Cyber Focus: Cybersecurity, National Security, and Critical Infrastructure

As cyber threats evolve faster than policy, Cyber Focus delivers executive-level briefings on cybersecurity, national security, and critical infrastructure. From the McCrary Institute for Cyber and Critical Infrastructure Security at Auburn University, host Frank Cilluffo speaks with senior leaders across government, industry, and the intelligence community about ransomware, state-sponsored threats, AI, and the systems we all rely on—energy, water, telecom, and supply chains. Each episode focuses on real-world risk tradeoffs and practical steps organizations can take to strengthen resilience.

AI, Risk, and the Future of the Federal Workforce with OPM Director Scott Kupor 08/11/2026

AI, Risk, and the Future of the Federal Workforce with OPM Director Scott Kupor The federal government is competing for technology and cybersecurity talent at the same time AI is beginning to reshape how that workforce operates. OPM Director Scott Kupor argues that meeting both challenges requires more than new tools or recruiting campaigns: government needs a personnel system that better reflects how people build careers today, rewards performance and adaptability, and creates room for responsible experimentation. Kupor joins Frank Cilluffo to discuss Tech Force and the push to bring more early-career technologists into public service; why he believes agencies should focus on practical, near-term AI gains rather than long-range plans that may quickly become obsolete; and what his years in Silicon Valley taught him about risk, execution and talent. They also explore what Washington and the technology industry misunderstand about one another—and why U.S. economic and national security increasingly depend on getting that relationship right. Main Topics Tech Force and two-year tours of public service Recruiting cyber and technology talent into government The federal government’s early-career workforce gap Performance, merit and tenure in federal employment AI productivity and the changing federal workforce AI literacy and the continuing role of human judgment “Permissioned innovation” and responsible risk-taking Execution, adaptability and decision-making under uncertainty What Washington and Silicon Valley can learn from one another Key Quotes “I think every person coming out of high school or college, hopefully we can convince them spending 2 years in government is good for the country and good for them. It’s really that simple.” – Scott Kupor “If we're gonna attract early career people, they have to be able to come in an environment where their performance and their merit is a lot more important than how many years they've been here.” – Scott Kupor “We should not be building, in my mind, the 2040 or 2050 plan for AI, because the very honest answer is we have no idea.” – Scott Kupor “Everybody needs to develop some kind of AI literacy, right? So, and not just people who are software developers.” – Scott Kupor “So the good companies, the good organizations, the good nonprofits, whatever it is, you have a theory of the case, but then you actually have to be willing to say, okay, our theory was wrong for X number of reasons and we're gonna change it. And I think it's very hard intellectually for people to do that. But that, I think, is the difference, ultimately, between successful and unsuccessful organizations.” – Scott Kupor Links and Resources: About the guest: Scott Kupor is director of the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, where he leads efforts to build a more accountable, mission-driven federal workforce. Before joining OPM, he was a managing partner at Andreessen Horowitz, which he helped build into one of the country’s largest venture capital firms. He previously held senior technology leadership roles, chaired the National Venture Capital Association and taught entrepreneurship at Stanford. He is also the author of Secrets of Sand Hill Road: Venture Capital and How to Get It. /episode/index/show/259c9a54-bf3b-46b9-84e1-e114ffa39095/id/42391760

How Do You Rebuild Systems That Can’t Go Offline? with Peraton’s Tom Afferton 08/04/2026

