The Security Strategist

Podcast series: The Security Strategist

Guest: Sam Woodcock, Senior Director of Solutions Architecture at 11:11 Systems

Host: Shubhangi Dua, Podcast Producer and B2B Tech Journalist at EM360Tech

In the recent episode of The Security Strategist podcast, host Shubhangi Dua, Podcast Producer and B2B Tech Journalist at EM360Tech, spoke with Sam Woodcock, Senior Director of Solutions Architecture at 11:11 Systems. They discussed what he sees as one of the biggest issues in cybersecurity today: the gap between confidence and ability.

Their conversation, based on findings from the company’s latest global survey, revealed a troubling fact. While 81 per cent of IT leaders believe they are ready to recover from a cyberattack, many have already faced serious incidents, sometimes more than once a year.

Woodcock pointed out that this confidence can be misleading. “If you think about your cyber recovery planning, it often looks strong on paper,” he said. “That can create a false sense of security because cyber recovery is very complex.”

Analyst Read: Forensic Recovery Is Central to Cyber Resilience

Woodcock explained that many organisations confuse documented plans with actual readiness. Cyber recovery is not fixed; it must change with the infrastructure, applications, and threats.

“Change is the only constant in this industry,” he noted. “Things are shifting daily and weekly. What you had in place today can quickly become outdated.”

Testing often suffers from time and budget constraints. Many companies test just once a year, if at all. Woodcock advises that quarterly testing should be the minimum.

“You’d rather find those issues now instead of during a real ransomware incident.”

The costs of misplaced confidence are high, such as prolonged downtime, growing financial losses, regulatory fines, and damage to reputation. Some survey participants reported recovery times of one to two weeks, while others took over a month.

The more alarming truth is the risk of getting reinfected. “Enterprises might recover from the first outage and then be hit again,” Woodcock warned. “That extends the recovery time and increases the risk and damage.”

One of the most revealing points from the discussion was how modern attackers operate once they gain access. A common way in is through VPN flaws and social engineering.

“One of the first things they will do is examine existing documentation within your organisation to understand your recovery strategy,” Woodcock tells Dua. “They’ll look at your company’s cyber incident recovery planning document.”

Attackers often target backup systems directly to wipe out recovery options before launching ransomware.

In one case, Woodcock mentioned, a company’s local backup systems were compromised. Luckily, they had maintained immutable cloud backups, allowing them to recover even after the primary backup environment was breached.

In other cases, entire primary environments were taken offline, forcing organisations to switch to secondary, isolated environments.

“You need a safe, trusted, clean space to recover your environment,” he said. “That way, you can understand how the attack happened and be confident that your recovery is clean.”

The idea of the "clean room," or an isolated recovery environment, has become crucial to modern cyber resilience strategies.

The conversation also addressed artificial intelligence (AI), both as a weapon and a defence. Woodcock noted that cybercriminals are already using AI to refine phishing campaigns, increase attack frequency, and add complexity to evade detection.

“They’re using AI to potentially improve the language in social engineering attacks or to raise the frequency of attacks,” he said.

However, defenders are also making progress. 11:11 Systems collaborates with technology partners like Veeam, Cohesity, and Zerto, all of whom invest heavily in AI for spotting anomalies and providing real-time threat visibility.

These tools can help organisations identify when an attack began and find the last known clean recovery point. “It helps them make quicker decisions,” Woodcock added. “They can make better choices by using AI to find the right recovery point.”

However, he also cautioned against thinking that technology alone will solve the problem. “Technology by itself isn’t enough. It always comes down to the maturity level and expertise within the business.”

Looking forward, Woodcock does not expect ransomware sophistication to slow down. Enterprises now face double extortion tactics—not just encrypted data but also threats of public exposure.

“It’s not just ransomware encrypting data,” he said. “There’s also this evolving threat of being told that data will be made public.”

In an era where attackers study your recovery plan before you implement it, resilience is about proof, not just documentation.

1. 81% of IT leaders are overconfident in their recovery abilities.
2. Cyber recovery is complex and requires a robust plan.
3. Regular testing is essential for effective cyber recovery.
4. Organisations often overlook recovery strategies in favour of prevention.
5. AI is being used by cybercriminals to enhance attacks.
6. The frequency of cyber attacks is increasing.
7. Understanding application dependencies is crucial for recovery.
8. A clean recovery environment is necessary to avoid reinfection.
9. Decision-making during incidents can be time-consuming and impact recovery.
10. Building a strong security culture is vital for organisations.

1. 00:00 Introduction to Cyber Resilience
2. 01:46 Understanding the Cyber Recovery Gap
3. 07:17 Overconfidence in Cybersecurity
4. 12:37 The Importance of Testing in Cyber Recovery
5. 13:37 Multi-layered Approach to Cyber Recovery
6. 17:17 Real-world Cyber Attack Examples
7. 20:19 AI and the Future of Cybersecurity
8. 24:00 Emerging Threats in Cybersecurity
9. 26:31 Key Takeaways for IT Leaders

For more information, please visit em360tech.com and 1111systems.com.

Follow: @EM360Tech on YouTube, LinkedIn and X

11:11 Systems YT: @1111systems

11:11 Systems LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/1111-systems/

11:11 Systems X: @1111systems

Podcast series: The Security Strategist

Guest: Chip Witt, Principal Security Analyst at Radware

Host: Richard Stiennon, Chief Analyst Researcher at IT-Harvest

When attackers target modern enterprises, they don’t break in; they log in. This insight came from the recent episode of The Security Strategist Podcast, where host Richard Stiennon, a cybersecurity analyst and Chief Analyst Researcher at IT-Harvest, speaks to Chip Witt, Principal Security Analyst at Radware.

