The risk of data breaches in the Internet of Things is growing fast and the costs are rising faster. In the latest Trending Tech podcast, host Jeremy Cowan asks Thales’s marketing director for Digital Identity and Security, Stephane Quetglas how the industry is responding. Spoiler: It’s fighting back hard! Plus Robin Duke-Woolley, CEO and founder of Beecham Research warns of the costs of lost industrial production, repair, litigation, and reputational damage. Sit back, listen and learn about IoT Best Practices, before we sign off with the submarine story of Elon Musk’s Wet Nellie. Allegedly.
Listen to all episodes
[00:00:00] Jeremy Cowan: Hi, and welcome to episode 37 of the Trending Tech podcast on securing cellular IoT, and it’s a very warm welcome to our thousands of listeners globally wherever we find you today. My name’s Jeremy Cowan. I’m co-founder of the telecoms and tech sites IoT-Now.com, VanillaPlus.com, and TheEE.Ai which, as the name suggests, covers artificial intelligence for The Evolving Enterprise.
Thanks for joining us for today’s, sometimes serious, sometimes light-hearted look at digital transformation for enterprises. OK, if you’ve spent any time at all lately studying the internet of things, you’ll have heard that the chances of an IoT security breach are growing all the time, and so is the cost.
Why is this happening? Well, as a new report backed by global security experts Thales and written by UK-based Beecham Research says, IoT solutions are becoming increasingly important to business operations. So, inevitably, there are solutions that are becoming larger, more business-critical, far-reaching, they’re interoperable and they’re more complex. And today we are talking about cellular IoT security with an expert from Thales, and one of the authors of the report. Thales is a global technology provider with more than 77,000 employees worldwide. It works to deliver digital innovations in big data, AI, connectivity, cybersecurity, and quantum technology.
And I’m proud to say Thales are our sponsors today. So, thank you to them for enabling this really critical discussion. Our first guest is Stephane Quetglas who is marketing director at Thales Digital Identity and Security. Stephane, welcome.
[00:02:12] Stephane Quetglas: Thank you, Jeremy. It’s great to be here.
[00:02:14] Jeremy Cowan: Good to have you! Also joining us today, it’s a pleasure as always to hear from Robin Duke-Woolley, CEO, and founder of the international consultancy Beecham Research. Robin, good to have you here again.
[00:02:28] Robin Duke-Woolley: Great to be here, Jeremy.
[00:02:30] Jeremy Cowan: Now the tech sector is a big place, so we like to scan the sky with our guests to see what else is going on.
Guys, let’s take a quick look at a couple of serious tech news stories that you found, and later we’ll take a break in our light-hearted closing section, What The Tech to discuss a couple of technology news stories that either amused or amazed us. Coming to you, Robin, what serious tech news have you seen lately?
[00:02:59] Robin Duke-Woolley: Well, I was quite alarmed myself actually to read about medical IoT devices carrying the biggest security risks. So, this is a report on ZDNet on the 19th of April. And the report says connected medical devices still operate on unsupported operating systems and remain unpatched, even as cyber-attacks continue to grow in the highly targeted healthcare sector.
So, they took the example of nurse calling systems, which allow patients to communicate with nurses should they require assistance and they monitor. So, then it reports that 48% of nurse call systems have unpatched Common Vulnerability Exposures, what they call CVEs. So that’s just over a third then critical severity CVEs. That’s a lot when you when you start thinking about how many nurses there are around. And then they talk about infusion pumps. Now that’s a really worrying thing because they are used to mechanically or electrically provide fluids to patients. They’re the second highest riskiest IoT medical devices, which is almost a third operating with unpatched CVEs.
Then 27% with critical severity CVEs – that’s a huge number. And then over half of IP cameras in clinical environments have unpatched CVEs, of which 56% are critical severity. So you start to wonder, how safe am I going to a GP’s surgery these days?
[00:04:26] Jeremy Cowan: These are mind-blowing figures, Robin. Stephane, what did you think of this?
[00:04:30] Stephane Quetglas: I think that’s really annoying, worrying, scary like Robin said. It’s probably because it is in the healthcare space that we react this way. But also the same situation exists in other sectors, which is a real global problem I think that we are touching upon right now.
That means that there’s a need for change when it comes to connected device, whatever it is. And I think we we’re going to talk about that more during this podcast, of course. And that’s a real issue.
[00:05:02] Jeremy Cowan: Stephane, which serious tech news story caught your eye?