How Do You Rebuild Systems That Can’t Go Offline? with Peraton’s Tom Afferton Tom Afferton [00:00:00]: If you're introducing security controls or a maintenance activity or modernization that interrupts that operation, then you're no better off than if there was a cyber interruption. Frank Cilluffo [00:00:16]: Welcome to Cyber Focus from the McCrary Institute, where we explore the people and ideas shaping and defending our digital world. I'm your host, Frank Cilluffo, and this week I have the privilege to sit down with Tom Afferton. Tom is president of the Cyber and Intelligence Service at Peraton, where he oversees a number of the most mission-critical entities inside the US government and has been there for a number of years. Prior to that, he also was at AT&T and many years at Northrop Grumman. Tom, thank you so much for joining us today. Tom Afferton [00:00:50]: Happy to be here. Frank Cilluffo [00:00:50]: So I thought I'd start at the beginning, and a lot of your clients are mission-critical. Tom Afferton [00:00:57]: Yes. Frank Cilluffo [00:00:57]: And very different than a traditional IT enterprise. And I'd be curious what that looks like. Why is that different and what your initial thoughts are there? Tom Afferton [00:01:07]: So when we look at a lot of the systems services that we protect, you have to think about the consequences of them not operating. When we think about, you know, a large-scale modernization as well, right, you have to think about the whole point of, of cybersecurity is to protect that institution, to protect its operability. So if you're introducing security controls or a maintenance activity or modernization that interrupts that operation, then you're no better off than if there was a cyber interruption, right? And so when we go through, again, thinking about something like a modernization, we take an approach we call sort of a layered uplift, which is you introduce that new capability in an incremental way. You make sure that it's instrumented so that as you introduce it, you're monitoring, is it doing what you expected it to do? And then over time, it takes on more responsibilities. And then ultimately, you can turn off the legacy environment. Now, there's of course prioritization involved, deciding, you know, where are you going to start? Where are you going to build in that resilience and redundancy? Something that Nick Andersen over at CISA has introduced, the term of ruthless prioritization. Frank Cilluffo [00:02:37]: Mm-hmm. Tom Afferton [00:02:38]: And I think that's helpful. It's helpful when thinking about resilience planning. It's helpful when thinking about planning resources up front, coordination, but it's then also helpful in thinking about incident response. And when I've heard him speak and he's explained it, what he's talking about is going beyond just prioritizing a category of critical infrastructure. It's understanding that, you know, the key mission, the crown jewel that we need to have keep operating, we need to understand the assets associated with it. Frank Cilluffo [00:03:13]: Mm-hmm. Tom Afferton [00:03:14]: So what GPU is that workload or that workflow operating in what cluster and what data centers powered by what part of the grid? And knowing that sort of connection between the critical infrastructure and the mission and the physical and the technical infrastructure allows you to then prioritize. Frank Cilluffo [00:03:32]: Because you really can't pause operations during an upgrade, right? Tom Afferton [00:03:36]: Absolutely. Frank Cilluffo [00:03:37]: So it's a challenge. These are— because you're also behind a number of critical systems that most Americans don't think about every day. Tom Afferton [00:03:44]: That's right. Frank Cilluffo [00:03:45]: One in particular that's gotten a little bit of news, and I know we can't get into great detail here, is FAA and the modernization. Tom Afferton [00:03:51]: Yeah. And that's an interesting one. Peraton's very proud to be part of that. The administration has framed that as one of the most important modernization projects in American history. And part of that is because, you know, our air travel depends upon it, right? It's critical to our economy, but it's also large and complex. One of my colleagues, Justin Sciaccio, is the one leading that for Peraton, and he recently met with stakeholders in the press along with Secretary Duffy to talk about the program. Frank Cilluffo [00:04:23]: Mm-hmm. Tom Afferton [00:04:23]: And what Secretary Duffy explained is that they were looking to do something radically different in terms of program management and bring in an integration partner. And Peraton were— we were fortunate to be selected to do that. And one of the reasons that they selected us is that we've brought a revolutionary agentic AI technology to the equation. Frank Cilluffo [00:04:44]: Mm-hmm. Tom Afferton [00:04:45]: And what Justin has been explaining that we're doing is we are ingesting I think it was like something 5.7 million records of schedule data as well as historical information about projects that have completed, and then have the AI start to do analysis around that so that we can stress test schedules, you know, we can identify gaps and whatnot. And he had this quote that sort of went viral that he said, like, we're not looking to replace the humans. We want to enable them to have superhuman insights. And that's what we're really— what we're finding here. And it's just the schedule, all the interdependencies, all the suppliers, all the different sites. It's just too much for one person to consume. And so providing those insights has been part of the value add there. Frank Cilluffo [00:05:29]: And, you know, you can't escape without us getting into a conversation around AI and agentic AI. Tom Afferton [00:05:34]: Sure. Frank Cilluffo [00:05:36]: What it means for threat hunters. But before jumping there, I mean, you've got technology time cycles that are moving so fast, but a lot of the systems you're dealing with here are in very different timelines. And we've had a number of discussions around the energy sector and grid, and we don't have to go there, but a lot of their OT systems are 25, 30 years old, and they're being netted with IoT devices and it brings about a new attack surface. How do you reconcile sort of that balance between a fast-moving tech cycle and not always so fast critical infrastructure sector? Tom Afferton [00:06:13]: So I'll jump to the answer, but then I want to go back and I will give you an example of the type of work that our folks are doing because I think it illustrates the sort of both ends of the spectrum. Frank Cilluffo [00:06:24]: And your an EE background, right? Tom Afferton [00:06:25]: Right, thank you. Yes. Frank Cilluffo [00:06:26]: Stanford and UVA. Tom Afferton [00:06:27]: So go Hoos. So— Frank Cilluffo [00:06:30]: Blue and orange. You know the history between the football uniforms between Auburn, UVA, and Clemson. Tom Afferton [00:06:27]: No, I don't. Frank Cilluffo [00:06:36]: All right. This is— sorry, but— Tom Afferton [00:06:38]: That's okay. Frank Cilluffo [00:06:39]: We will include this in the episode. So initially, the first football coach at Auburn was a football coach at UVA, brought the uniforms because they were so expensive. And then he went to Clemson and brought the uniforms. That's why it turned less than blue. It was a little more purple. So true story. Tom Afferton [00:06:55]: I did not know that. Frank Cilluffo [00:06:56]: Yeah. Tom Afferton [00:06:57]: So going back to the question about sort of the pace of technology, right? So if, you know, we were to talk 6 months ago, we would have been talking about buying back time to the analysts. And that's still important and something that I do want to talk about. We look now within the age of Mythos and, you know, the ability for agentic AI to produce vulnerabilities at an unprecedented speed and scale, right, the cutting edge is now thinking about automating remediations and sort of the bottleneck has shifted down. But before we go to either of those, I think it's helpful to just have— let's have a practical example. Like, this is a day in the life of some of my folks. Frank Cilluffo [00:07:37]: Mm-hmm. Tom Afferton [00:07:38]: I have some folks that are supporting CISA in the Code and Media Analysis Team, and they are involved with malware analysis and ultimately incident response for critical infrastructure. So without getting into any details, right, one recent situation- they were brought in as a result of some classified intel to take a look at some malware. They did some analysis to determine kind of what vulnerabilities it was associated with. They determined that it was associated with some edge devices and sort of double alarm bells went off because number one, they were edge devices that could be used in a carrier network, that OT was being used, basically programmable logic controllers sitting behind these edge devices that had no inherent security in them. So if you penetrated this edge device, you could get access to the programmable logic controllers and control that environment. And then secondly, these edge devices were also in federal civilian executive branch. So from— and you go back to in a critical environment, what do you need to think about? Well, one is consequences. Frank Cilluffo [00:08:49]: Mm-hmm. Tom Afferton [00:08:49]: So, okay, This has potentially wide-ranging impact. The second then is sort of thinking about it from a risk standpoint. And so now these folks are going off and looking on— they know the right blog posts. There is some of the monitoring that CISA does. Combine that with some tradecraft on the dark web to say, are these exploits being published? You know, are there any IP addresses associated with it? You then enrich that with some of the classified intel to make a decision. Is this something that we really need to focus some energy around in analyzing and potentially producing some remediation? And then you get to that step and now you've got to reproduce it. So a lab environment where we— I call it exploding the malware in a sandbox. Frank Cilluffo [00:09:34]: Mm-hmm. Tom Afferton [00:09:34]: See what it does, what its signatures look like, and then ultimately producing reports. And there's a lot of discussion. You think about who are we reporting to, what are we disclosing on all that. So that whole cycle, right, we have anywhere from 5 to 20 folks. That's it. All of critical infrastructure. So that goes back to what Nick Andersen's talking about, ruthless prioritization, right? So you got to think about consequence. You got to think about that risk. Tom Afferton [00:10:02]: So if we think about now AI in that process, one area is the sensemaking, and that goes back to buying back time from the analysts. All of that monitoring data is coming in from disparate sources. So how do we help them prioritize? Frank Cilluffo [00:10:20]: Mm-hmm. Tom Afferton [00:10:21]: And that can be an initial prioritization, but then you can go back and have the AI running in the background and continuing to correlate. Are new events coming and suddenly this was an isolated thing and now it's not? And so that's something we want to prioritize. We also think about it in terms of malware reporting and again, sensemaking of we're getting all this malware in, what should we prioritize? Frank Cilluffo [00:10:42]: Mm-hmm. Tom Afferton [00:10:43]: If I go to the backend, we think about building that remediation for the vulnerability and can AI help? We've had some really interesting discussions with CISA thinking about what's the right model or engagement with AI, meaning do they engage with tools that are available in, you know, a cloud environment or, going back to exploding it in a sandbox, right, do we have- and we've looked at this and helped them with this, is actually buy some GPUs and have a good old-fashioned on-prem environment that you're not paying for tokens. You bought the GPU and now you have a locally hosted environment that now you can unleash the malware on. So, you know, those are just examples of thinking through the practical day-to-day on where we can help. Frank Cilluffo [00:11:36]: That's actually a really interesting analogy. And something that just dawned on me is these are also lessons from a counter-IED perspective where we're applying in a cyber domain or a BSL-3 kind of lab approach. And, you know, Peraton has visibility across a wide range of customers, not only in the civilian agency department, which we've discussed here, but also the national security and Title 50 intel world. Any lessons from that work that you think pops up loud and clear in a civilian environment? Tom Afferton [00:12:16]: So one area that— it's interesting, as we brought the company together and as we brought my organization together, it was, you know, one of the first times— at the time it was actually as Chris Inglis was standing up the first Office of the National Cyber Director. Frank Cilluffo [00:12:34]: National Cyber Director. Yep. Tom Afferton [00:12:34]: I, when I met him, I described my organization and I said, we're kind of mirroring what you're trying to do in the government, which is promote that cross-collaboration across different stakeholders, right? Frank Cilluffo [00:12:46]: Mm-hmm. Tom Afferton [00:12:46]: All the customers that you want to interact, all the agencies I am supporting from one organization. Frank Cilluffo [00:12:51]: Mm-hmm. Tom Afferton [00:12:52]: And so one of the first things that came out was we talked earlier about the tidal wave of data and we help one of our customers in the I.C. deal with some of the largest datasets on the planet. Frank Cilluffo [00:13:06]: Mm-hmm. Tom Afferton [00:13:07]: And helping them take that mindset and approach and governance and bring that now into a civilian environment to say, hey, there's another organization that has dealt with this. Here is a roadmap for maturing through your data governance. Here are, you know, some data structures and here's a stack you can think about and all those different things. So that's something that I have seen carried from the I.C. environment over to the civil environment. Frank Cilluffo [00:13:36]: And it aligns well to Nick's approach for ruthless prioritization because it really is a signal-to-noise set of challenges. I mean, there's a lot of telemetry and there's a lot of data and sometimes you can drown in data if you don't know what you're looking for. And I do want to pull the thread on that in a second. But prior to that, you know, when you look at some of these mission-critical sectors, and I love the environment 'cause it really is an environmental set of issues. It's not just a tech issue. It's a governance issue, it's an integration issue, it's everything across the board. But what do most people underestimate in terms of the complexity? Is it the technology itself? Is it supply chains and, dare I say, lack of visibility into what that looks like? Frank Cilluffo [00:14:27]: Is it legacy infrastructure? Is it a people challenge or is it all of the above? And clearly it is a little bit of all of the above. Tom Afferton [00:14:34]: A little of all the above, but I'm going to pick the people challenge and I'm going to go back to one of my first programs at Northrop Grumman. We were doing a technology demonstrator on— it was actually critical infrastructure, state and local emergency service interaction. And we built a platform that would allow different emergency services at different echelons to be able to all interoperate. Frank Cilluffo [00:15:03]: Mm-hmm. Tom Afferton [00:15:04]: And we set up this whole demonstration environment. We had this, this whole exercise. It was at a university campus and there was a mock explosion and everything. And at the end of the day, we had this amazing technology. And in the middle of this crisis, all the different folks would do is radio check. Hey, look at that. We can talk to the police. We had not gone through and done the operational elements to say, how do we take advantage of this technology? And I remember being elated at first that, holy cow, look at how we did all these technical achievements. Frank Cilluffo [00:15:41]: Yeah. Tom Afferton [00:15:41]: And then quickly realized that the part that was missed was enabling the people to take advantage of that technology. Frank Cilluffo [00:15:49]: Well said. And our first preventer community and first responder community, that was a real-world set of issues as we come to the 25th year of the anniversary of the horrific attacks of 9/11. I think some of those lessons are still being learned and hopefully earned and learned along the way. I do want to sort of- since you brought up some of the AI discussions in different ways, from a threat hunting perspective, there's a big signal-to-noise challenge there as well. How are you looking at ways to, A, apply it yourselves or for customers to be able to enhance that capability? Tom Afferton [00:16:36]: So, a couple of thoughts there. One is that, you know, we're recognizing that what we've gotten good at is recognizing humans and what they are doing. And now we have to also be thinking about agents and what they're doing. Frank Cilluffo [00:16:57]: What does an insider threat model look like for AI agents? Tom Afferton [00:17:00]: Exactly. Exactly. The- you know, one of the things that we've looked at there, and it's a program that we have done with one of the research organizations in the DOD, along with one of our customer sponsors. Frank Cilluffo [00:17:20]: Mm-hmm. Tom Afferton [00:17:22]: Is having— we call it a wingman for red teaming. And so having AI kind of sit alongside and monitor what's being done, capture some of that, learn from it, and then make recommendations. So that's not a case where you have AI in the loop and you're displacing the human. You're kind of watching what they're doing, watching the experienced folks do it, capture that, and then capture— then come back and make some recommendations. Frank Cilluffo [00:17:52]: Is this an Air Force contract? Wingman, love it. You don't have to. Tom Afferton [00:17:56]: No, it was not. But in some ways, is that becoming obsolete because Mythos can just do it now? Again, I think that's at the cutting edge. And yet I look across the customer community and, you know, folks are still crawling, right? And there's a variety of challenges, some of which we talked about in terms of the human element and are people— do they have the AI fluency? Do they have the, the comfort level? Frank Cilluffo [00:18:28]: Mm-hmm. Tom Afferton [00:18:29]: But there's also some practical matters. A lot of, you know, when I poll some of my teams that are on the front lines supporting customers in day-to-day cyber operations, there's still a lot of data jockeying going on, you know, and getting the data in the right place and making sure that you have data integrity and whatnot. There's also the clear demand signal that, you know, meet us where we are. Don't give us a tool that's going to operate in a commercial environment. Frank Cilluffo [00:19:03]: Mm-hmm. Tom Afferton [00:19:04]: You need to be able to operate in our environment. And, you know, there are different ways to do that. You can do some things on the low side and go through cross-domain, bring some products up, further enriched on the high... /episode/index/show/259c9a54-bf3b-46b9-84e1-e114ffa39095/id/42314650

Who Will Defend America in the Cyber Age? with Rep. Chrissy Houlahan 07/28/2026

Who Will Defend America in the Cyber Age? with Rep. Chrissy Houlahan Because cybersecurity has become central to national security and military strategy, Rep. Chrissy Houlahan says the United States needs to create a dedicated Cyber Force to prepare for the challenges ahead. Rep. Houlahan joins Frank Cilluffo to discuss why the military must adapt to the cyber age, how AI and strategic competition with China are reshaping national security, and why developing the next generation of technical talent may be America's greatest long-term advantage. Together, they explore how better workforce development, military modernization, and stronger public-private partnerships can help prepare the United States for future threats. Main Topics Cyber's evolution The case for a Cyber Force Military modernization Cyber Command's role Building the cyber workforce Project-based learning Neurodiversity and national service Breaking down organizational silos Competition with China AI and emerging technologies Key Quotes "When you think about cyber, cybersecurity, cyber warfare, cyber anything, it's always the weakest link. It's the seam. And so in our economy and in our military industrial complex, we need to be focused on the weakest links." — Representative Chrissy Houlahan "I believe that [cyber] should be its own domain because of where it's headed or likely headed in the next 50 or so years. ... I think inevitably 50, 100 years from now, we will be glad for the change that... was a Cyber Force." — Rep. Chrissy Houlahan "I would argue we don't have time not to. … If we look forward half a century, will we regret that we didn't take the time, didn't spend the resources to be as competitive as we possibly could be in this particular area?" — Rep. Chrissy Houlahan "One of the things that I'm most concerned about in our way of viewing our workforce right now is we are maligning smart people. We are somehow othering people who think technologically, who pursue degrees in hard stuff and that's bananas." — Representative Chrissy Houlahan "If we turn our backs to the next generation of talent, make it too hard for people to be educated here and take those American values either with them or keep them here, we are going to turn around and wonder why everyone's left." — Rep. Chrissy Houlahan Relevant Links and Resources About the Guest: Representative Chrissy Houlahan (D-PA) is an Air Force veteran, engineer and former entrepreneur who represents Pennsylvania’s 6th District. She earned an engineering degree from Stanford through ROTC and later received a master’s in Technology and Policy from MIT. In Congress, she serves on the House Armed Services Committee and the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, where her work includes defense modernization, cybersecurity and the military’s technical workforce. /episode/index/show/259c9a54-bf3b-46b9-84e1-e114ffa39095/id/42242275

Who Should Control the Airspace Around Critical Infrastructure? with Scott Parker 07/21/2026