The conversation spotlights a critical issue faced by most enterprises – defending APIs as if they are just infrastructure while attackers exploit them as part of the business logic. That gap represents the real risk.

As per Witt, enterprise teams often view APIs as technical plumbing instead of business products. Security programs focus on endpoints and authentication, believing that a locked front door means the house is safe.

However, the true risk lies deeper — in authorisation logic, identity sprawl, and how applications change over time. Modern development methods lead to constant API drift. New routes appear, fields change, and versions multiply. In many organisations, security leaders cannot confidently state which APIs are live in production. The uncertainty to many is theoretical, but in reality, it’s an operational risk.

Also Watch: How Do You Stop an Encrypted DDoS Attack? How to Overcome HTTPS Challenges

As enterprises speed up their use of serverless architectures, microservices, and AI-driven applications, API sprawl intensifies. With sprawl, the security model cannot remain unchanged while the application structure evolves.

According to Witt, the future of API security must be intent-aware. Protection should assess whether a sequence of calls makes sense within its context for the user, system, or resource initiating them. Simply confirming identity is not enough; security also needs to validate behaviour.

Zero trust principles have reshaped strategies for networks and identities. APIs now require similar scrutiny—not just at the perimeter, but within the workflow itself.

APIs are no longer just back-end connectors; instead, they are now the visible surface of the enterprise. The most concerning attacks are not brute-force attempts. Most distressing attacks, in fact, are authenticated actions carried out with malicious intent.

Organisations that continuously track their APIs, enforce strict authorisation, and identify workflow misuse in real time can significantly reduce their risk of breaches. More importantly, they can align security with the business pace. In today’s digital economy, APIs are the product.

1. APIs are your primary business attack surface, not back-end infrastructure.
2. Most damaging API attacks use valid credentials and exploit weak authorisation.
3. Visibility gaps and API drift quietly expand your exposure over time.
4. Machine-to-machine identities often carry excessive, unmonitored privileges.
5. Runtime, intent-aware detection is now essential to stopping business logic abuse.

1. 00:00 Introduction to API Security
2. 02:04 Understanding API Misconceptions
3. 04:49 Current API Threat Landscape
4. 06:43 Business Logic Abuse in APIs
5. 09:11 Challenges in API Security
6. 12:03 Runtime Protection and Intent Detection
7. 13:40 Key Takeaways for IT Decision Makers

For more information, please visit em360tech.com and radware.com

Follow: @EM360Tech on YouTube, LinkedIn and X

Radware YT: @radware

Radware LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/radware/

Radware X: @radware

#APISecurity #BusinessLogicAbuse #AuthenticatedAttacks #RuntimeProtection #IntentAwareSecurity #Radware #Cybersecurity2026 #OWASP #BusinessLogic #ZeroTrust #TechPodcast #EnterpriseSecurity #IntentAwareProtection #TheSecurityStrategist #Cybersecurity

In an era where enterprise data sprawls across cloud platforms, collaboration tools, and SaaS environments, CISOs are under constant pressure to reduce risk without becoming the department that slows everything down. That tension sits at the heart of a recent episode of the Security Strategist, where host Jonathan Care speaks with Ariel Zamir, founder and CEO of Ray Security, about what pragmatic, modern data security actually looks like.

Their conversation cuts through the noise around cybersecurity tools and frameworks and focuses instead on how CISOs can think differently about enterprise data, risk management, and control.

One of the most grounded points Zamir makes is also the simplest, and that is, most enterprise data is not being used. At any given time, around 98 per cent of enterprise data sits dormant. From a data security perspective, that should immediately raise questions. Why is data that no one needs today exposed in the same way as data actively driving the business?

For CISOs, this reframes the challenge. Instead of trying to secure all data equally, the priority becomes understanding which data is actually accessed, by whom, and when. This shift matters because risk does not come from volume alone, but from unnecessary exposure. Dormant data with overly broad access control is often invisible to the business, yet highly visible to attackers.

By grounding cybersecurity decisions in how data is really used, security teams can reduce enterprise data risk without introducing friction for employees who are simply trying to do their jobs.

A recurring theme in the discussion is permission hygiene. Over time, access rights accumulate. People change roles, projects end, contractors leave, but permissions rarely get cleaned up. The result is an expanding attack surface that no amount of policy documentation can realistically govern.

Zamir argues that improving permission hygiene and access monitoring should come before heavy data classification initiatives. Tightening access control, understanding access patterns, and removing unnecessary permissions can dramatically reduce risk with relatively low operational impact.

Crucially, this does not mean locking everything down. Dynamic controls play a key role here. Instead of blocking access by default, organisations can monitor for unusual behaviour and respond in context. Alerts, step-up verification, or temporary restrictions allow security teams to manage risk while preserving user experience. From a business perspective, this approach aligns far better with how work actually happens.

This is also where agentic AI and agentless monitoring enter the picture. As autonomous systems increasingly access data on behalf of users, traditional identity-based controls struggle to keep up. Agentless approaches help close coverage gaps without requiring intrusive deployments, while agentic AI introduces new questions about accountability and oversight that CISOs can no longer ignore.

Traditional data classification has long been treated as a foundational security activity, but the podcast challenges that assumption. Classifying vast amounts of dormant data upfront is expensive, slow, and often disconnected from real risk. Instead, Zamir advocates for just-in-time classification, applying context only when data is accessed.

