Große Dinge am Horizont: Cybersicherheitsprognosen für 2022

Shamla Naidoo: This job is really hard and it continues to get harder. But at this point, there's very little in the way of mental health support for the security leaders and for the security teams. So I really think that CEOs are going to start to double down on not just innovating for the business but also helping the CISOs to create both innovation for security, giving them the tools, the technology and the solutions to help them do their jobs better. But also supporting that with mental health and wellness support programs.

Producer: Hello, and welcome to Security Visionaries hosted by Jason Clark, CSO at Netskope. You just heard from one of today's guests, Shamla Naidoo, Head of Cloud Strategy and Innovation at Netskope. In this episode, Shamla is also joined by Steve Riley, Field CTO at Netskope, Mike Anderson, Chief Digital and Information Officer at Netskope and last but certainly not least, David Fairman, APAC CSO at Netskope.

Producer: As we welcome the New Year with open arms, security leaders around the world are continuing to try and stay five steps ahead of bad actors in the space. To kick off 2022, we brought together some of the sharpest leaders in the industry to share what predictions are top of mind on their risk radars. We hope you enjoy this round table discussion and from everyone at Netskope, we want to wish you a happy and healthy New Year.

Sponsor: The Security Visionaries podcast is powered by the team at Netskope. Netskope is the SASE leader, offering everything you need to provide a fast data centric and Cloud Smart user experience at the speed of business today. Learn more at N-E-T-S-K-O-P-E.com

Producer: Without further ado, please enjoy episode seven of Security Visionaries with your host, Jason Clark.

Jason Clark: Welcome to Security Visionaries. I am your host, Jason Clark CSO at Netskope. And today I'm joined by some of the best experts in the industry and we're going to be talking about predictions and it's always a big topic this time of year. But we're going to try and bring to light some of these that we all need to be paying attention to for 2022 and beyond. First guest is, Steve Riley, great to have you here. How are you doing?

Steve Riley: Thanks, Jason. How about yourself?

Jason Clark: Doing super fantastic. And Dave Fairman, how are you?

David Fairman: Hey, Jason, good to be here. Thanks for including me in your conversation this week. I'm doing well, mate. I'm doing really well. I'm looking forward to the Christmas and New Year break.

Jason Clark: What time is it in Australia right now?

David Fairman: 2:00 AM in the morning. So I'm hoping my responses to this conversation will be eloquent considering the time.

Jason Clark: Yeah. Thanks for staying up for us. It'll be awesome.

David Fairman: Oh, good man.

Jason Clark: And Shamla, how are you?

Shamla Naidoo: Hey, Jason, thank you so much for including me in this fantastic conversation. I'm looking forward to it.

Jason Clark: Awesome. And Mike?

Mike Anderson: Hey, good morning. It's great to be here, looking forward to hearing some great predictions this morning on this podcast.

Jason Clark : Well, perfect. Well, let's keep it lively and really just bring anything up you want to and comment on any of these as we go through, just so we'll make it fun for the audience. But again, everybody here as you'll see and you can look up, they're all amazing experts in the industry that I've known for a very long time. So the first thing I wanted to start off with is that, it's kind of a prediction but it's also very obvious. So I kind of call it a little bit of a softball but I bring it up because I'm worried not everybody's thinking about it. And that is that as we return to work and meaning, everybody was working from home and then your company says, "It's time to come back in the office three days a week or five days a week." And we're already starting to see this. A significant amount of people have either A, already moved but didn't tell their employer or B, are deciding, you know what? I like working from home and don't want to go back to the office. And with that, we're going to see a lot of attrition and turnover and that comes with insider threat. And when somebody decides to change jobs, they see their work product as their own. And when we see as, increase of over a 10X the downloads of information that they have touched or worked on. It could be anything from somebody that's on their sales to team, downloading all their customer lists so that they can take it to their next place. So just something that every security team should be thinking of, not just thinking about the external threats. So anybody have any thoughts on that one?

David Fairman: No, I think that's a fair prediction. And we're talking about this is going to be the new era of resignation and people leaving the organization as well. I think we're going to probably see a little bit more of a rise in that activity at the moment. Now, I know we are talking about it here in region.

Jason Clark: Yeah, I think that the place that catches people a little bit blind is just the use of really of all the personal apps, all the storage apps, et cetera. And a lot of organizations aren't inserting that information, that traffic into their existing insider threat processes. So I think that's the place I really recommend people look into. So to Shamla, I wanted to start with you and you have a long shot prediction around technology specific security vendors, are going to redefine, rebrand themselves as SSE vendors. Can you unpack that prediction and share your thoughts?