Who Should Control the Airspace Around Critical Infrastructure? with Scott Parker Drones are a serious operational concern for critical infrastructure owners and operators. In this episode of Cyber Focus, Frank Cilluffo sits down with Scott Parker, founder of Aerisq and former Chief of UAS Security at CISA, to discuss how drone capabilities have changed the risk picture for airports, utilities, chemical facilities, pipelines, prisons, and other sensitive sites. The conversation examines the FAA’s Section 2209 rulemaking (open for public comment through August 5th, 2026), along with the limits of flight restrictions and the growing need for “Air Domain Awareness” alongside cyber and physical security. Parker also explains why counter-UAS strategy must balance technology, legal authority, proportional response, and the practical realities of defending infrastructure at scale. Main Topics Drone risks to critical infrastructure Lessons from Ukraine FAA Section 2209 Standard vs. special UASFRs Air Domain Awareness State and local counter-UAS authority Cost and scale of drone defense AI and autonomous drone risk Secure-by-design drone capabilities Key Quotes "There is a huge imbalance between what it costs to take [a drone] down as opposed to what it costs to fly one." — Scott Parker "A vast majority of our critical infrastructure is open airspace. ... Of the 90-something nuclear facilities, less than five have active flight restrictions over them." — Scott Parker "There are thermal sensors that can read how much oil is in a tank. There are LiDAR that can map an infrastructure's detailed schematics. And there are also cyber tools that can be equipped to sniff out open networks around facilities." — Scott Parker "Someone who means to do harm, they can add real-time collection to what's already out there using AI and... very likely develop a very structured plan on how to be successful." — Scott Parker “They [critical infrastructure owner-operators] are on the front lines. That's what we're concerned about. So they need the protection.” — Scott Parker Relevant Links and Resources (Public comment open until August 5, 2026) (Public comment open until September 4, 2026) About the Guest: Scott Parker is the founder and principal consultant of Aerisq, where he helps public and private sector organizations manage the cyber and physical risks posed by drones. He previously served as the Chief of UAS Security at CISA, where he built and led the agency’s first UAS Security Program and helped shape national guidance on drone risk management for critical infrastructure. Parker also served 27 years in the U.S. Army, culminating as Sergeant Major for the Special Operations Division at the Pentagon. /episode/index/show/259c9a54-bf3b-46b9-84e1-e114ffa39095/id/42171725

How Universities Like Auburn Help Defend the Nation 07/14/2026

How Universities Like Auburn Help Defend the Nation National security challenges increasingly cut across technology, economic competitiveness, critical infrastructure, manufacturing and workforce development. Universities have a growing role to play not only in conducting research, but also in translating ideas into practical solutions and preparing students to confront real-world problems. Auburn University President Dr. Chris Roberts, McCrary Institute Chairman Lt. Gen. (Ret) Ron Burgess, Senior Vice President for Research Dr. Steve Taylor and Samuel Ginn College of Engineering Dean Dr. Mario Eden join Frank Cilluffo to discuss Auburn’s commitment to national security. The conversation explores the changing threat environment, the university’s expanding research presence in Huntsville, partnerships among academia, government and industry, and how experiential education can prepare students for jobs and technologies that do not yet exist. Main Topics The changing national security landscape The convergence of security, technology and economic threats Building security into emerging technologies Auburn’s national security mission The value of interdisciplinary research Auburn’s expanding presence in Huntsville Universities as trusted government and industry partners Experiential learning for national security careers Preparing engineers for an AI-driven workforce Key Quotes "We're starting to see national security, economic security – it's all becoming intertwined and inseparable." — Frank Cilluffo “The largest fraction of our research at Auburn University is national security related. And that’s not an accident. It’s a commitment.” — Dr. Chris Roberts "We're still putting band-aids on [the internet] to make it work. And so that's where we find ourselves. AI is so new. Let's get the foundation set like it needs to be up front, in terms of its security... so that we're not having to band-aid it in 10 years.— Lt. Gen. (Ret) Ron Burgess “We’re not selling a product. We’re here to educate our students and use our faculty and researchers to solve some tough problems.” — Dr. Steve Taylor “We’re not a diploma factory. I always tell our students that if the only thing that defines them when they graduate is their GPA, then we have failed.”— Dr. Mario Eden Relevant Links and Resources About the Guests Lt. Gen. (Ret.) Ron Burgess is chairman of the McCrary Institute Advisory Board and former director of the Defense Intelligence Agency. During a 38-year Army career, he also served as acting principal deputy director of national intelligence and held senior intelligence roles with the Joint Chiefs of Staff and U.S. Southern Command. Dr. Chris Roberts is the 21st president of Auburn University, leading the university’s academic, research, extension and public-service missions. An accomplished engineering scholar, he previously served for a decade as dean of Auburn’s Samuel Ginn College of Engineering. Dr. Steve Taylor is Auburn University’s senior vice president for research and economic development. He previously served as interim dean and associate dean for research in the Samuel Ginn College of Engineering, where he helped expand research funding and establish major applied research institutes and facilities. Dr. Mario Eden is dean of Auburn University’s Samuel Ginn College of Engineering and the Joe T. and Billie Carole McMillan Professor. A longtime Auburn faculty member and former chair of chemical engineering, his research focuses on process systems engineering, simulation, design and optimization. /episode/index/show/259c9a54-bf3b-46b9-84e1-e114ffa39095/id/42074650

Why the Human Element Still Matters in Cyber Defense with Nightwing’s Chris Jones 07/07/2026

Why the Human Element Still Matters in Cyber Defense with Nightwing’s Chris Jones AI is changing the speed and scale of cyber conflict, but the burden on defenders remains the same: they have to protect complex systems all the time, while attackers only need one opening. That imbalance is especially urgent as critical infrastructure, intelligence missions, and space systems become more connected, more contested, and harder to secure. Chris Jones, Chief Technology Officer at Nightwing and a former senior CIA technology leader, joins Frank Cilluffo to discuss what that means for national security. He explains why AI may give attackers a short-term advantage, why many breaches still come down to basic defensive discipline, and why even the most advanced tools depend on skilled people, sound judgment, and mission-focused teams. Main Topics AI and the attacker-defender gap Why cyber defense is so hard Human-enabled cyber and intelligence Digital exhaust and privacy risk Known vulnerabilities and defensive basics Space systems as cyber terrain Securing legacy infrastructure Cyber, RF, EW, autonomy, and AI convergence The workforce behind advanced technology Key Quotes “In the world we live in today, basic privacy is at risk. Everything you do creates digital dust. That digital dust reveals your activities, plans and intentions.” — Chris Jones “Having an offensive mindset when you’re trying to play defense is really important.” — Chris Jones “The notion with any technology that you're going to be able to control and contain it... is just overstated. ... Once the genie is out of the bottle, it's super hard.” — Chris Jones “In order to be really effective, it’s not just the application of advanced technology. It’s the application of advanced technology by really well-trained and experienced operators of that technology.” — Chris Jones “We also need people who are looking at how the systems are engineered today and asking the contrarian questions on why they exist the way they do." — Chris Jones Relevant Links and Resources About the Guest: Christopher Jones is Chief Technology Officer at Nightwing, where he helps lead the company’s technology strategy and the integration of advanced capabilities in support of customer missions. He joined Nightwing in 2024 after a 26-year career at the Central Intelligence Agency, where he finished serving as Associate Deputy Director for Science and Technology. His career has focused on bringing technology into national security operations, and he has received numerous awards including the CIA Director’s Award, the Distinguished Career Intelligence Medal, multiple Meritorious Presidential Rank Awards and CIA Exceptional Performance Awards. Jones holds a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering from the University of Notre Dame and a master’s degree in systems engineering from Virginia Tech. /episode/index/show/259c9a54-bf3b-46b9-84e1-e114ffa39095/id/41992080

The Army’s “No Fail” Cyber Mission with Brandon Pugh 06/30/2026

The Army’s “No Fail” Cyber Mission with Brandon Pugh Note: This episode was first released on December 2, 2025 This week Army Principal Cyber Advisor Brandon Pugh joins Frank Cilluffo to address a stark reality: if critical infrastructure fails, the Army cannot mobilize. To meet this “no fail” mission, Pugh explains how the service is aggressively merging cyber with electronic warfare and cutting red tape to field new technology in days rather than years. They also discuss the Army’s unique edge in this digital fight—Reservists who bring high-level private sector expertise directly to the battlefield. The conversation also explores how AI and operational technology are reshaping the Army’s cyber battlefield and threat landscape. Main Topics Covered • How Congress created the principal cyber advisor role and defined its authorities. • Army cyber’s four focus areas: AI, defense critical infrastructure, acquisition, and workforce. • Integrating cyber, electronic warfare, RF, and information operations into Army warfighting doctrine. • Defending defense critical infrastructure and preparing for Volt Typhoon-style cyber disruptions. • Leveraging AI for continuous monitoring, faster detection, and protection of sensitive Army data. • Reforming cyber acquisition through FUZE prototypes, VC-style partnerships, and Guard and Reserve expertise. Key Quotes “Cyber is not an isolated capability. It’s not something that just rests at Fort Gordon or Fort Meade.” – Brandon Pugh “If an adversary goes after one of our military bases and we can’t mobilize people, tanks, equipment in a time of conflict, that is a major concern… we can’t accept the fact that cyber could be the barrier to our ability to do other military tasks.” – Brandon Pugh “It’s a national security imperative to leverage AI. We know adversaries are going to leverage AI or exploit our AI regardless of what we do here. We could put barriers in terms of aggressive regulation which some have proposed in the past or seek to slow it down. All that’s going to do is help our adversaries.” – Brandon Pugh “We have some individuals that show up their reserve weekend in $300,000-$400,000 vehicles because they are the experts in what they do as civilians. They have signed up and taken the oath because they want to serve this country. That is the talent we have in the Reserve and Guard that we need to continue to expand.” – Brandon Pugh “We don’t have to go through a multi-year acquisition cycle, spend millions of dollars where we’ve seen 3D printed drones for mere dollars in some cases being leveraged [in Ukraine]… We need some of these capabilities in a matter of days or weeks, not years.” – Brandon Pugh Relevant Links and Resources • • Guest Bio Brandon Pugh is the Principal Cyber Advisor to the Secretary of the Army, advising the Secretary and Army Chief of Staff on cyber readiness, budget, capabilities, and strategy. He previously served as a director at the R Street Institute and continues to serve in the U.S. Army Reserve as a national security law professor, having earlier been a paratrooper and international law officer. /episode/index/show/259c9a54-bf3b-46b9-84e1-e114ffa39095/id/41906485

Anthropic and the Fight Over Frontier AI Risk with CyberScoop’s Greg Otto 06/23/2026

