Automatically transcribed, so names and technical terms may be misspelled. The audio is the record.
The Colorado Equals Security podcast is your local source for regional security news, local events, and interviews with key individuals in the region. Now, here are your hosts, Robb Reck and Alex Wood. Welcome to yet another special standalone episode of Colorado Equals Security. There's no newscast here. We're enjoying a holiday break.
But Alex and I recently participated in an event with SecureWorld, and it actually followed that same format we used on our last special event of a CISO debate. And this time it was Alex and I against one another. We were, we were facing off debating whether the, the profit motive of security vendors is a net positive or a net negative to CISOs and security programs around the world. This is a fun event, a good chance to, to get to have some lively conversation in a fun way, and I think really good points were made on both sides. At the end of the debate, which was run on SecureWorld's conference just a couple weeks ago, the attendees did get to vote on the winner, and we will let you guys know who the winner is at the end of this debate.
We'd love to hear your take and see if you agree or disagree. Chat about it in Slack, send us a note. We would love to hear from you all. With that, we'll go ahead and play the, play the debate, and you can look forward to a new normal episode of Colorado Equal Security. 2nd week of January.
Hi, this is Rich Schliep, the CISO for the Colorado Department of State. This is Colorado Equal Security for Colorado security professionals by Colorado security professionals.
Hello and welcome back from the networking break. This is Tom Bechtold, your host for today's virtual conference. Up next, we've got a little something different for you. We're going to do a debate. When's the last time you checked out a debate?
Right? So I was actually at our Denver conference chatting with a couple gentlemen there, and they had mentioned that they were doing these debates. And I was like, really? What's— what does that entail? Like the old-school high school stuff, right?
But we're talking cybersecurity stuff. I'm like, hmm, I'm gonna try to make this work somehow. So I chatted with these gentlemen for the last 2 or 3 weeks, and we came up with a great topic, I believe. Does the profit motive of vendors make security harder for CISOs? Now, of course, everybody out in the audience has got their opinions.
I don't want to bias anything. I, of course, have my own, as you guys know from checking out my webcast. I definitely get a little mouthy at times, but I'm going to try my best today to be quiet and just kind of let the facts unroll as they roll. So I'm going to be hard pressed, I'll tell you that much. So who are we talking to here today?
These 2 gentlemen I've known for a number of years. Alex Wood and I go way back, along with Robb Rech. We all kind of started the Denver Secure World together a long time ago. I think it's been about 10 years now. So these guys have been around at our Denver conference forever.
Most people know who they are in the Denver community, but this is our West Coast virtual conference. So if you're not familiar with who these guys are, you're gonna get a good dissertation today. These guys are fun, they're energetic. They also have their own podcast. So I would say, normally I don't promote other people's webcasts and podcasts, but these guys are money.
These guys are awesome. They're fun. They do the Colorado Equal Security Podcast. So if you haven't already subscribed to that, find it and subscribe. I'm gonna let them talk more about it later on at the end of the program, but it's definitely a huge value.
And if you are trying to get your arms around stuff and you want to hear from CISOs, these 2 dudes will help you out. So that's my official plug for these 2 gentlemen, but awesome guys. I'm gonna give you the lay of the land here. How should we be, uh, debating today? So actually, you know, I Googled it, of course, because I wasn't in debate team in high school.
Um, that was not what I was doing. I did drama and computer, oddly enough. Um, 2 very strange topics to merge together in one person, but, uh, that was me. I did drama and I did computer stuff. Uh, but what we're gonna do is our first presenter is gonna take the pro stance in our debate.
Um, so Robb's gonna be giving the affirmative argument on why he believes that the pro profit motive of vendors is making security harder for him. So that seems pretty straightforward, right? We're gonna give him 5 minutes, and then Alex is gonna give the opposing argument for 2 minutes. And then if Robb wants to, he can refute those for an additional minute. And then we're gonna switch things up, and we're gonna have Alex take that con stance on the debate, give 5 minutes on why he doesn't really think that the vendors are making it more difficult.
And then we'll have Robb give his argument. And then one more minute for Alex to say, hey, this is why I'm still running. So we're going to go through all this. And at the very end, we're going to have a poll question pop up. And you, yes, you out there in the audience, you're going to actually pick the winner.
So pay attention for that. We're going to do a— we'll do a poll. We'll leave it up for a bit and then we're going to chit-chat with the guys and then we'll figure out who that winner is and we'll put that in the networking lounge before the next session starts. This is going to be fun. We're going to have some fun with this.