Shamla Naidoo: Yes, absolutely. If you look out there today Jason, most of the cyber security vendors who provide products or services or tools are rebranding themselves as Secure Services Edge vendors and they're really pushing this idea of zero trust. And so what you have is, everyone who's doing things like securing or protecting files, protecting servers, protecting networks, acting as gateways, acting as data leak prevention tools. Everyone is branding themselves as a zero trust vendor securing the edge. And what that is doing, I think is going to create an enormous growing burden for the CISO, because now we've shifted the burden on what we actually do to this very generic term. And we are leaving it up to the consumer or the decision makers to determine whether or not these solutions address strategic gaps. Which gaps they address? What are the pros and cons? We also leaving it up to the consumer to decide, which ones they need versus which ones they can do without? And I feel like that is unfair to the industry because if everyone says they're zero trust vendor and there's no strategic or industry definition for what is included in zero trust and where is the edge, that just makes the job of the CISO much, much harder. Because really when you think about it, where is this edge that these SSE vendors are going to be addressing? It's everywhere. It's wherever we conduct transactions, it's wherever we conduct business. So the edge basically is everywhere. And we know from experience that not every provider, not every vendor can actually address all of the issues in those environments. And so that's why I think that as companies rebrand themselves, it's just going to increase the burden on the CISO.

Jason Clark: You know what? I think same thing with SASE. As soon as SASE came out you started seeing, there's now 50 SASE companies. And everybody's just calling themselves SASE or they started just buying companies but with no integration and then saying, "Hey, we have all the parts and they all work together." And they really don't. But Steve you'd recently published something, Dave, you as well around zero trust and some good articles. Any additional thoughts on Shamla's prediction?

Steve Riley: Yeah, I think it's important to remember what these topics are. SASE is intended to be an architecture and zero trust is intended to be a new way of thinking about assessing the trustworthiness of an interaction. Zero is a starting point, but ultimately there has to be some level of trust for any two entities to interact. And we don't want to just assume that you have full access to everything because of what your IP address is. And I really love the way that vendors who brought this are moving more toward a continuous adaptive trust approach, where you look at all these contextual signals and determine just how much access to grant, for just that interaction, for just that amount of time.

Jason Clark: Yeah, I agree, and trust isn't binary. It's not on or off. And I think that a lot of those vendors that Shamla mentioned that they kind of still view that zero trust is like an ACL, that trust is you either have it or you don't. And a lot of vendors you ask them to define what zero trust even means and you're going to get different answers for most of them as well. So I think there it is, we are hurting the industry, there's a lot of confusion. David, so you had an interesting prediction around deepfake, and voice cloning and misinformation. So why is this a prediction that you're considering and how should users and companies be thinking about protecting themselves?

David Fairman: Well, look, I think even this year, we started to see the rise of deepfake and probably even in the preceding year, the rise of deepfake as a tool for various nefarious reasons. Whether it was political influence or whether it was for increasing fraud and scams, social media social engineering for supporting social engineering attacks, et cetera. There was a couple of really good events that happened this year with regards to an energy company, which they had a fraud committed and the tool that was used to support that fraud was deepfake. And there was another unsuccessful attack on a technology company using the same capability. I think what we're starting to see now, is the fraud elements, whether it's identity fraud, business email compromise. Sorry, not business email compromise but sort of scams, and executives of social engineering and pressure put on employees to act under pressure. I think we're starting to see that now. I think that deepfake is something that helps adversaries, threat actors, fraudsters execute on those attacks. Particularly, when you think about scams and sort of those executive pressure type techniques that we see. We're also starting to see application fraud start to be... Or deepfake be seen as a vector to increase the success of the application fraud. We hear of things of ghost attacks or ghost fakes, which are purporting to effectively taking over the identities of people who are deceased and that has started. We're seeing a rise in financial crime in the financial crime world. So look, I think we started to see that in the past couple of years. I think it's only going to increase as we move into 2022 and into 2023. Deepfake technology is becoming more and more sophisticated, more and more accurate. I think it's hard for organizations to combat against that. You ask about how should organizations be thinking about this? What should they be doing to try and prevent that? Funnily enough, it comes back if you think about the fraud angle of this. It does come back to some of the basics of fraud prevention, things about validating that you know who you're talking to or who you are transacting with. Use mechanisms so that you are doing that authentication, all that validation out of band. Just don't trust what you see through an audio file as you talking to someone that you think you are talking to. How do you validate that training and awareness of your people? There's certain cues and signals that you can identify when you look at deepfake videos to identify those sorts of fraudulent video images or audio files. So there's a number of different things there. I think we're going to start to see... I mean, we basically saw it in the US elections around political influence with fake news. We've seen all of that. I think it's only going to grow. And I think social adversaries are going to start to really embrace this more so than they have today in terms of social engineering capability, which is again, going to lead to substantiative cyber attacks.

