Amber Wolff – McAfee Blogs https://securingtomorrow.mcafee.com Securing Tomorrow. Today. Tue, 12 Nov 2019 17:47:56 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://securingtomorrow.mcafee.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/cropped-favicon-32x32.png Amber Wolff – McAfee Blogs https://securingtomorrow.mcafee.com 32 32 Threat Hunting or Efficiency: Pick Your EDR Path? https://securingtomorrow.mcafee.com/business/endpoint-security/threat-hunting-or-efficiency-pick-your-edr-path/ https://securingtomorrow.mcafee.com/business/endpoint-security/threat-hunting-or-efficiency-pick-your-edr-path/#respond Tue, 12 Nov 2019 15:00:53 +0000 https://securingtomorrow.mcafee.com/?p=97369

“Do You Want It Done Fast, Or Do You Want It Done Right?” “Yes.” “Help out more with our business objectives.” “Cover an increasing number of endpoints.” “Cut budgets.” “Make it all work without adding staff.” Cybersecurity teams face a lot of conflicting objectives—both within their teams and from upper management. But a May 2019 […]

The post Threat Hunting or Efficiency: Pick Your EDR Path? appeared first on McAfee Blogs.

]]>

“Do You Want It Done Fast, Or Do You Want It Done Right?” “Yes.”

“Help out more with our business objectives.” “Cover an increasing number of endpoints.” “Cut budgets.” “Make it all work without adding staff.”

Cybersecurity teams face a lot of conflicting objectives—both within their teams and from upper management. But a May 2019 commissioned study conducted by Forrester Consulting on behalf of McAfee really puts a fine point on it: When decision makers were asked which endpoint security goals and initiatives they’re prioritizing for the coming year, the top two responses were “improve security detection capabilities” (87%) and “increase efficiency in the SOC” (76%).

Unfortunately, traditional EDR solutions have made accomplishing both of these goals (and in some cases, even one or the other!) difficult, if not impossible. According to the study, gaps in EDR capabilities have created pain points for 83% of enterprises. For instance, while 40% of enterprises consider threat hunting a critical requirement, only 29% feel their current EDR solutions fully meet that need. On an even more basic level, 36% worry their EDR solution doesn’t surface every threat that breaks through—while an equal number of respondents say the alerts that are surfaced by their EDR are frequently not relevant or worth investigating.

These numbers clearly show there’s a lot of room for improvement, but at the same time, these two goals seem to be less than complementary. How would you choose to try and meet them?

Scenario 1: The Status Quo

Your team continues utilizing their traditional EDR solution on its own.

You lose points in efficiency out of the gate—according to Forrester, 31% of companies say that the systems are so complex, their junior staff lack the skillset to triage and investigate alerts without senior staff.

The number of alerts output by traditional EDR solutions will cost you efficiency in another way: another 31% of respondents say their teams struggle to keep up with the volume of alerts generated by their EDRs.

On the threat detection side, you’re not starting out with a perfect score, either: Again, keep in mind that more than a third of respondents believe that, even with this large volume of alerts, not everything is being caught.

As a baseline, let’s assume you’re starting out with a 7 in Threat Detection, and a 3.5 in Efficiency.
You’re still a long way from meeting your goals. Let’s look at our options.

Do you want to:

  • Add more staff members
  • Bolt on more software
  • Hire an MDR

Scenario 2: Add more staff members

With efficiency seeming such a far-off goal, your team decides to focus its efforts on threat detection. To help manage the number of alerts, you hire two new employees. You still have every bit as much noise coming from your EDR, and it still isn’t catching everything, but your team has marginally more ability to triage and respond to threats. You gain a point for threat detection, but a look at your department budget sheet shows your efficiency score is basically shot.

Final Score: 8 in Threat Detection, and a 2 in Efficiency.

Scenario 3: Bolting On More Software

Other businesses are taking a different tack. They’re keeping their traditional EDR solution, but they’re also bolting on more point solutions to help catch things that fall through the cracks. If you choose to go this route, your threat detection capabilities go up …. but between all the duplicate alerts, separate interfaces, and near complete lack of integration, your team is critically bogged down.  With junior staff able to triage just 31 percent of alerts on traditional EDR systems, senior analysts are having to manage all the alerts on all the interfaces on their own.

All this software isn’t cheap, and you’re losing time in both training in all of it, and in switching back and forth. Meanwhile, the solutions that were supposed to improve your threat detection capabilities are doing so … somewhat … but with things falling through the cracks amidst the chaos and analyst fatigue setting in, you wouldn’t know it.