Now, if you're out there in the on-demand audience, you may have already seen this or the results. Just play along or play dumb or stay out of the networking lounge until you've actually watched all of this. That being said, let's get things kicked off. Gentlemen, welcome. It's been, I don't know, a month and a half since I saw you last.
But Robb Reck, he is the Chief Trust and Security Officer over at Pax8. Congrats on the new gig, by the way. If you wouldn't mind, Robb, give me a little bit of your backstory and maybe a fun fact or something. Sure. Yeah, I've been there for just about 2 weeks, so this is definitely new for me.
Previous to joining Pax8, I just took about 6 months off and Um, kind of toured the world, you know, solving crimes and, you know, righting wrongs, all that good stuff. Had a good time. Before that, I was the Chief Trust Officer for Red Canary, another security company here in Denver. And before that, I was the CISO for Ping Identity. So I've been, I've been working in software and security companies for, for quite a while.
And as you mentioned, also run the Colorado Equal Security podcast and community, right? We do a podcast, but I'd say the bigger thing is we've got a couple thousand people who are pretty active participants in our Slack community and If you're in Colorado, we'd love to connect with you. If you're not, you should move to Colorado because it's the best. Uh, fun, fun fact from me, um, I was a, uh, I was on the debate team in college. I wasn't very good at it, but there was very few people who were interested, so I was a scholarship debate, um, competitor.
Uh, it wasn't a very big scholarship, but hey, there you go. I got a little bit of, uh, I got a little bit of money out of it back in the day. So we'll see if I, we'll see if I remember anything from back then. This is my first time debating in 20-something years, maybe 30 years.
Welcome. Great stuff. Great stuff. Appreciate that. And you guys actually— I'll plug it real quick, but I'll let you guys talk about it later too.
But you guys have a cool event happening in April, I believe, in Denver. So definitely bring that up later on. Alex Wood, come on down, sir. CISO over at Uplight. Same question.
If you wouldn't mind, give us a little bit of your backstory and a fun fact. Hey, Tom. Thanks for having me here. Good to talk to you and good to see you. Alex Wood.
I am the Chief Information Security Officer for a company called Uplight. We are a software company that makes software for the utility power industry, all with the goal of helping to decarbonize the power grid. So it's a pretty cool company with a pretty cool mission. I've been doing information security for an awfully long time. 20-some-odd years at various different places in various different verticals.
It's been a lot of fun along the way. Robb and I connected and, and we had the same passion for community and trying to build and showcase that community here in Colorado, which is why we started Colorado April Security. In addition to some of the things that Robb mentioned, we also do a Security Leader Dinner Series, and we're also in April coming up on our first conference that we're putting together. It's a day-long security leader conference that we're really excited about and looking forward to do that coming up in April. Fun fact about me, I'm going to do the opposite fact of what Robb gave.
I've never been in a debate, so this is my first time. It's going to be interesting to see how this goes. I definitely was not on scholarship for debate, so I think Robb has a leg up on me there, but I'm going to put up a good fight and looking forward to what the outcome is.
Well, between the 3 of us, this should be very interesting then. So I will do my best to keep us on task, but let's get things going here. So first off, we need to start with our pro statement. So Mr. Robb Reck is going to give us the which is profit motive of vendors makes security harder for CISOs.
And I'm gonna give you 5 minutes, and let's start now. All right, first thing I want to do is I just want to make it clear to everyone who's listening, this may or may not reflect our actual beliefs. Alex and I, we, we flipped a virtual coin to figure out who got which side. So you don't know what we really believe here. This is, this is part of the endeavor is, right?
Taking a position and going with it. All right, let's start off. So I'm gonna talk to you about why the profit motive for vendors makes it harder for us as security leaders to do our job well. Most of the points I'm gonna argue with here, argue here are kind of, they exist along spectrums. Neither side of the spectrum makes total sense.
You know, buying new technology constantly, you know, every day you buy a new technology, that would be one side. The other side is, you know, you never buy anything, A new piece of technology, you buy it once and you stop. Somewhere along the spectrum makes sense, some areas don't. What I'm gonna argue is pretty strongly on the side of buying fewer tools less frequently makes security programs better. And there's 3 points here.
