Connect with us

Security

Cybersecurity unicorn CrowdStrike files to go public on the Nasdaq

Published

on

Tencent Music seeks IPO in the US
Chinese internet giant Tencent is seeking to spin off its online music entertainment business and aim for an initial public offering in the US, according to a stock filing to the Hong Kong stock exchange. Read more: https://zd.net/2KEJB49

CrowdStrike, one cybersecurity startup among many which call Silicon Valley home, has signaled its intent to go public and become listed on the Nasdaq stock exchange.

Founded in 2011, CrowdStrike is a cybersecurity firm which specializes in endpoint protection. The startup offers the subscription-based Falcon platform to clients which is a cloud-based solution for threat detection, incident response, and five-second visibility into enterprise endpoint architecture.

CrowdStrike has previously raised $481 million through six Series A to E funding rounds. 

Previous investors include Accel, CapitalG, March Capital Partners, and Institutional Venture Partners (IVP). The last CrowdStrike funding round took place in June 2018.

A term coined in 2013, CrowdStrike is considered a startup unicorn as a privately-held firm with an estimated value of over $1 billion. The startup’s current estimated value is $3.4 billion.

See also: Single server ties hacked diplomatic cables to Chinese cyberattacks worldwide

As reported by Business Insider, the startup filed a public S-1 with the US Securities and Exchange Commission on Tuesday.

According to the filing, CrowdStrike intends to trade under the ticker “CRWD.”

The firm says that to date, 44 of the Fortune 100 are counted among its clients and 77 percent of total revenue was generated from customers based in the United States.

TechRepublic: Cybersecurity burnout: 10 most stressful parts of the job

Total revenue for FY 2017 was $52.7 million and $118.8 million for the 2018 fiscal year, a growth increase of 125 percent. CrowdStrike predicts that FY 2019 revenue will be reported as roughly $249.8 million, a growth rate of 110 percent year-over-year.

However, as the startup is focusing on growth, its spending and operational expenses need to be taken into account — reported as a net loss of $91.3 million for FY 2017 to $135.5 million for FY 2018, anticipated to increase to $140.1 million in the 2019 financial year.

The tech unicorn is not yet profitable and says that its accumulated deficit as of January 31, 2019, was $519.1 million. CrowdStrike added that “we expect to continue to incur net losses for the foreseeable future as we continue to invest in our business and our sales capabilities to address our large market opportunity.”

CNET: Two Florida counties were hacked in 2016 election, says Gov. DeSantis

Class A common stock will be offered through the proposed Initial Public Offering (IPO). Goldman Sachs, J.P. Morgan, BofA Merrill Lynch, and Barclays will act as the lead book-running managers for the proposed shift to the public markets. 

Previous and related coverage


Have a tip? Get in touch securely via WhatsApp | Signal at +447713 025 499, or over at Keybase: charlie0


Source link

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Security

Cloud Data Security

Published

on

Data security has become an immutable part of the technology stack for modern applications. Protecting application assets and data against cybercriminal activities, insider threats, and basic human negligence is no longer an afterthought. It must be addressed early and often, both in the application development cycle and the data analytics stack.

The requirements have grown well beyond the simplistic features provided by data platforms, and as a result a competitive industry has emerged to address the security layer. The capabilities of this layer must be more than thorough, they must also be usable and streamlined, adding a minimum of overhead to existing processes.

To measure the policy management burden, we designed a reproducible test that included a standardized, publicly available dataset and a number of access control policy management scenarios based on real world use cases we have observed for cloud data workloads. We tested two options: Apache Ranger with Apache Atlas and Immuta. This study contrasts the differences between a largely role-based access control model with object tagging (OT-RBAC) to a pure attribute-based access control (ABAC) model using these respective technologies.

This study captures the time and effort involved in managing the ever-evolving access control policies at a modern data-driven enterprise. With this study, we show the impacts of data access control policy management in terms of:

  • Dynamic versus static
  • Scalability
  • Evolvability

In our scenarios, Ranger alone took 76x more policy changes than Immuta to accomplish the same data security objectives, while Ranger with Apache Atlas took 63x more policy changes. For our advanced use cases, Immuta only required one policy change each, while Ranger was not able to fulfill the data security requirement at all.

This study exposed the limitations of extending legacy Hadoop security components into cloud use cases. Apache Ranger uses static policies in an OT-RBAC model for the Hadoop ecosystem with very limited support for attributes. The difference between it and Immuta’s attribute-based access control model (ABAC) became clear. By leveraging dynamic variables, nested attributes, and global row-level policies and row-level security, Immuta can be quickly implemented and updated in comparison with Ranger.