This approach supports more effective risk management while easing the burden on security teams. It also aligns better with regulatory expectations, where proportionality and intent increasingly matter.

However, automation and agentic AI introduce legal implications that CISOs must consider when developing their strategies. When autonomous agents access, move, or transform data, organisations need clarity on responsibility, auditability, and compliance. Dynamic controls and temporal insights into data access are not just technical safeguards; they are essential for demonstrating governance in an environment where human and machine actions intersect.

Taken together, the conversation highlights a more measured path forward. By focusing on how enterprise data is actually used, improving permission hygiene, and applying controls dynamically, CISOs can enhance data security without slowing down the business. It is less about adding more tools and more about making smarter, context-aware decisions in a landscape where risk is shaped by time, access, and intent.

For more information on this, visit: https://raysecurity.io/

1. Around 98 per cent of enterprise data sits idle, creating hidden security risks.
2. Focusing on data dormancy helps prioritise protection and reduce exposure.
3. Permission hygiene and dynamic controls reduce risk without slowing business workflows.
4. Just-in-time classification cuts overhead by securing data only when accessed.
5. Agentless monitoring and oversight of agentic AI improve coverage and accountability.
6. Legal and governance frameworks must evolve to handle autonomous data access.

00:00 Introduction to Cybersecurity Challenges

01:38 Understanding Data Dormancy and Its Implications

05:10 Focusing on Critical Data for Security

08:21 The Importance of Permission Hygiene

10:53 Just-in-Time Classification for Data Security

12:28 Dynamic Controls for Business Needs

16:43 Agentless Monitoring and Coverage Gaps

19:32 Integrating Logs and APIs for Security

21:34 Future Trends in Cybersecurity

In an environment where cyber threats evolve faster than regulation, UK organisations are being asked to defend themselves with rules written for a different era. That tension sits at the centre of a recent episode of the Security Strategist, where host Trisha Pillay speaks with William Wright, Chief Executive Officer of Closed Door Security and Scotland’s first accredited (chartered) hacker. Their conversation moves beyond headlines and funding announcements to examine why, despite growing awareness and investment, both public and private sector organisations in the UK continue to be compromised.

As Wright explains, cybersecurity cannot be understood purely from policy documents or tooling dashboards. It has to be understood from the attacker’s point of view. From where he stands today, the UK cybersecurity landscape is marked by a growing gap between how organisations believe they are protected and how exposed they actually are.

One of the most persistent misconceptions Wright highlights is the belief that buying cybersecurity tools automatically makes an organisation secure. Too many businesses, he argues, rely on poorly implemented services or procure technology they don’t fully understand.

The result is a false sense of confidence. Organisations assume they are protected, but still fall victim to ransomware, business email compromise, and financial fraud. Often, the tools they’ve invested in are never properly tested, validated, or tuned to their environment.

Awareness is another issue. Despite constant media coverage of cyber attacks, cybersecurity is still not consistently treated as a board-level risk. When it remains a technical afterthought rather than an operational priority, organisations struggle to respond effectively when incidents occur.

Wright also challenges the idea of a simple “skills gap.” While much of the discussion focuses on a lack of junior talent, he argues the real problem sits at the top. Too many cybersecurity decisions are being made by individuals without deep, hands-on experience, particularly in senior or policy-shaping roles. This lack of expertise leads to misaligned strategies, both in organisations and in government.

The UK government’s £210 million cyber action plan is, in Wright’s view, a welcome signal but not a solution. Any investment in cybersecurity is positive, yet the plan largely reflects practices the private sector has been using for years.

This creates a familiar pattern as the private sector absorbs the damage, while the public sector learns from it later. Economically, Wright argues, this approach is flawed. When businesses are repeatedly compromised, the impact extends far beyond individual organisations.

Legislation is another weak point. Cyber threats evolve daily, but laws move slowly. The Computer Misuse Act, for example, has not been meaningfully updated in over a decade. In a world of cloud computing, automation, and AI-driven attacks, this leaves the UK operating with outdated guardrails.

As the CEO of an offensive security firm, Wright sees the same pattern repeatedly that organisations are compromised using relatively unsophisticated methods. These are not advanced, state-of-the-art attacks. They are basic weaknesses that remain unaddressed. The problem, he suggests, is that policymakers are often advised by people who have never actively attacked real systems. This disconnect shows up in legislation and regulation that look sound on paper but fail in practice.

Other governments have taken a different approach. Bug bounty programmes, for example, allow ethical hackers to test government infrastructure and responsibly disclose vulnerabilities. These programmes force transparency and accountability. Despite this, the UK has been slow to adopt similar models.

Beyond legislation, Wright points to funding and enforcement as critical gaps. Many public sector organisations know where their risks are, but lack the budget to fix them. Meanwhile, regulatory bodies often lack the authority to enforce remediation.

Without both funding and enforcement, reports identifying serious vulnerabilities are filed away rather than acted upon. This cycle repeats until an attack forces emergency investment, which is often too late.

Looking ahead, Wright identifies two major areas of concern. The first is the use of AI in cyber attacks. AI is not replacing attackers, but it is dramatically accelerating them. Tasks that once took hours can now be completed in minutes, shrinking the window for detection and response.

The second is technology supply chain risk. Attacks on widely used software tools can give attackers access to thousands of organisations at once. Past incidents involving widely trusted vendors show how devastating these compromises can be, particularly when they go unnoticed for long periods.

