation a few years ago in the MIT Sloan Management Review. It had an important line in there and it said, quote, long term organizational success depends on developing and implementing new ideas. It's funny because it's complete common sense. You would think, "Well, how is that not known?"

But in any large organization, I think, surprisingly, it's an easy thing to forget. For us, recent research that we've explored really identifies a need to find new ways to enable what has been called an adaptive space.

Networks and Organizational Structures

Jennifer: It’s thinking about networks and organizational structures that allow information, resources, and ideas to flow across in a way that can foster unparalleled innovation. For us, that often starts with small entrepreneurial teams and then later, bigger programs and structures.

That's what we're trying to do at DDI and that's one of the many areas where the industry is tremendously a helpful partner. Our outreach and connections with the industry are helping us do this. We’re finding new ways to bring in new ideas and rapidly put them in the hands of our officers to enable success in our mission.

We are partnering with companies in the industry to create the so-called adaptive spaces that allow us to rapidly experiment. To do so in a flexible, often unclassified, laboratory environment and that's what I mentioned about the innovation hubs. Those environments allow us to test out new ideas and capabilities to fail fast, to iterate, to rinse and repeat and innovate ultimately.

Artificial intelligence is a critical piece of that but I would say it's not the only one. It is an important one because industry's leading development is in that space. But our partnerships are more than, let's say, sharing the latest algorithm or model. Although that's important, it's also about working smarter and working side by side to create and deliver solutions to protect national security.

Just a last thing because I think it's an important disclaimer. DDI isn't alone in this, there are other elements of the agency that are working in these new spaces. Not long ago, we created CIA Labs which was a really exciting effort to reimagine how we engage with industry and national labs in particular.

We Are Home to Unparalleled Innovation

Carolyn: I love that quote from the article. To your point, it seems like it's a no-brainer. Yes, you've got to constantly be bringing in new ideas or, to quote my dad, there's more than one way to skin a cat. We have to remember that and it's so easy to forget. I love that your team, it sounds like, not only embraces this idea, but you're setting up these environments to foster and grow the ideas. It sounds like you're sandboxing.

Like you said, fail quickly, rinse and repeat, all of that in a very safe environment that can then go out. It brings me back to this point of all the mission areas. So, you're responsible for pushing out this digital innovation to all CIA mission areas. How do you see technology evolving in the CIA and government agencies overall? Six years your department's been around, right? What have you seen?

Jennifer: Certainly, we have been on this digital journey much like many other organizations. I like to think we're a little bit ahead of some in the government, though it's not a race. We just happened to get in the race a little bit earlier. Sit back just a little bit to say that one of our strengths as a country is that we are home to unparalleled innovation.

That is one of our greatest strengths as a nation, what industry brings and new capabilities. We were talking about phones earlier. I look no further than the phone in my handbag to see how technology has evolved dramatically in the past 10 years. Then think about where it's going to go in the next 10 years, it's almost unimaginable.

How Technology and Unparalleled Innovation Is Evolving

Jennifer: I'll take one little slight tangent, when we're thinking about how technology is evolving, its use, its focus in government. I think it would be a real mistake and some people do this.

It would be a real mistake to think about this whole second machine age and digital transformation as some sort of a fancy modernization effort. I think about elastic cloud computing, big data, the internet of things, artificial intelligence, and machine learning. These things are transforming the day-to-day life in America. In many ways, they're doing the same to the intelligence mission.

Our digital journey, as I said, it's well underway but we have a long way to go. I think the next few years are going to bring tremendous change. And so, I think about what's coming, this is my sense based on the work that we're doing. I see the maturation of AI capabilities across the intelligence community. With that, an ability to really harness the true power of data for us, we save for operational advantage and analytic insights.

I see AI and automation in particular taking routine tasks off our daily calendars. They’re freeing up time and mental energy for officers to devote to higher order cognitive functions. The things that only a human brain could do but are tied up with the drudgery of routine business. I see for us and many others the expanded use of augmented and virtual reality. If you think about the intelligence mission and what we're required to do all around the globe, different cultures, different languages, different environments, you name it, AR and VR can be really powerful tools in that mission.

Unparalleled Innovation on Cloud Computing

Jennifer: Cloud computing, of course, continues to be the foundation on which we're building all of this. But by thinking about how things are changing, we're going to need to develop new, let's say, forms of edge computing. To enable this processing at the edge and, for us, the edge is global so that's a real challenge.