[00:05:07] Stephane Quetglas: It’s a similar one, but in a different sector, by the way. It’s a report, that, we found, on the website, Telecoms.com. So a cybersecurity firm produced a report on the state of cybersecurity. They took a very large sample of data. They say they’ve been using artificial intelligence to achieve that.
They’re talking about 1.8 billion connected devices, 40 million home networks analysed, which is absolutely massive. Probably the biggest analysis ever made. And the findings are that the cybersecurity threats, are truly coming from the booming IoT products that you can have in your home.
That means, for instance, an IP camera. And these IP cameras are very, very, very exposed. You can find also connected DVRs, for instance, or connected storage devices, that have been pointed out. And when they look at the problems behind these cybersecurity threats they see three of them. So, the first is about adware spreading in these devices. So, that’s one thing. The other one which is very important in my view is that, like Robin said, a very large number of devices are End of Life unsupported, basically, or were outdated actually. Because when you buy an IP camera, probably the new model will be released by the manufacturer one year or two years after. And the one you’ve just bought, is okay at the time you purchase it, but later on will not be supported anymore. So, that means you find yourself with a product that has an increasing level of risk, for a long time. It’s increasing, until you decide to replace it with a new one. So, probably you will use it for many years, and years longer. I would say that exceeds the lifespan of the support provided by the vendor. And that’s a real problem. So being able to know when you are an end user, what to buy in terms of connected products, IoT products for your home, for instance, is important. You need to know how long is the support, you need to know if the support will be conducted in a proper manner. So, that’s a challenge I think for both the end users, the consumers, and the IoT companies as well.
[00:07:21] Jeremy Cowan: Robin, what did you take away from this story?
[00:07:24] Robin Duke-Woolley: Yeah, I think that’s a pretty important point because we always talk about security in business and the need for high levels of security in business. We talk less about security for consumers. But the threat is increasing all the time. And I think that this whole issue about what security level you are prepared to accept is something that really should concern everybody actually in the future.
Because it’s all increasing. The threat is increasing all the time. And that’s not just in business, but it’s in the consumer space as well. We’ve always assumed that the consumer space is pretty insignificant, that if you get a threat, then what does it mean? But actually it could be very damaging.
And I think that we’ll be covering some of that in what we discuss today.
[00:08:08] Jeremy Cowan: Well, this was on Telecoms.com and as always our listeners will know that we put links to all of these stories into our transcripts, so you can all follow this up there. Thank you. Well look, let’s have a closer look at what we were saying earlier. This is a big, big issue in IoT cellular security. https://telecoms.com/519488/security-could-be-a-fly-in-the-ointment-for-the-iot-boom/
Stephane, there is broad agreement, I think it’s fair to say, in the IoT sector that the risk of users experiencing a major security breach in their IoT solutions is growing. Why is it growing?
[00:08:44] Stephane Quetglas: So, I think that to start with, it’s fair to say that IoT is being deployed at a larger scale. We see connected devices in many, many different contexts now, we just spoke about healthcare, but also IP cameras in the home. There are many other use cases that are actually tackled with the IoT, with connected devices.
So, that’s the first reason. This broad number of vertical applications is also comprised of some critical ones. If you think about managing healthcare data, but also the smart grid, for instance, monitoring, water distribution is also very critical. This critical mass that we are reaching becomes attractive, because the gains that can be achieved by attackers increases at the same pace. And since the IoT is being deployed at larger scale also, what we call the attacks of face is increasing. There are more endpoints, devices that you can potentially target. So, there are more available to you if you want to attack a system. I think it’s also a fact that digital security is evolving pretty fast and that the new entrants, new companies wanting to connect the devices in the market, are facing the challenge of understanding how to protect the solutions they launch on the market, but also how to acquire the necessary skills to do so to protect them properly. And I think, more importantly, also to maintain these skills because of the evolution of digital security, so this trend of growing IoT deployment is actually clearly coming with higher risk of security breach in these solutions.
[00:10:25] Jeremy Cowan: Robin, in your report, which we’ve referenced already, and which is going to be published on IoT-Now.com, you talk about the increasing cost of a security breach. How do you actually go about measuring the cost of a security breach, and what sort of costs are we talking about?
[00:10:42] Robin Duke-Woolley: Yeah. I think we’re talking about businesses here. We’re not talking about consumers, we’ll talk about consumers later, but there are really three areas that we need to worry about. First of all, if there is a breach there’s likely to be an impact on the operations to start with.