Jason Clark: A good example of the executive pressure, we actually just saw this, I got alerted a couple weeks ago that a person in Europe got a phone call, and a text message and a phone call. And it was them acting like they are a CEO, telling this person to go take an action, "Immediately, urgent, I need you to take this action." And the person's kind of like, "Okay, well, will jump on a call." "Hey, I don't have time to jump on a call." And his response was, "Well, what's my favorite soccer team?" Or what's my favorite hockey team? And immediately the conversation went dead. But at first admittedly, this person was like, "Oh, I really thought he need me to go do that. I thought it was a weird request but I was ready to step into action." So the thinking and the awareness training kicked in and worked and we set to continue to do a better job of that.

David Fairman: That's exactly what happened in the energy attack and that's successful. I think that led to about a 236,000 US Dollar fraud. So it will be there and we'll see more of it and I think proceeding those social engineering attacks. And I think political influence, and think about what that means not just... You talk about political influence but just from an influencing perspective. So think about how you can not just drive society or a subset of our community down a certain path. Think about how that could cause divide on an organization, on a private institution. If there was deepfake being used to send messages executives, around culture or around activity that we're doing, we could do it on a much smaller scale and we could start to influence and destabilize organizations. So maybe when it comes to destabilization of organizations that's the motivation for threat adversaries. I think we'll see a rise in that because it's just a tool to drive that lack of trust in the environment.

Jason Clark: I think it's a great one, spot on. Steve? So another prediction that you've been talking about is organizations across the global start to measure their carbon footprint in relation to IT and their data centers. How likely is this? What percentage of organizations do you think will do this?

Steve Riley: I think it's totally likely and it's going to affect 100% of organizations out there. We know that priorities from investors and stakeholders and forthcoming regulatory requirements are going to push organizations to improve the methods and processes they use to account for their carbon footprint. And I see that there's two dimensions here. There's a security dimension and infrastructure dimension. In the infrastructure dimension, folks are going to think, "What do I do in my data centers? How about moving them all to where you can get free air cooling like Iceland?" Open the windows, get free air cooling in your data center. Other things, if you can't pick up your data center to move, you could look at things like renewable energy credits, onsite generation technologies like cogeneration that combine cooling and power. Just make sure that you're getting good utilization out of the hardware that you have, is another way of reducing overall power consumption. And then for water specifically, I've seen instances of where orgs have moved from potable water from Maine's to using gray water sources as a way of reducing costs. Now that's for people who want to have on-premises data centers still. I would argue that maybe migrating to the cloud is another way of getting close to net zero emissions. The cloud providers have pretty strong financial incentives to develop energy efficient data centers. And they run with effectiveness that are much more so than what a typical organization might be able to do and they've got programs in place to have their operations that are carbon neutral. And even more so now, you can see like from Azure and GCP and AWS, where they publish the emissions from their data centers now. And organizations moving to the cloud could say, "Hey, we've reduced our emissions by going out this way." Now, I said there is a security dimension too. And it's interesting because I've seen some instances of where security risks are acquiring climate change dimensions. I'll give you a couple of examples, hacktivists. So these are attackers motivated by issues. They're targeting large enterprises with carbon footprints. So if you're a huge emitter, someone's going to come after you. And this is a brand new risk because this is just an enterprise doing business as usual but now they're getting attacked for some reason that they may find very difficult to understand why. But also think about how many of us work now. We're all distributed, we're at home and we don't have business continuity capabilities in our home offices. So a weather event could actually take a lot of home workers offline. So change and sustainability are part of boardroom and share order conversations now. So it's time to start thinking about this.

Jason Clark: I think it's a good one Steve. I think a lot of listeners are probably like, "Oh, you know what? I hadn't really put that on my risk radar yet but let me write that one down because it is something that's probably going to come up at some point and we need to already be thinking about it." So Mike, I know you had some thoughts around autonomous cybersecurity and where you remove the human delay and policy management. Why is this a top of mind prediction for us going forward?