Despite the scale of the challenge, Wright’s advice is grounded and practical. Multi-factor authentication is non-negotiable. Organisations without MFA are, in his words, “sailing blind.”

He also urges businesses to validate their security investments. Spending heavily on defence while allocating minimal budget to testing is self-defeating. Security tools do not work perfectly out of the box, and penetration testing must go beyond surface-level assessments. Finally, Wright stresses the importance of depth. Black-box testing alone is not enough. Organisations need to assume breach scenarios and test how attackers move inside their environments, particularly through identity-based attacks such as phishing.

1. Cybersecurity is frequently mistaken for deploying tools, rather than managing risk.
2. Cyber risk must be treated as a board-level responsibility, not a technical afterthought.
3. The real cybersecurity skills gap exists at senior and decision-making levels.
4. Cyber legislation is largely reactive and struggles to keep pace with modern threats.
5. Bug bounty programmes can help governments identify weaknesses before attackers do.
6. Offensive security insight strengthens defensive strategy and decision-making.
7. Legacy systems can be secured when risks are properly understood and addressed.
8. AI is accelerating the scale and speed of cyber attacks, not replacing attackers.
9. Security investments must be validated through continuous testing and assurance.
10. Multi-factor authentication is a foundational requirement for modern cyber resilience.

00:00 Introduction to Cybersecurity Landscape

02:56 William Wright's Journey in Cybersecurity

05:56 Current Cybersecurity Challenges in the UK

08:53 Evaluating the UK Government's Cyber Action Plan

12:03 The Impact of Legislation on Cybersecurity

15:01 Lessons from Offensive Security for Government

16:55 Notable Cybersecurity Breaches and Their Impacts

19:59 Future Focus: Improving Cyber Resilience

24:01 Emerging Cyber Threats: AI and Supply Chain Risks

27:48 Practical Advice for Organisations

31:05 Conclusion and Key Takeaways

In an era of accelerating digital change, understanding the tactics employed by modern attackers is crucial for organisations doing everything in their power to protect their sensitive information. In this episode of the Security Strategist podcast, host Richard Stiennon and Chester Wisniewski, Director, Global Field CISO of Sophos, examine the findings of the Active Adversary Report, compiled by Wisniewski and his team, shedding light on how cyber threats are changing and what security leaders can do to adapt their strategies. 

 The Active Adversary Report, compiled by Wisniewski’s team at Sophos, provides invaluable insights into the common pitfalls organisations face when responding to cyber incidents. With Chester's extensive experience in cybersecurity and incident response, the report aims to analyse real-world data from hundreds of incident responses across 50 countries. The report categorises incidents into two main groups: those who seek immediate help during a crisis and those who utilise managed detection and response services. By examining these cases, the report identifies key indicators that contribute to security breaches, offering organisations a roadmap to enhance their security posture.

One of the most startling revelations from the report is that nearly 70 per cent of incidents last year were linked to identity-related issues such as stolen passwords, session tokens, or phishing attacks. Chester explains that attackers are increasingly leveraging identity theft because it is often easier to log in as an authorised user than to break into a system. This trend underscores the importance of security teams to prioritise identity management as part of their overall strategy.

Wisniewski also emphasises that the ease of access through stolen credentials presents fewer telltale signs of unauthorised activity, making it harder for organisations to detect breaches. In the past, cybercriminals often exploited vulnerabilities in software like Flash and Java, but as security measures have improved, they have shifted their tactics toward the more vulnerable area of user identity. This shift indicates a pressing need for organisations to bolster their identity security protocols.

 As organisations work to strengthen their security measures, the challenge of balancing patch management with a focus on identity security. He points out that while patching vulnerabilities remains essential, many organisations face difficulties, particularly those with hybrid workforces. Unpatched VPN gateways and firewalls have become common entry points for attackers, making it critical for organisations to prioritise their patch management efforts based on exposure and the sensitivity of the data involved.

Wisniewski advocates for a more strategic approach to identity management, highlighting that the adoption of multifactor authentication (MFA) is still lacking across many organisations. He notes that many systems still rely on basic MFA methods, such as six-digit codes or push notifications, which do not provide adequate protection against sophisticated attacks. To truly enhance security, organisations must consider more robust identity verification methods and address the complexities introduced by non-human identities as well.

In the current technological climate, non-human identities such as API keys present significant challenges for security teams. There have been recent incidents where API keys were exploited to gain unauthorised access to sensitive systems, pointing out that organisations must be vigilant in managing these non-human identities. As organisations adopt technologies like passkeys for human users, understanding and securing non-human identities is becoming increasingly important.

 With cyber risks becoming more complex, organisations must adapt their security strategies to address these challenges effectively. Here are a few things businesses can do to protect themselves:

• Prioritise identity security by implementing robust protocols and strategies to combat identity theft.
• Balance patch management with a focus on securing critical assets and data.
• Enhance multifactor authentication practices to ensure stronger protection against unauthorised access.
• Develop a comprehensive understanding of non-human identities and implement measures to secure them.

 By staying informed about the latest trends and insights in cybersecurity, organisations can better equip themselves to fend off the growing tide of cyber threats. For more information, visit https://www.sophos.com/

• Nearly 70 per cent of incidents last year involved identity-related issues.
• Attackers find it easier to log in as authorised users.
• Patching and vulnerability management are challenging for organisations.
• MFA adoption remains low despite its importance.
• Most attacks occur outside of normal business hours.
• Median incident response time is significantly reduced with MDR services.
• Employees can act as early warning systems for security threats.
• Focusing on basic cybersecurity practices is essential.
• AI can help streamline data analysis in incident response.
• AI is also being used to enhance phishing attacks.