Using Ranger as a data security mechanism creates a high policy-management burden compared to Immuta, as organizations migrate and expand cloud data use—which is shown here to provide scalability, clarity, and evolvability in a complex enterprise’s data security and governance needs.

The chart in Figure 1 reveals the difference in cumulative policy changes required for each platform configuration.

Figure 1. Difference in Cumulative Policy Changes

The assessment and scoring rubric and methodology is detailed in the report. We leave the issue of fairness for the reader to determine. We strongly encourage you, as the reader, to discern for yourself what is of value. We hope this report is informative and helpful in uncovering some of the challenges and nuances of data governance platform selection. You are encouraged to compile your own representative use cases and workflows and review these platforms in a way that is applicable to your requirements.

Continue Reading

Security

GigaOm Radar for Data Loss Prevention

Published

on

Data is at the core of modern business: It is our intellectual property, the lifeblood of our interactions with our employees, partners, and customers, and a true business asset. But in a world of increasingly distributed workforces, a growing threat from cybercriminals and bad actors, and ever more stringent regulation, our data is at risk and the impact of losing it, or losing access to it, can be catastrophic.

With this in mind, ensuring a strong data management and security strategy must be high on the agenda of any modern enterprise. Security of our data has to be a primary concern. Ensuring we know how, why, and where our data is used is crucial, as is the need to be sure that data does not leave the organization without appropriate checks and balances.

Keeping ahead of this challenge and mitigating the risk requires a multi-faceted approach. People and processes are key, as, of course, is technology in any data loss prevention (DLP) strategy.

This has led to a reevaluation of both technology and approach to DLP; a recognition that we must evolve an approach that is holistic, intelligent, and able to apply context to our data usage. DLP must form part of a broader risk management strategy.

Within this report, we evaluate the leading vendors who are offering solutions that can form part of your DLP strategy—tools that understand data as well as evaluate insider risk to help mitigate the threat of data loss. This report aims to give enterprise decision-makers an overview of how these offerings can be a part of a wider data security approach.

Continue Reading

Security

Key Criteria for Evaluating Data Loss Prevention Platforms

Published

on

Data is a crucial asset for modern businesses and has to be protected in the same way as any other corporate asset, with diligence and care. Loss of data can have catastrophic effects, from reputational damage to significant fines for breaking increasingly stringent regulations.

While the risk of data loss is not new, the landscape we operate in is evolving rapidly. Data can leave data centers in many ways, whether accidental or malicious. The routes for exfiltration also continue to grow, ranging from email, USB sticks, and laptops to ever-more-widely-adopted cloud applications, collaboration tools, and mobile devices. This is driving a resurgence in the enterprise’s need to ensure that no data leaves the organization without appropriate checks and balances in place.

Keeping ahead of this challenge and mitigating the risk requires a multi-faceted approach. Policy, people, and technology are critical components in a data loss prevention (DLP) strategy.

As with any information security strategy, technology plays a significant role. DLP technology has traditionally played a part in helping organizations to mitigate some of the risks of uncontrolled data exfiltration. However, both the technology and threat landscape have shifted significantly, which has led to a reevaluation of DLP tools and strategy.

The modern approach to the challenge needs to be holistic and intelligent, capable of applying context to data usage by building a broader understanding of what the data is, who is using it, and why. Systems in place must also be able to learn when user activity should be classified as unusual so they can better interpret signs of a potential breach.

This advanced approach is also driving new ways of defining the discipline of data loss prevention. Dealing with these risks cannot be viewed in isolation; rather, it must be part of a wider insider risk-management strategy.

Stopping the loss of data, accidental or otherwise, is no small task. This GigaOM Key Criteria Report details DLP solutions and identifies key criteria and evaluation metrics for selecting such a solution. The corresponding GigOm Radar Report identifies vendors and products in this sector that excel. Together, these reports will give decision-makers an overview of the market to help them evaluate existing platforms and decide where to invest.

How to Read this Report

This GigaOm report is one of a series of documents that helps IT organizations assess competing solutions in the context of well-defined features and criteria. For a fuller understanding consider reviewing the following reports:

Key Criteria report: A detailed market sector analysis that assesses the impact that key product features and criteria have on top-line solution characteristics—such as scalability, performance, and TCO—that drive purchase decisions.

GigaOm Radar report: A forward-looking analysis that plots the relative value and progression of vendor solutions along multiple axes based on strategy and execution. The Radar report includes a breakdown of each vendor’s offering in the sector.

Solution Profile: An in-depth vendor analysis that builds on the framework developed in the Key Criteria and Radar reports to assess a company’s engagement within a technology sector. This analysis includes forward-looking guidance around both strategy and product.

Continue Reading

Trending