Final Score: 7.5 in Threat Detection, 1.5 in Efficiency.

Scenario 4: Partnering with an MDR

You don’t want to hire any more staff—and even if you did, there aren’t many to hire. So instead you hire a Managed Detection and Response (MDR) provider to do what your EDR should be doing, but isn’t. You partner with the most reputable MDR you can find, and you’re confident that between what you’re doing and what they’re doing, there isn’t much getting past you. But you’re also paying twice to get a single set of capabilities.

Final Score: 9 in Threat Detection, 1 in Efficiency

Clearly, it’s time to try something new

  • I want to improve my efficiency with my current EDR!
  • I want to try something better.

Scenario 5: Improving efficiency with current EDR

How do you make a first-gen EDR more efficient? You don’t. In other words, if you want to get more out of an EDR that doesn’t utilize the latest technologies, the only adjustments you can make here have to come from your team. If you could get more threat detection mileage out of the same number of team members, your efficiency level would naturally rise.

Initial Score: 8 in Threat Detection, 4 in Efficiency

But as you soon find out, the mandatory late nights and your “you’d better step it up or else!” attitude aren’t exactly doing wonders for morale. With cybersecurity professionals in high demand everywhere, it isn’t long before you’re down at least one team member. Now you have 4 team members doing the number of 5. Which sounds decent ….

Intermediate Score: 6 in Threat Detection, 6 in Efficiency

… until an enterprising hacker takes note of your shorthandedness and targets you, hoping to use your situation to their advantage. Unfortunately, not only do you have a highly imperfect traditional EDR system and four employees trying to do the work of five … you have four disgruntled employees trying to do the work of five. According to IDC, in organizations that have experienced a breach in the last 12 months, those staff who are extremely satisfied are, on average, more likely to report fewer hours to identify the breach (11 hours) than those who are dissatisfied (23 hours). Guess which camp your team falls into?

Before long, your company is brought to its knees by a major attack. The press is all over it, and confidence in your company plummets. Your company’s reputation might recover … eventually … but things aren’t looking so good for you.

Final Score: Game Over.

Scenario 6: I want to try something better.

You’ve heard from your friends and colleagues about what doesn’t work. And, of course, you’ve read the horror stories. But you’re still left with two disparate goals. What if there was a way to increase threat detection capabilities without hiring more personnel, outsourcing what your EDR should be able to handle but isn’t, or creating a system with more bolts than Frankenstein’s monster?

According to Forrester, there is a way to bridge the goals of greater efficiency and better threat detection. With AI guided investigation, your junior analysts will be able to triage threats like your more seasoned analysts, freeing your senior analysts to focus on mission-critical tasks. And with less noise, your team will be free to focus on more of the right alerts.

Survey respondents backed this up: 35 percent believe AI-guided investigations will lead to fewer breaches, and 52 percent think they’ll lead to improved efficiency. Mission accomplished.

Final Score: You=1, Hackers=0.

To read more about how AI-guided investigation can help revolutionize your SOC, click here.

The post Threat Hunting or Efficiency: Pick Your EDR Path? appeared first on McAfee Blogs.

]]>
https://securingtomorrow.mcafee.com/business/endpoint-security/threat-hunting-or-efficiency-pick-your-edr-path/feed/ 0
Increasing Value with Security Integration https://securingtomorrow.mcafee.com/business/increasing-value-with-security-integration/ https://securingtomorrow.mcafee.com/business/increasing-value-with-security-integration/#respond Tue, 22 Oct 2019 15:00:35 +0000 https://securingtomorrow.mcafee.com/?p=97140

What would your security team do with an extra 62 days? According to a recent study by IDC, that’s the amount of time the average-sized security team can expect to regain by addressing a lack of security management integration. With just 12 percent of respondents currently using an end-to-end management suite—and with 14 percent completely […]

The post Increasing Value with Security Integration appeared first on McAfee Blogs.

]]>

What would your security team do with an extra 62 days?

According to a recent study by IDC, that’s the amount of time the average-sized security team can expect to regain by addressing a lack of security management integration. With just 12 percent of respondents currently using an end-to-end management suite—and with 14 percent completely reliant on ad hoc “solutions”—there’s plenty of room for improvement.