Anthropic and the Fight Over Frontier AI Risk with CyberScoop’s Greg Otto As frontier AI models become more capable at finding vulnerabilities, cybersecurity is entering a period where old timelines, disclosure norms, and governance tools may no longer fit the speed of the technology. In this episode of Cyber Focus, Frank Cilluffo speaks with CyberScoop editor-in-chief Greg Otto about the recent controversy surrounding Anthropic’s Fable-5 and Mythos 5 models, the government’s use of export controls, and the difficulty of distinguishing between dangerous AI capability and legitimate defensive cyber use. The conversation moves from the Anthropic fight to a broader operational challenge: AI may help defenders discover more weaknesses, but organizations still have to validate, prioritize, and fix them. Otto explains why vulnerability disclosure, patching, open-source security, and public-private coordination are all being tested by AI’s pace — and why the most important question may not be whether AI can find the problem, but whether institutions can absorb what it reveals. Main Topics Covered Anthropic’s Fable-5 and Mythos 5 models Project Glasswing and vetted model access AI-enabled vulnerability discovery Jailbreaks, guardrails, and defense-oriented prompting Export controls and frontier AI governance Vulnerability disclosure timelines Microsoft, Nightmare Eclipse, and researcher-vendor trust AI-generated bug reports and remediation overload Key Quotes “I think a lot of it was in the White House not fully understanding what is possible. And that’s not necessarily on the White House. This is new technology.” — Greg Otto “The model itself isn’t the problem, it’s the output.” — Greg Otto “[AI vulnerability discovery] has really laid bare just how dependent we are on software that is literally maintained by people in their basement.” — Greg Otto “If you’re using AI to generate the answer, that’s bad. That is unequivocally bad. It is not going to help."— Greg Otto “If you’re using [AI] for something that requires judgment or human care, I think that you should really exercise some caution.” — Greg Otto Relevant Links and Resources Guest Bio Greg Otto is editor-in-chief of CyberScoop, where he leads coverage of cybersecurity, emerging technology, public-sector cyber policy, and the threats shaping the digital ecosystem. He also hosts CyberScoop’s weekly podcast, Safe Mode, which examines major developments in cyber and technology through conversations with practitioners, executives, researchers, and reporters. /episode/index/show/259c9a54-bf3b-46b9-84e1-e114ffa39095/id/41746050

Inside the FBI’s Push to Disrupt Hackers Before They Strike with Brett Leatherman 06/16/2026

Inside the FBI’s Push to Disrupt Hackers Before They Strike with Brett Leatherman In this episode of Cyber Focus, Frank Cilluffo sits down with Brett Leatherman, Assistant Director for Cyber at the FBI, for a wide-ranging conversation about how the Bureau is using law enforcement authorities, intelligence, partnerships, and court-authorized technical operations to disrupt adversaries, help victims, and defend U.S. critical infrastructure. Leatherman explains why the FBI expects to conduct more operations like Operation Masquerade, which evicted Russian GRU actors from compromised routers, and why privately owned routers, edge devices, and small networks can become valuable infrastructure for foreign intelligence services and criminal groups. He also discusses the rise of agentic AI in ransomware, China-linked threats to operational technology and critical infrastructure, Operation Winter SHIELD, supply-chain risk, and why early victim reporting can help the FBI move upstream against cyber adversaries. Main Topics Covered FBI cyber threat response and disruption operations Operation Masquerade and court-authorized cyber actions Ransomware, agentic AI, and emerging threats China-linked threats to critical infrastructure Public-private partnerships and victim reporting Operation Winter SHIELD and cyber defense best practices Key Quotes “Deterrence for us is not just about arrests, indictments, convictions, although that still matters a lot to what we do. It’s also about removing capacity and capability from the actors where they’re not touchable. Their infrastructure is touchable, their money is touchable, their tools are touchable.” — Brett Leatherman “The idea of security through obscurity is dangerous.” — Brett Leatherman “The FBI will never ask you to maintain breach while we are conducting evidence collection.” — Brett Leatherman “Ransomware actors are starting to leverage agentic AI, along with the nation states, to really move across the cyber kill chain at speeds we haven’t seen before, and at speeds defenders might not be ready for.” — Brett Leatherman “We can’t defend against machine speed at human speed." — Brett Leatherman Relevant Links and Resources Guest Bio Brett Leatherman is the Assistant Director for Cyber at the FBI, where he oversees the Bureau’s cyber efforts, including incident response, threat response, and cyber disruption operations. A 23-year FBI agent, Leatherman has worked or managed programs across counterterrorism, counterintelligence, cyber, and criminal investigations. He previously served in senior roles in the FBI’s Cyber Division and in Dallas, and has also served as an FBI pilot and negotiator. /episode/index/show/259c9a54-bf3b-46b9-84e1-e114ffa39095/id/41665200

The New AI Executive Order and the Race to Harden America’s Systems with Daniel Kroese 06/09/2026

The New AI Executive Order and the Race to Harden America’s Systems with Daniel Kroese A new executive order on artificial intelligence and cybersecurity sends a clear signal: advanced AI now sits at the center of how the United States thinks about cyber defense, national security, critical infrastructure resilience, and strategic competition. In this episode of Cyber Focus, Frank Cilluffo sits down with Daniel Kroese, Vice President of Global Policy at Palo Alto Networks and a Senior Fellow at the McCrary Institute, to unpack what the order means in practice. Kroese argues that the most important signal is the administration’s effort to bring government, industry, and critical infrastructure operators together quickly — not simply to study AI risk, but to operationalize AI-enabled defense while preserving the innovation advantage that gives the United States its head start. Main Topics Covered The executive order’s “North Star” signal on AI innovation, cybersecurity, and national security Why AI and cybersecurity are increasingly inseparable How frontier models are transforming vulnerability discovery, software red teaming, and cyber defense The urgency of hardening systems before adversaries catch up Expanding AI-enabled cyber tools to under-resourced critical infrastructure operators The role of voluntary frameworks and the proposed AI cybersecurity clearinghouse Managing a surge in vulnerabilities while improving detection and response times Key Quotes “In three weeks, [Mythos] was able to conduct one to two years’ worth of red teaming on our own code base. We’re not talking 5 percent better, 10 percent better, 15 percent better. We’re talking about doing something in three weeks that would have taken us one, if not more, years previously. So that is an inflection point.” — Daniel Kroese “We have a head start, but it is not an infinite head start.” — Daniel Kroese “We also have to recognize that for your average electric utility or water treatment plant, if we were to give them Mythos or GPT-5.5 access tomorrow, due to the operational realities of how they are organized, they wouldn't know what to do with it. So it's not as simple as just flicking on access. It's about how do we scale and democratize the Cyber defense benefits of these models.” — Daniel Kroese “Detection response times must be measured in single-digit minutes, not days, weeks, or never.” — Daniel Kroese “This isn’t about information sharing alone. It’s about operational collaboration.” — Daniel Kroese Relevant Links and Resources Guest Bio Daniel Kroese is Vice President of Global Policy at Palo Alto Networks, where he leads the company’s engagement with policymakers and government stakeholders. He previously served as Staff Director for Ranking Member John Katko on the House Homeland Security Committee and held senior cybersecurity roles at CISA and on Capitol Hill. He is also a Senior Fellow at the McCrary Institute. /episode/index/show/259c9a54-bf3b-46b9-84e1-e114ffa39095/id/41588830

AI Is Not Your Friend: Geoffrey Fowler on Rating AI for Kids 06/02/2026

AI Is Not Your Friend: Geoffrey Fowler on Rating AI for Kids In this episode of Cyber Focus, Frank Cilluffo speaks with Geoffrey Fowler, head of public engagement for the Youth AI Safety Institute at Common Sense Media, about why AI requires a different kind of safety framework than movies, apps, games, or social media. Fowler argues that generative AI is not static content; it is dynamic, conversational, multipurpose, and capable of changing from one interaction to the next based on the user, the prompt, the model, and the length of the conversation. The conversation explores how AI products that appear friendly, educational, or therapeutic can create new risks for children, from emotional dependency and privacy concerns to unsafe mental-health guidance and weakening guardrails over extended conversations. Fowler explains how Common Sense Media is working to build independent AI safety ratings for kids, modeled in part on crash testing for cars: transparent evaluations that help parents and schools make better decisions while pushing companies toward safer design. Main Topics Covered Why AI needs a new safety rating Lessons from social media and smartphone adoption AI companions, mental-health claims, and dependency risk AI toys, privacy, and weakening guardrails Independent testing, ratings, and child-development standards Company responsibility, public policy, and trust Key Quotes “AI is not your friend. AI is not human. It does not make the kinds of choices that a human being would make when you’re having a bad day or when you’re in a crisis or when you need somebody to really trust.” — Geoffrey Fowler, Common Sense Media “[AI companies] shouldn’t be experimenting on our kids. They should make it safe from the get go.” — Geoffrey Fowler, Common Sense Media “These AI toys are little spies that you’re putting in kids’ rooms. They’re recording their voices, they’re recording behavioral data.” — Geoffrey Fowler, Common Sense Media “The Common Sense Media Youth AI Safety Institute is neither pro AI nor anti AI. It’s pro kid.” — Geoffrey Fowler, Common Sense Media “We are here to research not just the hype of what companies say about what their technology does, we’re here to see what it actually does and tell the truth about it.” — Geoffrey Fowler, Common Sense Media Relevant Links and Resources Guest Bio Geoffrey Fowler is head of public engagement for the Youth AI Safety Institute at Common Sense Media. He is a longtime technology journalist whose work has appeared at The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal. In this role, Fowler helps communicate Common Sense Media’s work to evaluate AI products used by children, teens, families, and schools, including the development of independent safety ratings and risk assessments for youth-facing AI tools. /episode/index/show/259c9a54-bf3b-46b9-84e1-e114ffa39095/id/41510360

Estonia’s Lessons for the Cyber Future with Ambassador Kristjan Prikk 05/26/2026

Estonia’s Lessons for the Cyber Future with Ambassador Kristjan Prikk For Estonia, cyber resilience is not an abstract policy goal. It is a national survival issue shaped by history, geography, and the reality of living next to Russia. In this episode, Ambassador Kristjan Prikk explains how Estonia turned a lack of legacy infrastructure into a digital advantage, why the 2007 cyberattacks became a strategic wake-up call for the West, and what Ukraine’s defense against Russia reveals about preparation, public-private cooperation, and the future of conflict. The conversation also looks ahead: to AI in government and education, to Estonia’s support for Ukraine, and to the cyber lessons NATO must operationalize before the next crisis. At the center is a clear argument from one of the world’s most digitally advanced democracies: cyber defense is not just about hardening systems, but building the relationships, institutions, and resilience needed to keep a society functioning under pressure. Main Topics Covered Estonia’s digital transformation Life after Soviet occupation The 2007 cyberattacks Resilience over perfect defense Ukraine’s cyber defense Private-sector support in wartime AI in government and education Support for Ukraine NATO’s cyber priorities Key Quotes “We had a really strong incentive to go ahead and try out something almost crazy, something that no one had ever tried before, and just see what’s going to happen.” — Ambassador Kristjan Prikk "We believe that our kids will not lose [their] jobs to AI, but rather they may risk losing their jobs to other kids who know how to use AI better than them." — Ambassador Kristjan Prikk “We reduce or limit the risk of particularly high impact threats, risks materializing. But then again, the more important part is the ability to rebound; the ability to use alternatives if plan A is not working.” — Ambassador Kristjan Prikk “The way the cyberspace is set up means that we cannot only be confined in our own quarters and expect that if we keep it in order, then nothing happens.” — Ambassador Kristjan Prikk “Cybersecurity is a team sport…we have to make sure that when the problem appears, then we don't have to start searching for contacts of other people. The organization has to be there.” — Ambassador Kristjan Prikk Relevant Links and Resources Embassy of Estonia in Washington, D.C. Estonia’s national cybersecurity strategy or cyber agency resources Tallinn Mechanism information page IT Coalition for Ukraine information page About the Guest: Kristjan Prikk has served as Estonia’s Ambassador to the United States since May 2021, and will soon serve as Estonia’s Ambassador to NATO. Before assuming his current duties, Prikk served for nearly three years as the Permanent Secretary of the Estonian Ministry of Defense. In this role he was responsible for the management of the Ministry and for the coordination of activities of the agencies under the Ministry, including the Estonian Defense Forces, the Estonian Foreign Intelligence Service, and the Centre for Defense Investments. /episode/index/show/259c9a54-bf3b-46b9-84e1-e114ffa39095/id/41426290

