theCUBEd Awards | Danny Brickman, Oasis Security

Clips
More from theCUBEd Awards

Danny Brickman

CEO

Oasis Security

play_circle_outline Non-human identities massively outnumber human identities in enterprises.

play_circle_outline Access layer is the control point organizations can actually manage.

play_circle_outline Securing Autonomous Agents: Moving from Role-Based IAM to Intent-Based Access Control

play_circle_outline Advice: enable safe experimentation (sandboxes), strong governance to accelerate innovation.

play_circle_outline Agents are fast and greedy, increasing urgency for access control and intent evaluation.

play_circle_outline Oasis: Agent-Agnostic Gateway Mapping Intents to Policy-Driven, Just-in-Time Scoped Permissions via Identity Discovery

play_circle_outline Warning: Don't treat agents like humans; redesign architectures machine-first or risk breaches.

Info
Transcript

Danny Brickman, Oasis Security

Danny Brickman

CEO Oasis Security

Danny Brickman of Oasis Security, chief executive officer and co-founder, appears in a special theCUBE conversation as part of the theCUBEd Awards coverage and receives the award for artificial intelligence Innovator of the Year. Brickman leads machine identity and agent security efforts and discusses Oasis Security's approach to non-human identities intent-based access and agent control. They explain why legacy identity and access management and privileged access management systems break down for autonomous agents and they outline Oasis Security's architectu... Read more

explore Keep Exploring

What did you learn at RSA about the security exposure created by the rapid rise in machine identities and agentic AI (e.g., OpenClaw), and how can organizations close that gap? add

With the rise of agentic AI and new foundational models, what should CISOs and organizations focus on to manage the attendant security risks — particularly regarding identity and access management? add

Why do traditional IAM and PAM systems (built around human roles and job titles) fail to secure autonomous software agents, and what should replace them? add

How should organizations balance enabling developer experimentation and innovation with security and governance controls? add

What should security leaders prioritize to protect organizational data and resources as autonomous (AI) agents become more prevalent? add

How do you translate an expressed intent (by a human or an agent) into the appropriate, just‑in‑time, least‑privilege entitlements and enforce access control for agentic applications? add

How should architects design systems for autonomous agents, considering accountability, security, and reliability? add

bolt Powered by CUBE AI

Danny Brickman, Oasis Security

search

>> (instrumental music)

Dave Vellante

>> Hi everybody, welcome to the Special CUBE Conversation. This segment is part of our ongoing coverage of theCUBEd Awards where we recognize the builders and innovators who aren't just participating in the next wave of technology, but they're actually shaping it. And today we're spotlighting one of this year's winners. Danny Brickman, who's the CEO and co-founder of Oasis Security, was named AI Innovator of the Year. And Danny, first of all, welcome. And I want to share with you and the audience, we have a panel of 53 independent judges and I've been a judge and they comb through many, many hundreds of submissions that we receive in these awards. And it's very competitive. So I have to say it's quite an honor for you to be chosen as AI Innovator of the Year. So congratulations.

Danny Brickman

>> Thank you very much and very honored to be on that list. And a little bit also anxious to be on that list, right? AI Innovator of the Year. But hey, thank you very much for having me here and for choosing us and Oasis and the whole team. Just to be clear, it's not only me, it's everything that is, everyone that is working with me.

Dave Vellante

>> Yeah, you bet. Appreciate you saying that. So I want to start with the core problem. You and I were just talking off camera. We just came off of RSAC this week. Non-human identity security, I mean, it's suddenly become such a critical issue for enterprises. It was ironic, right? The theme of RSAC this year was the power of community, and yet all the talk was about machines and agents talking to each other. So explain the problem that you saw in the market that led you to build Oasis and how it became so relevant so fast.

Danny Brickman

>> Three years ago, I woke up to this nightmare that our identity and access management architecture that was built for many years was basically built for humans. While everything else in our security infrastructure was already transforming itself to be like machine first, still the identity access management were trying to push the narratives and the architecture that we had for many years that is supporting humans on machines and today on agents. And when we realized that this is what happening, there was a little sweat on my forehead. It's like this will be a nightmare in few years from now and we need to think about it in a completely different way because agents and machines deserve a completely different approach. So this was like three years ago and now it's true. The whole discussion in the floor in RSA was about machines and machines access. And there's a lot to be discussed about how agents, they are actually basically basing their value on access, but we'll get to that.