Mike Anderson: When you think about any kind of technology, if you think about traditional plan, build, run concepts, there's a lot of focus that's been put traditionally on how do you reduce the run cost of any IT solution? So when we think about cybersecurity, the run is really when you get into security operations. And there's two reasons why I feel like this prediction will start to play out. One, is the actors get more and more sophisticated. Our risk increases based on the delay it takes for us to implement policy within our environments. So whether that policy is keeping people from going somewhere or going the wrong places or if it's coaching people to make other decisions in the moment. The faster we can get those policies instrumented in our environments, the quicker we can respond to the threats that are happening. And the challenge we've also got is the skill gap, especially in cybersecurity. And so trying to hire, retain people in security operation that's going to be problematic and we've already seen that. And so what happens in a lot of organizations is, you've got the person that is maintaining the platform, especially medium enterprises. That's maintaining the platform, doing the policy management, then that person leaves. So then there's this delay between when you've got policies being created. Now there's this air gap before the new person comes in, they get trained up and start administering the solution. And so just like we've seen in IT operations, where we've seen AIOps become kind of the new buzzword, that's going to move its way over into cybersecurity. And so it's going to help address both that skill gap problem and the problem we have around, what happens when people leave and who picks up the keys to the car and keeps running? And at the same time, helping us respond to threats more quickly. And so that's the piece. And I think what we're going to see first is more of, kind of your traditional, if we look at the sales automation vendors like Salesforce, where they predicted the next best action you should take from a sales standpoint. We have to first establish a trust. We have to know that if I'm going to turn on autonomous cybersecurity, I have to first trust the decision making process that's going into it. And so I think what we're going to see as a first step is, models that essentially suggest kind of here's policies we should create. And get a person comfortable enough to say, "You know what? 99% of the time I just click okay and just approve it." And that builds that trust level where someone says, "I'll go ahead and turn on that autonomous mode." And so I think we're going to see this multi-step journey but I think in the next three to five years, we're really going to start to see the autonomous cybersecurity being used as a way to reduce the run costs. And the other aspect is just financial. I talk to a lot of my peers in the industry and they say, "Look, my CFO is asking me, when do we get to a point where we can say a certain percentage of our revenue is going to go into cybersecurity?" And so we're going to see the same pressures that we've seen on IT and technology and honestly, every function in the company. We're going to start seeing those same pressures on security to say, "What is good enough?" And so when we get to that point, we're going to see optimization of our security stack and those tools we use. Automation is a way to, again, reduce that run cost so I can reinvest in more of my strategic priorities to head off the new threats like, how AI may be used by some of the bad actors?

Jason Clark: Yeah, I'm curious from the team, is any of you already seen autonomous cybersecurity in either the software supply chain or in infrastructure security or cloud security in any way?

Shamla Naidoo: So Jason, let me try to address that. There's a reason why you seeing all these shaking heads, where people are saying, "We haven't seen this." It's because so much of the responsibility for making those kinds of decisions falls on the security leaders. And given how personal the failure and the outcomes are, it's hardly any surprise that we not willing to let machines make these decisions. We don't just put one layer of humans to help make the decisions. We put multiple layers because of the fear of failure. And the fact is in machine learning and artificial intelligence algorithms, if you don't have some appetite for failure at the beginning for allowing self learning to get better and to improve, you're just not going to be successful. So the point is that we are not going to see autonomous security until we give security leaders a little bit of leeway to make mistakes and allow the machines to make some mistakes early on while we teach and learn and make better automated decisions.

Mike Anderson: Essentially, I'd add on, earlier we were talking about zero trust and as we move away, I think Steve, you and I had this conversation before around the move from implicit trust to explicit trust, and from trust but verify to verify then trust. I think the same thing happens as we think about autonomous. That verification is, how do I know that it's going to make the right decision? And then once I know, then I can trust it. So I think it becomes pervasive as we think about the mindset. I tell a lot of people when they talk about zero trust, first thing I say, it's not a product or a destination because it's a journey. It's just like an agile mindset. It's a zero trust mindset, which is really shifting from, I'm going to verify then trust in the things I do. And the more I know about you, the more I'm going to trust you. And I think going back on that conversation from earlier, zero trust requires a, say, teamwork makes a dream work, right? So how do we get all solutions within our environments working together to help us understand as much as we can about a person or entity so that we can make the right decisions? And so I think that mindset becomes part of that AI journey as well for how we can move towards that autonomous cybersecurity model.

Jason Clark: Yeah, you kind of have to bring it all together. You have to have a brain of your cybersecurity program before you can start applying that and right now there's so much disparate types of systems. I always use the analogy that we have like a disconnected nervous system. The sense of smell, and the sense of feel and sense of seeing are not connected, other than maybe in a SIM, which is memory versus the frontal lobe. So I think we have a lot of work to do, to be able to connect all these things together, which I think that's the intent with SSE and with zero trust. It's a journey to get these things connected so we can react and defend faster. And another topic that you all were talking about is APIs. And I see there are a lot of conversation around SAS being the fastest growing risk for organizations. And there's a lot of conversations around mobile being... Everybody is familiar with the mobile risks. But APIs, they don't get talked about enough and it is a fast growing risk and everybody's wanting to connect everything together. And so when we think about that from a future task surface, probably one of the fastest growing task surfaces potentially. And I'm curious, what are a couple of thoughts around what the risks are there? And then we'll talk about what people should be doing.