So, for example, if it’s in a factory it might stop the factory for a while. Well, in that case, there is the downtime, and that cost can be very high, depending on obviously what the operations are. But perhaps more than that, there is the potential reputational cost.
So, for example if it becomes clear that there is a security breach for a well-known brand, that can be pretty devastating because what’s happened to that data and where has it gone and who’s using it and for what? So, there’s the whole potential litigation associated with that, let alone the reputational damage of that.
Then the third area is the cost of repair. So, if something is attacked, and it’s remote and it can’t be fixed remotely, you might have to go out to the site, wherever it is, and replace the equipment that was there as well. So, yeah, all in all, you can have like three areas that are in themselves potentially quite large.
If you add them all together, it can become a huge cost. And that’s the problem that as we get more into potential security breaches, they become more sophisticated. As the systems become more sophisticated so do the security breaches, which means that the potential for cost becomes increasingly high.
And it’s then a question of, can you afford to sustain a security breach? And that’s really where we got to. Because sooner or later, probably sooner, there will be a security breach.
[00:12:31] Jeremy Cowan: It’s inevitable. Stephane, I understand Thales and others in the industry have been working really closely with the GSMA, this is the mobile network operators, to develop an IoT security framework. Can you give us an overall picture of what this framework looks like?
[00:12:50] Stephane Quetglas: Yes, of course. So, the GSMA worked with stakeholders of the industry, including us on several important elements to help make the cellular IoT solution secure. It’s a mobile network operator. So you were talking about cellular solutions, obviously, and it is made of several elements.
So the first one, I think the foundation probably is the eSIM, the embedded SIM, which is to be found in more and more devices to secure the connectivity of the device to the mobile network. And this (eSIM) foundation is based on secure algorithm software. It is certified under the eSA scheme, which is the eUICC security assurance scheme.
The second element of this framework, let’s say, which consists in defining clearly what you want to protect and, using an industry-acknowledged methodology, to verify that this protection is at the expected level. The other elements, managed by the GSMA are accreditation of manufacturing sites.
So, you make sure that the products are manufactured properly and that the security of the sensitive credentials in these products are properly managed. These are called SAS guidelines. And finally, it’s more at a big application level. We worked also with the GSMA on solutions, for the protection of data, the authentication of the devices when it comes to protecting the link between an IoT device and the application in the cloud.
This is called IoT SAFE, and there’s another element, to conclude, which is called Secured Applications for Mobile, or SAM which allows you to deploy security features of applications in the eSIM instead of the device itself. So, all of these elements can be combined to increase the security of IoT solutions, be they for consumer IoT or for enterprises that want to deploy IoT solutions.
[00:14:42] Robin Duke-Woolley: Yeah, that’s a lot, isn’t it? You talked about secure hardware and software. Stephane, is it necessary to have both or can you do everything in secure software?
[00:14:52] Stephane Quetglas: Actually, if you want the high level of security that is required for connecting to mobile security network using an eSIM for instance, then you cannot rely just on software. You can implement some protections in software but they are not enough. So, the ideal combination to reach the level that is expected, for instance by mobile network operators with an eSIM is to combine secure hardware and software. And this is the only way you combine these two together that can lead you to the expected level of protection. Obviously, some people try to use only software. It’s really something that needs to be put in perspective with the use case that you want to protect.
And as the research suggests when we looked at the news previously, if you consider IP cameras that’s clearly not enough. So, it’s really about thinking about the use case you have and the level of security you need to achieve to protect. The connectivity of the device, the privacy of the data, for instance, that will lead you to this solution. As far as IoT is concerned, connection to mobile networks, exchange of sensitive data, for instance, from a smart meter to the remote management solution of the grid, it is very important to have this combination of secured hardware and software.
[00:16:18] Jeremy Cowan: Stephane, you mentioned eSA certification. What’s the significance of that, please?
[00:16:25] Stephane Quetglas: So, eSA so stands for eUICC Security Assurance. So, eUICC is the technical acronym for eSIM. And, eSA certification is a very important change in the GSMA framework, because it has been introduced recently, and it consists in reusing an industry knowledge approach to security evaluation, which is called Common Criteria. This is internationally recognised actually, with a very clear definition of the security target that you want to protect. And this approach is done, using third parties. It’s not only the manufacturer of the device, of the eSIM in this case, that will claim that the eSIM implementation is good enough.
It is something that is done with a security lab. So, laboratories specialise in digital security. We’re going to analyse the product, analyse and provide a report saying, okay, this, product is compliant with the protection of the security key, the sensitive credentials that it is supposed to manage.