Who’s Accountable When AI Acts? — With Walter Haydock 05/19/2026

Who’s Accountable When AI Acts? — With Walter Haydock In this episode of Cyber Focus, Frank Cilluffo speaks with Walter Haydock, founder of StackAware, about the accountability, governance, and national security challenges emerging as organizations rush to deploy artificial intelligence. Haydock argues that AI does not erase familiar cybersecurity and risk-management problems; it accelerates them. From non-human identities and AI agents to third-party risk, federal regulation, and the environmental demands of AI infrastructure, the conversation centers on a core question: who is accountable when AI systems act, fail, or cause harm? Rather than treating AI governance as a compliance checklist, Haydock makes the case for assigning clear ownership, focusing policy on outcomes, and giving business leaders—not risk advisors alone—responsibility for the risks their organizations accept. Main Topics Covered AI accountability and non-human identities Managing AI agents as unpredictable actors Who should own AI risk inside an organization Third-party risk, supply chains, and contractual accountability Avoiding checkbox compliance in AI governance National AI policy, innovation, and strategic competition Key Quotes: “I see organizations spending a lot of time, money, resources, brain power on low-impact problems, on things that they shouldn’t be focused on, and instead they’re kind of ignoring the higher-risk issues that have easier mitigations, easier solutions.” — Walter Haydock “The question of who is accountable for a given outcome is a critically important one.” — Walter Haydock “At the level of an individual business, I think it’s important to assign accountability for actions of AI agents to cross-functional business leaders who have the wherewithal, the full understanding of all the issues that are impacting a given company.” — Walter Haydock “The framework I use is that business leaders are risk and system owners. They are ultimately accountable. They make the final decisions.” — Walter Haydock “When the government hard codes in supposed best practices, they end up creating perverse incentives where companies are focused very closely on checking the box and not necessarily on getting the good outcome.” — Walter Haydock Relevant Links and Resources Guest Bio Walter Haydock is the founder of StackAware, an AI security and governance company. Before founding StackAware, he worked in government, national security, and the military, including service on the House Homeland Security Committee, at the National Counterterrorism Center, and in the U.S. Marine Corps in intelligence and reconnaissance roles. /episode/index/show/259c9a54-bf3b-46b9-84e1-e114ffa39095/id/41352035

The End of Human-Speed Cyber: Mythos, Glasswing & the AI Exploit Race with CrowdStrike's Drew Bagley 05/12/2026

The End of Human-Speed Cyber: Mythos, Glasswing & the AI Exploit Race with CrowdStrike's Drew Bagley Cyber defense is entering a machine-speed era. With Anthropic's Mythos and Project Glasswing bringing AI-driven vulnerability discovery and exploit development into the center of the cyber conversation, CrowdStrike’s Drew Bagley says organizations need to prepare for a world where vulnerabilities can be found, chained, and exploited faster than traditional patching cycles can handle. Bagley joins Frank Cilluffo to explain why this shift is not just about one model, one company, or one headline-grabbing project. It points to a broader change in how attackers and defenders will operate: exploit stacks may make once-latent vulnerabilities newly dangerous, critical infrastructure operators may face risks they cannot patch away, and unmanaged AI agents inside organizations may become another source of exposure. The answer, Bagley argues, is not panic or patching alone, but continuous discovery, continuous remediation, visibility across the kill chain, AI-powered defense, and resilience planning built for a world moving faster than human-speed cyber. Main Topics Covered Mythos, Project Glasswing, and AI-driven vulnerability discovery Why exploit stacks change how organizations should think about risk Continuous patching, prioritization, and machine-speed defense Critical infrastructure, OT systems, and unpatchable legacy technology AI agents, unmanaged access, and the next insider-style risk Key Quotes “We’re now in an era in which AI has been proven to be able to find vulnerabilities and write exploits at scale much quicker than humans can.” — Drew Bagley “We should think about this as an opportunity to think through this problem set now and assume that this is going to be just a widespread capability pretty soon.” — Drew Bagley “Previously latent [OT] vulnerabilities… [relied on] security through obscurity. That’s no longer the case. And now those are exploitable.” — Drew Bagley “If you don’t have visibility and you can’t see the risk, then you can’t mitigate the risk.” — Drew Bagley “It’s important to think about the ways in which AI has been incorporated over the past two years, especially in organizations to get work done better, but in ways that have often been unmanaged where AI has access to things you wouldn’t give an intern access to.” — Drew Bagley Relevant Links and Resources Guest Bio: Drew Bagley is CrowdStrike’s Chief Privacy Officer, where he leads the company’s privacy and public policy work. In his 12 years at CrowdStrike, he has helped shape the company’s approach to data protection, cybersecurity policy, and engagement with government leaders as CrowdStrike grew into a global cybersecurity company. /episode/index/show/259c9a54-bf3b-46b9-84e1-e114ffa39095/id/41263045

What Most People Get Wrong About Secure Messaging with Signal CTO Ehren Kret 05/05/2026

What Most People Get Wrong About Secure Messaging with Signal CTO Ehren Kret Most people think secure messaging begins and ends with encryption. Signal CTO Ehren Kret says that is only part of the picture. In this episode of Cyber Focus, host Frank Cilluffo sits down with Kret to discuss what private communication really requires, from protecting message content to limiting what platforms can learn from metadata, identity, group membership and social graphs. Kret explains how Signal’s nonprofit model shapes its privacy-first design choices, why endpoint security remains a major challenge, and how AI built into operating systems could create new risks for private communication. The conversation also explores post-quantum encryption, lawful access debates, phishing threats against messaging accounts, and why the future of secure communication depends not only on better technology, but on helping users understand what is and is not truly private. Main Topics Secure messaging misconceptions Metadata and social graphs Endpoint security risks AI and platform privacy Post-quantum encryption Signal’s nonprofit model Key Quotes “Disappearing messages, and that's one piece of the puzzle... But a lot of people think that's sort of the end.” — Ehren Kret “You should also be looking at does your service provider have access to the message content and is it protected from visibility from them?” — Ehren Kret “Being able to build a social graph can reveal information, even though you don't necessarily have the message content, it is highly leaky. You can infer from a social graph, you can see who is talking to who, and a lot of times that reveals information about the content of those communications .” — Ehren Kret “Signal...is an anti mass surveillance tool. It's not necessarily an anti targeted surveillance tool because at the end of the day your phone is still an endpoint that can be targeted.” — Ehren Kret “Since it's a nonprofit, the primary goal for Signal is to spread the use of end-to-end encrypted for messaging and for communications in general.” — Ehren Kret Relevant Links and Resources About Ehren Kret Ehren Kret is the Chief Technology Officer at Signal, where he helps lead the development of privacy-preserving communication technology. He previously served as an engineering director at WhatsApp, where he helped scale end-to-end encryption for more than a billion users. /episode/index/show/259c9a54-bf3b-46b9-84e1-e114ffa39095/id/41161820

How Idaho National Laboratory Is Building the Future of Infrastructure Security with Zach Tudor 04/27/2026

How Idaho National Laboratory Is Building the Future of Infrastructure Security with Zach Tudor America is asking more from its critical infrastructure just as adversaries are finding more ways to target it. AI, data centers, electrification, and next-generation energy systems all depend on operational technology—the control systems that keep power, water, transportation, and industry moving. As that backbone grows more connected, the stakes of securing it grow even higher. In this episode of Cyber Focus, Frank Cilluffo speaks with Zach Tudor, Associate Laboratory Director at Idaho National Laboratory, about how INL tests and secures critical infrastructure at scale. Tudor explains why resilience must guide infrastructure defense, what Ukraine and China reveal about the risks facing critical infrastructure, and why cyber-informed engineering is essential as new technologies move into energy, nuclear, wireless, and industrial systems. The conversation also covers AI’s role in control environments, the workforce needed to secure future infrastructure, and the challenge of moving faster before a major event forces action. Main Topics Covered INL’s critical infrastructure mission Testing infrastructure at scale OT security and resilience AI risks in control systems Cyber-informed engineering Workforce needs for energy security Key Quotes “No infrastructure is impervious to attack.” — Zach Tudor "I think we’re getting to the point where, if you are delivering power to the nation, then you are a risk professional as well as a power engineer." — Zach Tudor “Resilience for me is not just the preparation for an attack or the response to an attack, but the ability to mitigate the effects of an attack, to respond quickly, and to recover quickly as well." — Zach Tudor “We are a national lab in the public economic and national security interest. And so we'll do what needs to be done. We say that labs do what others can't, won't or shouldn't do.” — Zach Tudor “The mindset of an engineer who's thinking about operations is different from the mindset of an IT security person who's protecting databases or privacy or other data." — Zach Tudor Relevant Links and Resources Guest Bio Zach Tudor is Associate Laboratory Director for National and Homeland Security at Idaho National Laboratory, where he leads programs focused on critical infrastructure protection, operational technology security, and national security innovation. He previously served at the Department of Homeland Security’s ICS-CERT and is a former U.S. Navy submariner. Tudor has spent decades working at the intersection of cybersecurity, energy systems, and national defense. /episode/index/show/259c9a54-bf3b-46b9-84e1-e114ffa39095/id/41034200

Hacking Reputation: Disinformation, Trust, and Cyber Crisis Response with Preston Golson 04/21/2026

