List of Chief Technology Officer in Singapore

Document Sample
List of Chief Technology Officer in Singapore Powered By Docstoc
					                                            NetEvents
                                Asia Press Summit
                                            Singapore

               Conference Debate Session I
Network Access Control – Seeing the Forest through the Trees
                                  Chaired by: Rene Millman
                                     News Editor, SC Magazine


Panellists:
Gregory Fitzgerald           Vice President Marketing, TippingPoint
Steve Mock                   VP of Business Development, Infoblox
Neil Diener                  Chief Technology Officer and Co-Founder, Cognio
Andrew Ma                    Head of Solution Marketing, Asia Pacific, Juniper Networks
Matthew Zanner               Worldwide Mobility Solutions Manager ProCurve Networking, HP



Rene Millman

I'm Rene Millman. I am the News Editor of SC Magazine. I'll try to talk as slowly as I can in order
to make sure that our translators can get through…translate basically.

Next slide please.

So, NAC (Network Access Control) is a big topic really. It's something that's only just starting to
take shape in Asia. In Europe it’s a little bit further down the line. We believe that in the States it's
even further. Basically, it's about making sure that the good guys are kept in and the bad guys are
kept out. But that's a very simplistic way of looking at it really.

It's also down to making sure that things such as anti-virus, anti-spam and anti-spyware measures
are on each client device or server and also making sure that the network itself has the intelligence
to deal with those security threats. It's also about having a particular policy for your organisation or
infrastructure and making sure that that policy is enforced.


Unidentified speaker

[inaudible].


Rene Millman

Can you just repeat that again please?
Asia Press Summit                                                                             NetEvents


   Unidentified speaker

   [inaudible].


   Rene Millman

   Sorry. I'll be getting that in a second.

   So, basically the network, for Network Access Control, is split into three parts here. You have a
   NAC - a client on the device such as a laptop or a desktop computer or even say a phone or a PDA
   and that will go through the network here. You will see we have a network NAC switches and NAC
   appliances enforcing the policy within the network. And at the back end, where we have an
   appliance that is responsible for the policy, authentication and authorisation.

   So, there are a few factors to consider with NAC is scalability. You have to make sure that the
   system works whether its 100 end devices or 1,000. Management has to be quite simple to
   understand and roll out and be able to enforce policies. And also another topic is compliance.
   Increasingly, now with Sarbanes Oxley and Basal, (two regulations companies) need to be in
   compliance and show to the relevant authorities that their infrastructure is safe and strong against
   attack.

   As far as NAC is concerned, well there's NAC Network (and also NAP we'll get onto in the
   discussion). But you will see in the next few years from the Infonetic Research here that they did a
   survey and basically, 30…a third of respondents in the survey said that they were considering
   Cisco's industry initiative NAC, as opposed to Microsoft's own brand (NAP). And also, as I said,
   trade in the third is another sort of more open standard for the trusted network in Trusted Network
   Connect.

   So, in the debate they will be trying to…we'll be talking about how NAC is evolving. Again, talking
   about the different types of access control that are out in the marketplace at the moment. And
   whether or not maybe Cisco or Microsoft will merge their efforts and develop a joint package which
   will allow organisations to take the best of both worlds and integrate them into their own
   infrastructures.

   So, now I've gone to the next bit which is introducing the panel:-

   We have from TippingPoint, Gregory Fitzgerald who is the Vice President of Marketing.

   Steve Mock who is the VP of Business Development at Infoblox.

   Neil Diener; Chief Technology Officer and Co-Founder of Cognio.

   Andrew Ma; Head of Solutions Marketing at Juniper Network.

   And last but not least, Matthew Zanner; Worldwide Mobility Solutions Manager of ProCurve
   Network at HP.