Another one that folks may not think about, but just as with any organization that is devoted to work all around the globe, further refining and building our natural language processing models is going to be really critical. Particularly, as we want to embrace this flood of open source information that's so readily available on the internet and you name it.

We're going to have to be able to collect it, translate it, structure it, tag it, filter it, prioritize it, add in your verb and do that all at scale and at machine speed. One of the last things I'll mention as an emerging area for us is digital twins. Thinking about all these other capabilities, digital twins might actually give us a really productive and cost-effective environment in which to experiment, innovate, fail, et cetera and do so in a safer environment.

Mark: What do you mean by digital twin? You mean like high availability backup?

Jennifer: I'm not a huge expert on this but setting up what's, in essence, a digital record of some other issue, event, place, you name it. Then using that in a sandbox environment to explore how you would really tackle this challenge.

Carolyn: When you do this digital twin stuff and even the sandboxing, this is a little bit of a tangent.

Metaverse

Carolyn: I'm fascinated by the metaverse coming online and augmented reality and virtual reality. Have you got to play with that?

Jennifer: I have played a little bit with VR, for sure. People are excited about showing off what they're doing. It has been eye-opening. You think about putting yourself in the position of another person's perspective. It's been powerful for lots of things. These are early days in the space. But it might put me in a different physical environment where I can become familiar with a different country, different environment, et cetera.

It's great for foreign language practice, that's great. It's interesting just in terms of the inclusive and positive management environment we want to create, it also has applications in that cross-cultural organizational way. Put yourself in the mindset, in the person of somebody that you're trying to understand, empathize, support. What is it like to be blind?

Mark: Or psychological.

Jennifer: What is it like to be deaf, to experience it as best you can? VR can do that. There’s one thing that I also want to mention, just because the CIA is unique in this area. I think it's valuable for our partners elsewhere to think about this. Just as we are focused on leveraging these new technologies and bringing them to our complex mission, we also do so against a backdrop of adversaries who are investing in the same technologies and deploying increasingly aggressive versions.

Think cyber-attacks that we see these days, think ransomware, think supply chain attacks. There are a lot of other actors out there who are leveraging these same capabilities and doing so in a way that is not in our national security interests.

Monitor and Control an Unparalleled Innovation

Jennifer: There's a subset of these actors, whose governments I would characterize as digital autocracies. They're developing and deploying these capabilities first to monitor and control their own societies. Their own societies end up being the guinea pigs for this experimentation. Those capabilities can easily be projected around the globe at adversaries like us.

If I think about that balance for us, we need to leverage or, let's say, understand, deploy these capabilities to support our mission. We need to defend against their use by adversaries seeking to do us, the US, our...

Mike Gruss, Editor-in-chief at Sightline Media Group has eyes on news related to all things DOD. He and his reporters are asking the smart questions when it comes to government defense technology. IT savvy leadership, user experience, and gamification are just some of the topics Mike unpacks in this episode of Tech Transforms.

Episode Table of Contents

Episode Links and Resources

The Biggest Trending Topics in Government Technology

Carolyn: Today we get to talk to Mike Gruss, editor-in-chief at Sightline Media Group. He’ll discuss some of the hottest topics in the IT industry. Sightline Media Group is the leading news organization covering military, defense, public sector, federal technology, C4ISR, and cyber defense. Today, Mike unpacks some of the biggest trending topics in government technology. We also get his perspective on the DoDs advancement in technology.

Mike, I love having you on the show because you have such a broad knowledge. You really have your finger on the pulse of what's happening in the government. So you're over a lot of publications. Can you tell our listeners briefly about your role as editor in chief of Sightline Media Group and the different publications you oversee?

Mike: Sightline oversees a number of brands, as you mentioned. I like to think of us as the largest national security newsroom in the country. We have two or three different buckets that our publications fall into. What we've really concentrated on the last year or so is working collaboratively across the newsroom. You may recognize specific brands, but I think our reporters are working across several brands or across the newsroom.

There's the military times brands, which are Military Times, Army Times, Air Force Times, Navy Times, and Marine Corps Times. Those are geared toward the troops and you'll see those publications, obviously online. They're available at commissaries, and then there's also our business to government groups.