The study, “Security Integration and Automation: The Keys to Unlocking Security Value,” found that businesses who addressed lack of integration saw three main business benefits: Efficiency, Cost Reduction and Improved Staff Retention. If your business chose to do the same, which goal would your team spend its 62 days working toward?

Increasing Efficiency

When asked what concerns limited their ability to improve IT security capabilities, 44% reported security was too busy with routine operations, and 37 percent cited high levels of demand for new business services.

If these teams had an extra 62 days, it could afford them the free time needed to improve their security posture—and one place that a lot of companies currently fall short is in the cloud, where a majority of new business services live.

According to IDC, enterprises are expected to spend $1.7 trillion on digital transformation by the end of this year. And our 2019 Cloud Adoption and Risk Report found that 83% of respondents worldwide stored sensitive data in the cloud. The number of files on the cloud that are eventually shared has risen to nearly half, but unfortunately, there isn’t always a lot visibility or control over where that data winds up. 14% of those files go to personal email addresses, removing them from the oversight of corporate cybersecurity. Even worse, another 12% of the files shared are accessible to “anyone with a link.”

These numbers are only rising—over the past two years, they’ve gone up 12% and 23% respectively. A recent report by Gartner puts a fine point on it: “Through 2025, 90% of the organizations that fail to control public cloud use will inappropriately share sensitive data”—a figure which could risk your company’s compliance status, reputation, or even overall well-being. Clearly, any portion of that 62 days dedicated to preventing such data loss would be time well spent.

Decreasing Costs

According to a Cybersecurity Ventures report, there will be an estimated 3.5 million unfilled cybersecurity jobs by 2021. Odds are, your own cybersecurity team is feeling this crunch. In our “Hacking the Skills Shortage” report, we found that businesses are having to respond to in-house talent shortages by expanding their outsourcing of cybersecurity.

More than 60% of survey respondents work at organizations that outsource at least some cybersecurity work. With an extra 62 days a year, some of these capabilities could be brought back in-house, which would help meet cost-cutting goals or free up resources that could be reallocated elsewhere. For a team struggling to meet demands that outpace their current bandwidth, having this 62 days would be like receiving an extra 9.5 manhours of work a week. This “free” higher production reduces your company’s labor cost—and could make a substantial difference during cybersecurity labor shortages, when extra manpower can be basically unavailable at any price.

Employee Retention

What else could your team do with 62 extra days a year? Nothing at all.

More specifically, this time could be allocated across your team as a way to ease burnout, incentivize hard work, and help increase retention.

According to our “Winning the Game” report, only 35% of survey respondents say they’re “extremely satisfied” in their current cybersecurity job, and a full 89% would consider leaving their roles if offered the right type of incentive.

What are the “right types of incentives?” 32% said that shorter/flexible hours would make them consider leaving. Another 28% said lower workload would lure them away, and an additional 18 percent said an easier, more predictable workload could make them switch.

Assuming an average security staff of between 5 and 6 team members, 62 days would allow you to give each employee several extra days off a year. Alternately, by distributing existing workload through this allotted time, your team could work at a pace other than “breakneck.”

While the extra time you’d gain could certainly allow for less work, it could also allow for more interesting work. In the same survey, 30% of employees mentioned that an opportunity to work with exciting technologies like AI/automation could lead them to consider working elsewhere. If your team falls into this camp, an extra 62 days could allow the time necessary to explore these options (which in turn, could have business benefits of their own.)

Once these benefits are realized, what are the ultimate outcomes expected to be? According to IDC, 36% said faster response times, 35% said more effective response, and 29% said better threat intel sharing. Given these findings, it’s no wonder that the share of end-to-end suite users who feel their security is ahead of their peers outnumber their ad-hoc equivalents 4:1. Where does your business stand?

To read the full “Security Integration and Automation: The Keys to Unlocking Security Value” study, click here.

The post Increasing Value with Security Integration appeared first on McAfee Blogs.

]]>
https://securingtomorrow.mcafee.com/business/increasing-value-with-security-integration/feed/ 0
Are Cybersecurity Robots Coming For Your Job? https://securingtomorrow.mcafee.com/business/are-cybersecurity-robots-coming-for-your-job/ https://securingtomorrow.mcafee.com/business/are-cybersecurity-robots-coming-for-your-job/#respond Wed, 09 Oct 2019 15:30:56 +0000 https://securingtomorrow.mcafee.com/?p=97035

“14 Jobs That Will Soon Be Obsolete.” “Can A Robot Do Your Job?” “These Seven Careers Will Fall Victim to Automation.” For each incremental advance in automation technology, it seems there’s an accompanying piece of alarmist clickbait, warning of a future in which robots will be able to do everything we can, only better, cheaper, […]

The post Are Cybersecurity Robots Coming For Your Job? appeared first on McAfee Blogs.