Hacking Reputation: Disinformation, Trust, and Cyber Crisis Response with Preston Golson A cyber incident can damage far more than systems and networks. It can also become a reputational crisis, especially when false or misleading narratives move faster than facts. In this episode of Cyber Focus, Frank Cilluffo speaks with Preston Golson of Brunswick Group about why organizations need to treat reputation as a vulnerability that can be tested, stress-tested, and defended much like any other part of their cyber posture. Drawing on his work in cyber incident response and his earlier career at the CIA, Golson explains how misinformation and disinformation take hold, why many damaging narratives are foreseeable, and how companies can prepare before a crisis hits. The conversation explores red teaming, “prebunking,” unified crisis response, and the growing importance of trust, credibility, and AI-generated search results in shaping public perception. For leaders trying to manage cyber risk in a more volatile information environment, this episode offers a practical framework for thinking about reputation, crisis communications, and resilience. Main Topics Covered Reputation as a cyber target Disinformation and viral narratives Red teaming reputational risk Cyber crisis communications Prebunking and digital inoculation Key Quotes “Misinformation is like a forest fire and we live in a forest with combustible conditions … false and misleading narratives can be caught quickly and they can affect a company's license to operate.” — Preston Golson “If you have a dedicated team to look for [reputational risks], you can hack your own reputation, understand where your vulnerabilities are and then reverse engineer defenses and proactive communications … to help build resiliency amongst your audiences.” — Preston Golson “We don't play whack a mole. Not every narrative deserves a response. As a matter of fact, some narrative, if you give them a response, it'll give it more oxygen.” — Preston Golson "What effective [misinformation] narratives are doing are playing on people's insecurities, [and] people's desire to understand a world that is increasingly complex. It doesn't always make sense." — Preston Golson “Ransomware really did democratize cyber. Everyone's a target from the biggest Fortune 10 down to every mom and pop shop...” — Frank Cilluffo Relevant Links and Resources Guest Bio Preston Golson is a director at Brunswick Group, where he works on cyber incident response and related communications challenges. Before joining Brunswick, he spent more than 15 years at the Central Intelligence Agency. In this episode, he draws on that experience to discuss cyber crisis response, disinformation, reputational risk, and how organizations can prepare for false or misleading narratives before they take hold. /episode/index/show/259c9a54-bf3b-46b9-84e1-e114ffa39095/id/40955130

Cult of the Dead Cow and the Roots of Modern Cyber Ethics with Joe Menn 04/13/2026

Cult of the Dead Cow and the Roots of Modern Cyber Ethics with Joe Menn Cybersecurity’s history is often told through breaches, crime, and disruption. Joe Menn argues that the story of early hacker culture also offers something constructive: a model for how technical curiosity, ethical reflection, and independent thinking can shape the public good. Drawing from his work on Cult of the Dead Cow, Menn traces how figures once associated with pranks, underground tools, and legal gray zones helped influence vulnerability disclosure, hacktivism, privacy debates, and even the way government and major companies think about security today. But the episode does not stay in the past. Menn connects those earlier lessons to much more current concerns: digital surveillance, the tightening relationship between big tech and government, and the security risks emerging from the rush into AI. The result is a conversation about far more than hacker lore. It is about who gets to shape technology, what values guide that work, and why critical thinking itself may now be part of the infrastructure worth defending. Main Topics Covered The legacy of Cult of the Dead Cow The evolution of hacktivism Ethics and critical thinking in cyber Surveillance, privacy, and state power AI security and concentrated tech influence Key Quotes "I think it's very interesting to me that... any Fortune 100 CISO who's in his mid-50s or older broke the law as a teenager.” — Joe Menn “Hackers are by definition, if they're any good, are critical thinkers, because they're taking stuff and saying, well, okay, this is the intended purpose. What else can it do? What else can I make it do?” — Joe Menn “Hackers should be big players in legislation and in protecting critical infrastructure, and all these other things because they are critical thinkers and won't just repeat what the conventional wisdom is. You get value from people who are thinking differently. — Joe Menn "[A]t the most recent inauguration, you had Jeff Bezos and Mark Zuckerberg, and I believe Elon Musk standing closer to Trump than his cabinet members. The allegiance of big tech is actually more important than some of the entire branches of government. And their interests are now, by and large, very closely joined." — Joe Menn "[W]henever there's a new exciting technology; people rush into it and then sometime later they figure out about security ... And right now, there's this land rush where all the vulnerabilities are now visible through the wonder of AI. And so, tech debt that was swept under the rug is now become a forest fire." — Joe Menn Relevant Links and Resources About the Guest Joe Menn is a longtime technology reporter and author who has covered cybersecurity, privacy, and related policy issues for decades. In the episode, Frank Cilluffo notes that Menn has written for The Washington Post, Financial Times, Reuters, and the Los Angeles Times, and is the author of two bestselling cybersecurity books, including Cult of the Dead Cow. /episode/index/show/259c9a54-bf3b-46b9-84e1-e114ffa39095/id/40860300

From Fax Machines to Quantum: Canada's Sami Khoury Reflects on Three Decades in Cyber 04/07/2026

From Fax Machines to Quantum: Canada's Sami Khoury Reflects on Three Decades in Cyber Cybersecurity now reaches far beyond government networks and traditional IT systems. In this episode, Sami Khoury explains how the threat environment increasingly touches critical infrastructure, operational technology, undersea cables, and space—and why that shift is pushing governments to work more closely with private industry and trusted international partners. Drawing on more than three decades in Canadian government, Khoury offers a clear view of how Canada has built out its cyber posture, how the Canadian Centre for Cyber Security fits into that mission, and where the threat is evolving fastest. He also reflects on the growing overlap between nation-state activity, cybercrime, and hacktivism; the promise and risk of AI; the long transition toward post-quantum security; and the enduring pull of public service in a field where the stakes keep rising. Main Topics Covered Canada’s cyber strategy Critical infrastructure security OT, undersea cables, and space AI and post-quantum risk Public-private and international partnership Key Quotes: “When cyber came about or when we started paying attention to cyber, it was predominantly an IT issue. But unfortunately, these days it's not just an IT issue and we have to pay attention to OT.” — Sami Khoury “We know that cyber, and it might be cliche, cyber knows no border.” — Sami Khoury “We welcome people from different educational background because it's the analytical thinking capacity that we're looking for, not critical thinking skills. It's not necessarily that you're the best coder or that you are the best hardware architect. We want people with the critical thinking skills.” — Sami Khoury “The day there's a cryptographically relevant quantum computer that can break today's encryption will not, I presume, will not come with a press release.” — Sami Khoury “It's no longer government on government, it's government on private sector, it's mercenaries on private sector, it's mercenaries on government or hacktivist on government. So it's completely asymmetric and it takes a whole team to basically make a difference.” — Sami Khoury Relevant Links and Resources Guest Bio: Sami Khoury is the Government of Canada Senior Official for Cyber Security and the former head of the Canadian Centre for Cyber Security. He has spent over 30 years in the Canadian government, primarily within the Communications Security Establishment (CSE), Canada’s signals intelligence and cryptologic agency. A veteran of the "Five Eyes" intelligence community, Khoury has been instrumental in shaping Canada’s national cyber strategy and fostering deep operational ties with international partners. /episode/index/show/259c9a54-bf3b-46b9-84e1-e114ffa39095/id/40756865

Ukraine, Private Sector Power, and Cyber Defense with Greg Rattray 03/31/2026

Ukraine, Private Sector Power, and Cyber Defense with Greg Rattray Ukraine’s cyber defense has become one of the clearest real-world tests of what resilience actually looks like under sustained attack. In this episode of Cyber Focus, Greg Rattray explains why Ukrainian defenders held up better than many expected, and what their experience reveals about the limits of prevention, the value of shared visibility, and the growing operational role of the private sector. Drawing on his work leading the Cyber Defense Assistance Collaborative, Rattray argues that exposing adversary activity across a more “brightly illuminated cyberspace” helped blunt Russia’s offensive advantage. But the larger lesson is not just about threat visibility. It is about recovery, adaptability, and trust: teams under pressure need tools they already know how to use, leaders need to plan for bad days, and governments need to make room for industry to do more than simply wait for direction. Main Topics Covered The “bright room” concept in cyber defense Why resilience matters more than perfect prevention Familiar tools vs. cutting-edge tech in crisis The private sector’s front-line role How cyber, EW, and drones are converging Key Quotes: "It's pretty hard to do cyber offense in a bright room, in a dark room, it's a lot easier. But like what we've done here is give the Ukrainians the position that the Russian attacks are trying to occur in a pretty brightly illuminated cyberspace." — Greg Rattray “Kyivstar, [Ukraine’s] major telecommunications provider, got leveled in December of 2023. I thought they would be out for weeks. Two days later they were back up and running." — Greg Rattray “The speed at which drones have to change in order to stay survivable and effective; these innovation cycles are weeks, not years.” — Greg Rattray "While the NIST cybersecurity framework talks about respond and recover, the amount of energy that goes into resilience is still to my mind, under thought, under exercised, [and] under invested in." — Greg Rattray "The notion that you're going to be targeted has to be part of your risk calculus. And therefore you even with a good team... you cannot guarantee you won't have a bad day." — Greg Rattray Links/Resources Cyber Defense Assistance Collaborative: Guest Bio: Dr. Greg Rattray is Chief Strategy and Risk Officer at Andesite and Executive Director of the Cyber Defense Assistance Collaborative (CDAC), which has facilitated more than $30 million in voluntary cyber defense support to Ukraine. He previously served as J.P. Morgan Chase’s Global CISO and Head of Global Cyber Partnerships, and spent 23 years in the U.S. Air Force, including as the National Security Council’s Director for Cybersecurity. /episode/index/show/259c9a54-bf3b-46b9-84e1-e114ffa39095/id/40683540

Transatlantic Reset: Private Sector Diplomacy & Digital Trust with Sébastien Garnault 03/24/2026

Transatlantic Reset: Private Sector Diplomacy & Digital Trust with Sébastien Garnault Overview Transatlantic cyber cooperation is being tested by political strain, regulatory divergence, and competing ideas about sovereignty, trust, and market access. In this episode of Cyber Focus, Sébastien Garnault argues that if the United States and Europe want to keep working together on security, they need to move quickly to make that cooperation practical, especially in critical infrastructure and digital markets. Speaking from a French private-sector perspective, Garnault makes the case that governments alone may not be able to repair or sustain that cooperation at the speed the moment requires. He points instead to private-sector partnerships, shared market incentives, and clearer language around security standards as possible ways to keep the transatlantic relationship workable even when public-sector trust is under pressure. The conversation also explores how Europe and the United States differ on clean versus trusted technology stacks, how threat perceptions shape national requirements, and how privacy, AI, and data localization debates can either strengthen or complicate cooperation. The conversation was recorded on February 11, 2026. Main Topics Covered Private-Sector Cooperation as a Strategic Bridge: Why Garnault believes business-to-business cooperation may move faster than government-to-government diplomacy when trust is strained. Clean Stack vs. Trusted Stack: How U.S. national-security thinking and EU market-standard thinking create different paths for defining who can participate in secure digital markets. Threat Perception and Market Access: How geography, history, and national priorities shape security requirements across Europe and affect access to critical infrastructure markets. Trust, Sovereignty, and the Transatlantic Reset: Why Garnault sees damaged trust as a real obstacle, and why he argues for a reset rather than a rupture in U.S.-European cyber cooperation. Privacy, AI, and Data Localization: How French and European views on privacy, regulation, and AI governance differ from those in the United States, and why those differences matter for security and interoperability. Key Quotes “Maybe what we’ve done in the last decade and what we will do in the next decade don’t belong from government but belongs to us.” — Sébastien Garnault “We can do a reset; we cannot afford a reboot.” — Sébastien Garnault “The damages that have been done in our trust, mutual trust, are very deep. So we need to fix it quickly.” — Sébastien Garnault "The best way for us to cooperate with our allies is to use the market because the market is less political than national security." — Sébastien Garnault “From my standpoint, the glue that binds us together is much greater than anything that can tear us apart.” — Frank Cilluffo Links/Resources CyberTaskForce: Paris Cyber Summit: Guest Bio Sébastien Garnault is the founder of the CyberTaskForce and president of the Paris Cyber Summit. He joined Cyber Focus while in Washington leading a French delegation meeting with U.S. policymakers, industry leaders, and other decision-makers, and spoke in a private-sector capacity rather than on behalf of the French government. /episode/index/show/259c9a54-bf3b-46b9-84e1-e114ffa39095/id/40594720