Number one, the venture capital funding and the sales culture within the security industry, it's very real and it's very effective. Number 2, an effective security architecture allows for deep investment, and it works better if you're not making constant changes to your key technologies. The number 3 point is that the const— continuously swapping out your technologies stops you from fully implementing the previous ones and stops us from ever really reaching true mastery with our technologies. So those are my 3 key points. Let's dive into the first one.
The, the sales culture, the VC funding culture is very real. Point number 1 here, um, when all you ever hear about as a security leader is that this new hotness— you know, we used to call it the blinky box, now it's a blinky SaaS somewhere in somebody else's data center— but when all you ever hear is that this new hotness is going to solve your problems, you start to believe it. Um, the, the reason that the VC— when a VC funds a new company, when they pour all this money into these companies, they invest most of that funding into sales and marketing resources that help try and convince companies to buy their technology. They're throwing that money in regardless of whether the technology works, right? The whole purpose is they're trying to drive customers to come there to justify more spend, to justify more growth, which, yes, of course it goes back to R&D at some point, But regardless of whether it works, they're here to convince you that the marketing function that's being funded there, it's a machine, the purpose of which is to create brand awareness, to attach positive feelings to that brand, to create a buzz that makes you feel like you're missing out if you don't have that technology.
And then the last part of it— so marketing's there to create that awareness. The sales rep behavior, the behavior of the sales reps who are funded by that, it's It's all— we like to think it doesn't impact us. We like to think that that invitation to the, to the fancy car driving or the golf outing or whatever doesn't impact us. But at the end of the day, they do it because it does work. It creates that, that relationship bond with the buyer, and over time we find reasons to say yes to those people we like.
So number 1, sales culture is real and it really impacts us whether we think it does or not. Number 2 point, security architecture allows We're looking for a security architecture that allows for deep investment, long-term stability, and consistency. We want to create a security architecture that follows the tenets of defense in depth so that in the event that one of our controls is defeated, another control steps in to protect that environment. This is really important for this conversation because I suspect that my opponent's going to talk about how, you know, R&D is going to drive, you know, you have the best, the, you know, respond to new attacks, you know, really quickly. But at the end of the day, an effective defense, defense-in-depth architecture doesn't depend on any one technology.
It depends on all of them together. And by not switching them out, we're able to make each layer better for longer. We want to ensure that appropriate alerting is creating so that if one of our controls is defeated, we know it, we're able to make corrections. We want to make— it's going to be more cost-effective and more sustainable if we're not switching out technologies on a regular basis. It's time-consuming, expensive, all that bad stuff.
That doesn't mean we should never do it. It means, once again, back to the spectrum, it means it should be done seldom. We should seldom switch out technologies in our stack, and we should do it for a very good reason, not because we have this pressure that I talked about previously. Um, I'd also— the third point here is around this ability to get mastery and, and the fact that, you know, most of our projects are incompletely implemented. If you've ever done an IT project, you know very frequently we're unable to get those things done all the way.
Generally, we get 80-90% of the way through a project and we stop because we've got most of the value out and that last 10-20% is very difficult. That last 10-20% is where you get true mastery. It's where you get rid of the false positives that are killing our teams. It's where we're able to— All right, Robb, the duck has spoken. I got to cut you off, but I think fair is fair.
Well done. Good points. I had to use the duck for something.
Well done. Awesome job, Alex. I think you guys kind of got your work cut out for you, sir. But let's, uh, Alex, bring Alex in. Alex, you get 2 minutes to refute this.
So, Alex, floor is yours. Thanks, Tom. So I think that Robb made some good points there. However, I would like to make a couple counterpoints. So, you know, Robb talked a little bit about how VCs are putting most of their money into advertising.
I think that, you know, that's fair. However, that may work for the short term, but if your product doesn't work, it's not going to be successful. And you really need to make sure that the companies are innovating, and that's what keeps them moving forward and continues to make them successful in the marketplace. But, you know, you might get a little bit of traction from the advertising, but it's not going to get sustained. And really, so it's that motive of continuing to push forward with innovation that's going to keep people going.
I do also like the security architecture point. Everyone does need a good security architecture. But you can't stand pat either. If there aren't new tools that are being created by vendors, you won't be— you won't have the coverage that you want for areas that might not be currently covered by your security architecture. And so you do need those vendors that are out there trying to make a profit and developing new tools to cover those areas.
