
Sign up to save your podcasts
Or


With the recent disclosures that OpenAI's security testing using its own models broke out of the sandbox and attacked Hugging Face (and others), Erik, Dan, and Brian thought it was worth a moment to discuss and debate the current state of AI, securing AI models, some of the ways that organisations can isolate and test without such risks, and the implications of what could be seen as offensive (and retaliatory) attacks from a corporation.
And, lest anyone think we are picking on OpenAI, the same thing happened in testing by Google, Anthropic, and Meta (Facebook) resulting in attacks on quite a few other companies. Yep, you're not cool in AI if you haven't tried to attack another business with your AI model. But why on earth are they all annoucing so loudly that they hacked into these other orgs? We live in interesting times, for sure.
Thanks for watching and listening!
Show Notes:
Some of the links in the show notes contain affiliate links that may earn a commission should you choose to make a purchase using these links. Using these links supports The Great Security Debate and Distilling Security, so we appreciate it when you use them. We do not make our recommendations based on the availability or benefits of these affiliate links.
What on earth were Ring and Amazon thinking when they aired their Super Bowl advert that previewed a “there’s nowhere you can hide” type of dystopian future masked as a way to find your lost dog? With cameras everywhere, are we safer or just more exposed? When camera data is deleted, is it really gone (spoiler alert: not necessarily), and more. Are we approaching the new location of the “creepy line” or as a society are we content to trade privacy for security? And what happens when the glasses with cameras become more pervasive? Are we all on cam all the time whether we like it or not?
Show notes:
Some of the links in the show notes contain affiliate links that may earn a commission should you choose to make a purchase using these links. Using these links supports The Great Security Debate and Distilling Security, so we appreciate it when you use them. We do not make our recommendations based on the availability or benefits of these affiliate links.
AI is growing in use within information security, but are we ready to trust it to do all the things we hope it can, and do so automatically without doing harm? Context is king, and training to that level is only possible when you give all your experience to the AI. What are the tradeoffs to doing so? What happens when we depend on AI and forget (or worse, never learn) the underpinnings of what makes the AI system work (remember the calculator debates of the 1980s?). And does the end justify the means when it comes to AI use? And what is that “ends” anyway? Efficiency, automation, knowledge? Erik, Dan, and Brian discuss it all in this week’s Great Security Debate!
Show Notes
Some of the links in the show notes contain affiliate links that may earn a commission should you choose to make a purchase using these links. Using these links supports The Great Security Debate and Distilling Security, so we appreciate it when you use them. We do not make our recommendations based on the availability or benefits of these affiliate links.
Recently and over the past few years, world events may have included cybersecurity components in their enactment. So, Brian, Erik, and Dan started talking about the role of security in critical infrastructure protection, asking questions about the ethics and thresholds for government and corporate roles in cyber retaliation, whether we as security practitioners have a role (or an obligation, or even a liability) to close vulnerabilities that can be used in primary or retaliatory scenarios. How much of human nature makes cyber retaliation a foregone conclusion, or can we find ways to reduce the need or use or availability of ways in via the technology. From Stuxnet to Iran to Caracas, using cybersecurity is a prevalent vector of retaliation, but does it always have to be that way? Or will it end with WOPR’s recognition that the only way to win the game is not to play at all?
It’s hard to talk about modern cybersecurity and not bring in current events, and even harder to keep it from turning political. We tried very hard to do a good job in the latter as we talked about the former.
Thanks for being part of the debate!
Show Notes:
Some of the links in the show notes contain affiliate links that may earn a commission should you choose to make a purchase using these links. Using these links supports The Great Security Debate and Distilling Security, so we appreciate it when you use them. We do not make our recommendations based on the availability or benefits of these affiliate links.
Rules are made and policies are established. But the “how” of implementing and meeting those regulations or policies will be very context specific. In this episode of the Great Security Debate, Dan, Erik, and Brian cover a number of key policies and requirements and some different ways to think about implementing them and how the specific situation, company, risk will affect the way you meet the rule. From driving a car to incident response and everything in between. We debate the need to look back at old rules and see if they all still make sense (a great programme called Kill Stupid Rules), and flexibility in control implementation to meet evolving business needs, to move quickly, and keeping the whole picture of the business, customer, and employees in mind.
Thanks for Listening!
Show Notes:
Some of the links in the show notes contain affiliate links that may earn a commission should you choose to make a purchase using these links. Using these links supports The Great Security Debate and Distilling Security, so we appreciate it when you use them. We do not make our recommendations based on the availability or benefits of these affiliate links.
We are back for another Great Security Debate.