What’s Happening With the Government Technology

Mike: Those are publications like defense news, which covers the defense industry and what's happening at the Pentagon and on Capitol Hill, the business and politics of defense acquisitions. And also C4ISR net, which focuses more on that network warfare aspect of the defense industry. The last publication we have is Federal Times. It focuses on the federal workforce and what they need and what's happening there on a day-to-day basis.

It's a lot, but we have a really passionate and skilled newsroom that thinks hard about these issues. They work really hard to get scoops up and to get enterprise news stories that will help people understand what's happening at their job and make better decisions every day at work.

Carolyn: I love the specialization. Obviously, you get a lot of stories that are going to be broad across. But when you take it and get specific to the mission of the different branches and the different missions, I really appreciate that.

Mike: I don't like to use the word expert because I think it's overused. But I'd say all of our reporters have a tremendous amount of knowledge in their field. They work really hard to ask smart questions, to be able to explain issues clearly and to know the nuances. I think that comes through in our reporting.

Carolyn: I definitely agree and I would absolutely use the word expert. Talk about your perspective on how the DoDs are making advancements in government technology. Do you think they're taking the right steps right now?

Mike: This is a difficult question and I think there's such a push-pull that we have to do here. I'm curious how you think of it too.

What DoD Has to Do With IT

Mike: On one hand, I think we have to recognize the complexity of what particularly DoD has to do when it comes to IT. They have to be the most secure, for example. If they are not secure, no one's going to give them a pass. No one's going to say, "Whoops, you missed that part. You didn't patch that, you didn't have that working. Oh, well."

That's not going to happen. We give them no leeway and that's how it should be. They have a tremendous budget to make sure they have no leeway. On the other hand, I get, I wouldn't say frustrated, but I think sometimes we're expected to celebrate advancements that industry made 10, 15 years ago.

Carolyn: Are you thinking of something specific?

Mike: I think cloud is the one that probably comes to mind first. But I think when you also talk about bringing your own device, you talk about even telework. These are things that many major corporations across the country figured these ideas out years and years ago. I think to say, "Well look at us. We did this." It's like, "Okay. You shouldn't get so much credit for doing it."

At the same time, I started with, there is that complexity of doing it at the size and scale they do it and with the level of security they do it. That's where I have this push and pull where I'm always careful of saying things like, "All right. This is a step forward for them, but are we judging them on the right scale?" I think that's where I sometimes have questions.

Mark: You bring up something really interesting. It brings to mind the executive order on user experience that's come out.

Executive Order

Mark: When I think of the DoD, I think of, "Okay. There's an element of the DoD that fights wars, protects the country. That's one element of it." But then there's the other element of luck. Making it easy for the people who work in the Department of Defense to actually live their lives, get healthcare, make sure that they're being paid. All these things seem to dovetail on that. I wanted to get your thoughts around that executive order. Are you guys tackling that at this juncture?

Mike: Yes, I think we're watching. I can't speak specifically to that executive order but I think those are the types of issues that we're constantly grappling with. And I wouldn't necessarily disagree with you that there's two separate schools of thought on IT in DoD. A couple of years ago, and you saw this, there was this, in the maddest era, everyone wanted to speak his language and use the same glossary of terms he did.

I very clearly remember being at a DISA event where someone said, "No. Sending an email promotes lethality." You're like, "Come on. Email is not lethal." Similarly, we have to draw the line. Yes, every little bit contributes to kinetic war operation, if you want to think about it that way. But I have a hard time pulling the thread that far where I'm like, "Okay. Email is lethality."

Mark: DoD looks at the world. You mentioned the commercial sector, which I've worked in both and I 100% agree with you. I think that the commercial world has adopted technologies much faster. They're ahead of the game. Of course, they also have employees, which the DoD has, which is their end-user.

The Lethality of Government Technology

Mark: Unless it's an enemy, then they're the end-user of lethality, so to speak. But in the commercial world, they do have customers that they have to cater to, which I think the DoD maybe has neglected.

Mike: Yes. Maybe to your point, it doesn't think of its employees as customers and that's probably one of the issues.

Carolyn: I've been learning recently about ATOs, Authority to Operate. In my brain, I thought an ATO got a stamp and they got to use the application. Like once they got the ATO, it's done. Not the case. I am baffled and the thought of what they have to go through on a regular basis to maintain that ATO, like thousands of hours per application is just unwieldy to me. It makes me sick to my stomach. I'm like, "That's about when I would quit," when I had to go through that ATO again. So they have that. I'd like to put you on the spot here a little bit. What has DoD excelled in that maybe the commercial world hasn't in technology?