Finally, you know, Robb mentioned several times about swapping tools. The, the end goal doesn't have to necessarily be swapping tools in order for a vendor to, to continue to innovate and to get new functionality that you want to be successful. You know, if they are a good vendor that continues to innovate, continues to, to make their products better, you're going to continue to buy their products and, you know, potentially continue to pay more for them because they're giving you better functionality. Uh, so there you go. There's my counter.
Awesome. And you beat the duck, so I don't even have to use it on that one. Good job. Okay, uh, you actually had 4 seconds left, so, um, good job on that. Uh, and back over to Robb.
Robb, we're gonna give Robb a minute to, uh, refute the refutation. I just made that part up, but we're gonna give Robb 1 minute to talk back. So, Robb. What do you got? Yeah, so, so happy to get to respond here.
The— maybe starting at the end first, Alex, what you said makes a lot of sense that, hey, well, it doesn't— just because it's a product motive doesn't mean it has to be the new companies. You could be investing in the same companies, but that's just not how it works. The way that, the way that the vast majority of VC money works, and we're talking about this profit motive, and, and most of this is driven by VC as they come up, is that it's the new hot company that gets all the attention, and it's they're always looking to take share of wallet from some previous vendor almost exclusively, right? As they come up, it's, hey, our DLP tool is going to, is going to mean you don't have to spend money on the previous one. And it's that push by VCs to go make that investment.
You focused on advertising and I say it's sales and marketing. Marketing does one part of it. And then the sales part is the relationship part, which frankly doesn't feel quite as dirty as the advertising. It's the relationship. Hey, I like this person.
I want to work with them. There's all that pushing that's happening from that side as well. Um, it looks like I got 10 seconds left. I'll, I'll save the rest of my time for after Alex goes with his next one. Thank you so much, Robb, for the, uh, the pro argument.
Now we're going to shift gears and we're going to go back to, uh, Mr. Alex Wood to give us the, uh, the con, if you will. So, um, profit motive for vendors makes doesn't make security harder for CISOs after all. So Alex, I'm going to give you 5 minutes starting now. Thanks, Tom. Uh, hi everybody.
Uh, as previously stated, my name is Alex Wood and I'm here to tell you why, uh, our premise, the profit motive of vendors makes the job of CISOs more difficult and why that is incorrect. The profit motive of vendors is essential for innovation and staying ahead of evolving cyber threats. Imagine it's the year 2000 and you're a security engineer. You've just weathered the storm of Y2K, thankfully without a major issue. How is it you do your job?
What tools and resources do you have? The answer is not much. There are basic antivirus, firewall, intrusion detection tools. Centralized log management and SIEM are an idea but barely even half-baked. Most tools are poorly maintained open source projects, and finding information on the internet is a challenge at best.
It's not easy to do your job. If you were a CISO running a security program, one of your greatest desires would be tools to help implement the needed security controls for your organization because those tools don't exist. Now fast forward to today. There are advanced tools and categories that you couldn't have imagined in 2000. Many of these tools are preventative and work automatically without your teams having to act.
There are teams of threat intelligence researchers uncovering the latest threats and funneling the data to your tools to make your job easier and more efficient. There are even security program management tools to take security data and develop strategies and metrics for running a security program. There are even tools to automate your compliance obligations. Today, the environment is leaps and bounds ahead of where it was back then, and it's because of innovation. And while This innovation has come from companies wanting to better secure the internet.
It's largely come from vendors' profit motives. In order for technology companies to be successful, they need to innovate so that they can be competitive in the marketplace. Innovation means better products for CISOs and security teams. The biggest motivation here is money. Early companies need to show innovation to get VC funding, and in 2022, there was almost $16 billion in VC funding for security companies.
VCs are motivated by profit as well, so they drive security companies to innovate so that they will be successful and turn a profit on that invested money. Without that, without innovation and profit, that $16 billion would go to some other sector besides security, and we would miss out on its benefits. Larger public companies are accountable to their shareholders, and the shareholders' primary goal is an increasing stock price. In order for that stock to go up, the company has to show growth and And they're not going to grow if they don't have innovative products that security teams want to buy to make their jobs easier. Again, this causes better products and a benefit to CISOs and security teams.
We know that information security is a fast-moving and constantly changing endeavor. Tomorrow there may be a new technology that needs to be secured, like GenAI, for example. There are already vendors offering tools to help the security of GenAI products because they want to help, but also because they know they can make a profit. Additionally, in areas that we've, uh, that we already have security tools, they continue to change. Vendors that make tools for these areas need to continually innovate because if their tool doesn't keep up with a changing environment, CISOs will look for another better tool, which will cause a loss of revenue, hurting the vendor's bottom line.
