Tech Talks Daily

What does a security operations center need when attacks are arriving at a speed and volume that human analysts cannot manage alone?
I recorded this episode with Adam Khan, VP of Global Security Operations and AI Security at Barracuda, during the 20th anniversary of the Barracuda Tech Summit in Alpbach, Austria.
Adam has spent over 25 years in technology and security. When we last spoke at the event, he used Home Alone and soccer to make complex security topics easier to understand. This year, expectations were high, and he arrived with Formula One.
The comparison begins with what spectators see. Attention naturally falls on the car and driver. Behind them sits a much larger operation involving engineers, strategists, mechanics, simulations, telemetry, and rapid decisions. Adam believes modern security works in a similar way. Customers want to run their businesses, while a largely unseen combination of analysts, threat intelligence, automation, and AI works behind them.
That operating model has developed into what Barracuda calls the Agentic SOC. AI agents follow the same playbooks analysts use when examining endpoints, malware connections, artifacts, threat intelligence, identity behavior, and other signals. They can complete repeatable investigative work quickly and consistently across volumes that have grown from hundreds of alerts to thousands or millions.
Adam says Barracuda now has hundreds of agents with hundreds of individual skills. These agents can support the process from triage and intelligence gathering through correlation and response. When the system has high confidence that an ordinary user account has been compromised, it may disable that account. If the incident involves an administrative account capable of locking down an entire customer environment, a person must confirm the action.
This matters because an AI system can misclassify an event or reach a conclusion that requires additional context. Adam describes feedback mechanisms through which people review decisions, identify mistakes, and feed those findings back into the system. Barracuda also records an audit trail of the actions and queries performed by its agents.
One of the most surprising details concerns employment. While headlines frequently associate AI with reducing headcount, Adam says his team has doubled since adopting it. Analysts previously occupied with repetitive investigation have moved into threat hunting, model development, prompt engineering, and attack and defense exercises. The team is also attacking its own systems so that its agents can learn from emerging techniques before a genuine incident occurs.
The audience saw this operating model during Adam's keynote. Attendees used their phones to launch controlled business email compromise, QR-code phishing, and ransomware scenarios against Barracuda's attack and defense environment. The platform then analyzed and blocked the activity while the audience watched.
Adam says approximately 395 attacks were initiated during the demonstration and all were successfully blocked. That result comes from a controlled Barracuda demonstration rather than an independent test, but it gave attendees a rare view of the speed required during an active incident.
We also discuss how Barracuda Managed XDR uses behavior and telemetry across email, endpoints, cloud services, identities, networks, and other technology. An employee traveling with a familiar laptop and phone should not create the same response as an unknown device attempting an unusual login. Historical patterns, device identifiers, signatures, and location data can help reduce unnecessary alerts while highlighting activity that deserves attention.
For Adam, the purpose of AI is to increase the speed and reach of security experts rather than remove them. People determine strategy, examine high-consequence decisions, test systems, and remain accountable for customer outcomes.
Could the Agentic SOC give security teams the speed they need without surrendering the judgment and accountability customers expect? Listen to the episode and share your thoughts.

How should security leaders respond when AI-powered attacks compress detection and response windows from minutes to seconds?
At Barracuda TechSummit 26 in Alpbach, Austria, I spoke with Rohit Ghai, Chief Executive Officer at Barracuda. The conversation took place exactly one year after Rohit joined the company, giving us an opportunity to discuss what brought him to Barracuda, what he inherited, and how his first year has influenced his plans for the business.
Rohit explains that Barracuda's focus on smaller and resource-constrained organizations was an important reason he accepted the role. A cyber incident can threaten the survival of a smaller company, particularly when it has a lean IT team and limited access to specialist security knowledge. For these businesses, Rohit argues that AI-supported and increasingly autonomous security is a practical requirement.
We discuss Barracuda's platform strategy and why genuine integration must extend beyond a shared interface. Rohit compares loosely connected product portfolios to supermarkets. Customers may find it easier to purchase several products from one supplier, but that commercial convenience does not mean the products share data or produce a coordinated response.
Traditional tool sprawl forced analysts to interpret information across several screens. Agent sprawl could introduce systems that act independently, disagree with one another, or take conflicting actions. Rohit believes security platforms must connect information across email, identity, applications, data, and infrastructure so they can reason across the complete attack sequence.
Identity is another major part of the discussion. Barracuda's acquisition of Evo Security addresses privileged access for managed service providers and smaller businesses. Rohit expects machine and non-human identities to greatly outnumber human users, raising questions about excessive privileges and how organizations grant temporary access to autonomous agents.
We also discuss the economics behind AI security. Rohit explains how Barracuda is adapting its value reports to account for token consumption as well as staffing, software, and security outcomes. Barracuda absorbs the direct token costs associated with its own AI capabilities and selects different models according to the task, an approach intended to keep its products affordable for smaller customers and MSPs.
Rohit is cautious about calls for the AI industry to slow development. Coordinating a worldwide slowdown between companies and countries would be extremely difficult. He also argues that cyber defenders cannot pause while attackers continue using widely available models to improve their campaigns.
The conversation ends with a wider leadership question. Rohit believes intelligence will become widely available, making empathy and trust more valuable. AI can generate an answer, but customers, partners, and security professionals must decide whether they trust the organization acting upon it.
Will connected AI security platforms reduce complexity, or could autonomous agents introduce a new form of operational risk?
 Share your thoughts.