In this episode: we discuss the potential role of agentic AI in security, from true “copilot” to automated decider of things, and whether LLMs are just a really cool search engine. Brian, Erik, and Dan also debate the means and extent to which we could replace ourselves with agents and what the inhibitors and risks are (spoiler alert: trust and survival of that agent after employment were big factors), and how do we train those agents of all the steps our brains take to make the decisions that the humans make, and do so without polluting it with aspirational versions of ourselves (think: Instagram vs Reality). And it all leads to a parenting lesson by Brian and an automotive process lesson by Erik? It’s quite a debate.
Thanks for listening! We might do one more episode in 2026, but if not have a wonderful holidays and a happy new year!
Here’s the quote that Brian references at the end of the episode by Tolstoy:
Patience is waiting. Not passively waiting. That is laziness. But to Keep going when the going is hard and slow - that is patience. The two most powerful warriors are patience and time. The value lies not in reducing "power" (computational energy) but in leveraging that processing power to achieve outcomes that are difficult, slow, or impossible for humans to manage alone.Thanks for listening!
Show Notes:
Some of the links in the show notes contain affiliate links that may earn a commission should you choose to make a purchase using these links. Using these links supports The Great Security Debate and Distilling Security, so we appreciate it when you use them. We do not make our recommendations based on the availability or benefits of these affiliate links.
On this weeks’ Debate, Brian brings a truckload of acronyms for more single panes of glass to help us consolidate our various single panes of glass, Erik may actually be Brian (or maybe Brian is Erik), and Dan confirms he still (and likely always will) spend the rest of his days living in the house he just built deep in the Trough of Disillusionment.
What started out as a chat about some new technologies in the space turned into a treatise on the state of leadership and the future talent pipeline’s need for more curiosity (and why we think they are starved of the opportunity to learn to be curious). Along the way we talk about what motivates organisations to do security right from the get go vs leaving it alone based on difficulty to remediate, and the risk balances of both (think: productivity vs security). Throw in a little “binary opinions have dragged us into the mire” and you’ve got a full episode of The Great Security Debate.
We also drop some hints about a new show coming from The Distilling Security network in 2026 called The Final Act which will bring guests in the later stages of their careers about the urgency of our careers in security and tech, what they want to leave behind as legacy, and what they are doing to prepare their orgs for their eventual departure. Add on how they have and will give back to the community, and what their successors want to see done before this first generation of security and tech leaders hit the road.
Please subscribe and leave a comment. If you’d like to sponsor the network, please email [email protected]
Thanks for listening!
Show Notes:
Some of the links in the show notes contain affiliate links that may earn a commission should you choose to make a purchase using these links. Using these links supports The Great Security Debate and Distilling Security, so we appreciate it when you use them. We do not make our recommendations based on the availability or benefits of these affiliate links.
The Great Security Debate is *back*! It’s been a busy year, but it’s time to get this show back on the air (and maybe on the road). Dan takes a break from the rat race, Erik took over the world, and Brian uses Elmer’s Glue to splice his network cables.
Topics in the show this week:
We will be back every 2 weeks on Mondays. Subscribe on YouTube at https://youtube.com/@greatsecuritydebate to see our smiling faces as you watch, or in your favourite podcast application to listen on your commute or with your whole family around the radio.
See you on the 17th with more debates! And some entirely new shows coming from Distilling Security very soon, too. Subscribe to the newsletter on our website https://distillingsecurity.com to hear all about them
Links to mentioned articles and topics:
The Great Security Debate crew recorded a live episode at the GTS Security Summit in Detroit, Michigan with special guest, Zah Gonzalvo, SVP of Financial, Climate, and Operational Risk at Banco Popular. Tune in for a great discussion on risk, risk mitigation, risk prioritisation, and risk in context. Yep, it's all about risk!
Takeaways:
In this episode of The Great Security Debate, Dan, Brian and Erik invent (and copyright) the idea of a Fantasy Hacker League then dig into more serious discussions on deception technology, asset discovery challenges, and resource management. The conversation also delves into the impact of budget constraints on security projects, the mental toll on cybersecurity professionals, and the evolving role of CISOs in digital transformation. Issues such as job stress, burnout, and role mismatches among security leaders are addressed, alongside strategic insights on integrating security within broader business operations.
00:00 Introduction to the Great Security Debate
00:39 Humorous Take on Hacker Recruitment
03:16 Fantasy Hacker League Concept
09:18 Microsoft's Honeypot Strategy
22:58 Challenges in Security Budgets and Resources
31:03 The Reality of Full-Time Positions
31:31 Introverts vs. Extroverts in Leadership
32:06 The Challenges of Being a CISO
33:53 Work-Life Balance and Stress
37:04 The Role of Security in Business
39:36 The Future of Security Leadership
41:00 Adapting to Economic Constraints
59:28 The Importance of Enjoying Your Work
01:00:26 Conclusion and Farewell
From the publisher's feed