]]>

“14 Jobs That Will Soon Be Obsolete.” “Can A Robot Do Your Job?” “These Seven Careers Will Fall Victim to Automation.” For each incremental advance in automation technology, it seems there’s an accompanying piece of alarmist clickbait, warning of a future in which robots will be able to do everything we can, only better, cheaper, and for longer. Proponents of AI and automation view this as the harbinger of a golden age, ushering in a future free from all the paper-pushing, the drudgery, the mundane and repetitive things we have to do in our lives. We will work shorter hours, focus on more meaningful work, and actually spend our leisure time on, well, leisure.

But while it’s one thing to enjoy having a robot zipping across the floor picking up your 3-year-old’s wayward Cheerios, it’s quite another to imagine automation coming to our workplace. For those of us in cybersecurity, however, it has become a foregone conclusion: Now that criminals have begun adopting automation and AI as part of their attack strategies, it’s become something of an arms race, with businesses and individuals racing to stay one step ahead of increasingly sophisticated bad actors that human analysts will no longer be able to fend off on their own.

Spurred by growth in both the number of companies deploying automation and the sophistication of threats, automated processes are closing in on and even surpassing human analysts in some tasks—which is making some cybersecurity professionals uneasy. “When robots are better threat hunters, will there still be a place for me? What if someday, they can do everything I can do, and more?”

According to the “2019 SANS Automation and Integration Survey,” however, human-powered SecOps aren’t going away anytime soon. “Automation doesn’t appear to negatively affect staffing,” the authors concluded, after surveying more than 200 cybersecurity professionals from companies of all sizes over a wide cross-section of industries. What they found, in fact, suggested the opposite: Companies with medium or greater levels of automation actually have higher staffing levels than companies with little automation. When asked directly about whether they anticipated job elimination due to automation, most of those surveyed said they felt there would be no change in staffing levels. “Respondents do not appear concerned about automation taking away jobs,” the paper concludes.

There are many reasons for this, but perhaps the most basic is that, in order to see any sort of loss in the number of cybersecurity jobs, we’d first need to get to parity—and we’re currently about 3 million short of that.

Phrased another way, automation could theoretically eliminate three million jobs before a single analyst had to contemplate a career change. That’s an oversimplification, to be sure, but it’s also one that presupposes AI and automation will live up to all of its promises—and as we’ve seen with a number of “revolutionary” cybersecurity technologies, many fall short of the hype, at least in the early days.

Automation currently faces some fundamental shortcomings. First, it cannot deploy itself: Experts are needed to tailor the solution to the business’ needs and ensure it is set up and functioning correctly. And once they’re in place, the systems cannot reliably cover all the security needs of an enterprise—due to a lack of human judgment, automated systems surface a great many false positives, and failing to put an analyst in charge of filtering and investigating these these would create a huge burden on the IT staff responsible for remediation.

There’s also the issue of false negatives. AI is great at spotting what it’s programmed to spot; it is vastly more unreliable at catching threats it hasn’t been specifically instructed to look for. Machine learning is beginning to overcome this hurdle, but the operative word here is still “machine”—when significant threats are surfaced, the AI has no way of knowing what this means for the business it’s working for, as it lacks both the context to fully realize what a threat means to its parent company, and the ability to take into consideration everything a person would. Humans will still be needed at the helm to analyze risks and potential breaches, and make intuition-driven, business-critical decisions.

As effective as these automated systems are, once they’ve been programmed, their education begins to become obsolete almost immediately as new types of attack are created and deployed. Automated systems cannot continue to learn and evolve effectively without the guiding hand of humans. Humans are also needed as a check on this learning, to test and attempt to penetrate the defenses the system has developed.

Then there are the things that can never be automated: hiring and training people; selecting vendors; any task that requires creativity or “thinking outside the box”; making presentations and eliciting buy-in from the board of directors and upper management—and, of course, compliance. No automated system, no matter how sophisticated, is going to know when new laws, company regulations, and rules are passed, and no system will be able to adjust to such changes without human intervention. Even if the work of compliance could be completely automated, the responsibility for compliance cannot be outsourced, and rare would be the individual who could sleep easy letting a machine handle such tasks singlehandedly.