What happens when enterprises spend trillions of dollars on AI but the systems underneath it still cannot provide the context those models need to make reliable decisions?
In this episode of Tech Talks Daily, I reconnect with Christian Monberg, CTO at Zeta Global, to examine what separates AI experimentation from production systems that organizations can actually trust.
Our previous conversation focused on how businesses could use AI to scale marketing without losing the human connection with customers. This time, we move deeper into the technology underneath those experiences.
Christian explains why disconnected tools and fragmented data remain barriers to AI adoption, and why Zeta rebuilt its data architecture using Palantir Foundry. We discuss the role of context graphs in connecting customer identity, business objectives, previous decisions, campaign history and outcomes so AI systems can understand more than isolated pieces of information.
We also examine one of the biggest questions surrounding agentic AI: when should businesses allow an AI agent to take action?
Christian shares what enterprises need around explainability, permissions, observability and learning loops before AI systems can safely move from recommendation to execution.
With global AI spending expected to reach $2.59 trillion in 2026, the conversation ultimately comes back to a simple question: how can technology leaders prove that their AI investments are producing measurable business value?

Why is employee AI use rising so quickly while measurable business value remains difficult for many organizations to find?
In this episode of Tech Talks Daily, I speak with David Martin, Senior Partner and Global Leader of People and Organization at BCG, about the firm's fourth annual AI and workforce report. The research surveyed 11,749 employees across 14 countries and points to a growing divide between companies that distribute AI tools and companies that give people a clear plan for changing how work gets done.
BCG reports that 74 percent of frontline and nonmanagerial employees now use AI regularly, an increase of 23 percentage points from the previous year. Adoption, however, is only part of the story. The report says 71 percent of employees receive little or no guidance about what to do with the time AI frees, while over half are not redirecting that capacity into strategic work.
David describes one of the research findings that best captures the problem. Companies where employees understand the strategic direction but rate their AI tools poorly can realize greater value than organizations with strong tools and limited strategic clarity. Better technology helps, but its impact remains small when employees do not understand which business problem they are solving or how the operating model should change.
The report connects clearer strategy with a roughly 25 percentage point increase in measurable business impact when companies redesign workflows from end to end or create new business models. BCG says strong tools without that clarity produce an improvement of roughly five percentage points. Companies that redesign workflows also outperform tool-only adopters by 23 percentage points on measurable business impact, 22 points on time saved, and 20 points on job satisfaction.
David explains what redesign looks like in practice. Giving software engineers stronger coding tools may improve part of a development task, but keeping the overall product lifecycle unchanged limits the result. A deeper redesign considers how research, product management, engineering, and decision-making operate together, then changes roles and processes around the capability of AI. The objective is a better business outcome rather than a faster version of the same work.
This distinction also explains why promising pilots fail when companies attempt to expand them. A pilot can prove that a model works inside a controlled environment. Wider deployment tests whether the organization surrounding that model works. David cites BCG research indicating that 70 percent of the factors determining whether AI scales with a return relate to people, organization, and process. Talent, operating models, cross-functional teamwork, incentives, learning, and leadership all become part of the result.
Measurement must also move beyond adoption. David argues that the final metrics remain familiar business outcomes such as conversion, competitive win rate, price realization, cycle time, and inventory performance. A pilot can use controlled comparison to test whether AI changes one of those outcomes. The missing management step is often accountability. If several executives share ownership but nobody is responsible for the return, the investment can continue without a clear test of success.
There is a case for broad experimentation because it can build familiarity and surface ideas. David warns that hundreds of isolated use cases can also fragment investment, increase risk, and save small amounts of individual time without producing company-level value. His preferred balance combines focused governance with structured opportunities such as hackathons, where employees contribute ideas but the organization selects which ones receive investment.
The workforce findings add an important human dimension. BCG says 67 percent of regular AI users report higher job satisfaction, while 41 percent also report higher cognitive load. David connects that tension with the effort required to assign work to agents, evaluate quality, and keep those agents operating. He refers to separate BCG research called AI Brain Fry, which found productivity rising as employees managed additional agents until a limiting point. In that research, productivity fell when workers moved beyond managing three agents.
Training remains another stubborn problem. The report says 72 percent of employees believe AI has changed skill expectations, and nearly half say their role is moving toward directing and managing AI. Only 36 percent feel they have received enough training, a figure David says has not improved despite new learning programs. His recommendation is in-context training that brings AI into daily work, followed by peer discussion about what worked, what failed, and how behavior should change.
The purpose of recovered time may be the most revealing management question of all. David says employees report saving an average of around eight hours a week, but many use that time to perform additional versions of the same tasks. That can become demoralizing if greater output benefits the company without giving employees room for learning, infrastructure improvement, experimentation, or new product work. Leaders need to explain where the capacity should go and why.
Clear communication also reduces fear. Automation targets introduced without an explanation of strategy can leave employees assuming that efficiency is a code word for job loss. When leaders explain whether AI is intended to improve customer experience, create growth, reduce cost, or change the business model, employees have a better basis for understanding what is expected of them.
If strategic clarity is producing greater value than better tools, should the next AI investment begin with another platform or with a decision about how the work itself must change? Listen to the episode and share your thoughts.
 
