You Don't Scale

The more that information security incidents are in the news, the more often we hear that there aren't enough people to do all of the work necessary to batten down the hatches against everyone who'd like to compromise our systems and networks. The U.S. Government has been particularly vocal in discussing a shortage of security talent, but it's not uncommon to hear this refrain in business circles as well.If these folks are as difficult to find, hire, and retain as we're told, then we only have a few choices:

• Train them internally;
• Automate as many security processes as possible;
• Do things to make the people you have more effective

Most people choose door #2 as a way to get what's behind door #3.There is a common criticism of information security practitioners: that we depend too much on technology, even when the core problems may not be technical ones. Those critics have a point: effective security isn't something one can buy in a box and then proclaim victory afterward. However, in the face of limited talent, deploying a new technology may be the most straightforward way to attempt to address some risks.The reason is simple: many of the best security products tend to embody some very specific, reproducible, automation-friendly aspect of security expertise and perform it tirelessly, over and over.  You may have the best internal security people in the world, or the best  world-renowned consultants, but the bottom line is that humans don't scale particularly well.This is true whether you're the security manager with the responsibility to keep your network safe 24 hours a day, or the consultant who parachutes in to save the day when things look bleak. The former can only hire so many staff members, and the latter can only be billed for a finite number of hours in a day/week/year.If experts are in short supply, then one of the most scalable options is to encapsulate the expertise of rare, highly paid people and build it into a mechanism that can attempt to apply that expertise to real environments, be they network traffic flows, host configurations, or software updates.There has yet to exist a security product that solved all of the world's (or even one enterprise's) problems, but if we look at some things that made a difference in the state of the art when they arrived, they tend to fall into a few categories:

• They allow less-senior people to do some work that used to be the province of a few
• They help people to make better sense of information they (usually) already had somewhere
• They help less-technical users to avoid inadvertently hurting themselves
• They fundamentally changed some aspect of how we work or build systems to make them inherently more secure*

*This is where the most value is created, but it's also the most difficult.If you've gone to the trouble of building something to solve a problem for yourself, and believe that other people have the same problem, that's called a market opportunity.

Stay East Young Man

I recently read the New York Times article, “The Pentagon as Silicon Valley’s Incubator,” by Somini Sengupta, which highlights a welcomed trend in cyber security investing that most of us in the industry are watching unfold.  The article highlights the enhanced relationship between Silicon Valley venture capital firms and DoD and Intelligence Community cyber security stakeholders.  The article also underscores my assertion that the DC-Maryland-Virginia Cyber Beltway is the center of mass for global cyber security expertise (see Blog Post: dated   August 2013, “The Cyber Beltway’s Innovation Dislocation").We at MACH37 are thrilled that Silicon Valley and other venture capital rich regions are bridging the gap with the Cyber Beltway.  We continue to strongly support initiatives focused on achieving such gains, such as the Security Innovation Network, which has made tremendous strides in bringing both communities together.However, Sengupta’s article illuminates a related and troubling trend – the migration of cyber entrepreneurs from the Cyber Beltway to Silicon Valley.Specifically, Sengupta references two cyber security start-ups, Morta and Synack, both of whom recently pulled up chocks and moved to Silicon Valley to secure venture investment.  Sengupta also references several other high profile cyber security policy stakeholders who migrated West to join other cyber security startups.I can imagine why VC’s would desire to keep first time entrepreneurs close to home.  It’s difficult for VC’s to effectively mentor and manage young and inexperienced entrepreneurs when they are separated by over 2,850 miles.  I can also imagine why former policy stakeholders would be drawn to the luster of the fast-paced Silicon Valley start-up environment.  I am sure that echoes of Horace Greeley’s “Go West Young Man” add to the excitement and romance of their first entrepreneurial experience.However, if VC’s have already recognized the unmatched density of cyber security expertise residing within the Cyber Beltway, it makes little sense to me that they would desire for these entrepreneurs to leave the rich intellectual ecosystem that originally inspired them.In the cyber security space, perhaps more than any other technology sector, intellectual capital has a very short shelf-life.  In order for cyber security companies to thrive beyond the releases of their initial alphas and betas, their founders and technologists must continue to innovate.  In order to do so, they must maintain an awareness of the state of the cyber threat as well as the state of their competitive environments.By pulling these entrepreneurs out of the cyber intellectual epicenter, their VC’s are inadvertently undermining their ability to compete over the long term.  Outside the Cyber Beltway, these entrepreneurs are going to lose a step and will find it more difficult to, not only keep up with the threat, but also to seize and defend a competitive market position.To be certain, in Silicon Valley, these entrepreneurs are going to find a wealth of expertise in new venture development, software engineering, and enterprise solution sales and marketing.  But they will also find a dearth of cyber security expertise.  There are lots of folks out West who know how to build a highly scalable database to search through and correlate log and threat data, but very few of them have any idea what they are actually looking for.Let me suggest an alternative approach.  Stay East Young Man (and Woman).If VC’s want to give their cyber security entrepreneurs every advantage to succeed, leave them inside the Cyber Beltway.  If the entrepreneur is a first timer, establish your firm’s presence here and surround the entrepreneur with experienced talent.  By allowing the entrepreneur to remain immersed in the ecosystem that originally inspired her, her venture will continue to innovate, keeping pace with the cyber threat and competitive environment.  Several venture firms with strong cyber security track records such as NEA, Grotech, New Atlantic, Valhalla, Harbert, Columbia Capital, Paladin and Alsop Louie understand the importance of this immersion and are either already established or are in the process of building a more sustained presence within the Cyber Beltway.MACH37 is working hard to make it easier for both cyber entrepreneurs and venture capitalists to build cyber security companies inside the Cyber Beltway.  We augment our entrepreneurs’ existing cyber security skill sets with the critical product management, development, sales and marketing and venture development capabilities they will need to succeed.  We pair them with seasoned entrepreneurs, cyber technologists, market analysts and venture advisors who are committed to helping them be successful.  We drive their ventures through concept validation, target market customer acceptance, and alpha commitment and provide them and their investors with the strong market-driven foundations they will need to achieve the success we are all driving towards.