It is in the vendor's best interest to innovate so they can continue to profit. Another area in which product profit motivate, uh, profit motivate The profit motives benefit the CISO is the competition between vendors. CISOs have a limited budget and limited time, and the profit motive can help with both. Value-added resellers, which you might consider a vendor type of their own, help make buying vendor products easier and faster by providing knowledge that a CISO and their team might not have, as well as being able to gauge whether or not a fair price is being asked for the product. Competition between vendors trying to make a sale causes them to keep the prices at a competitive level and can cause the vendors to reduce prices in order to make a sale.
CISOs may also receive extra products or services for free in order to make the deal even more attractive. In both of these examples, the goal of the vendor is to help the CISO and the security team, but the underlying driving factor is for vendors to best be able to make a profit. In summary, not only is it incorrect, but the profit motives of vendors make the jobs of CISOs more difficult. It's the exact opposite. The profit motive of vendors drives innovation and the creation of tools that otherwise would not exist.
This motivation also drives vendors to continually adapt and update their tools, helping CISOs keep up with the latest threats. Finally, the competitive pressures vendors face help drive down costs of these tools. The profit motives of these vendors are the natural outcome of capitalism, showing that not only is this a benefit It's the American way. Thank you. Wow, nicely done.
And we didn't have to hear the duck again, so that was great. So well done. Good, good points. And you guys out in the audience are going to have a hard choice when it comes down to it. Let's, let's hear from Robb.
Robb, slide. I'm just going to start off by accusing Alex of having big vendor money in his back pocket there. That sounded like it was probably written. Not fair. Not fair.
That's a low blow. There's no facts to that. That's pure speculation. All right, Alex, I'm going to do my best to rebut that here. You listed so many— there you go, Alex.
You listed so many security tools that exist. If I tried to implement all those tools, um, as with the size of most companies, my team would never do anything but evaluate and barely get those tools in before spinning to the next one. I'd have no time to run them. The key that I'm— the point I'm making is, yeah, we do need technology, but we need to find those key essential tools that we can really focus on and really avoid this pressure that we get from the vendor, from the VC community. I know, and you made an argument that, hey, if, you know, if they didn't have good technology behind it, they wouldn't end up winning in the long run.
But I know you don't believe that technology necessarily is a meritocracy, right? The best tech doesn't always win. We see this based on Which company has the best mindshare in the market? Which one has the biggest booth at RSA? Whatever that looks like, it's really hard to tell which one's the best until you've got it in place.
Yes, it has to be good enough, but it doesn't necessarily have to be the best. And that profit motive sometimes gets in the way. Another argument you made is around staying up with emerging threats. I go back to my point, the best way to stay prepared for emerging threats is not by having a single technology that works, but by having a properly implemented defense in depth that accounts for that, when one technology gets defeated, we're able to go back and adjust it. Last one, last argument for me, you know, if we didn't have, you know, any kind of profit motive and there weren't people creating this, we'd still solve these problems.
And we see this, you know, time and again in the security industry. There's all kinds of open source technologies that do things that, you know, at the time was either not being done by industry or was too expensive. You know, Snort, right? IDS, IPS, SIEM technologies, SOAR technologies, vulnerability scanning. We've seen time and again that the security industry steps up and creates solutions to these problems that we can work with together.
I believe that, you know, the profit motive distracts us from what it is that we're trying to accomplish more than it adds value. That's the summary.
Nice job. Nice job. You got it right on the nose for the duck, so well done. Alex, you have 1 minute if you want to use it to refute what Robb had to say. Yeah, I think, Tom, I just have 1 point that I would like to make as a follow-up.
You know, Robb's argument seems to be black and white. Either you have to implement all of the tools or you don't. And I think that that's a major misunderstanding. And I think that that's not the argument that I am trying to make here. And I don't think that it It really is one that shows whether the vendor profit motive is good for CISOs or not.
So I think that the profit motive makes better tools. I think it allows those tools to be available. That doesn't mean you have to implement all of them. You know, you take the best ones and you do your defense in depth, and this profit motive is going to help you in the long run. And that is it.