   Singapore, 18-19 May 2006                                                                         2
Asia Press Summit                                                                                 NetEvents


   Rene Millman

   The first question to the panel is in Europe and more so in the America's we're a lot further down as
   far as awareness of NAC (the Network Access Control) and the products. Do you think…How do
   you see the market in Asia? And how different do you see that to where we are elsewhere in the
   world? Let's throw it open to anyone that wants to take it.


   Andrew Ma

   I guess I'm the only one that is physically located in Asia. Let me start. So we definitely see the
   awareness is building up in Asia Pacific. Of course, Asia is such a large spectrum of countries.
   Various countries like Japan, Australia, that of course going into a more mature stage.
   Understanding perimeter defence is not enough for the next generation of security threats. That's
   why they are considering, and we have a lot of trials that people are interested in understanding of
   all these deployments of access control. Of course there are other types of countries in Asia that just
   are trying to understand the technology, the relevance to the scenario and things like that. So it’s a
   wide screen, a wide range of spectrum from our understanding.


   Steve Mock

   I am not sure if the US is really that much further ahead anyway. If you look at the statistics that you
   just showed, there's an interesting dichotomy. You have Cisco NAC, and Microsoft, NAP are two
   of the big driving forces. Microsoft NAP is reliant on Microsoft Vista (operating system and long-
   term server). As everybody knows, CISCO have just put out till next year, the ports available. Most
   major enterprises in the United States will not adopt the 1.0 version of the software products so that
   way for the next. So 2007 then becomes 2008 before we'll use that. Typically then we won't just
   wait for their laptops and their host to be renewed. It will be 12 to 24 months after that before you
   will start seeing any reasonable sized enterprises have a full comprehensive Windows solution in
   that particular case. And that's probably 2010 in that case.

   Take Cisco on the other hand. Cisco's story is that it’s a one vendor solution. They suggest that you
   draw away most of your network infrastructure and buy all new infrastructure which is a good idea
   if you're Cisco. So it will be probably a five year depreciation cycle before people would actually
   start doing that over time. So that again is 2008/2009. So really they've generated a lot of awareness
   of this problem but the solutions aren't there today. So it actually creates opportunity for other
   vendors like ourselves to be able to reinforce those solutions as well as provide different solutions
   that solve the problems in different ways.


   Gregory Fitzgerald

   We see the network in Asia growing with various independent best of breed solutions for access
   control, be them biometrics, be them SSL VPN. Be it the NAP from Microsoft with the desktop
   host integrity to specific vendors. And I think everyone is trying to just understand how they work
   independently before they can mature to bringing them altogether in a cohesive security offering
   with all the various vendors. Again, I confer with the analysts here that the United States and
   Europe are not ahead of the game of Asia and it's still a very open experiment at this point in time.



   Singapore, 18-19 May 2006                                                                             3
Asia Press Summit                                                                                 NetEvents


   Matthew Zanner

   I think it's important to note that the needs and drivers within the Asian markets really aren't any
   different than what happens in North America and Europe. It’s the same concerns whether you
   characterise it at a very high level at trying to keep the bad guys out while maintaining appropriate
   access to the good guys on our network. The deeds are there. They're consistent across all regions
   around the world. I think it's important…on your slide that showed the Cicso approach and the
   Microsoft approach and then that third bar (that rather small bar). We at ProCurve have spent a lot
   of attention on actually is the Trusted Network Connect Group because it's so much more open. It's
   standards-based approach to promoting this across all these different players and the various
   industries and allowing for a much more open environment as we start to digest what Network
   Access Control really means. Rather than trying to force the hand on what the technology actually
   brings you and forcing people to adopt a certain path that they don’t really have the flexibility and
   choice to change some things and adapt them differently in the future.


   Rene Millman

   So what you're saying; do you think that’s the openness of Trusted Network Connect will actually
   gain much more attraction than going down a proprietary route?


