Most security products are built by people who've never defended a network under fire. I spent years hunting adversaries on DoD networks: writing detections, pulling packets, and responding to incidents on networks that matter. The gap between what vendors promise and what defenders actually need is the problem I've spent my career on.
I co-founded Interpres Security to close that gap - a threat exposure management platform built from zero, recognized by Gartner, backed by a top cybersecurity VC firm, and acquired by CyberProof in late 2024. Now I help security companies build products that solve real problems.
Get in touch →Background
My path into security started in the US Army, where I spent four years in field artillery and a Division Fires cell. That wasn't cybersecurity, but it was an education in how large organizations actually operate - and how they fail. I became the subject matter expert on the Army Battle Command System and digital integration. Every assumption that doesn't get tested becomes a single point of failure.
After the Army, I joined Adapt Forward on the Cyber Hunt and Threat Analysis team for a DoD CSSP contract. For five years, I did threat hunting and incident response on critical networks. I learned what adversary tradecraft actually looks like - not from vendor reports, but from the wire. That work taught me what defenders need from their tools, and how far most products fall short.
That gap wasn't a feature problem, it was a product vision problem. In 2021, I co-founded Interpres Security. Our thesis: if you could map defensive coverage against the specific threats targeting an organization, you could prioritize security spending based on evidence instead of fear. We built it, Gartner recognized it, and CyberProof acquired us in late 2024.
I'm now Head of Product Innovation at CyberProof, integrating what we built into their managed detection and response services. And I'm focused on building toward what comes next.
Now
I'm deep in the agentic AI shift. Not writing about it, but building with it. Most of my time goes to working with the latest models and agentic workflows, figuring out where they actually deliver and where the demos lie.
The security industry's conversation about AI is heavily weighted toward risk: securing models, governing agents, red-teaming outputs. That work is necessary and genuinely urgent. But I don't think that's where the interesting structural thinking is happening.
The cost of building software is collapsing, and when a fundamental input cost drops by an order of magnitude, it doesn't just make existing things cheaper. It breaks the assumptions everything was built on. Right now most of the industry is in the bolt-on phase and is wrapping AI around existing products and business models the same way early websites were digital brochures. That's how every platform shift starts. The question is what gets rebuilt from scratch once people stop thinking in terms of the old constraints.
That rebuilding cuts in every direction. Attackers get the same cost collapse. Vendor business models built on the assumption that customers can't build for themselves have a shorter shelf life than people think. The moat around security products shifts away from engineering capacity, and not necessarily toward incumbents with distribution and brand. The same logic that reshapes vendors reshapes internal security teams too: who gets displaced, who gets elevated, and how fast is the question most people in the industry are dancing around.
I've been through one platform shift already - building a company on a thesis about what defenders actually needed versus what vendors were selling. I'm looking at this one the same way: less interested in the obvious plays, more interested in the structural gaps nobody's filling yet.
Contact
I'm always interested in conversations about security product strategy, the 0-to-1 journey, and the future of defense. The best way to reach me is by email.