Steve Riley: So let's talk about some data that maybe supports your idea that API techs are growing. According to Akamai, API requests comprise 83% of all their traffic now. They think it's going to grow 30% year-over-year and they're expecting 42 trillion API requests by 2024. Cloudflare says that API traffic grew 300% faster than web traffic in 2020. And a research note at Gartner showed that client inquiries related to APIs, including security management are increasing 3% year over year. So yeah, this stuff is on people's minds. That's true. Now, what do you do about it? Mostly JSON and XML payload processing and monitoring API usage thresholds are the things that you can take a look at, but that's only if you can find them. A lot of applications are plagued with shadow and zombie APIs and these could likely create vulnerabilities that may result in huge security incidents. Automation can help with this. There's the automated API discovery mechanisms are beginning to appear on the horizon. They rely on traffic pattern learning and they can also integrate with API definitions like Swagger and the OpenAPI Specification. And these two tools can help often provide a positive security model for APIs.But the cataloging, and validation, and testing and access control are only part of the solution here. It's also necessary to manage the consumption of internal and third party APIs. Now, one of the thing that I'll just make as note is that because APIs are becoming more and more prevalent, we are seeing web application, firewall providers add API protection and other API gateway features. In fact, 2020 was the final year Gartner published a Magic Quadrant for Waves. And the new MQ covering this space has expanded into DDoS protection bot management and API protection.

Jason Clark: So now it's called, I don't know if ain't right, it's now it's W-A-A-F?

Steve Riley: W-A-A-P.

Jason Clark: A-A-P, okay. So how do you say that?

Steve Riley: Web Application and API Protection, WAAP.

David Fairman: WAAP, WAAP. I think you spot on Steve and I think it was Gartner that predicted that in 2022, anyway, that authenticated APIs were going to be the leading cause of attack or the leading attack vector. I think we're starting to see that too. You've rattled off some really, really good stats there. And let's think about it. We keep talking about digital transformation and we talk about as part of enabling digital transformation over the number of years now. We've been talking about the API economy so it's only natural that we're seeing this rise in APIs and that is really what's driving that traffic. I think to your point, it's funny how some of these fundamentals, I sort of mentioned it when we were talking about the deepfake piece around going back to some of the fundamentals of controls, and checks, and balances and fraud about verification. Well, you mentioned it yourself around discovery and understanding your inventory of APIs in your environment. That's still a basic fundamental control, isn't it? You can't protect what you don't know about. You can't secure what you don't know about. So I think some of that asset inventory, particularly on the API side. And you're right, there's some great capabilities coming out there, emerging on the market nowadays, in terms of API discovery and security. But I think there's another piece that we need to talk about when we talk about API security, what do we actually mean there? API are really here to facilitate business logic. So I think there's two elements, there's pieces around is this API secure? Or have we seen a change in this API such as, it was never calling or delivering personal information or some form of data type before, that has now changed? So let's make sure we've got the right controls in around that.

David Fairman: But what about the behavior of that API and how does that support the overall business logic? And now we start to see a change in the way that API is behaving. And what does that mean from how it's drifted from the business purpose of that API? And those things then themselves become this indicator of a potential attack on that API itself. And we're seeing some of these companies that you alluded to that are really looking at the business logic side to model API behavior. I think that's going to be really, really critical.

Shamla Naidoo: Hey, and Jason one thing I would add to this conversation is a few years ago, there was a rush to free. And what we saw is that the customer free was you giving up privacy and seclusion. Right now, we are seeing a rush to open. And this whole idea of a rush to open APIs is great for the ecosystem to invite more and more people to build on your capability, to allow you opportunities to add to revenue. But the question really is, what's the cost of APIs? And what's the cost of that open API? And I feel like, David said this, we're coming right back to the cost of this open API economy, is going to be authentication and access control. Because what we are really doing by creating open APIs, we are allowing more people to do business with us but embedded in that community are going to be the criminals. So we back to this whole idea of, you still have to go back and double down on access control and authentication even in this API economy, in this open economy.