   Matthew Zanner

   I certainly see a lot of promise there. If you look at the list of 50 or so companies that report Trusted
   Network Connect, I am pretty sure a lot of us are on this panel support that. I mean one notable
   exception, that’s not on that panel which is Cisco. So when you look at…someone mentioned that
   it's very much in a state of evolution today right? There are companies focusing specifically on one
   or two aspects of Network Access Control. There are others from the infrastructure side such as HP
   that are trying to take a more infrastructure centric view. In order for all of those people to play
   together effectively, an open environment and framework really is the way for that to occur. So it
   allows customers to get the best of both worlds whether it's a very specified point solution, or a
   more broad infrastructure-based solution allowing to interact much more readily.


   Andrew Ma

   One to add on Matthew's comment; basically when we talk to customers about Network Access
   Control and things like that, one of the important aspects that people really ask (the top three
   questions) is; where is my cost in deploying it? Not just a one time cost, but ongoing. Because they
   know the standard is very evolving. There are new things coming out. They are very concerned that
   it is very early in the game locked in by one vendor. They know that's not going to be favouring
   them in terms of negotiating a best deal, getting a better class solutions. That is the concerns that a
   lot of IT Managers reflect to us. So open standard. Keeping better costs. People to participate and
   help them to solve the problems are definitely the way to go.




   Singapore, 18-19 May 2006                                                                              4
Asia Press Summit                                                                                 NetEvents


   Rene Millman

   You said earlier about the Asian market being so diverse. You're going from one extreme to
   another. So at one end we've got maybe the method in place mentality like this to strip out
   everything. But on the other end we've got basically a Greenfield site where there's no
   infrastructure. Is it still the same ethos? I don’t want to get locked in regardless of where you are in
   that spectrum?


   Andrew Ma

   Definitely they have placed a significant factor of what solutions to choose. I think the important
   aspect is in the ecosystem they are players that have the best solutions. And they are system
   integrator like HP and other people. Understanding all the different pieces and integrate suites and
   gives them this need. So we need to develop that ecosystem in each country to fit the customer's
   needs. And needs in Japan is very different than needs in Singapore and Indonesia. The local
   expertise understanding each customer's needs to rely on people in the country and integrate the
   better price solutions in the world that suits that country's need. I think that's the way to go.


   Gregory Fitzgerald

   We do and I agree. And I think we do see certain countries taking a lead because certain businesses
   are more mission-critical. For example, Korea for TippingPoint has proven itself to be extremely
   sensitive to their businesses. Either being attacked or having a wide variety of worms or the viruses
   or other mailware from inappropriate people coming into the network because they have a very
   large bandwidth going into and out of that country.

   Particularly with China, its still brand new security is much lower on the development list because
   the emerging economies are still just trying to build a network in general. Whether it's proprietary or
   distributed is almost irrelevant at this point because they have other concerns above security.

   So we see a very broad base of implementations of Network Access Control and most of the time
   it's very simple. Just using a password today. But the defence, in-depth strategy, which every one
   here on the panel is taking, is one where as countries mature, they realise they must, its required to
   have much more than just a simple authentication. But must have a much more sophisticated
   approach or else their economies, their businesses are in jeopardy.


   Steve Mock

   True. You made it [indiscernible] on your questions so if you look at growth and opportunity,
   whether it's starting from scratch (and it might represent many companies in China or Korea or
   anywhere in Asia as well as the US) really it depends on the IT Manager. They say; you know what,
   I'm perfectly…I love Cisco, I've worked for Cisco and all I ever want to be is a Cisco person. Then
   they will probably lean towards that solution. Likewise if they are Microsoft House, they might lead
   towards that solution.

   However, what you would hope is that an IT Manager would say; I don't want to be locked into any
   one vendor. I'd rather have the flexibility now and over time to take the best agreed solution to each


   Singapore, 18-19 May 2006                                                                             5
Asia Press Summit                                                                                  NetEvents


   of the point areas that are critical to me and meet my business needs, to do what we're doing today
   as well as in the future. And I'd go through a variety. So it's a lot of work actually. They've got to
   look at a lot of products, a lot of vendors. It's an evolving area, a lot of solutions. But they can
   pick…there is a lot of flexibility out there from them to pick the right solution for them for their
   business needs.