Dave Vellante

>> I mean, as you know, everything changes so quickly. We were at GTC last week. I swear everything that Jensen announced just created new attack surfaces. I mean, we've moved from rag-based chatbots, which are kind of request and retrieve and to reasoning, and now we're entering the OpenClaw era where agents, you got cloud infrastructure, hyperautomation. I saw a stat that you shared, and I'd love to dig into this, that machine identities outnumber human identities by like 40,000 to one. And that ratio is going to increase dramatically. But let's face it, organizations, they're not prepared for this. You recognize this as a blind spot. You just sort of mentioned what you saw earlier well before the market did. Pick up on that and share what you learned at RSA and what that exposure looks like and how you're closing that gap.

Danny Brickman

>> First of all, 100%. It's like the numbers right now are also even getting closer to one to 80, one to a hundred in most of the organizations we're working with, which is everything in security has its own tipping point in which we're like, we cannot ignore the problem anymore. There's a lot of problems in security and CISOs are bombarded with so much problems and things they need to deal with. And right now also the agentic side, like OpenClaw and other publications that are happening and like new foundational models that are coming into the world, everyone doesn't know what to do and kind of like in a panic attack. But kind of a tip that I want to give to the industry that I'm giving to myself every day is a tip from like meditation. In meditation, the whole notion is like, we should be focusing our efforts and energy on what we can control and let go of what we cannot control and allow it to happen. And I'm actually a very big believer that if we're thinking about identity access management in a different way, which we'll discuss today as well, we can actually let the technology evolve in its own pace without blocking it and focus on something very different, on what we can control. And basically this is an access layer because what we were seeing is that an agent without an access basically means nothing. It has nothing to do, it doesn't unleash any of its potential. An agent with a full-blown access has the full potential, but it also has the full risk as we're seeing in the market. So this control layer, this access layer, which became the basically value coin, if you will, for enterprises today, is the foundational piece that every CISO is focusing on right now. And speaking of RSA, this was the topic, the access layer. How do we protect that? Because this is what we can control.

Dave Vellante

>> I like the way you frame that because oftentimes, I mean, almost always in security, we start with the risk and I just wanted to put a finer point on that because the risk is there. I was talking to Google this week and they told me that well over 800 of the OpenClaw skills that you can download are straight out malware. And so it's like, okay, and I was talking to Jeetu Patel at Cisco and he's like, "Look, we got to have control, agent control and action control." And you're coming at it from an information identity access and privilege access. I want to understand why where legacy IAM and PAM tools fundamentally break down in this new world.

Danny Brickman

>> A hundred percent. If you think about it in a very simple way, and we know it for generations now, when you're arriving to the organization, what you're allowed to access is defined by who you are, what's your job title, what do you need to do in your day-to-day? That was the definition for 30 years now, right?

Dave Vellante

>> Yeah.

Danny Brickman

>> And agent doesn't have a job title. Now what we tried to do in the last year is like, okay, let's delegate our own permissions, our own permissions that were defined by our job titles to agents. But then we saw a lot of things in the years, including OpenClaw, that everyone was depending on like, wait, wait a second, it doesn't have the accountability model that human has and you can perform things that you don't want to be happening, but then who's taking responsibility on that? So organizations just like, okay, where's this middle ground of the resolution here? And obviously the human, like IEM and PAM that was built for job titles, role-based access, et cetera, is irrelevant here, but what is? What is our solution for this era? And what is exciting is that we actually have today a context that we didn't have for many years, which is the intent. What happens today is that every agent, even if it's delegated by the human expressing its own intent of what he wants to do. We got used to writing a prompt what will be the expected result of the action, which allows us to rethink completely the IEM architecture and move from role-based, job-based to intent-based access. And this is a revolutionary moment in the IEM space and also a revolutionary moment for agentic security. So very exciting times to be asked.

Dave Vellante

>> Yeah. And you even said the first time you've left RSA more excited than you were tired, which is amazing. Things are happening so fast, and that's what I love about this industry. I mean, we've taken non-human identities of kind of a niche and now they're all overnight become a top priority. You're creating a category. I want to push on that a little bit. I mean, you identified this gap before the product market caught on. Bipul Sinha said something to me this week at RSA on theCUBE. He said, "You want to be two miles ahead of your customer, not 200 miles." And it seemed like your timing is really good. Maybe it's insight and maybe a little bit of luck, but what does it take to build a company around a problem, create a category that customers, they don't fully understand yet?