Mike Anderson: Yeah, I think there's a thing I would add on to this, is there's been this move... You look into just IT in general, so first off, let's talk about internal APIs. Where a lot of companies look at it from, "I've got external APIs that I publish and make accessible to my trading partners. Then I've internal APIs that is the building blocks for application." The buzzword two or three years ago was, micro services architecture, where I basically take an entire application, expose it via an API and that is a self-contained application. Now there's pure purist out there, there's reality. A lot of companies say microservices still have layers that are not fully decoupled from other applications. Now you have composable architectures, which is where I'm taking business applications, making them consumable as APIs as well. And so I think we have to think about how do we make sure we discover both the external APIs as well as those internal APIs. And it starts with education around, what are the fundamentals around how I build those APIs? Now shifting it to the external side, there's the consumption element. And a lot of times what I hear is people are concerned about, "Can I trust that API I'm consuming from that third party? What do I know about them? Because there's so many of them that I can leverage." Some of those you may think that they're provided through a marketplace through a hyperscaler that's out there, one of the cloud providers. But is it really provided by them or is it simply a marketplace application? And can I trust that marketplace application and the API that's being created? And so I think we have to start thinking about APIs provided by external parties and our third party risk conversation. And not only can I trust the party but can I trust the data that's coming in? Because often what we're seeing is people consuming APIs and putting that data into data lakes that were then building machine learning algorithms on top of those data lakes to make decisions. And so if I don't know enough about the third party is the data I'm ingesting, is it trustworthy? And is it now going to impact my machine learning that I'm using to make decisions across my organization? So I think we really have to think about not just our own environments but the APIs we're consuming from other parties and start to think about that from a risk management standpoint.

Jason Clark: Nun, Sie haben gerade einen weiteren Punkt erreicht. Ich meine, ein großer Teil der Zukunft der Sicherheit sind Modelle und es geht darum, KI zu nutzen, um uns bei der Erledigung unserer Aufgaben zu helfen. Und als Dave über das Verhalten von APIs sprach, sprachen wir über die autonome Seite der Cybersicherheit. Wenn Sie über alles nachdenken, worüber wir gerade gesprochen haben, ist ML der entscheidende Faktor dafür. Aber dann, Mike, hast du gerade angespielt, aber können wir allem vertrauen, was reinkommt? Und dann bauen Sie Modelle auf der Grundlage von Dingen auf, denen Sie nicht vertrauen. Was sehen Sie also in Zukunft für vielleicht ein oder zwei Minuten hier über die Risiken von ML und wie gehen wir damit um?

David Fairman: Schauen Sie, ich nehme das an, denn ich glaube, das ist schon seit ein paar Jahren ein ziemliches Lieblingsthema für mich. Und ich war an einigen sehr innovativen, frühen Startups beteiligt, die versuchen, dieses Problem zu bekämpfen. Aber wenn wir über einige der Risiken sprechen, denken wir an Datenvergiftung, wir denken an Voreingenommenheit, wir denken an die Robustheit des Modells. Also lasst uns sie aufschlüsseln. Wenn Sie über die Grundlagen nachdenken, und ich werde dies nicht so gut erklären wie jeder ausgebildete, qualifizierte Datenwissenschaftler, dann basieren unsere Modelle letztendlich auf Daten. Es gibt eine Reihe von Trainingsdaten, deren Ergebnisse wir kennen und die wir verwenden, um dieses Modell zu trainieren, um die Zukunft vorherzusagen. Diese Trainingsdaten können auf verschiedene Arten manipuliert werden. Es könnte vergiftet sein. Es könnte sein, dass die Integrität der Trainingsdaten fraglich ist. Es könnten falsche Daten in die Trainingsdatensätze eingefügt werden. Und etwas, das Shamla erwähnt hat, das Rennen um die Eröffnung. Viele Trainingsdatensätze sind Open-Source-Datensätze oder zum Trainieren frei verfügbar, genau wie alles andere, was offen ist. Wie steht es mit der Sicherheit dieser Trainings oder der Integrität dieser Trainingssätze? Sie selbst können gefährdet sein oder ihre Integrität kann gefährdet sein, was wiederum die Ergebnisse dieses Lernmodells verzerren wird. Und dann gibt es so etwas wie Robustheit und Voreingenommenheit. Modelle werden von Menschen trainiert, Menschen haben natürlich selbst Vorurteile. Wie können wir also anfangen, das zu identifizieren und vorherzusagen? Und dann denken Sie über die Verbreitung von Modellen in der Automatisierung nach. Der Sinn darin, Maschinen Aktivitäten ausführen zu lassen, sodass wir skalieren und Dinge sehr, sehr schnell erledigen können. Wenn sich dieses Modell jetzt nicht so verhält, wie wir es uns wünschen, kann es weitreichende Auswirkungen auf eine Organisation haben, und zwar im Hinblick auf die Ergebnisse sowie die Aktivitäten und Entscheidungen, die dadurch vorangetrieben werden. Wie binden wir also Governance und Kontrollen ein, um sicherzustellen, dass sich dieses Modell so verhält, wie wir es erwarten?