But for the sake of argument, let’s assume for a moment we could fully automate the SOC. While the loss of jobs is certainly a serious matter, we’d soon find the stakes to be much higher than even that. Hackers have already demonstrated an ability to hack into automated systems. If they were able to retrain your AI to ignore critical threats, and there was no human present to realize what was happening and respond swiftly and appropriately, sensitive data could be compromised enterprise-wide—or worse.

In short, automation won’t eliminate the demand for human cybersecurity expertise, at least in the short- to medium-term. But it will certainly redefine roles. According to SANS, implementation of effective automation often requires an initial surge in staff to get the kinks worked out—but it is almost invariably accompanied by a redirection, not reduction, of the existing workforce. Once in place, the automated systems will have two functions. By allowing analysts to shift their focus to more critical cybersecurity functions, improving efficiency, reducing incident response time, and reducing fatigue, they function as a tool for cybersecurity professionals to increase their effectiveness.

But their most valuable role may be as a partner. Automation may be powerful, but automation closely directed and honed by humans is more powerful. Rather than taking the place of humans, robots will take their place alongside humans. Automation, then, should be thought of as a way not to replace SecOps teams, but rather to complement and complete them in a way that will allow them to handle both the monotonous and mundane (yet necessary) tasks in the SOC, and also attend to the true mission-critical tasks rapidly and without distraction.

For more on misconceptions surrounding automation, read the 2019 SANS Automation Survey

The post Are Cybersecurity Robots Coming For Your Job? appeared first on McAfee Blogs.

]]>
https://securingtomorrow.mcafee.com/business/are-cybersecurity-robots-coming-for-your-job/feed/ 0
Analyst Fatigue: The Best Never Rest https://securingtomorrow.mcafee.com/business/analyst-fatigue-the-best-never-rest/ https://securingtomorrow.mcafee.com/business/analyst-fatigue-the-best-never-rest/#respond Mon, 26 Aug 2019 15:00:48 +0000 https://securingtomorrow.mcafee.com/?p=96470

They may not be saying so, but your senior analysts are exhausted. Each day, more and more devices connect to their enterprise networks, creating an ever-growing avenue for OS exploits and phishing attacks. Meanwhile, the number of threats—some of which are powerful enough to hobble entire cities—is rising even faster. While most companies have a […]

The post Analyst Fatigue: The Best Never Rest appeared first on McAfee Blogs.

]]>

They may not be saying so, but your senior analysts are exhausted.

Each day, more and more devices connect to their enterprise networks, creating an ever-growing avenue for OS exploits and phishing attacks. Meanwhile, the number of threats—some of which are powerful enough to hobble entire cities—is rising even faster.

While most companies have a capable cadre of junior analysts, most of today’s EDR (Endpoint Detection and Response) systems leave them hamstrung. The startlingly complex nature of typical EDR software necessitates years of experience to successfully operate—meaning that no matter how willing the more “green” analysts are to help, they just don’t yet have the necessary skillset to effectively triage threats.

What’s worse, while these “solutions” require your top performers, they don’t always offer top performance in return. While your most experienced analysts should be addressing major threats, a lot of times they’re stuck wading through a panoply of false positives—issues that either aren’t threats, or aren’t worth investigating. And while they’re tied up with that, they must also confront the instances of false negatives: threats that slip through the cracks, potentially avoiding detection while those best suited to address them are busy attempting to work through the noise. This problem has gotten so bad that some IT departments are deploying MDR systems on top of their EDR packages—increasing the complexity of your company’s endpoint protection and further increasing employee stress levels.

Hoping to both measure the true impact of “analyst fatigue” on SOCs and to identify possible solutions, a commissioned study was conducted by Forrester Consulting on behalf of McAfee in March 2019 to see what effects current EDRs were having on businesses, and try to recognize the potential for solutions. Forrester surveyed security technology decision-makers, from the managers facing threats head-on to those in the C-suite viewing security solutions at the macro level in relation to his or her firm’s financial needs and level of risk tolerance. Respondents were from the US, UK, Germany or France, and worked in a variety of industries at companies ranging in size from 1,000 to over 50,000 employees.

When asked about their endpoint security goals, respondents’ top three answers—to improve security detection capabilities (87%), increase efficiency in the SOC (76%) and close the skills gap in the SecOps team (72%)—all pointed to limitations in many current EDRs.  Further inquiry revealed that while 43% of security decision makers consider automated detection a critical requirement, only 30% feel their current solution(s) completely meet their needs in this area.