And this independent third party approach is very important. So, these laboratories are endorsed by the GSMA, they have no link whatsoever with the product vendors. and they are also providing the report to the certification authority that will verify the data and provide the final certificate.
So, that’s the way to achieve this independent evaluation, that the GSMA define it. And we believe it’s very, very important to do this certification this way because that’s how you can prove to your customers, to the stakeholders in the market, that your products are trustful and can be used without any security issue.
[00:18:19] Jeremy Cowan: Robin, I want to come back to you if I may. Should all devices be covered by this kind of security? Isn’t that expensive?
[00:18:28] Robin Duke-Woolley: Well, yes. Not necessarily. It’s expensive for who? So, for the consumer, going back to what we were talking about earlier about hacks for consumers, you may not want to pay extra for a highly secure device. But if you do, it’ll probably only cost you a few more pence or something like that.
So, what level of security is important to you as an individual, but expensive for who? Really, if you are like a consumer and your device gets hacked, it may not be important to you, but it might well be important to the manufacturer of that device because then we get into all of those costs that we were talking about earlier.
The reputational cost is particular in this case. And then the cost of repair, even for a consumer device. So, yeah, it’s not trivial and you have to balance the risk versus the cost. You might pay a little bit more. But then you might have a lot more protection.
So, I think that’s a personal decision, and I think that needs to be changed over time as well because as we were saying earlier, the risks are getting higher over time and they’re becoming more sophisticated. So, you may not be concerned about your headset being hacked at the moment, but you may be concerned about your baby alarm being hacked.
And you’ve got to weigh that up as to just how important that is. And then you may want to be a little bit more careful about the protection that you get for that. Certainly, manufacturers will, once they get hit with a product that has reached the headlines, they’re going to worry about that happening again.
[00:20:07] Jeremy Cowan: So, it’s all about managing appropriate protection?
[00:20:10] Robin Duke-Woolley: Yeah. Yeah.
[00:20:11] Jeremy Cowan: Stephane, following on from our earlier talk about IoT SAFE, what does that add to what we’ve just discussed?
[00:20:20] Stephane Quetglas: So, IoT SAFE is relevant for the application level, meaning that it is a standardised solution that leverages the eSIM to, provide security, to the communication between the IoT device and its application in the cloud. So, it provides the ways to identify the device, to authenticate the device, to encrypt the communication, to sign transactions, for instance.
So, that’s a very useful functionality or set of functionalities available to IoT device makers so they can add simply proper security in the devices. IoT SAFE leverages the eSIMs, so that means it leverages, let’s say a secure platform that is proven in terms of security.
We talked about certification earlier. It is also typically a product. An eSIM is typically a product that is delivered by a digital security specialist, like Thales. So, you can truly benefit from products that have been designed for, let’s say, security.
And it’s also a way to solve the deployment of a large number of devices, let’s say hundreds of thousands, millions of devices. Because with IoT SAFE, and the additional provisioning solutions that you can combine with IoT SAFE, you can automatically generate the security keys, let’s say, that are going to be at the core, at the heart at the device authentication communication protection.
It’s done internally in this cryptographic toolbox if you wish. The keys are never shared externally, so they are very, very well protected here. And it doesn’t have to take place when the device is manufactured, meaning in the device, in the OEM (original equipment manufacturer) factory. There will be no impact, due to the addition of these security features, which is also important because we talked about the cost, just before. Keeping security simple and cost-effective is the ideal situation because you can add security, easily in your device. It doesn’t add a lot to your bill of materials, but also when you manufacture your device, you don’t have to spend a long time, injecting these, security credentials inside in a secure manner.
You don’t have to have your factory, audited for security and so on and so forth. So, it makes both security useful because it is at the right level and also cost-effective.
[00:22:58] Robin Duke-Woolley: Yeah. That’s great. It’s quite a growing framework actually of additional services that the GSMA has been putting into this. You mentioned another set of initials. So, just to confuse everybody, SAM another set, could you say what the significance of that is too?
[00:23:15] Stephane Quetglas: Yes. Sure, sure. So, SAM is important because it also brings a way to secure applications and services in an effective manner. I was just talking about the IoT communication with IoT SAFE, for instance. But with SAM you can go further, because actually it’s like IoT SAFE, it’s a way to leverage the eSIM secure capabilities, to split the security, let’s say processes of an application running in the device, and have them, being executed inside the eSIM. And the non-secure part of the application software can stay in the device. So, that’s a way to achieve it. And it’s also a great way to implement IoT SAFE and to decouple IoT SAFE, which is for the IoT service from the IoT communication of a cellular. So, that means for an IoT enterprise you can think about your IoT cellular communication partners separately from the way you secure the communication between the IoT device and your application if you need to change your connectivity partner for some reason.