Mike Anderson: Ja, ich denke, ich würde Dave hinzufügen. Ich denke, ich werde auf ein paar Dinge zurückkommen, die Sie gesagt haben und in denen Sie über Deepfakes sprechen. Wenn Sie wirklich darüber nachdenken, wo wir heute stehen, sagen wir, AI ML, sind wir heute wirklich nur ein maschinelles Lernen. Immer noch eine menschliche Programmierung und ein Algorithmus, der auf Daten basiert. Wir sind noch nicht wirklich an dem Punkt der künstlichen Intelligenz angelangt, an dem Computer ihre eigenen Entscheidungen treffen und ihre eigenen Algorithmen erstellen, basierend auf dem, was sie in der Umgebung beobachten. Und ich denke, wenn wir an diesem Punkt angelangt sind, denke ich, wie können wir uns vor diesen gefälschten Daten schützen? Wenn ein Computer ausfällt und Sie darüber nachdenken, was passiert ist, wie Sie es zuvor bei politischen Wahlen erwähnt haben, und wie gefälschte Nachrichten im Grunde zu einer anderen Entscheidung geführt haben. Nun, wie wird ein Computer, wenn wir echte künstliche Intelligenz einschalten, wenn es sich um maschinelles Lernen aus der Umgebung handelt, wie können wir dann verhindern, dass gefälschte Nachrichten, diese gefälschten Informationen die Entscheidungen beeinflussen, die ein Computer treffen wird? Wird es in der künstlichen Intelligenz wirklich autonom? Und ich denke, da wird es viele Diskussionen geben: Was ist die Ethik der künstlichen Intelligenz? Und wie stellen wir sicher, dass wir diese gefälschten Daten beseitigen? Daher denke ich, dass die Vorhersage, die Sie zuvor zu diesem Deepfake gemacht haben, äußerst wichtig ist, da sie die Richtung beeinflussen wird, in die wir uns in Zukunft aus KI-ML-Sicht bewegen.

David Fairman: Ja, es ist lustig. Diese beiden Themen sind sehr eng miteinander verbunden, und das eine wird das andere beeinflussen.

Jason Clark: Um uns zum Abschluss zu bringen, Shamla, hast du noch einen Schlussgedanken für die Zuhörer gehabt, und dann und dann kommen wir hier zum Schluss.

Shamla Naidoo: Ja, meine letzte Prognose, Jason, ist, dass wir sehen werden, dass insbesondere CEOs Programme entwickeln, um die psychische Gesundheit und das Wohlbefinden der Sicherheitsverantwortlichen zu unterstützen. Lassen Sie mich diesem Kommentar etwas Farbe verleihen. Im Jahr 2019, sehr, sehr früh, im Jahr 2019 und das ist noch vor der Pandemie, führte Forbes tatsächlich eine Umfrage durch und einer von sechs CISOs gab an, dass er Medikamente und Alkohol zu sich nahm, um mit dem Stress am Arbeitsplatz zurechtzukommen. Denken Sie jetzt nur über die Auswirkungen nach? Jeder sechste gab freiwillig an, dass er zu Medikamenten und Alkohol greift, um mit dem Stress am Arbeitsplatz umzugehen. Das deutet darauf hin, dass die Zahl der Personen, die keine Angaben gemacht haben, viel höher ist. Der Punkt ist also, dass ich denke, dass dieser Job wirklich schwer ist und immer schwieriger wird. Aber zum jetzigen Zeitpunkt gibt es nur sehr wenig psychologische Unterstützung für die Sicherheitsverantwortlichen und die Sicherheitsteams. Daher glaube ich wirklich, dass CEOs anfangen werden, sich nicht nur darauf zu konzentrieren, Innovationen für das Unternehmen zu schaffen, sondern auch den CISOs dabei zu helfen, sowohl Innovationen für die Sicherheit zu schaffen, als auch ihnen die Tools, die Technologie und die Lösungen zur Verfügung zu stellen, die sie irgendwie bei ihrer Arbeit unterstützen besser. Aber ich unterstütze das auch mit Programmen zur Unterstützung der psychischen Gesundheit und des Wohlbefindens, denn ich weiß nicht, dass man das alleine schaffen kann. Denken Sie nur darüber nach: Die meisten von uns haben sich dieser Branche nicht angeschlossen, um die nationale Sicherheit zu schützen. Wir haben uns diesen Branchen und diesen Arbeitsplätzen angeschlossen, um unsere Unternehmen zu schützen. Was wir jetzt sehen, ist eine Ausweitung des Aufgabenbereichs des CISO auf den Schutz der nationalen Sicherheit unserer Länder ohne entsprechende Unterstützung und ohne entsprechende Ausbildung. Wir müssen an vorderster Front der nationalen Sicherheit und der Wirtschaft unserer Länder und der Welt stehen, was einen enormen Druck für den CISO erzeugt. Und ich denke, damit einhergehen muss nicht nur die Finanzierung und die Unterstützung, die wir heute sehen, sondern auch die Unterstützung der psychischen Gesundheit und des Wohlbefindens, denn dieser Job ist heute wahrscheinlich der stressigste in der Führungsebene.