   Rene Millman

   On Network Access Control, it's not about building up a framework whether its Cisco led,
   Microsoft led or open standard. It's all about developing a framework. Do you think we need
   actually that framework in place? Or is it still pretty much a work in progress?


   Unidentified speaker

   I think it's very much a work in progress. I think depending on the vendor you're talking to, we all
   have our own interpretation. We probably agree at a high level about what the general approach
   should be about defence. It's certainly a common theme. But its absolutely work in progress to have
   a generic approach to Network Access Control by across vendors and customer environments alike.
   I would like to remind people that Network Access Control gets a lot of attention but it is not the
   end-all, solve-all answer to security problems.

   Appropriate access control is a big part of securing your network. But looking how to build in other
   capabilities actually into that network and not having to rely on specialised solutions to do bits and
   pieces are in there. I think like anomaly detection. So, I have assured other appropriate people who
   to access my network. Now how do I allow the network to be smart enough and have enough
   intelligence in the network to actually go out and detect anomalies automatically? And then there is
   the response to that as well. So it's detected something. Now I need to figure out what to do with
   this. And also, allying that around a company's security policies is a very effective way to go. And it
   takes a lot of burden off that network administration staff from having to add additional resources
   and people to go out and understand how to implement these things. So it's very much in its
   formative stages today. I think it puts us and others in the industry to help people through that and
   provide different sources and opportunities to get those things.


   Rene Millman

   As I was saying there is a proper way to going through this. It's either sticking a security appliance
   within the infrastructure. Or you try and build that security into the network itself, into the structure
   itself. I mean what current efforts, again, I'm going to direct this to you really. What kind of efforts
   are being made so far to have security within the switches in the network infrastructure?


   Matthew Zanner

   We will try again to provide as much choice and flexibility for our customer base as possible
   recognising that ProCurve is a dominant player in enterprise networking. There's another dominant
   player out there that far surpasses anybody else from the market share stand.



   Singapore, 18-19 May 2006                                                                              6
Asia Press Summit                                                                                NetEvents


   It's important to recognise that, as you mentioned, there's customers coming from a Cisco mindset
   that may like the idea of transitioning but making an abrupt transition is not possible for them. Just
   from costs and resources alone. So you need to be able to offer a choice in the form of appliance to
   have an override-based solution to drop into someone's network that may be ProCurve based. But
   also focusing a lot of investment and R&D around building in that security capability, be it Network
   Access Control, or virus throttling or anomaly detection down at that switch port or at that wireless
   access point. So that the network can adapt and respond to those security threats now and into the
   future without adding that additional burden of dropping different things that need different
   management conflicts around them in the network.

   It can't happen overnight. We'd like to think people that are buying into choosing us to be their
   enterprise networking provider will have some safety and security knowing that they can ignite
   these capabilities in the infrastructure. But clearly, there is a need for the appliance overlay
   approach as well because things don’t transition overnight. It’s a long transition period though.


   Andrew Ma

   Just to add on Matthew's point, I think people have been associating Network Access Control to
   switch port-based security which is basically only one aspect of doing Access Control. Access
   Control needs to be done not inside, or not only just in your campus which is LAN. But needs to be
   also done outside the LAN. Because now its global workforce. Neil was just talking about the more
   and more use of wireless inside or outside the hostile environment. People still have to lock on.
   Basically, just getting onto here, I was using a WiFi here which has my e-mail and things like that.
   So you need to have that Access Control outside and inside your campus. It's equally important.
   And even inside the campus doing it using your switch is just one aspect. There are other aspects
   you need to co-ordinate; you intrusion detection, your firewall, your routers all in a co-ordinated
   fashion. Or even your end points to all co-ordinate to keep the bad guys out. Because that is just not
   one device to do all the jobs for you.