00:00 Introduction to Cybersecurity Challenges

02:57 Understanding the Active Adversary Report

05:55 The Shift Towards Identity-Based Attacks

08:48 Balancing Patching and Identity Management

12:04 Operational Challenges for CISOs

15:09 Leveraging Employee Awareness for Security

18:12 Practical Steps for CISOs to Strengthen Resilience

20:56 The Role of AI in Cybersecurity

Podcast series: The Security Strategist

Guest: Doug Merritt, Chairperson, CEO, and President of Aviatrix

Host: Shubhangi Dua, Podcast Host, Producer and B2B Tech Journalist at EM360Tech

Cloud security now involves more than just protecting a single environment. As organisations grow across multiple clouds, integrate SaaS platforms, modernise applications, and deploy AI-driven workloads, the attack surface expands in complex ways that are hard to see and even harder to manage.

In the recent episode of The Security Strategist podcast, Doug Merritt, Chairperson, CEO, and President of Aviatrix, a cloud network security company, sits down with Shubhangi Dua, Podcast Host, Producer and B2B Tech Journalist at EM360Tech. They discuss why gaps in cloud networking visibility are becoming one of the biggest security risks for businesses today.

The conversation also covers how cloud complexity has changed over time, why old security models struggle to keep up, and what practical steps leaders can take to lower exposure before attackers exploit hidden pathways.

On a mission to secure “the world’s digital fabric,” Merritt spotlights the reasons explaining that organisations often perceive cybersecurity through “constructs and silos.” However, attackers see the entire landscape, which leads to a gap in the perspective.

Most enterprises started their cloud journey with lift-and-shift migrations, moving familiar applications from data centres to the cloud. Over time, these applications were modernised, broken into containerised services, and expanded with serverless functions, APIs, and third-party SaaS platforms.

Merritt notes that applications today often involve "10 to 15 different major components from start to finish," many of which exist across different clouds or outside direct organisational control.

This variety has brought speed and innovation, but it has also led to vastly different workload behaviours. Some workloads are long-lasting, others are temporary, and many can be accessed publicly.

According to the Aviatrix CEO, this "really powerful landscape" has resulted in "an incredibly powerful attack surface." Without consistent visibility and remediation across all workloads, attackers can find "which workloads have value and which workloads are unprotected" and move laterally until they reach critical assets.

AI adds additional challenges. While the technology seems new, he further emphasises that AI agents are still workloads with identities, operating at high speed and broad permission levels. They rely completely on network connectivity, making the network a crucial point for both visibility and control. In a hyper-connected environment, he argues, the network should be seen as a key security layer rather than just a transport system.

When asked what CIOs, CISOs, and cloud leaders should focus on next, Merritt alludes to a reality check. He urges leaders to choose a single complex application and ask their teams to identify every workload involved, every network path taken, and whether there is visibility into "every packet that goes into the workload and comes back out."

In most cases, he says, organisations find that they cannot do this. This gap reveals the first and most urgent issue: a lack of understanding of the environment itself. Without a clear map of workloads and communication paths, security teams operate with blind spots.

The Chairperson of Aviatrix insists that visibility must come before control. Once organisations understand their exposure, they can prioritise the "most dangerous communication pathways" and secure them. He warns that many large enterprises still have "thousands of workloads with direct internet connections and no filter in front," describing this exposure as "horrific," given how easily even less sophisticated attackers could exploit it.

He also points out that visibility and enforcement must be close to the workload. Centralised controls increase costs and latency, while distributed enforcement allows for faster response and containment. Ultimately, just observing traffic isn't enough; organisations need to be able to act.

Cloud security isn’t about adding more tools; it’s about changing perspective. By mapping workloads, understanding communication paths, and using the network as a consistent layer for visibility and enforcement, organisations can reduce lateral movement, limit blast radius, and prepare more effectively for the next generation of cloud threats.

1. Organisations need to focus on the uncovered attack surface.
2. The digital fabric includes diverse workloads across multiple clouds.
3. Visibility and remediation are critical in managing workloads.
4. The complexity of multi-cloud environments is increasing.
5. AI is accelerating the evolution of cloud security challenges.
6. Networking plays a pivotal role in security strategies.
7. Collaboration between security, networking, and cloud teams is essential.
8. Mapping workloads and communication pathways is crucial for security.
9. Organisations must prioritise securing high-risk workloads.
10. Understanding the shared responsibility model is vital for cloud security.

1. 00:00 Introduction to Cloud Security Challenges
2. 03:03 Understanding the Digital Fabric
3. 05:56 Navigating the Modern Attack Surface
4. 08:46 Key Trends in Cloud Adoption
5. 12:11 The Complexity of Multi-Cloud Environments
6. 14:51 The Evolving Role of Networking in Security
7. 17:58 Bridging the Gap Between Teams
8. 21:02 Real-World Solutions and Case Studies
9. 23:53 Preparing for Future Threats
10. 29:09 Final Thoughts and Key Takeaways

#CloudSecurity #MultiCloud #CloudNetworking #Aviatrix #CISO #AttackSurface #CloudThreats #EnterpriseSecurity #TechPodcast #SecurityStrategist #DigitalFabric #AIinSecurity #WorkloadSecurity

For more information, visit aviatrix.ai and em360tech.com.