Keeping the Lights On in the AI Era with DOE’s Alex Fitzsimmons 03/17/2026

Keeping the Lights On in the AI Era with DOE’s Alex Fitzsimmons Electricity demand is surging—and DOE’s Alex Fitzsimmons argues that the country’s ability to “keep the lights on” is now inseparable from how fast we can expand energy infrastructure, how we manage affordability, and how seriously we treat security. In this conversation with Frank Cilluffo, Fitzsimmons, the Acting Under Secretary of Energy and Director of the Office of Cybersecurity, Energy Security, and Emergency Response (CESER), frames “energy dominance” as a practical governing problem: meet rapid load growth (including from AI and data centers), avoid reliability shortfalls, and do it in a way that doesn’t push unacceptable costs onto everyday Americans. Main Topics Covered AI- and data center-driven demand growth Affordability and “ratepayer protection” Resource adequacy and reliability risk OT security and critical infrastructure stakes Supply chain risk and security vs speed Key Quotes “Privacy, data breaches, all of these things are important. They matter. They matter. But OT matters more. Keeping the lights on matters more.” — Alex Fitzsimmons “These tech companies recognize that for their technology to be politically and economically viable, that the American people cannot be shouldered with the burden of new data centers.” — Alex Fitzsimmons “We were set to lose 100 gigawatts of reliable dispatchable generation by 2030, at the same time that we may need to build 100 gigawatts of generation and associated infrastructure to win the AI race.” — Alex Fitzsimmons “We have to [build supply] securely. So we can't sacrifice security for speed.” — Alex Fitzsimmons “[AI-FORTS] is focused on 3 things: secure the energy system from AI, secure it with AI, and secure the AI itself.” — Alex Fitzsimmons Relevant Links and Resources NERC; RTOs and ISOs (mentioned in the episode; link not provided) Guest Bio Alex Fitzsimmons serves in the Trump Administration as the Acting Under Secretary of Energy at the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), where he spearheads DOE’s energy dominance mission and oversees a broad portfolio of offices advancing affordable, reliable, and secure energy for the American people. He also serves as Director of DOE’s Office of Cybersecurity, Energy Security, and Emergency Response (CESER), leading efforts to safeguard the nation’s energy infrastructure against evolving cyber and physical threats and strengthen resilience across critical energy systems. /episode/index/show/259c9a54-bf3b-46b9-84e1-e114ffa39095/id/40498100

Deterrence and the New Cyber Strategy with White House National Cyber Director Sean Cairncross 03/12/2026

Deterrence and the New Cyber Strategy with White House National Cyber Director Sean Cairncross Cyber deterrence has long lagged behind the threat. In this special episode of Cyber Focus recorded on March 11, 2026, White House National Cyber Director Sean Cairncross argues that the United States can no longer afford a posture built mainly around resilience and response while adversaries, criminal groups, and state-backed proxies operate at low cost and low risk. He presents President Trump’s new National Cyber Strategy as an effort to change that calculus by aligning government policy, offensive and defensive capabilities, industry partnership, and international coordination around a more forward-leaning approach. The conversation walks through the strategy’s six pillars, from shaping adversary behavior and streamlining regulation to modernizing federal systems, securing critical infrastructure, protecting U.S. technological advantage, and expanding the cyber workforce. Cairncross emphasizes a core theme throughout: private companies should not be left to fend for themselves against foreign intelligence services and military-linked actors, and government must do more to impose cost, remove friction, and support practical security outcomes. Main Topics Covered Cyber deterrence and imposing costs on adversaries Public-private partnership and smarter regulation Federal modernization and procurement reform Critical infrastructure resilience AI, post-quantum policy, and cyber workforce development Key Quotes “Resiliency is great, but resiliency…implies that you're taking hits.” — Sean Cairncross “There is a lot that can be done to deny [bad cyber actors] the benefits of their activity, to make life harder for them online and to deny them safe haven.” — Sean Cairncross “I think if you get hit by a foreign adversary, for the USG to turn around and point a finger at you is essentially shifting blame… It's not going to succeed unless both sides of that coin are working together and being collaborative.” — Sean Cairncross “We can work on procurement speed. We can work on technological innovation and adopting that technology much more quickly than we have.” — Sean Cairncross “This [low-cost, high-reward incentive structure for malicious cyber actors] has been allowed to go too far and get too far out of whack ... and we need to reset that.” — Sean Cairncross Relevant Links and Resources Guest Bio Sean Cairncross is the White House National Cyber Director, serving as the principal adviser to the president on cyber policy matters. Before taking this role, he served in the Trump White House as deputy assistant to the president and senior adviser to the chief of staff. He also served as CEO of the Millennium Challenge Corporation and has held senior leadership roles in politics, government, and strategic consulting. /episode/index/show/259c9a54-bf3b-46b9-84e1-e114ffa39095/id/40414260

The Cyber Dimension of the Iran Conflict with Cynthia Kaiser & Mark Montgomery 03/10/2026

The Cyber Dimension of the Iran Conflict with Cynthia Kaiser & Mark Montgomery Cyber is now woven into modern conflict, alongside conventional military force. In this episode, Frank Cilluffo examines how that shift shapes the threat from Iran—especially the risk of cyber retaliation aimed at U.S. critical infrastructure, U.S. businesses, and public confidence. Rear Admiral (Ret.) Mark Montgomery of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies brings a strategic and military lens to the discussion, explaining how cyber is being built into conflict planning alongside kinetic operations. Cynthia Kaiser, a former FBI cyber leader now with Halcyon, brings an operational view of how Iranian cyber activity can create disruption, spread fear, and produce real effects even without the sophistication of China or Russia. Main Topics Covered Cyber as an integrated warfighting tool Iran’s cyber posture and likely retaliation paths Critical infrastructure and OT vulnerabilities Disruption, fear, and information effects Gaps in U.S. civilian cyber defense Key Quotes “They're not at the level of capability as Russia and China, but that's almost irrelevant. They've got a drive-by shooting capability.” — Frank Cilluffo “We're seeing cyber integrated at the front end of planning. It's not cyber only or cyber as an afterthought, but it's cyber as an integrated element.” — Mark Montgomery “The vast majority of our critical infrastructure doesn't have a shield.”— Mark Montgomery “[Iran is] really one of the world's most malicious and capable cyber actors. They're not necessarily as good as China or Russia, but they don't need to be to have an effect.” — Cynthia Kaiser “The point’s the fear. The point’s the chaos. And the point is the internal messaging for their own people—to say we did something in retaliation.” — Cynthia Kaiser Relevant Links and Resources Guest Bio Mark Montgomery is a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and former executive director of the Cyberspace Solarium Commission. He brings deep experience in cyber strategy, defense policy, and national security planning. Cynthia Kaiser is a senior cyber executive at Halcyon and a former FBI leader with extensive experience in cyber investigations and ransomware response. She brings an operational perspective on Iranian cyber activity, disruption campaigns, and cyber risk to critical infrastructure. /episode/index/show/259c9a54-bf3b-46b9-84e1-e114ffa39095/id/40384740

The Regulatory Shift: How CIRCIA and NIST are Redefining Cyber Defense with Sara Friedman 03/03/2026

The Regulatory Shift: How CIRCIA and NIST are Redefining Cyber Defense with Sara Friedman Cyber incident reporting is about to become mandatory for much of critical infrastructure—and the details are where the fight is. On February 26th, Frank Cilluffo spoke with Inside Cybersecurity managing editor Sara Friedman about CIRCIA’s proposed reporting rules, what industry says is overbroad, and why the 72-hour clock is hard in the real world. They also dig into overlap with other federal requirements, CISA’s capacity to execute the rulemaking, and what “getting it right” means for public-private trust. The conversation then pivots to NIST, AI agent standards, and how Washington is balancing innovation, security, and competitiveness. Main Topics Covered What CIRCIA is designed to do. Who’s covered and what counts as reportable. The practical challenge of determining incident facts within 72 hours. Duplication concerns across rules, including SEC cyber disclosure timelines. Whether CISA has the staffing and leadership capacity to deliver. NIST’s role in AI agent standards and broader cyber “rules of the road.” Key Quotes “CISA was supposed to have voluntary partnerships… And with this new role, CISA is moving into more of a regulator role.” —Sara Friedman “This rulemaking, when it was put out, it's over 400 pages. There's a lot in there.” — Sara Friedman “House Homeland Security Chairman Andrew Garbarino threatened to, if the rulemaking does not meet congressional intent…to potentially roll this back.” — Sara Friedman “When there's a large attack on critical infrastructure, it just seems to wake up lawmakers in some ways that they need to be able to do something.” —Sara Friedman “They've shed about a third of their workforce…One of the questions is, does CISA have the capacity that they need for this rulemaking and to do it effectively? —Sara Friedman Relevant Links and Resources CIRCIA town halls scheduled for March: When the CIRCIA NPRM was published: RSA 2024 panel on the rulemaking: NIST launches AI Agent Standards initiative: NIST AI security request for information: NIST work on an AI profile for the Cybersecurity Framework: Guest Bio Sara Friedman is the managing editor of Inside Cybersecurity and has covered federal cybersecurity policy for years, including CIRCIA, NIST standards, and related rulemakings. /episode/index/show/259c9a54-bf3b-46b9-84e1-e114ffa39095/id/40297565

Deepfakes & Laptop Farms: How Nation-States Infiltrate the Defense Supply Chain with Luke McNamara 02/24/2026

