That is not my purpose. I have no idea what her qualifications are, I saw the LinkedIn page and it contained almost no information. That is hardly relevant.
I personally believe that she was backed into a corner, based on the interviews I watched from some time before the breach (that I can't show you, and I won't link to the transcripts because I know they are incomplete and by far less impactful.)
She sounded to me, exactly like a person who was given a budget that was effectively no budget, and then put into this role because people with a larger stake were sure that she would comply when they said "this is your budget, and not a penny more." I know exactly what that is like, because I have been made CIO and put in that position before. (I'm sure she was better paid than I was...)
There is absolutely 100% a coverup going on. I am so bummed that I did not save the interviews when I first watched them. You would agree too, if I could show you.
Edit:
Here is the transcript, but with the disclaimer that it is 100% not the full transcript. Although it is in her own words. Make your own judgement about her qualifications please.
"I always say that given enough time, we can secure anything and find a way to say yes to it and business-driven CISOs are of that mind"
It's really a pretty balanced interview. This is what she said. There was a second interview, but I'm a lot more incensed that this information is being suppressed than at any one thing she says. I want to be furious when she says things like
"If a CISO can come up with a list of controls that he/she is comfortable with, then by and large the evidence proves that those controls are working effectively and are going to satisfy the elements of any framework that you use."
but all this interview really can show is that she knows some jargon, and her mindset. And I think it's really (truly, not in a figurative sense but literally) criminal that this information is suppressed. This is the case study of an interview that reveals insights from the mind of a CISO before disaster strikes... I literally don't even care that she was a Music major, how can anyone justify taking this down?
It's not just potentially criminal, it's also unconscionable. This should be preserved for posterity, I want to tar and feather the company, but I want to hear more from Susan Mauldin about what went wrong at Equifax.
I don't just want this interview back online, I want there to be a follow-up to this interview! And if it takes a pardon from Trump to make that happen, let's start the conversation.
> She sounded to me, exactly like a person who was given a budget that was effectively no budget, and then put into this role because people with a larger stake were sure that she would comply when they said "this is your budget, and not a penny more." I know exactly what that is like, because I have been made CIO and put in that position before.
That's the root cause here. The same thing happens over and over. They find ways to save more money, get the rewards, and the rest of us get screwed.
Bingo. You said it, that's exactly why I want to hear more from Susan Mauldin. (That, and the fact that there's someone evidently who doesn't want to hear more from Susan Mauldin...)
Edit: Well, I found one video (11m30s), were there more?
-----
Edit:
From a quick check, this seems to be the same interview that was transcribed, though I'm not sure if it's the entire interview or even the one you were looking for:
There was a second interview with Cazena that looked a lot like the first interview, but the topic was different. It looked like they were possibly recorded on the same day.
Edit: Bless you for doing this, however you found it.
I haven't watched it yet, but I fetched a copy. (Edit: it looks like the first interview.)
If it matches the transcript, the one I'm looking for has the expression "resistance to the cloud is futile" in it (which I didn't see in the transcript.) It might have been the follow-up interview that had this phrase in it. From reading the first transcript, it looked pretty accurate from what I could remember.
It's too bad we don't have that transcript. I honestly can't remember much about that second interview. Didn't think I'd be here in this position today, trying to retrieve it for the public interest.
Edit: This one does have the quote about the Borg in it. So I remember absolutely nothing about Part 2 of the interview, and we still don't have a copy. But this is something I can't find anywhere else on the internet for now. Thanks!!!
Yeah, I found their article from links here so I reached out to them via email right after posting it here. According to a later email, they independently found my HN above post a bit later.
Looks like the embedded version on their page is missing about 1m30s of the interview, though.
I personally believe that she was backed into a corner, based on the interviews I watched from some time before the breach (that I can't show you, and I won't link to the transcripts because I know they are incomplete and by far less impactful.)
She sounded to me, exactly like a person who was given a budget that was effectively no budget, and then put into this role because people with a larger stake were sure that she would comply when they said "this is your budget, and not a penny more." I know exactly what that is like, because I have been made CIO and put in that position before. (I'm sure she was better paid than I was...)
There is absolutely 100% a coverup going on. I am so bummed that I did not save the interviews when I first watched them. You would agree too, if I could show you.
Edit:
Here is the transcript, but with the disclaimer that it is 100% not the full transcript. Although it is in her own words. Make your own judgement about her qualifications please.
https://archive.is/6M8mg