Danny Brickman

>> So early on, I would disagree with the two mile. I would actually say that you need to be 10 or 20 or 30 miles ahead of the customers because it takes time to build an architecture to understand that. And to be honest, it was working very, very closely with the customers and understanding what are their needs, what are they expected to address. And we saw this wave of, the agentic wave coming in basically very early on last year. And we understood that foundationally, the NHI model that we built will be supporting that future gap that will be increasing pretty quickly. I got to say, we were surprised by the pace that is happening in big enterprises today. So in, I would say six months, if you'll ask big enterprise like, "Oh, are you adopting the agentic wave right now?" I was like, "Yeah, maybe. No, I'm not sure." Very quickly. What we're seeing right now through the Fortune 500 customers we're working with is that the adoption is way faster than even tech companies internally because everyone wants to be competitive, win the other side, find how the agentic adoption can help them. And this expedited motion of adopting of technologies, first of all, something we have never seen before happening so fast, but it also expedited the understanding that this problem identity needs to be solved immediately because in six months from now, we'll be in a situation that is basically very hard to untangle. So that's what happening. And you're super right. I came super tired after RSA, but more and more excited than ever before just because of that.

Dave Vellante

>> So thank you for that. And I probably misquoted Bipul, but to put a finer point on that, is it a two-year gestation period? Is it longer? Obviously you don't want it to be 10 or 20 years. I'm reminded of, I just wrote a piece on Thinking Machines a couple weeks ago, Danny Hillis' company, I think I met him in 1989. Well, he was like 40 years ahead, but so is that what it took? Was it two years, three years? What was that gestation period for you?

Danny Brickman

>> The beginning was very, very narrow to people that realize that the future will be different. And every company needs to have those early, early believers, people that understand that this wave is coming and the existing infrastructure will just not hold. So yeah, it took, I think, two years, constantly also building and working with customers. I would say a company cannot jump in and work with 1,000 companies from Fortune, 1,000 right now and start deploying the product within six months. It takes time. Even in the era when AI is expediting the development, it doesn't mean that the product cycles are being expedited in the same pace because it's basically blocked by the human communication, which takes time. But once it is happening, and this is what we're experiencing right now, it's kind of like a three-year overnight success, if you will.

Dave Vellante

>> Right, right. And then you build it and it takes a good five, seven, even eight or 10 years to build a company, get to a point where you can get to escape velocity. I think we learned a lot from the dot-com flips, but I'm curious as to how you see this. Is it a standalone category, agentic access management or however you phrase it? Or does it get absorbed into a broader identity platforms category over time? How do you see that?

Danny Brickman

>> I'm actually seeing it as an identity and access management category as a whole. I'm seeing it as a transformation that agentic access management pool is going through right now to become machine first. If we're used to have it to be human first, now it's the whole IEM stack. So in complete honesty, it's like we need to rethink the whole stack right now. What is privileged access in the era of machines?

Dave Vellante

>> Right.

Danny Brickman

>> It's different. It's maybe everything is privileged. Maybe everything needs to be reevaluated and it's fine. It just means that we need to build a different architecture, which luckily for us, we were able to address that. But this NHI space will just become the number one IEM thing, and then the rest will be just combining into that.

Dave Vellante

>> I'm struck by how you educate the market. You got a Non-human Identities Management Fundamentals. It's a certification program. How do you see that fitting? How does that education drive adoption? What's the relationship there?

Danny Brickman

>> In complete honesty, I think the best and the strongest way for a market to educate yourself is to create communities because a vendor coming in saying what is the future and how it's supposed to be, that's great. But the vendor is not dealing with the day-to-day problems. The day-to-day problems are sometimes nuanced, sometimes very niche, but it requires a community to discuss through those things and basically building the path of the future. So we as vendors, we have the responsibility to, if we're a visionary and we're looking at how the future should look like, we have the responsibility of guiding it, but not defining it. The definition is always coming up from the market, coming up from the practitioners, coming up from the people that's handling those problems on a day-to-day basis.

Dave Vellante

>> Yeah. We're obviously big believers in community, especially do what we've done with Brian Baumann at the NYSE and NYSE Wired and theCUBE coming together as a new trust network. And so we're big believers here in our 16th year. I want to talk about your funding and your growth. You just raised 120 million. I think you're close to 200 million now in total raise. What are you doing with that capital? What does it allow you to do next? Where are you investing?