   Rene Millman

   Just picking up on your point about the wirelessing, maybe I could direct this to you Neil. Where do
   you see the wireless world? You said it's getting quite…more and more important. How do you see
   that wireless being part of this framework that we've been discussing? How does that fit in?


   Neil Diener

   I think wireless certainly adds some new degrees of challenges for security. And certainly the first
   thing you give up with wireless is the physical control. Because someone can be outside your
   building attacking you and that adds a degree of complexity. If I think of WiFi in the security space,
   the trend has been originally was appliance-based. It's exact analogy. People built separate wireless
   intrusion detection systems. And now what you're seeing is now just recently a whole bunch of
   announcements where it's becoming part of the infrastructure equipment itself so that the IT can go
   with a single vendor and it can be well integrated. So I think that evolution, from a user perspective,
   is what they want. I think in this discussion, that eventually with Cisco being the very large player




   Singapore, 18-19 May 2006                                                                            7
Asia Press Summit                                                                                 NetEvents


   that they are often tries to go….use that power to go in their own direction but over time. What the
   users really want is an open standard I think that tends to win out in the long run.


   Rene Millman

   I see. Steve, coming back to you. The point I made earlier about maybe having the intelligence
   within the networks as opposed to appliance. What's your viewpoint coming from this on the
   appliance end of things?


   Steve Mock

   I believe, as everybody else here has stated, an appliance is a first step approach to overlaying to an
   existing network. Companies over the past 10 to 20 years have invested heavily in their
   infrastructure. Networks, switches, routers and maybe invested in the application. And in today's
   world we have a new control environment that wraps around both of those. And the easiest way to
   step into the security realm without a costly upgrade is to impose an overlay solution.

   Now, as stated from the wireless perspective, and most of us here, I believe there is an access
   control really does need to be networked based. Now the host is important to ensure that appropriate
   people have the right device. The reality is, is if they've got the right device or wrong device, that's
   only one individual. It's when they get access to the network and are able to roam around that
   problems are really caused. So the appliance perspective can work from a performance and
   scalability standpoint you pointed out. And it also works independent of other vendors. So it's
   agnostic to brand and allows companies to mature into the Network Access Control security game.


   Rene Millman

   I see. Shall we for the questions? So I think we might need to put our headphones on



                                           Q&A Session
   Please remember to state your name, publication and country.


   Speaker – Engineer, China,

   [in Chinese]


   Andrew Ma

   Let me have Juniper view first to answer your question. I think not only Chinese resist to change. I
   think resisting to change is universal in a lot of countries. And you've pin-pointed a very important
   aspect that if Cisco approaches, just upgrades to the latest [indiscernible] switch. We talk to
   customers. One customer says; yes. If I listen to what Cisco approaches, I need to throw in $2m to


   Singapore, 18-19 May 2006                                                                             8
Asia Press Summit                                                                                   NetEvents


   upgrade all my switches. Is that practical? Is that also the best way to allowing the business that the
   customers want? So Juniper's approach is a little bit different. We take a little bit more pragmatic
   approach. We want to have an incremental deployment meaning that we want to help you to solve
   the most problematic area first. The most problematic area typically starts with outside. Because
   outside for remote access you probably have the least control. So access control needs to start with
   remote access control first, which basically Juniper is the leader in SSP VLN in the past three or
   four years.

   Once you start that. Once you know understand end port security and all this kind of stuff in the
   remote environment, with similar technology and protect your most vulnerable resource inside your
   network. The most vulnerable we saw typically is in the data centre that basically connects things of
   a sensitive [indiscernible]. So let's just put a enforcer in front of the data centre and just have all the
   people who needs to connect the data centre, need to have that access control so that you won't
   easily get infected. Worms won't get infected into the server, in the data centre, because by this is
   the most vulnerable part.