Useful Links
AI at Work: Strategy Matters More Than Tools
When Using AI Leads to "Brain Fry"
When Everyone Uses AI, Companies Risk Losing Critical Skills
LinkedIn – BCG on the CHRO Agenda

What will customers remember about a business when the voice answering their questions becomes the main expression of its identity?
In this episode of Tech Talks Daily, I speak with Ruth Zive, who leads marketing at Voices, about the business and human questions surrounding AI voice. Voices is an enterprise marketplace and platform where companies can find professional voice actors, license AI voices with consent, and source custom voice data for training models. The company says its global talent network includes millions of performers and has served brands including Microsoft, Shopify, and Cisco.
For years, much of the AI voice debate focused on whether synthetic speech could sound convincingly human. Ruth believes the commercial conversation has moved toward provenance, brand integrity, permission, and usage rights. A voice can sound polished while exposing a company to reputational damage if the performer did not understand the use, the license is unclear, or the same generic voice appears in a competitor's customer experience.
Voices research cited during the interview found that 79 percent of business leaders believe inauthentic AI voices could damage brand perception. Ruth also says almost half of enterprise decision makers regard tone and emotional expression as the most important vocal factor in authenticity. That matters when a customer is frustrated, confused, or asking for help. A voice that sounds human but responds without suitable emotion can weaken trust at the exact moment a company needs to earn it.
Ruth describes responsible licensing through three ideas: compensation, control, and consent. The performer should understand how the voice will be used, retain an agreed degree of control, and receive payment that reflects the commercial use. Those decisions need to appear in the contracting, licensing, and entitlements before a model is trained or placed in front of customers.
We also consider the economic effect on professional performers. AI voice can change existing work, but Ruth argues that it can also create additional assignments when licenses are written carefully. An actor might provide the voice for an in-car assistant while continuing to record commercials in unrelated categories. Other opportunities include contact center experiences and the creation of specialized voice data used to train models. The positive case depends on clear boundaries and fair commercial terms rather than unlimited reuse.
The brand question may become even larger as customers move from websites and typed interfaces toward spoken conversations. Ruth points to BMW's careful selection of voices based on customer profile, tone, language, accent, and how each performer sounded inside the vehicle cabin. Her advice is to treat a voice as a long-term brand asset, test it in the setting where customers will hear it, and confirm that the company has the required rights before deployment.
Voice AI offers companies a more natural customer experience and gives performers access to new forms of paid work. It also raises difficult questions about disclosure, ownership, exclusivity, and trust.
Should every company now have a formal policy for choosing, licensing, and governing the voice that speaks on its behalf? Listen to the conversation and share your thoughts with me.