Danny Brickman

>> So we doubled down on, is a category by itself or is it like the IEM revolution? And revolution requires a lot of focus product mindset, different products that we need to be addressing in features. So there'll be a lot of investment right now going into engineering and product development, which is a crucial part, the first crucial part, I would say, for supporting what is coming next. But also, and this is nothing... I want to quote Jensen here. Jensen was saying that developers are no longer the smartest guys in the room. I'd like to prove it differently. And in some interpretation, you would say that the people that are working with the customers that working very closely... By the way, it doesn't matter if it's a salesperson, it's a customer success person, if it's a technical account manager or deployed engineer, this investment is extremely critical in the AI era, extremely, because the way to understand what the community is speaking through is going through working with the customer and making sure you're helping him and making sure that he's hitting his goals and values that he want to achieve for the organization. Once we have that, we basically can build this cycling machine with the engineering to basically revolutionize the IEM space.

Dave Vellante

>> We all pay attention to Jensen. He was joking the other day, I forget where he was, but we were joking, he's like the Fed chairman. Every word he says is important. And one of the things he said last week was that he would be really upset if he's paying a software engineer half a million dollars a year and they only spend $5,000 in token budgets. He wants to be like, "Okay, here's your laptop, here's your token budget, go spend $250,000 a year in tokens." And of course, what are they going to be doing? Well, they're going to be feeding agents with those tokens, feeding them intelligence. And so what are you hearing from... I mean, this is music to your ears, right? I mean, that's like a statement that's built for Oasis. So what are you hearing from enterprises as they start scaling these agents? What kind of problems are they running into? And what kind of advice would you give them so that they don't hit these gotchas that forces them to start over or slow down?

Danny Brickman

>> So the best way to address any innovation and then every change that is happening is also to have an ability to try and do mistakes. And I'm actually agreeing here with Jensen because, not only because he's a smart guy, but because if you're not blocking the developers from doing things, from developing, not only developers, by the way, of trying things, you will never progress. You will never hit this target that we want to be addressing. And the only thing that I can give to the industry is let it be. Let it exist. Don't block it. Find a way to be collaborative. For example, let's use our relationship, vendor and customer relationship. It's very deep understanding what you were trying to achieve. Same thing from security and infrastructure teams. It's work with them, work with developers, figure out what can help them expedite that. Don't be the guy that says, "Hey, we cannot do that." Explain why. Find a middle ground. It's super critical in this era to be working very, very closely and also unleashing that potential with, again, it can be tokens, but it also can be access to systems and trials and doing sandboxes. There's a lot of different ways of doing that, but that's, in my opinion, it's very crucial for our whole global progression.

Dave Vellante

>> John Furrier loves to say, he likes to quote Andy Grove, "Let chaos rain and then reign chaos in." Now, of course, you got to be extra careful in security. Your point about sandbox is right on, but we have a kind of a let's try it mindset because that's where you're going to drive innovation. And so I think that's, in a way, what you were describing, as long as you can do it safely. It can't be the Wild West.

Danny Brickman

>> Exactly. A hundred percent. Again, it's safety in many cases, and I'm a big believer that security is more of an attitude rather than a few tools. We want to help, we want to facilitate the infrastructure, but at the end of the day, if the end user want to bypass, we can fight it, but then fighting in our organization doesn't get us too far. So that's kind of where security needs to be and also infrastructure need to be speaking the same language.

Dave Vellante

>> Yeah. And I would say too, having a strong governance infrastructure is really where the starting point is, and that can allow innovation and experimentation. Actually, security can be an accelerant if you have a strong governance structure. I want to ask you, there are identity players, some big players, they're well known, they're cloud providers, you've got all these security vendors, everybody's moving into this space. So how do you think about that? What gives you confidence that Oasis wins in this category?

Danny Brickman

>> First of all, this by itself gives me a lot of confidence because it means that we're doing something right, and it means that we did the right bets early on. And look, at the end of the day, a mode our era is not a technological mode. Everything can be quickly designed and quickly developed. A mode is the data that you're working with customers and the knowledge and the people at the end of the day. And the knowledge that we gained in the last three years around non-human access, non-human identities gives us this leverage to actually expedite the adoption and expedite the product deployment and roadmaps. And it's very humbling that the big players are coming in and we will work with them as closely as we can to help organizations actually onboard an existing infrastructure. Again, it's collaboration is the word, right? Collaboration also with the existing vendors, with the existing big players that are there. We're respecting a lot of the work that they did through the years, and we want to make sure that the investment the organization did is actually getting them to a higher level of success. And in that case, we're open to any partnership, and this is what we're actually doing in those days to make sure that our customers are getting the best value.