Deepfakes & Laptop Farms: How Nation-States Infiltrate the Defense Supply Chain with Luke McNamara Cyber threats against the Defense Industrial Base (DIB) don’t stop at the battlefield—they extend into suppliers, perimeter devices, and even hiring pipelines. Luke McNamara of Google’s Threat Intelligence Group joins Frank Cilluffo to unpack Mandiant’s report Beyond the Battlefield: Threats to the Defense Intelligence Base and the patterns it flags across today’s threat landscape. They discuss how the war in Ukraine is shaping targeting priorities, why China’s cyber espionage increasingly begins at the network edge, and how “fast follower” exploit cycles compress patch timelines. McNamara also explains the North Korean IT worker problem, where remote hiring fraud can create both revenue and potential access pathways. The takeaway for mid-sized defense suppliers is practical: harden identity, reduce perimeter exposure, and assume meaningful risk often starts outside traditional corporate visibility. Main Topics Covered Why manufacturing remains a top target and a warning sign for broader supply-chain risk How the war in Ukraine is influencing cyber targeting tied to drones and UAS ecosystems China’s focus on edge-device compromise (VPNs, routers, email gateways) and why it matters The “fast follower” dynamic that turns one vulnerability into many intrusions North Korean IT worker operations, remote hiring fraud, and AI-enabled deception The highest-leverage defensive priorities for DIB organizations, especially identity and MFA Key Quotes “Manufacturing is always the most targeted sector going back to 2020. And I think that’s a larger canary in the coal mine.” — Luke McNamara “It’s not just some of these top-tier Chinese APT actors and their ability to leverage these as a zero-day, but the ability for secondary groups, once some of the details leak around a particular vulnerability, to start weaponizing it themselves.” — Luke McNamara “If I had to narrow it down to one category to put more resources to, I would say identity…hardening around the identity piece is certainly key.” — Luke McNamara "Organizations that are more aware of [the North Korean IT worker infiltration], where the security teams have met with their HR folks, their recruiters, helped inform them about the nature of these threats, I think they're a little bit better secured." — Luke McNamara "It sounds more like a movie than reality, but it's happening." — Frank Cilluffo Relevant Links and Resources Guest Bio Luke McNamara is a Deputy Chief Analyst at Google Cloud’s Mandiant Intelligence and part of Google’s Threat Intelligence Group, focused on cyber threat trends and emerging risks. /episode/index/show/259c9a54-bf3b-46b9-84e1-e114ffa39095/id/40215155

Botnets, Edge Devices, and AI: Inside Forescout’s Threat Findings with Daniel dos Santos 02/17/2026

Botnets, Edge Devices, and AI: Inside Forescout’s Threat Findings with Daniel dos Santos A new wave of cyberattacks is being routed through everyday devices—and defenders can’t rely on old assumptions about geography or “known bad” infrastructure. Daniel dos Santos, VP at Vedere Labs (Forescout), walks through findings from their 2025 Threat Roundup, drawn from a global network of hundreds of honeypots and decoy systems. The conversation focuses on why web-facing systems and edge devices have become prime targets, how attackers hide inside cloud and ISP-managed networks, and what defenders can do earlier in the kill chain. Dos Santos also explains why many exploited vulnerabilities never appear on CISA’s KEV list—and how security teams should think about patching and risk anyway. Main Topics How honeypots reveal attacker intent across IT, IoT, and OT environments. Why attacks increasingly come from ISP-managed networks and consumer devices. Cloud and “benign” services used to blend in and evade traditional filters. Why distributed botnets weaken country-based blocking for defenders. The rise of web-facing exploitation and the shift away from stolen passwords. Edge devices, OT exposure, and why “discovery” dominates post-breach activity. Key Quotes “We have hundreds [of honeypots] throughout the world. Some of them are simulations… Some of them are real devices… we expose them with the intention of seeing them attacked.” — Daniel dos Santos “Home routers, but also home IP cameras or doorbells or solar inverters or…whatever it is that you have in your house that might be exposed to the internet and might be vulnerable can be these days recruited into a botnet.” — Daniel dos Santos “Attackers…have figured out that when you find a zero-day in a popular router or a popular firewall or a popular VPN appliance, you can really go against thousands and thousands of organizations.” — Daniel dos Santos “With one zero-day or one critical exploit, you can compromise thousands of organizations today.” — Daniel dos Santos “But what we do see in the signals that we see there and what we present in the report is that there is a whole world of vulnerabilities being exploited.” — Daniel dos Santos Relevant Links and Resources About the Guest: Daniel dos Santos is the VP of Research at Forescout Research — Vedere Labs, where he leads a team of researchers that identifies new vulnerabilities and monitors active threats. He holds a PhD in computer science, has published over 35 peer-reviewed papers, has found or disclosed hundreds of CVEs — and is a frequent speaker at security conferences. /episode/index/show/259c9a54-bf3b-46b9-84e1-e114ffa39095/id/40138890

Storms, Cyber, and the Fight to Keep the Lights On with Scott Aaronson 02/10/2026

Storms, Cyber, and the Fight to Keep the Lights On with Scott Aaronson Grid resilience has become a test of whether the U.S. can keep essential systems running through disruption—and recover fast when they don’t. In this episode, Frank Cilluffo talks with Scott Aaronson about how the electric power sector plans for and responds to an “all-hazards” landscape, from major storms to cyber and physical attacks. Aaronson explains why the grid is a “network of networks” with a huge attack surface but few true single points of failure, and how mutual assistance became a national-scale capability. They also dig into interdependencies across “lifeline” sectors, the practical reality of IT/OT differences, and why surging demand—from AI and data centers to EVs and reshoring—raises urgent reliability and supply chain questions. Main Topics Covered Why electricity is consumed the moment it’s produced—and why balance matters. How mutual assistance evolved from bilateral help to national-scale response. Lessons from severe weather events, including what makes ice storms uniquely hard. The IT vs. OT gap, and why operational tech changes the cyber playbook. Interdependencies: why adversaries can hit electricity by targeting other sectors. Rising demand and the push to rebuild domestic manufacturing capacity for grid equipment. Key Quotes “Electricity is the only commodity that is consumed at the moment it is produced.” – Scott Aaronson “[Power companies] are competitive in some ways, but we are completely non-competitive when it comes to security, when it comes to resilience, when it comes to response and recovery.” – Scott Aaronson “I don’t really care if it is a storm or a pandemic or a cyber or physical attack or the zombie apocalypse… The impact is what matters.” – Scott Aaronson “The adversary is not attacking the electric sector. They are attacking the United States.” – Scott Aaronson “The first 72 are on you… Have food, have water, have a plan, be prepared. The cavalry is coming.” – Scott Aaronson “Regulations are great, but they are a foundational level of security… if you mandate… a 10-foot fence… the adversary brings a 12-foot ladder.” – Scott Aaronson Relevant Links and Resources About the Guest Scott Aaronson is Senior Vice President for Energy Security and Industry Operations at Edison Electric Institute (EEI) and Secretary of the Electricity Subsector Coordinating Council (ESCC), serving as a key industry-government liaison on power-sector security and preparedness. /episode/index/show/259c9a54-bf3b-46b9-84e1-e114ffa39095/id/40060240

How Apple's iPhone Supply Chain Built China into a Manufacturing Superpower with Patrick McGee 02/03/2026

How Apple's iPhone Supply Chain Built China into a Manufacturing Superpower with Patrick McGee Supply chains are essential infrastructure—and the iPhone’s supply chain sits at the center of U.S.–China competition. As Washington reassesses economic security, this episode explores what it looks like when market incentives collide with geopolitical reality. Frank Cilluffo speaks with Patrick McGee, author of Apple in China, about his reporting on Apple’s deep manufacturing reliance on China—and what that reveals about leverage, resilience, and risk. They explore how industrial capacity is built through repetition, why diversification is harder than headlines suggest, and how concentrated production creates choke points that can ripple far beyond consumer tech. The result is a clear, practical case study in why supply chains matter for critical infrastructure, national security, and long-term competition. Main Topics Covered How “learning by doing” powered China’s rise in high-end electronics manufacturing The “epic transfer of technology” behind Apple’s scale and China’s supply-chain competence Xi Jinping’s post-2013 pressure campaign and Apple’s strategic recalibration in China Why supply-chain diversification is slower than headlines suggest, especially in India The “red supply chain” and how Apple suppliers became capability multipliers Taiwan/TSMC as a single-point-of-failure risk—and the AI chip-export debate it echoes Key Quotes “China isn't dependent on Apple in the way that Apple is inarguably dependent on China. My big worry in a certain sense is that the student has become the master.” — Patrick McGee “If you just take the $55 billion that they invested in 2015 alone, which was 22% of revenue … and just go from let's say the birth of the iPhone 2007–2025, you're talking about a trillion dollars that Apple's invested in China.” — Patrick McGee “None of those phones are really being made in India, they're just being assembled there. The joke that one manufacturing design engineer told me was that the phones are assembled in China, disassembled in China and sent to India for reassembly.” — Patrick McGee “Our narrative is essentially that Apple exploits Chinese workers. In a certain sense, that's the only narrative about Apple in China we've had in the past two decades. And I flip that on its head…[China is] getting more out of the relationship. It's a story about China exploiting Apple. — Patrick McGee “I think there still is a mindset that China is an imitator, not an innovator. I think we should recognize that… is not the case.” — Frank Cilluffo Relevant Links and Resources Guest Bio Patrick McGee is a Financial Times journalist and the author of Apple in China, covering geopolitics, technology, and global supply chains. /episode/index/show/259c9a54-bf3b-46b9-84e1-e114ffa39095/id/39982030

AI, Critical Infrastructure, and Cascading Failures with Madison Horn 01/27/2026

AI, Critical Infrastructure, and Cascading Failures with Madison Horn Madison Horn joins host Frank Cilluffo to explain why AI-driven cyber risk may be quieter, faster, and harder to spot in 2026. She breaks down “cascading failures” in critical infrastructure—and how a disruption in one sector can quickly ripple into others. The conversation zeroes in on AI agents, especially their ability to create new user accounts, get access to systems, and hide inside everyday routine activity. Horn also warns that AI supply chain weaknesses could spread faster than traditional zero-days. Main Topics Covered Why AI-enabled attacks may look like normal business activity. Cascading failures across water, power, telecom, and healthcare systems. AI agents creating identities and operating with “human-like” access. Why “AI supply chain” risk could eclipse zero-day exploits. “Slow and steady” AI adoption for critical infrastructure operators. Why quantum planning should happen alongside today’s AI rollouts. Key Quotes “Within critical infrastructure… water needs electricity, electricity needs telcos, and healthcare needs all three.” —Madison Horn “Hackers are lazy. And I mean that not to be offensive, but if you can reach your objective, reaching the lowest hanging fruit, then you're going to.” —Madison Horn “Attacks are not going to look as restricting and as loud. I think it's going to look just like business as normal until we see [impacts] in the physical world." — Madison Horn “What I worry about is people assuming and trusting that an AI tool is doing what it's supposed to and not necessarily understanding or being able to detect that it's doing something malicious." — Madison Horn “I just don't want quantum to get lost into the AI conversation.” — Madison Horn Relevant Links and Resources Madison Horn’s 2026 predictions (Nextgov) About the Guest Madison Horn is the national security and critical infrastructure chief advisor at World Wide Technology, with 15+ years leading cyber strategy and incident response in high-consequence, regulated environments. She previously held senior roles at Siemens Energy, PwC, and Accenture Security, and founded Roserock Advisory Group focused on cybersecurity and geopolitics. /episode/index/show/259c9a54-bf3b-46b9-84e1-e114ffa39095/id/39898085

Cyber Focus: Cybersecurity, National Security, and Critical Infrastructure

TOPICS