Jason Clark: Auf jeden Fall, daran besteht kein Zweifel. Es ist ein extrem, extrem harter Job und sehr stressig. Und ich denke, das Licht daran ist, dass es eine so tolle Gemeinschaft ist. Wir teilen, wir sind verbunden. Ich denke, ein Teil davon ist einfach nur das Reden. Es geht darum, mit Menschen über den Stress zu sprechen, die verstehen. Aber ich denke, wir sollten viel mehr Zeit damit verbringen, darüber nachzudenken, wie wir allen aus der Sicht der psychischen Gesundheit helfen können. Es ist etwas, Shamla, worüber wir möglicherweise sogar mit der Security Advisor Alliance sprechen könnten. Ich weiß, dass man sich dort stark darauf konzentriert, Talente für die Branche zu gewinnen und Kindern dabei zu helfen, in die Branche einzusteigen.

Shamla Naidoo: Ich stimme zu. Ich denke, dieses Thema verdient viel mehr Aufmerksamkeit, ich denke, es erfordert viel mehr Forschung, viel mehr Gespräche, weil wir erkennen müssen, dass der Stress im Job in den Job eingebaut ist. Das liegt nicht daran, dass wir der Aufgabe nicht gewachsen sind. Daher müssen diese Gespräche wirklich an die Oberfläche kommen, wenn wir planen, die Talente, die wir in der Branche haben, zu halten und mehr Talente für die Branche zu gewinnen.

Mike Anderson: Ja, ich denke, ich möchte nur einen Kommentar dazu hinzufügen, denn die psychische Gesundheit ist ein Bereich, der mir sehr am Herzen liegt. Ich denke, im Allgemeinen müssen wir dafür sorgen, dass sich die Menschen wohl fühlen, wenn sie am Arbeitsplatz über psychische Gesundheit sprechen, denn sie betrifft uns alle, insbesondere während der Pandemie haben wir sie alle zeitweise auf unterschiedlichen Ebenen gespürt. Und wir müssen die psychische Gesundheit im Allgemeinen zu etwas machen, über das man reden darf, und wir müssen sie menschlicher gestalten. Wir haben so viel Zeit damit verbracht, den menschlichen Faktor aus dem Arbeitsplatz zu entfernen. Aber ich denke, wir müssen etwas von diesem menschlichen Element zurückbringen und sicherstellen, dass wir mit Empathie mit unseren Leuten umgehen, und wir sorgen dafür, dass die Leute über psychische Gesundheit sprechen und wie es ihnen aus dieser Sicht geht . Es ist alles so, wie wir es mit der körperlichen Gesundheit tun, auch die geistige Gesundheit muss den gleichen Schwerpunkt haben.

Jason Clark: Das ist alles, wofür wir Zeit haben, das war großartig. Vielen Dank an jeden von Ihnen für die brillanten Einblicke und die offene Konversation und die Weitergabe Ihrer Gedanken an alle Zuhörer. Und nochmals vielen Dank an alle Zuhörer, die weiter heruntergeladen haben, und vielen Dank an die tollen Leute, die gekommen sind, sich uns angeschlossen und mit uns gesprochen haben. Und einfach wieder: eine tolle Community, tolle Branche. Also allen noch einen schönen Resttag. Danke schön.

David Fairman: Danke auch, Jason.

Steve Riley: Vielen Dank an alle.

Sponsor: Der Security Visionaries-Podcast wird vom Team von Netskope unterstützt. Auf der Suche nach der richtigen Cloud-Sicherheitsplattform für Ihre digitale Transformation hilft Ihnen die Netskope Security Cloud dabei, Benutzer von jedem Gerät und jeder Anwendung sicher und schnell direkt mit dem Internet zu verbinden. Erfahren Sie mehr unter NETSKOPE.com.

Produzent: Vielen Dank, dass Sie Security Visionaries zugehört haben. Bitte nehmen Sie sich einen Moment Zeit, um die Sendung zu bewerten und zu rezensieren und sie mit jemandem zu teilen, den Sie kennen und dem sie gefallen könnte. Seien Sie gespannt auf die Veröffentlichung neuer Episoden alle zwei Wochen und wir sehen uns in der nächsten Episode.