Mike: That's a great question. I'm not sure. I'd be curious what you guys think of this too. There's part of me that thinks from a security standpoint that as much as that's an area where it slows them down and they're critiqued for, I think in many instances they seem to have gotten it right. So let's take, for example, Solar Winds. There was a vulnerability there and it seems from what we know, and obviously, I don't know everything. But from what I've read and what our reporters have said, other government agencies were hurt or were more vulnerable.

Who Have Been Hit With Vulnerability

Mike: DoD seems to have been done okay there. They knew there were attempts. But it seems like everything that's been said publicly, and the best that our reporters can tell is that because of the strength of their network, they were able to withstand this. I think there's part of me that is skeptical like, "Well wait a minute. What did you guys do differently than everyone else did?" But we also have to give them credit for that. We look at the companies across the world that were hit with that vulnerability.

Mark: I think that bar is so high. There's no alternative. It's table stakes. They had to do it right. Maybe they suffered in some ways, adaptability or agility, but they had to deliver on it. My gut feeling would tell me, and I don't know this. I'm speculating like most of us that the ability to wage war is an area where technology is something they do well. But that doesn't necessarily help a lot of the day-to-day IT workings of the Department of Defense.

Carolyn: But what I hear you saying is the mission of the DoD is to protect and defend and they excel at it. I like that.

Mike: To use Mark's word and I think he's absolutely right there, the agility. There is a trade-off, you can't have it both ways. You can't excel in this area and also there's zero room for error. There is a trade-off. I think maybe what the conversation that's happening now is that trade-off, are those trade-offs kind of balanced or aligned the way that they should be?

Zero Trust and Thunderdome

Mark: I'm a great straight man. So speaking of zero trust, can you give us your thoughts on zero trust and maybe even touch on the Thunderdome?

Mike: Yes. I think the Thunderdome Award is interesting from DISA, but I guess I have a couple of questions. We see these, and I'm coming off way more skeptical than I really am doing this podcast. I think that's the rolling plan. We see these cybersecurity philosophies come up every couple of years. I'm blanking on the name, but the risk framework we heard about a couple of years ago, I think all these ideas evolved. We're not too far away from where we were maybe five or 10 years ago, but this is just the most natural evolution of that.

I think, as a late person and so many of these ideas I relate back to my home or my own personal security. I'm like, "Oh, well this makes sense that this is how zero trust operates. I don't want someone else speaking to my bluetooth speaker that's on right now." And I don't want to say its name or I don't want someone else turning on the lights in my house or something. That all makes sense, someone accessing my bank account.

I guess the couple of questions I have right now are like, how will this work in the future? How will it work with legacy systems? As we have these legacy systems throughout DoD, I guess one, will they be able to be upgraded to work with the zero trust architecture? Two, how will they do that and, again, what's the trade-off there? How much are you going to pay?

How Much Work Is Going to Take To Build Government Technology

Mike: How much work is that going to take to make sure that every element of a new destroyer works with that zero trust architecture? I think that's difficult. The other question I have is we're obviously moving into this new world where everything's connected and the program is called JADC2.

But this sensor to shooter where you use any sensor in the world connected to any shooter in the world, how does zero trust architecture work with that? How does it work with international alliances? I feel like they're big ideas, but again, this is something where zero trust only works if it's working with everyone. So I feel like there's still a lot of room for explanation and improvement. It seems like it's the right path for now and getting everyone on board and making it kind of the universal approach.

It’s what we've seen the last what, 12, 18 months. Maybe there's been more concerted effort during that time to get everyone on the same page here. It feels like this is the way that it's going to go and this is the way it's going to work. Not just DoD, but also industry is kind of on board with this idea, which is what you need.

Mark: Feels that way to me too.

Mike: Maybe in the next two or three years, we'll see the next evolution of whatever this is and we'll be talking about something else.

Mark: It feels to me that cyber security generally is a weapon system that needs to be invested in like you would invest in warfare capabilities like the F35. It needs that type of investment.

Politics or Scare Tactics

Mark: Certainly, it seems like, and I don't know how much this is politics or scare tactics or what, but that our adversaries are looking at it that way. Using it as a means to disrupt what we do and take our eye off the ball, wherever that may be going. It just feels that way.