While the issues uncovered were myriad, the results also suggested that a single solution could ameliorate a variety of these problems.  The introduction of EDR programs incorporating Guided Investigation could increase efficiency by allowing junior analysts to assist in threat identification, thereby freeing up more seasoned analysts to address detected threats and focus on only the most complex issues, leading to an increase in detection capabilities. Meanwhile, the hands-on experience that junior analysts would get addressing real-life EDR threats would increase both their personal efficiency and their skill level, helping to eliminate the skills gaps present in some departments.

To learn more about the problems and possibilities in the current EDR landscape, you can read the full “Empower Security Analysts Through Guided EDR Investigation” study by clicking here.

The post Analyst Fatigue: The Best Never Rest appeared first on McAfee Blogs.

]]>
https://securingtomorrow.mcafee.com/business/analyst-fatigue-the-best-never-rest/feed/ 0
Chris Young and Ken McCray Recognized on CRN’s 2019 Top 100 Executives List https://securingtomorrow.mcafee.com/business/chris-young-and-ken-mccray-recognized-on-crns-2019-top-100-executives-list/ https://securingtomorrow.mcafee.com/business/chris-young-and-ken-mccray-recognized-on-crns-2019-top-100-executives-list/#respond Tue, 20 Aug 2019 19:07:13 +0000 https://securingtomorrow.mcafee.com/?p=96458

CRN, a brand of The Channel Company, recently recognized McAfee CEO Chris Young and Head of Channel Sales Operations for the Americas Ken McCray in its list of Top 100 Executives of 2019. This annual list honors technology executives who lead, influence, innovate and disrupt the IT channel. Over the past year, Young led McAfee […]

The post Chris Young and Ken McCray Recognized on CRN’s 2019 Top 100 Executives List appeared first on McAfee Blogs.

]]>

CRN, a brand of The Channel Company, recently recognized McAfee CEO Chris Young and Head of Channel Sales Operations for the Americas Ken McCray in its list of Top 100 Executives of 2019. This annual list honors technology executives who lead, influence, innovate and disrupt the IT channel.

Over the past year, Young led McAfee into the EDR space, directed the introduction of McAfee’s cloud and unified data protection offerings, and forged a partnership with Samsung to safeguard the Galaxy S10 mobile device. According to CRN, these accomplishments earned Young the number-three spot in CRN’s list of 25 Most Innovative Executives—a subset of the Top 100 list that recognizes executives “who are always two steps ahead of the competition.” Young is no stranger to the Top 100 Executives list: He also earned a place on last year’s list, when his post-spinout acquisitions led to him being named one of the Top 25 Disruptors of 2018.

Based on his work overseeing the launch of McAfee’s alternative route to market channel initiative, Ken McCray was also recognized as one of this year’s Top 100 Executives. The initiative, which has driven incremental bookings as Managed Security Partners and cloud service providers bring new customers on board, earned McCray a spot on the Top 25 IT Channel Sales Leaders of 2019. This has been an accolade-filled year for McCray: In February, he was named one of the 50 Most Influential Channel Chiefs for 2019, based on his division’s double-digit growth and the relationships he built with key cloud service providers.

The Top 100 Executives being recognized drive cultural transformation, revenue growth, and technological innovation across the IT channel. In doing so, they help solution providers and technology suppliers survive—and thrive—in today’s always-on, always-connected global marketplace.

“The IT channel is rapidly growing, and navigating this fast-paced market often challenges solution providers and technology suppliers alike,” said Bob Skelley, CEO of The Channel Company. “The technology executives on CRN’s 2019 Top 100 Executives list understand the IT channel’s potential. They provide strategic and visionary leadership and unparalleled guidance to keep the IT channel moving in the right direction—regardless of the challenges that come their way.”

We at McAfee are proud of the recognition Young and McCray have received, and look forward to seeing our company continue to thrive under their leadership.

The Top 100 Executives list is featured in the August 2019 issue of CRN Magazine and online at www.CRN.com/Top100.

The post Chris Young and Ken McCray Recognized on CRN’s 2019 Top 100 Executives List appeared first on McAfee Blogs.

]]>
https://securingtomorrow.mcafee.com/business/chris-young-and-ken-mccray-recognized-on-crns-2019-top-100-executives-list/feed/ 0