Dave Vellante

>> About a year, a little less than a year ago, George Gilbert and I were interviewing Marc Benioff, and it was right after he posted an article in the Wall Street Journal saying we're the last generation of managers that will be managing humans only. And of course it was self-serving, he's doing Agentforce, but it was prescient, and he was kind of early on in that. So when I think about Oasis, you're focused on obviously visibility, control, and policy enforcement with this sort of new agentic environment. From a customer standpoint, what does success look like when they're managing all these agents as opposed to just humans? And what does it mean for that customer that gets it right? Let's work backwards from what success looks like.

Danny Brickman

>> So it's a great question. So if we're going back, we're looking at... Look, at the end of the day, security has one job. To protect the resources and the data of its own organization in a very simple way. When we're looking right now at databases or resources, we want to make sure that nothing can leak out and nothing bad can happen right now in the organization. So if this is the question, and this is the thing that we want to be protecting, and we don't have any more perimeter because the perimeter is dead, as many like to say, and the quote that I love to use is identity is a new perimeter. We were saying it for the last four or five years in the industry, but it's so true. It's so true. If you're protecting the access to those databases and resources and organizational data in a very tight way, well, you probably achieved your main goal. Yes, there will be some nuances, but 80% of your job as a security leader will be achieved. And if you're focusing on that and going back to the point that we discussed, if you can control what you can control and the access layer and the access to the resources, then we're in a good spot. And this flip from humans to agents is just expediting our focus on or maybe doubling down on that focus that we have right now on that layer of access because everything is happening autonomously very quickly. Agents are greedy. I know that human beings are greedy, but agents are way more greedy. They're not waiting. They're moving faster. So with that philosophy in mind, we need to make sure that we have these controls in place. And this is where the transformation and transition from role-based that was so human-based to be evaluating the intent of every agent is such a crucial piece. But I want to add here something else is that the intent piece is actually a very fascinating, fascinating point. When a human came in, we would love to make sure that we're granting you the access only on your existing intent right now, but we didn't have this layer of, singular layer in which you can evaluate this intent, understand what you're actually trying to achieve as a human. This is why we gave you permissions to do your job without limiting it, just giving you those permissions. But agents are actually today exposing their intent in a natural language. We're used to speaking the prompt and everything. So that beautiful part right now is allowing us to transition and to understand every agent, what it wants to do, where we want to get to, and what provision is needed, not only just in time, but just enough. And this transformation is actually capable of, A, dealing with the scale of agents, but B, also limiting that not to do harmful things, but also helping the agent to do what it wants to do. So that's kind of the future of identity and access management that previous tests.

Dave Vellante

>> Thank you for that. I want to get into your tech a little bit, and maybe you could touch on the secret sauce. I mean, one of the things I'm thinking about is, okay, how do you handle dynamic permissions and ephemeral access? Agents are spinning up all the time and they make virtual machines look trivial and they're acting in real time. I presume part of your secret sauce is the way you're able to manage that. So how do you do that? What can you share about the fundamental architecture and your IP?

Danny Brickman

>> So there's two elements. For the first three years, the focus was how do we discover all the identities? The question in the market is like, what do I have? What machines do I have that are accessing what? And is it controlled? Is the access controlled in the right way? And this was the first step. How do we statically with deterministic applications are actually being able to control that? And what we believe in is that agentic applications are not... There's not a huge difference in terms of access that we need to brand compared to, I would say the legacy applications, the more deterministic because an application is designed to do what it's supposed to do. Therefore, it's the classic NHI problem, and therefore we need to be elevating and using the access patterns that were used for many years, service account, API keys, tokens, all those different types of features that we're protecting for the last three years. Now, let's discuss about the interesting difference in delegated agents, right? Agents that are performing on your behalf, on my behalf. By the way, I'll tell a little secret here in this small room, between you and me, as we say, I'm not using any more SaaS applications directly.

Dave Vellante

>> Really?