You can do it using the eSIM, remote provisioning capabilities without disrupting the communication between your device and the cloud. You don’t have to re-enrol the device, for instance.
[00:24:35] Robin Duke-Woolley: Right.
[00:24:36] Stephane Quetglas: So, that’s a great addition to IoT SAFE actually.
[00:24:39] Robin Duke-Woolley: Good.
[00:24:39] Jeremy Cowan: That’s really helpful. The EU passed its Cybersecurity Act in June 2009, Stephane. Where does that fit in with all this?
[00:24:50] Stephane Quetglas: So, it’s an important milestone in the EU. I mean, regulation is probably the proper way to increase security in the IoT, to provide the guidelines, but also obligations to companies, who want to deploy connected devices. I think the goal is the same as the one we’ve discussed until now. We need to protect what is connected, because it can be hacked potentially, and the cost can be very high. Damages can be very high. It’s not finished, but what we can say is that this regulation is aiming at improving the security of connected products at the design and development stages.
So, it’s all about security by design, for instance not taking security as an afterthought, but really at the beginning of the development of the product cycle, let’s say. So, they’re talking about certification, but they’re also talking about maintenance. Remember the cases that we shared before about outdated products that are exposed to cybersecurity attacks. They recognise that the maintenance is essential because security is evolving, so you need to make sure that your devices will remain at the required level. And speaking about levels, they also recognise that there’s a need to have different levels, which will differ per vertical application.
So, they’re working. But it’s a way to, I would say, formalise the best practices that we see on the market actually. And it’s also a way to have them applied, in a broader manner.
[00:26:20] Robin Duke-Woolley: Great.
[00:26:20] Jeremy Cowan: Stephane, if we can close this section just by looking ahead, where do you see future threats arising, and what are you doing to address these?
[00:26:30] Stephane Quetglas: So, maybe just to reinforce this message again. The first threat, in the near future I would say, will be not implementing the best practices that we already know. And that’s a clear problem and it’s too often these security best practices are not implemented and not considered by IoT enterprises. Not all of them, of course, but there are still too many of them that are not involved in digital security. And I think in terms of technologies, what is going to change a lot, also the digital security world that we know, as of today is post quantum cryptography, which is a game changer probably more mid-long term because it’s going to disrupt some of the well-established, systems that we know we need to change the cryptographic tools that we are using so they can resist post quantum. So, the attacks conducted by these quantum computers that start to be in laboratories now working pretty well.
So, this is where we need the expertise of digital security specialists. So they will be able to tell where the existing system need to evolve by combining the existing solution with new approaches that will defeat these quantum computers. And that’s probably something that we will see emerging some years from now, we don’t know. Nobody knows exactly when, but that’s a clear threat that we have started addressing already.
[00:27:57] Jeremy Cowan: Thank you. Thank you both. I think there are some incredibly valuable lessons in there which we would all do well to listen to. Okay. Let’s unwind for a moment and see what in the world of tech has amazed or amused us lately. Stephane, your turn to go first this time. What have you seen?
[00:28:14] Stephane Quetglas: Yeah, an amusing one, about Tesla. It’s both amusing and a little bit annoying as well. Because Tesla cars, they have cameras in the front and the side of the cars, everywhere basically. And there are also cameras inside the car, actually.
And, this news that I saw in a special report from Reuters, it was the beginning of April, I think. This report is talking about private recordings, done by these cameras in Tesla cars, shared internally between employees at Tesla. And some of these clips have actually circulated, which is a privacy issue, a strong privacy issue, of course.
But what caught my attention here, and that makes this news amusing to me, is that actually one video showed that it was a Tesla that was parked inside the garage. And near the Tesla, visible on the camera, was this submersible vehicle from the James Bond movie. You remember this Lotus Esprit, that was this white sports car that could transform itself into a submarine. And it was, actually a real submarine that was built for this movie in the seventies, and we know who owns this car actually, and, you know what, this is Elon Musk actually.
So, he bought the car a few years ago and, probably somebody shared videos of Elon Musk’s garage with this vehicle.
[00:29:42] Robin Duke-Woolley: Great. Great.