   Once you've solved that, then you've solved the other part, which between, machines to machines
   between endpoints and endpoints they may easily get infected with each other. Then you
   strategically put the enforcer at the place you want to put. It's a much more incremental and
   pragmatic approach to solve a problem. Rather than; okay, all that was update all the switches
   which is very, very difficult to a lot of customers.


   Rene Millman

   Just picking on what was said just now by my colleagues here. It sounded to me like it will be just
   easier just to go to one vendor and just have everything. Isn't that just an easier way of thinking
   about it?


   Unidentified speaker

   Yes, I think ideally if you could go to one vendor and buy the exact solution that meets your needs
   that will be ideal and I think that does work. The Cisco solution/the Microsoft solution will
   probably do that in a lot of cases for a lot of people. But just to ask some questions for instance. Do
   you have everybody in one building or do you have branch offices? So if you have everybody in one
   building then you might have a different need than if you have some people in one building and
   then maybe 100 branch offices around other countries. Another question is; what is your line of
   business? You mentioned network world, so what is the cost to you when your network goes down
   or you have problems? So for instance, it may not be bad for your organisation, as you're a
   periodical. But what if you're an online bank? What is the cost for you for your network going down
   if you're an online bank? What if you are a credit card company and you have very sensitive
   information of hundreds of thousands of users. And what's your liability risk if that data is
   compromised? If you're a hospital – what happens if your network goes down in your hospital? All
   these things, you know, the cost, the level of requirements that people are different. So I think the
   challenge that you have and we all have, is identifying our requirements and then going and finding
   the right either single vendor solution. Or, better to meet the needs, finding the right basket of
   vendors that meet those solutions.



   Singapore, 18-19 May 2006                                                                                9
Asia Press Summit                                                                                NetEvents


   Unidentified speaker

   Just back to the original question as well on the resistance to change. Usually that's a result of the
   resistance to want to spend a great deal of money at the change over or not right? It's hard.


   Speaker – Engineer, China,

   [Not spoken in English]


   Unidentified speaker

   I'm very sorry, but the translation wasn't available for that.


   Rene Millman

   Probably a very good question that.


   Unidentified speaker

   Let me just make a couple of points on our way to ease through the change though and I go back
   and I'll turn the shift back towards the idea of open standards. So its industry coming together to try
   to make it as easy as possible to do things like Access Control on a standard-based fashion while
   not disrupting that existing network and allowing it to transition over time. Andrew's point it's very
   liable to sort out where you think your biggest vulnerabilities and weaknesses are and address those
   first. Standards like 802.1X as an authentication framework two years ago; very difficult to
   implement because it required specialised supplicants or clients at every end point in the network.
   Microsoft was anything beyond XP Service Pack 2. Now supports 802.1X supplicants inherently in
   that client. That only gets better and better over time.

   So if you think about whether you're buying wireless network components, wired network
   components, WAN components. How do you address the people on virtual faith? Think about that
   network edge and apply it as consistently as possible wherever it may be. Whether its people
   connecting into your WAN link at a corporate site, your wired port or a wireless port things like
   Data 2.1X is now a very common feature on just about any network approach you buy. And can be
   leveraged to create a very consistent framework across all those different modes and access points.
   They can get you on top of those issues.


   Rene Millman

   Actually, we're running out of time now, so I think we've got time for one more quick question.


   Uday Pai, India

   I don’t know whether we can continue seeing the forest through the trees because most of issues
   around the deforestation happening. So coming back to NAC technologies, where are we heading


   Singapore, 18-19 May 2006                                                                           10
Asia Press Summit                                                                                 NetEvents


   to? For instance, where's the NAC technology and solutions evolving saying three years from now?
   And Andrew was mentioning about the costs involved. So is it really going to eat IT Managers
   budget?