Follow: @EM360Tech on YouTube, LinkedIn and X

Aviatrix YT: @AviatrixSystems

Aviatrix LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/aviatrix-systems/

Cybersecurity often feels like a battle of technologies—firewalls, AI, monitoring tools, but at its core, it’s human. People are both the first line of defence and, more often than not, the most vulnerable point. On a recent episode of Security Strategist, Richard Stiennon spoke with Nicole Jiang-Gibson, Chief Executive Officer of Fable Security, about why traditional training doesn’t work and how understanding human behaviour can fundamentally change an organisation’s security posture.

Nicole’s journey in cybersecurity began long before Fable. She was an early member at Abnormal Security, where she helped build email security solutions. That experience exposed a recurring truth, and that was even the best technical safeguards can be undone by human error.

“Human error is really the number one cause at the beginning of cybersecurity incidents,” Nicole explains. “Phishing attacks are the number-one starting point—one click, one misstep, and suddenly the consequences are massive.”

She recalls the MGM Resorts breach as a turning point: an IT help desk employee took a phone call from someone impersonating an Okta admin, leading to a major security lapse. “Even with strong email defences, people were exposed in ways technology couldn’t prevent. That’s when I realised that this was a human problem we needed to solve.”

Fable Security’s approach is rooted in understanding both the employee and attacker behaviour. Nicole describes it almost like a conversation at both sides of the table.

“Looking at security from the attacker’s perspective changes how organisations design interventions,” she says. Employees often don’t even realise which actions put them at risk. By understanding predictable behaviours, we can build targeted, timely interventions instead of generic training modules that people forget.”

The company leverages data to identify risky behaviours and reinforce safe ones. Richard notes that this can turn the math of phishing attacks in an organisation’s favour, reducing the likelihood of a click from 40 per cent to 2 per cent, for example, meaning attackers have to try 50 times to succeed once.

One of the major differences in Fable’s approach is how they treat learning. Traditional phishing simulations can leave employees feeling tricked or shamed. Fable focuses on reinforcement and repetition, creating a culture where security is part of everyday decision-making.

“We empower organisations with data to understand how employees behave and then help them stay one step ahead of attacks,” Nicole explains. “It’s not just about preventing business loss, it’s about protecting culture, brand, and employee safety.”

By shifting the focus from blame to understanding and from generic training to targeted behavioural interventions, organisations can finally address the human factor in cybersecurity with the seriousness and nuance it deserves.

For more information, visit fablesecurity.com

1. Cybersecurity is not just about technology; it's about people.
2. Traditional training often fails to change behaviour effectively.
3. Human errors are the leading cause of cybersecurity incidents.
4. Fable Security focuses on understanding and changing human behaviour.
5. The threat landscape is constantly evolving, requiring adaptive solutions.
6. Organisations must view security as a supportive, not punitive, measure.
7. Phishing simulations can be harmful if not conducted ethically.
8. Building trust with employees is essential for effective security training.
9. Employees can serve as valuable sensors for identifying threats.
10. Meaningful behaviour change requires a shift in mindset and approach.

00:00 The Human Factor in Cybersecurity

01:11 Fable Security's Origin Story

04:23 Understanding Human Vulnerabilities

06:01 The Attacker's Perspective

08:29 Fable's Ad Tech Approach

12:04 Revolutionising Security Training

14:37 The Ethics of Phishing Simulations

19:42 Building Trust in Security Training

22:56 Empowering Employees as Sensors

27:40 Steps Towards Meaningful Behaviour Change

When code is no longer written solely by humans, the way we think about application security has to change. In a recent episode of the Security Strategist podcast, host Richard Stiennon sits down with Gadi Bashvitz, CEO of Bright Security, to talk about the challenges and opportunities of securing applications in an AI-driven world. Their conversation reveals a reality many organisations are only beginning to face, and that is vulnerabilities are multiplying faster than ever, and traditional security tools aren’t keeping up.

Since 2018, Bright Security has been helping organisations secure their applications and APIs. Gadi Bashvitz shares that the company’s journey has always been about anticipating challenges before they become crises. 

“And that’s what we did from 2019 to 2024—signed up some of the world’s largest financial institutions and insurance companies, so very proud of that customer base,” he explains.

But in 2024, everything changed. Customers started raising concerns about AI-assisted coding. Bashvitz recalls:

“Some of those customers came to us and said, ‘Houston, we’ve got a problem. We’re starting to adopt AI-assisted coding.’ We’ve gone from a world where a developer generates 100 per cent of code and 100 per cent of vulnerabilities, to one where that developer is now generating 200 per cent of code and 600 per cent of vulnerabilities. That AI-generated code is three times more prone to vulnerabilities.”

This shift exposes a fundamental truth, and that is that AI is reshaping software development, but not always in ways organisations are ready to manage. What was once a controlled DevOps process is now a rapid, high-volume environment where oversight can easily slip.

The impact is real and immediate. Marketing teams, product managers, and developers alike are generating code faster than ever, but without the traditional checks and balances. Bashvitz highlights that AI models are trained on open-source code, often without security in mind. This means vulnerabilities multiply at a rate that can overwhelm static tools or conventional security processes.

Organisations are feeling the pressure daily, realising that if they don’t adapt, AI-generated vulnerabilities could outpace their ability to detect and mitigate risks.

So how can enterprises regain control? Bashvitz is clear: it’s not too late, but action must be deliberate.