[00:29:51] Jeremy Cowan: Yes. Doesn’t sound like a good career move for somebody. The submarine goes by the amazing name of Wet Nellie.
[00:29:55] Robin Duke-Woolley: Terrific. Terrific. Yeah.
[00:29:57] Jeremy Cowan: Robin, what’s made you smile in the tech space lately?
[00:30:00] Robin Duke-Woolley: Well, you could consider this to be somewhat alarming actually. So, it was only out a day or so ago. This is the US Supreme Court refused to hear a case arguing that AI (artificial intelligence) algorithms should be recognised and protected by law as inventors on patent filings. So, the guy that was putting this in was a computer scientist.
He claimed that his program, his software came up with the idea of a fractal food container and a unique patent for an emergency light beacon. And he wanted to patent it, but he wanted it to be patented in the name of his AI program. And the Supreme Court and the Patent Office reckoned that he couldn’t do that because it wasn’t a natural person.
It was a machine and, therefore, he couldn’t do it. But the thing is that, that’s amusing in the first sort of degree. But then you start to think, well, where’s it all stop? Where are we gonna get to the point where people’s AI is treated as a person instead of as a machine.
And I thought that was quite concerning actually. So, I read this as a bit of a joke and then I thought, hang on here. There’s a serious point here.
[00:31:06] Jeremy Cowan: Yeah, there is. I have to confess, I was a bit confused by that. Help me if you can. So, the US Supreme Court won’t hear the case because the AI program can’t be listed as an inventor, perhaps that’s a fair point. But it either means AI creations can’t be legally protected in the US, which I guess is bad. Or it means that AI inventions can only be protected if they’re registered in the name of a human, and that’s good.
[00:31:32] Robin Duke-Woolley: Maybe that’s just as bad!
[00:31:33] Jeremy Cowan: I don’t know whether it’s bad news or good news.
[00:31:36] Robin Duke-Woolley: Yeah. I think we got a coach and horses through the law here somewhere, so yeah, it could be interesting. Yeah. So we’re in for an interesting time and it was a nice diversion away from the depths of security to see something that is you know occupying people’s minds that may seem quite trivial but …
[00:31:54] Jeremy Cowan: We’re indebted again to the story, which was on The Register. https://www.theregister.com/2023/04/24/us_supreme_court_patent_ai_inventor/
And we’ll put the link into our transcript so then anyone can follow that up. Please let us know what you think on LinkedIn or Twitter or whatever you’ve just invented. You’ll mostly find me on LinkedIn at Jeremy Cowan.
That’s C-o-w-a-n, or on Twitter @jcIoTnow. Anyway, just before we go, let me say a big thank you first to Stephane Quetglas of Thales. It’s been great to have you with us, Stephane.
[00:32:24] Stephane Quetglas: Yeah. Thank you very much Jeremy. It was a great pleasure for me to be here. And if you want to reach me, I’m available on LinkedIn, Stephane Quetglas at Thales, or my email is stephane.quetglas@thalesgroup.com if you want to exchange with me.
[00:32:38] Jeremy Cowan: Brilliant.
And our thanks also to Robin Duke-Woolley of Beecham Research. We really appreciate it, Robin.
[00:32:44] Robin Duke-Woolley: That’s great. It’s really good to be here Jeremy, and anybody can contact me on LinkedIn or it’s probably easier at info@beechamresearch.com rather than spelling out my whole name. So yeah, that’s great.
[00:32:57] Jeremy Cowan: Thank you and our thanks to Thales, today’s sponsors. We really value your support for these discussions, Stephane.
[00:33:04] Stephane Quetglas: Thank you very much.
[00:33:06] Jeremy Cowan: Now don’t forget everyone, you can subscribe to the Trending Tech podcast wherever you found us today. So, a shout out to our fantastic audience. There’s thousands of you worldwide now. We are delighted to have you following us, and please keep it up. Meanwhile, please feel free to give us a good review at podcasts.apple.com/digital-transformation. Honestly, that’s a bit of a mouthful. We’ll have to find another way around that. It boosts our status in the rankings, of course, as you guessed. And it’s not just to give us a warm glow, but it helps new listeners to find us too. In the meantime, please keep checking IoT-Now.com, VanillaPlus.com, and www.TheEE.ai because there you’re gonna find more tech news, plus videos, top level interviews and event reviews, plus a whole lot more. And join us again soon for another Trending Tech podcast looking at enterprise digital transformations. Bye for now.