Great job, uh, honestly, uh, both of you. I, I'm glad I don't have to actually decide this one because, uh, I don't know who won. Um, so you out in the audience, uh, what are you guys thinking about? Um, give us some comments too. Um, make your choice and we'll throw the poll up there in a second.
Uh, was it Robb? Was it Alex? We throw both of them up there in case you're not, uh, Who was that one guy? Who was the first guy? Who's on first?
What was on first? Who's on second? How's that go? Let's go back here. Here we go.
So who do you guys think? Vote now. So we'll check that out. We'll show what those are at the very end as we're exiting, but we'll actually throw the results in the networking lounge as well. But I want to give the guys just a moment if you guys want.
You guys have a cool— like I said at the beginning, you guys have an awesome podcast. Tell us a little bit more about it. How many people are watching this thing? How often are you guys doing it? What kind of topics should people expect from you guys?
Sure. So let me just say, first of all, Tom, thanks for having us. We have done 5 debates previous to this, and in the past I've been a moderator. This is my first time getting to do one of the debates. It's fun to get to do.
It kind of stretches some muscles that you don't use quite a bit. So the podcast we do, it's a monthly podcast where we summarize the news of the kind of the tech nerdy security news coming from Colorado, talk about some of the events coming up, and then each month we sit down with some interesting person from the community. We have a feature interview where, you know, somewhere between 30 and 60 minutes of just getting to know this person. We love to highlight the cool stuff that's already happening in Colorado. Alex and I don't do a ton of creating new events, although we did mention a couple of things that we're up to, but mostly we love to just highlight the cool stuff that's already happening, amplify the interesting things that are there, and introduce the community to people who they might otherwise miss.
Alex, did I miss anything? Yeah, I think adding on to that, if you want to find the podcast, you can go to your favorite podcast player and find us there. Best way is to just search for Colorado Security and the podcast should pop up there. Feel free to subscribe. And then if you want to find out more about Colorado Equal Security, you can go to colorado-security.com and see all of the cool stuff that we have going on there.
Finally, I look forward to seeing the poll where I am the victor.
Arrogance, arrogance, Alex. Careful. That's right. It could be a— That's not helping anything. That's right, that's right.
We'll see how it goes. Uh, so we'll check, check in a moment, uh, in the networking lounge. We'll see who won. Um, hopefully, uh, one or both of the guys will pop into the networking lounge too, and then you can either congratulate them or, uh, you know, make fun of them. Why not?
You know, I'm kidding. Don't make fun of them. We're all here to be nice. Uh, but seriously, these guys are great. Uh, check out their podcast.
Check out— if you're in Denver, you're in that metro area, they've got that cool event in April. Check it out. So, um, they do a number of things. Um, these guys are in their communities. They do stuff with their associations.
These guys are like the InfoSec guys that you just want to know. It's too bad you guys live— it's not too bad. I think it's awesome you live in Denver. I wish that you guys lived everywhere because people in every secure world city need a Robb and an Alex to pick on and be like, hey, I need some help. Anyway, that's all the gushing I'm gonna do on these 2 guys.
If you haven't voted, vote. Check out the results in the networking lounge. Check out their podcast. This concludes our debate. Hi, this is David Stapleton, Chief Information Security Officer with CyberGRX.
This is Colorado Equal Security, for Colorado security professionals, by Colorado security professionals.
All right, well, I hope hope you enjoyed the debate. I know I really, I really had a good time, and frankly, um, I, I thought that Alex made a ton of great points. Um, now we did, like I mentioned, we did have the viewers vote, and the winner was the pro argument, the, the, my argument that, um, that vendors' profit margin does make it harder, uh, profit motive does make it harder for CISOs and security programs. I'll say I think I might have gotten some, some votes because people just you know, don't like to say yes, that they like vendors. I think Alex made some really good points.
And frankly, I think, you know, the answer is somewhere in the middle where, you know, it does make it hard to not be distracted by all the newest technologies and, you know, take your eye off of what you need to work on. On the other side, if we don't have those, those new technologies pushing things better, and if there wasn't money behind it, it would go much slower and we would have a harder time on, on defense. Anyway, it was a fun event and I look forward to getting to do more of these in the future. And we'll share as many of those with you guys as we can. Learn more about the Colorado security scene at colorado-security.com, where you can see information about local security groups, a calendar of upcoming security events, and learn more about Colorado Equals Security.
Reach out to Alex and Robb by emailing info@colorado-security.com.
Until next time, remember, Colorado Equals security.