I also feel like zero trust is a current path that should change. This should all change every couple of years. Certainly, the landscape is changing so fast. It can't be something that we say, "This is what we're going to do for the next 15 years."

Carolyn: So Thunderdome, aside from being an awesome name, to be honest is a little perplexing to me. Maybe I've just been in this industry too long, but I feel like we've been talking about zero trust for a decade. It's been a big push for the DoD for at least five years. When I read about Thunderdome, the way I understand it is we're going to build out a prototype. I thought we already had that. So I'm a little confused. I would love to hear your thoughts on that.

Mike: I think the most recent word was more for specific prototypes involving specific technologies. I would say generally the idea has been out there. It's been adopted and we've seen it be a top priority for the IT leaders. I think maybe now some of the questions are, how do you implement that philosophy? What are the tools in place to make sure that everything is working as expected? That's how I'm reading some of these more recent contract announcements in this area.

Predictions for Government Technology in 2022

Carolyn: That actually helps me. I would love to get your predictions. So what are your predictions for government technology in 2022?

Mike: I thought a little bit about this and you can tell, some are more surprising than others. The first one is, I think we're going to see IT savvy leaders, and that doesn't necessarily mean just IT leaders. IT savvy leaders are going to have a bigger seat at the table or will be invited to the table where maybe they weren't in the past. I think that's something that's been happening the last couple of years, but that's going to continue to evolve at a faster and faster rate.

Carolyn: Are you thinking more of DoD specifically or is this across the government?

Mike: I think it's probably happening across the government. I spend most of my time on DoD issues. I'd say what's going to happen, but let me give you an example. I was at a breakfast in October and there was a general officer. Someone who's been around for a while and been promoted a number of times. He said, "Only in the last six months did I fully understand what data as ammunition means." I thought, "Wow. How could you have only heard or really grasped that in the last six months?"

I've covered national security for about 10 years. I feel like that's been an idea the entire time. That's why I say IT savvy leaders who have really adopted and embraced the data first mentality, I think they will get promoted more and have a seat at the table. Whereas maybe folks who are a little more, I don't know if the right word is data hesitant, not data curious, won't.

Government Technology Faces a Little Language Barrier

Carolyn: Do you think that it might be a semantic thing? We've got a little language barrier going on because our DoD leaders, like Intel, are king. I think that they would all agree with that, and data is Intel. Is it a language barrier?

Mark: Or is it culture?

Mike: It's probably a lot of both. I don't think the culture has been there. When people say data they're like, "Oh, I'm not an IT person or I'm not this person." I just think that's not the way the world works anymore. Like everyone's a data person.

Mark: Do you see any shift in that culture of late? A lot of the military shifts seem like every 18, 24 months and have new jobs. Maybe IT is not a place where that should be done. Do you see any of that?

Mike: I see it evolving the last couple of cycles to use the idea you're talking about. It feels, from where I sit, that there's been some more savvy folks, but not just in the IT departments or not the IT like the CIO's offices. I’d say it's across the board that we're seeing. My prediction is I expect that to continue to happen faster and faster. I think the other thing that's related to that I expect to see less of is, I just wrote down patience with IT.

So I expect that when there are problems, there's not going to be the folks who do so much of that now. I don't know if you guys followed this, but last week there was a letter from an air force officer that went viral. The hashtag was “fix our computers”.

Money, Time, and Red Tape in Government Technology

Mike: I hope I got that right. It’s all about how much money, time, and red tape is being wasted just because basic functions don't work. If you're seeing that type of very public outburst, I don't say that pejoratively, the complaints were merited. But if you're seeing that happen at the officer level from folks who are running tech incubators, imagine what's happening by folks who don't feel empowered to speak out. I think the patience there is very thin.

Senior leaders are going to say, "We just can't operate this way anymore." I don't want to put too much weight on it, but you saw the air force CIO. You saw other CIOs weigh in on LinkedIn and say, "You're absolutely right. We got to fix this. Here's some of the steps we're taking." If that conversation becomes public in that way, I think the patience may be worn out.

Mark: It's an interesting perspective. I didn't think of it that way.

Carolyn: They're demanding a user experience. I just saw a tweet from Nick Chaillan that said, "Would it be faster to list everything that is not broken?" No.

Mike: I think he was part of this. We've seen it with some of the Navy IT leaders...