“At some point, there will be a few very, very significant hacks that will take us back,” he warns. “The key is to embed dynamic security measures directly into the development lifecycle. That’s how you catch vulnerabilities, even when code is being generated at an unprecedented scale.”

Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) is one approach Bright Security has championed. Unlike traditional static tools, dynamic testing integrates into code repositories and runs throughout the development pipeline, from unit tests to production deployment. This approach doesn’t just mitigate risk—it empowers teams to continue innovating without being paralysed by fear of vulnerabilities. The goal is to create a balance where AI-driven productivity and robust security coexist.

For more information, visit https://brightsec.com

• Bright Security was founded to address application and API security gaps.
• AI-driven code generation has significantly increased the number of vulnerabilities.
• Dynamic application security testing (DAST) is essential for modern development practices.
• Static analysis tools often produce high rates of false positives, wasting developer time.
• Organisations must adapt security practices to include both finding and fixing vulnerabilities.
• The integration of AI in security tools can streamline vulnerability management.
• Dynamic validation of static scan results can reduce noise in security findings.
• CISOs must collaborate with DevOps teams to ensure security is integrated into development.
• The rise of AI has introduced new types of vulnerabilities that need to be addressed.
• Security practices must evolve to keep pace with rapid technological changes.

00:00 The Evolution of Application Security

03:41 AI's Impact on Code Generation

09:39 Challenges of Traditional Security Tools

16:31 Integrating AI in Security Solutions

21:20 Future of Security in AI-Driven Development

Cybersecurity, for many years, has functioned on an obvious assumption that attacks repeat themselves. For instance, if a phishing email works once, it will work again. Simply put, catch it, study it, write a signature, update the model — and block the next wave.

What if there is no next wave? What happens when every malicious email is now uniquely written by AI, personalised at scale, and never seen before?

In the recent episode of The Security Strategist podcast, host Richard Stiennon spoke with Alan LeFort, CEO of StrongestLayer, and Eric Sanchez, CISO at Global Law Firm, about how generative AI is reshaping email security — and why many traditional defences may already be obsolete.

Stiennon questions what many security leaders tacitly ask – If most enterprises run on Microsoft’s ecosystem, why does a separate email security market even exist?

LeFort responds, stating that attackers are economically rational. They go where entry is cheapest and easiest. For decades, email has been that open door.

However, the industry has changed. First came secure email gateways built on rules and regex. Then, machine learning systems are trained to distinguish “normal” from “abnormal.” Both improved detection rates and both reduced risk.

But both depend on historical data. They need to have seen an attack before to stop it again.

Generative AI is believed to have changed that. It enables attackers to create perfectly written, highly personalised phishing emails at near-zero cost. According to a study from the Harvard Kennedy School, AI-generated phishing achieved a 54% click rate among trained employees — more than four times the baseline. Even more concerning, the cost of crafting those emails dropped from roughly $15–$20 in labour to just a few cents.

That economic shift is seismic. When every email can be unique, the pattern is difficult to spot, signatures are not updated, and a “previous attack” to learn from is nonexistent.

While breach headlines dominate the industry, Sanchez spotlights a quieter operational threat – alert fatigue.

At Orrick, a global law firm handling hundreds of thousands of emails each month, traditional security tools generate a steady stream of alerts. Many turn out to be benign. Analysts triage, close, repeat, Sanchez shared that, over time, the burden compounds. Security teams spend less time stopping real attacks and more time managing noisy systems.

LeFort argues that false positives are not merely tuning problems — they are architectural problems. Most detection systems rely on a single scoring threshold. If something crosses the line, it’s flagged. If it doesn’t, it passes.

A key insight to note is that deception alone isn’t malicious intent. Marketing emails are persuasive and sometimes manipulative, yet harmless. A credential-harvesting email, on the other hand, carries real risk. Treating both on the same scoring axis inevitably creates noise.

StrongestLayer’s approach, as described by LeFort, moves away from pure pattern recognition and toward reasoning. Instead of asking, “Does this match something bad we’ve seen before?” the system evaluates multiple dimensions: What harm would occur if this succeeds? Is it anomalous for this recipient? What is the sender’s likely intent? How much deception is present?

Crucially, it weighs evidence of innocence alongside evidence of guilt — akin to how opposing arguments are weighed in a courtroom.

Such a multi-dimensional analysis, LeFort believes, dramatically reduces false positives while still catching novel threats. For Sanchez, the operational benefit is tangible. He describes scenarios where traditional gateways failed to detect unusual phishing techniques, including Unicode-based obfuscation. A reasoning-driven system flagged the anomaly not because it recognised a known signature, but because the structure and context “didn’t make sense.”

That distinction is critical. AI-generated attacks do not need to repeat. They only need to work once.

All speakers agree that over the next 12 to 24 months, security teams face a dual challenge of sophistication and scale. AI lowers the cost of creating attacks and automating personalisation. When volume increases, precision increases and speed increases.

LeFort emphasises that organisations evaluating AI security tools should look beyond detection rates. Automation matters just as much. Does the system eliminate operational drag? Does it allow analysts to focus on strategic threats rather than inbox noise?

The consensus is that email remains the most common entry point into organisations. What has changed is the attacker’s economics. When personalisation costs pennies and sophistication is automated, defenders must respond in kind.

The question is no longer whether AI will influence email security. It’s already influencing email cybersecurity across enterprises. The real question is whether an enterprise's defences are still waiting to see the attack twice.