   Unidentified speaker

   I take your point; our strategy is that existing technologies around security will mature more and
   open standards to interact with one another. So that the policies that are created by those best of
   breed technologies get a burst into one location, an example. The second point intrusion prevention
   system; it sits inline and looks at all data traffic. Complete packet, complete close. Today the
   intrusion prevention filters stop attacks inside and outside the network. But because we see all of
   the data traffic we can also enforce policy of VPNs, of Microsoft NAP, of Cisco NAC or whatever
   else comes down the line.

   So in three years, our full strategy is that you will continue to have policy-based technologies that
   are best of breed. But you will start ending up having one enforcement point that will be in the
   network that's already doing at least one job which is going to be some sort of deep packet
   inspection that can decipher all of the information that's going through the network. That’s where
   we see it in three years.


   Rene Millman

   I think coming back to what the gentleman just said, for us to see what's happening three or four
   years down the line because, obviously, everyone's got budgets to adhere to. So they want to know
   that what they've got today, they can use and make the most of because it may be around for a good
   few years. I mean is that the kind of things that we're seeing here?


   Unidentified speaker

   I think it's….I would propose a combination approach. I think its all depending on where you are in
   your IT lifecycle. So if you've just bought a network infrastructure (wired, wireless, or WAN it
   doesn't matter). If you've just procured that, you would expect three or five year's life side of that
   plus or minus depending on what it's being used for. If you are ever on the tail end of that life cycle,
   so you've extended your capital investment. You've gotten as much out of it as you think you can
   and now you're out trying to shop around to deploy a new network infrastructure or add on to what
   you have. The decision in each of those is going to be different.

   I think if you're very concerned about utilising your network infrastructure, whatever the brand may
   be, then certainly the overlay appliance approach is by far the most attractive. Because it will allow
   you to drop that end to whatever the existing environment and take advantage of all. If you are
   however on that timeframe where you're thinking about buying in and deploying new network
   infrastructure, I think you owe it to yourself to listen to the vendors that are trying to promote a
   more open environment. And building in all these capabilities like packet inspections

   In three or four years from now, if you could add packet inspections being done by the switch ASIC
   itself, at that imposing end of your network, so not going all the way to the core to make a decision
   on whether someone's bad. But that's the equivalent of having a security guard at the centre of your


   Singapore, 18-19 May 2006                                                                            11
Asia Press Summit                                                                                  NetEvents


   building rather than the lobby? There is some [indiscernible]. If you can make that decision where
   that point of ingress or egress happens, automatically based on some policy constructs, that’s a
   powerful thing. But very difficult to get to if you've just bought a network infrastructure that doesn’t
   have that capability. There's this transition. And any time you're in transition, I like to say open
   standards are the way to think about how to manage that transition because it doesn't lock you into a
   certain approach.


   Andrew Ma

   The way I see it, we need to look back to what is the accents of Network Access Control. It’s a
   framework that it needs a co-ordination between end-points, the switches, the routers, the power is a
   co-ordinations of everything. And I will see three years from now there will be a lot more
   collaborations between the vendors. Because even one vendor we have in collaboratively in Cisco,
   they are, as are called, they are the gorilla in the switches and the routers. But they definitely not the
   end point expert. It's really the Microsoft. It’s the one who actually understand operating systems.
   The client side more. So, even if you choose a CISCO, you're choosing somebody that understands
   a network piece, but not the end point security piece. So you need that co-ordination.

   But having open standard is definitely the only way to have Network Access Control to be really
   going forward into a mainstream. Because one vendor don’t have expertise in all them. And even
   Cisco, all of the technologies are acquisition. It's not developed home-grown. So they almost is like
   a system integrator themselves. They need to integrate different piece of technology themselves. So
   why you need to choose one vendor which is the equivalent to just a system integrator which can
   integrate better with solutions?


   Rene Millman

   Thank you gentleman. I'll think we'll wind it up. Thank you very much.




   Singapore, 18-19 May 2006                                                                              12

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Description: List of Chief Technology Officer in Singapore document sample