Danny Brickman

>> My cloud is connected to them, and I'm asking those questions through cloud. In between us, it just saves me a lot of time, which means something very interesting if we're doubling down on what I just said, is that the humans are still expressing the intent of the action, but the actor that is performing the action on the data and the resource is no longer the human, which puts a big questioning if human identity as it is today even needed or it needs to be also redefined. Putting that for a second aside, going back to the agentic part, and now let's talk about the secret sauce. So we discussed about the NHI processes and how do we provision the access to resources and databases for machines to access. The missing piece here is that how do we translate the intent that is being expressed by the agent, by the human originally, then by the agent towards this permissive entitlement that he's asking for. And this is exactly the secret sauce. So Oasis basically today is the first ever agent that is interrogating the agent, understanding exactly what is in the intent, understanding his prompt, understanding the request that he's asking, what systems it wants to access, taking all of that, analyzing that, and comparing it to the policy engine that we have that running for every organization. Those two elements together, creating a plan, which is using the original Oasis NHI management of how to access those systems with the right permissions, not every permissive, with just in time, just enough, as we said, and being scoped into the session itself. Once this is done, basically an agent can do only what it wanted to do and is being approved by the policy. So nothing is slowed down. Security gets what it wants because it has a single policy that is controlling it, and we're basically enabling the adoption of agent. And everything that I just said is extremely or completely agnostic to the agent that it's discussing because we're the gateway. We don't care which agent is expressing it. Yeah, we can block some agents because the organization doesn't want them to exist, those kind of types, but except that we're agnostic to them, which means that we are protecting, we're becoming the defacto access control claim for the organizations.

Dave Vellante

>> If you don't have that agent control framework in place and you try to take advantage of what you just described of not logging into any SaaS anymore, that's just the nightmare waiting to happen. You have to have that control. I mean, I think about, I'm like, yeah, I mean, I don't like to log into Salesforce. It takes a long time. They make me change my password all the time. I have to pull out my authenticator. I have to find the right place to enter the data. It's just it's time-consuming. And if I could have an agent do that, and you've actually achieved that, I presume you're talking to your agents, telling them what to do, and then they go do it on your behalf, and it's saving you a ton of time. You're way, way more productive. I feel like, back in the old days of cloud, that the cloud was the first line of defense. Of course, security's layered. Is that agent control framework the new first line of defense?

Danny Brickman

>> The access layer is and in many ways, almost only... Yes, the network has also at play here, but almost only layer of defense that we have wholistically. An agent can come from a third party. I was actually to the RSA, I had a discussion about how do we protect agents that are discussing with resources that both of those resources are third parties. How do we manage that? It's also an interesting discussion to have. It's humans. We used to be controlling that and putting perimeters, but hey, suddenly we have an agent that is replicating what a human is doing, but it's sitting on a third party. It's not someone that we're controlling or having accountability around. Even the perimeter that we thought that is broken is actually broken even more. And leaving us only with the .

Dave Vellante

>> I'm so lucky we're having this conversation right after RSAs. Both of our schedules are so tight right now. The calendars, just really fortunate that came fresh off of RSA because this was the topic of RSA. So I want to ask you, I really look forward a couple of years. What breaks for enterprises that really don't think about access in this new way? I mean, if agents are becoming these primary actors, as you just described in enterprise SaaS and systems, what's the mistake that companies should avoid that could cause them to really lose control or have something really bad happen? Let's close with some advice here.

Danny Brickman

>> We cannot treat agents as humans. I think this is the biggest advice that I will give everyone. Agents doesn't have the accountability model, that doesn't have the more deterministic model that we are used to have. And if we think about it, even on a physical security layer, we know humans, we don't know agents. And we cannot just escort the agent outside of our office tomorrow because they did something bad. It ain't going to happen. And therefore, we need to rethink our architect should be built originally for machine first because things will break faster than we think. It will be like you're connecting to agent to the database, you're giving wrong permissions and voila, you delete all your database. What's next?

Dave Vellante

>> Yeah. Yeah. I'm super excited for Oasis and really pleased that we were able to have this conversation. Thanks so much for coming on. Appreciate it.

Danny Brickman

>> Thank you very much for having me.

Dave Vellante

>> Yeah, you bet. And thanks for watching this special CUBE presentation recognizing Oasis Security and its AI innovation. This is Dave Vellante with theCUBE.

>> (instrumental music)