1. AI-generated attacks break detection models that rely on past patterns.
2. Email remains the easiest and most economical entry point for attackers.
3. Traditional tools force security teams into a reactive cycle.
4. Effective AI defence must evaluate context, not just rules.
5. Automation is now as critical as detection accuracy.
6. Stopping the first and only attack is the new security standard.

00:00 Introduction to Cybersecurity and AI's Role

03:00 The Email Security Landscape and AI's Impact

05:49 Understanding Alert Fatigue and Its Consequences

08:52 Innovative Approaches to Email Security

11:48 The Necessity of AI in Modern Security

14:55 Future Priorities for Security Leaders

17:57 Conclusion and Key Takeaways

#EmailSecurity #AICybersecurity #GenerativeAI #Phishing #B2BSecurity #EnterpriseSecurity #CyberAttack #SecurityStrategist #StrongestLayer #AlertFatigue #CISO #TechPodcast #InfoSec #CyberDefence

As firms increasingly adopt autonomous AI, a key assumption in cybersecurity seems to be disappearing – data security can be understood through static maps.

In the recent episode of The Security Strategist Podcast, Abhi Sharma, Co-Founder and CEO of Relyance, speaks to Host Richard Stiennon, Chief Research Analyst at IT-Harvest.

Sharma tells Stiennon that most security tools are still built for a world before AI. In that world, data stays still long enough to be scanned, categorised, and managed. AI changes this model.

“We’re in the middle of a tectonic shift,” Sharma said. “For the first time, software behaviour is not just defined by the instructions you give it, but by the data in and around it.”

In modern AI systems, data is no longer just an asset. It becomes an instruction. The quality, frequency, distribution, and even the absence of data directly influence how models and agents function. This reality makes traditional security models dangerously incomplete.

“People are very good at answering what data they have and where it’s stored,” Sharma explained. “But they can’t answer how it got there or what happened along the way.” He argues that this missing context is where AI risk now resides.

The issue becomes critical with agentic and autonomous AI workflows. Here, decision-making is not based on fixed code but on a large language model operating in real-time.

“In these systems, your control logic is an LLM,” Sharma said. “It’s a black box.”

To complete tasks, AI agents must access tools, look at past decisions, copy production data, and dynamically manage infrastructure. In doing so, they create what Sharma calls ephemeral infrastructure—temporary environments that may exist for minutes and disappear without a trace.

For example, an agent working to improve cloud costs might create a high-performance database cluster, copy sensitive logs into a staging area, analyse them, and shut everything down in under 20 minutes.

“But in that process,” Sharma warned, “a default Terraform script might leave four S3 buckets open to the internet.” Traditional security scans, which often run every 24 hours, would never catch this.

“You don’t even know this little circus happened while you were asleep,” he said. “But it created a new risk.”

This is why Sharma believes that breaches in the AI era are no longer failures of data at rest but failures of data flow. Attackers don’t target identities or tools in isolation; they target outcomes—especially the theft or destruction of data. Those outcomes occur through movement over time.

Despite the widespread use of DSPM, DLP, IAM, AI gateways, and governance platforms, Sharma sees the same pattern in the Fortune 500: security incidents continue not because the tools lack usefulness, but because they operate in silos.

“All of the real business impact,” he said, “comes down to flow.”

Relyance’s solution is what Sharma calls data journeys—a unified, time-aware view of how data moves across identities, tools, infrastructure, and persistent assets. “If you can consistently reason across all of those layers,” Sharma said, “you finally have a chance to protect data and enable safe, responsible AI.”

Looking ahead to 2026 and beyond, he predicts security, governance, and compliance will merge around this shared visibility. Organisations will move away from simple audits toward infrastructure that builds trust by design.

Sharma challenges every CIO, CISO, and CTO at the end stating:

“Can you always reason about what human or non-human identities, using which tools or agents, took what actions that led to specific data flows over time?”

“If you can answer that,” he said, “there is no other way to control AI risk.”

In the age of autonomous AI, knowing where your data lives is essential. Knowing its journey may be the only thing standing between innovation and the next breach.

1. Conventional data maps are becoming obsolete in AI.
2. Data security must focus on real-time data flows.
3. Understanding data journeys is crucial for security.
4. Siloed security tools fail to address real risks.
5. AI agents create ephemeral infrastructure that complicates security.
6. The future of data security lies in dynamic data journeys.
7. Security, governance, and compliance teams must converge.
8. Trust in data security requires visibility and obligations balance.
9. AI will necessitate new approaches to data governance.
10. CIOs must prioritise reasoning about data flows.

1. 00:00 Introduction to AI and Data Security
2. 01:36 The Shift from Space to Time in Data Security
3. 03:42 Understanding Data Flow and Security Challenges
4. 07:18 Siloed Security Tools and Their Limitations
5. 09:52 Dynamic Data Journeys: A New Approach
6. 11:37 The Role of AI in Data Security
7. 12:58 Convergence of Security, Governance, and Compliance
8. 15:07 Key Takeaways for CIOs and Security Leaders

#AISecurity #DataFlow #Cybersecurity #AgenticAI #DataJourneys #DLPisDead #DSPM #LLMSecurity #EphemeralInfra #DataSecurityRisk #CISO #CIO #CTO #DataGovernance #RiskManagement #TheSecurityStrategist #RelyanceAI #AbhiSharma #TechPodcast #LLMSecurity #EphemeralInfra #DataSecurityRisk

Follow: @EM360Tech on YouTube, LinkedIn and X

Relyance YT: @Relyance

Relyance LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/relyanceai/

Relyance X: @relyanceai