POPULARITY
164 episodes with security operations
59 episodes with security operations
39 episodes with security operations
51 episodes with security operations
16 episodes with security operations
14 episodes with security operations
13 episodes with security operations
13 episodes with security operations
8 episodes with security operations
10 episodes with security operations
9 episodes with security operations
7 episodes with security operations
8 episodes with security operations
11 episodes with security operations
6 episodes with security operations
6 episodes with security operations
10 episodes with security operations
7 episodes with security operations
4 episodes with security operations
5 episodes with security operations
4 episodes with security operations
7 episodes with security operations
7 episodes with security operations
5 episodes with security operations
12 episodes with security operations
6 episodes with security operations
3 episodes with security operations
Espresso in hand at Black Hat USA 2026, Monzy Merza, Co-Founder and CEO of Crogl, gave Marco Ciappelli the read from a week that started Monday. The free download the company announced the week before had drawn a strong community reaction, and a hackathon was running alongside the conversation with people downloading Crogl, hacking on it, and competing in challenges. Merza credits the openness of the approach as much as the product. What do security teams want from AI right now? Sovereignty. Merza describes a movement in which organizations have concluded that any work with AI has to cover privacy and security of the product and of the AI workload itself. Crogl was built as an on-prem product from the very beginning to serve mission critical organizations and critical infrastructure operators with hard requirements, and a larger community is now arriving at the same principles and asking what should be governed. The second shift is operational. The question moved from whether to look at AI to how work stays consistent and repeatable when one model is swapped for another, prompted by outages across model providers and in-house AI services going up and down. Merza describes the arc as a pendulum, from avoiding AI, to human in the loop, to a stretch where autonomy dominated. Crogl customers now run it both interactively and fully autonomously, with the line drawn at the tasks where a human has little reason to sit in the loop. This is a Brand Briefing. A Brand Briefing is an on-location conversation recorded on site at Black Hat USA 2026, putting a spotlight on the guest and their company and pairing it with the editorial reach of ITSPmagazine. Learn more: https://www.studioc60.com/performance/#briefing GUEST Monzy Merza, Co-Founder and CEO at Crogl On LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/monzymerza/ RESOURCES Black Hat USA 2026 event coverage: https://www.itspmagazine.com/black-hat-usa-2026-cybersecurity-event-coverage-in-las-vegas Learn more about Crogl: https://www.crogl.com Download Crogl: https://www.crogl.com/download Crogl newsroom: https://www.crogl.com/newsroom Are you interested in telling your story? ▶︎ Full Length Brand Story: https://www.studioc60.com/content-creation#full ▶︎ Brand Spotlight Story: https://www.studioc60.com/content-creation#spotlight ▶︎ Brand Highlight Story: https://www.studioc60.com/content-creation#highlight ▶︎ Get your own Brand Briefing at an upcoming event: https://www.studioc60.com/buy-brand-briefings KEYWORDS monzy merza, crogl, marco ciappelli, brand briefing, brand story, brand marketing, marketing podcast, black hat usa 2026, sovereign ai, on prem ai, ai governance, security operations, model choice, ai workload security, critical infrastructure, autonomous investigation, human in the loop, free download, hackathon, security community
Lisa Liu, Corporate Marketing and Communications Manager at Stellar Cyber, connects with ITSPmagazine on the floor at Black Hat USA 2026 in Las Vegas. What are buyers asking for now that the RSAC Conference noise has settled? Data. Liu says people have had time to run their own research, look at what vendors offer, and come back using specific keywords and asking for something behind the marketing. Does a more skeptical audience make the conversation harder? Liu describes the opposite. She says people are pushing back on claims they hear, which presses vendors to prove at a higher standard that a technology does what it says it does. Feedback arrives more specific, and the exchange moves from explaining to planning as people ask how a capability could work in their environment. The reply she calls validating is the customer who reports the product did what it was said it would do, giving analysts their time back and helping teams work more efficiently. What makes Black Hat different for a company that works the major events? Ask people what they are looking for and they will tell you. Liu says pain points here are felt daily and described plainly, and that candor is feedback the company works to internalize and make productive. Looking ahead, she says new product releases are coming, with new features and expansions of what customers have responded to, and that Stellar Cyber will share them on its website and on LinkedIn. This is a Brand Briefing. A Brand Briefing is an on-location conversation recorded on site at Black Hat USA 2026, putting a spotlight on the guest and their company and pairing it with the editorial reach of ITSPmagazine. Learn more: https://www.studioc60.com/performance/#briefing GUEST Lisa Liu, Corporate Marketing and Communications Manager at Stellar Cyber LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/lisaaliu/ RESOURCES Black Hat USA 2026 event coverage: https://www.itspmagazine.com/black-hat-usa-2026-cybersecurity-event-coverage-in-las-vegas Stellar Cyber: https://stellarcyber.ai/ Stellar Cyber on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/stellarcyber Are you interested in telling your story? ▶︎ Full Length Brand Story: https://www.studioc60.com/content-creation#full ▶︎ Brand Spotlight Story: https://www.studioc60.com/content-creation#spotlight ▶︎ Brand Highlight Story: https://www.studioc60.com/content-creation#highlight ▶︎ Get your own Brand Briefing at an upcoming event: https://www.studioc60.com/buy-brand-briefings KEYWORDS lisa liu, stellar cyber, marco ciappelli, brand briefing, brand story, brand marketing, marketing podcast, black hat usa 2026, security operations, agentic ai, ai in cybersecurity, vendor claims, proof and data, soc analysts, rsac conference, event coverage, las vegas Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.
What actually changed for the AI SOC this year? Bill Peterson, Senior Director of Product Marketing at Sumo Logic, says it reached the point of getting into production, where a year or so ago the same conversation was about what was coming. Marco Ciappelli puts the count of companies carrying AI SOC in the name at 43, and Bill Peterson says that number strikes him as low. The market is maturing, and Sumo Logic announced its own set of AI SOC products and solutions during the week. The second thing is what a security audience does with it. Hands-on practitioners want to touch it, see it, feel it, and Sumo Logic ran live demos of its products on site. When a technical audience puts hands on a keyboard and tries something, Bill Peterson expects them to take it back to work with them. Production first, then enablement of the practitioners. The third is the pace behind all of it. Most security vendors are SaaS companies running CI/CD and shipping continuously, so three and six month roadmaps and delivery are the norm now and the 12 to 18 month roadmap is gone. Some customers are what Sumo Logic internally calls AI shy, accepting they have to get there while taking a slow and reasoned approach, and Bill Peterson treats that as normal for any technology. This is a Brand Briefing. A Brand Briefing is an on-location conversation recorded on site at Black Hat USA 2026, putting a spotlight on the guest and their company and pairing it with the editorial reach of ITSPmagazine. Learn more: https://www.studioc60.com/performance/#briefing GUEST Bill Peterson, Senior Director of Product Marketing at Sumo Logic On LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/williampetersonjr/ RESOURCES Black Hat USA 2026 event coverage: https://www.itspmagazine.com/black-hat-usa-2026-cybersecurity-event-coverage-in-las-vegas Learn more about Sumo Logic: https://www.sumologic.com/ Sumo Logic Dojo AI: https://www.sumologic.com/solutions/dojo-ai Sumo Logic Dojo AI agent announcements at Black Hat USA 2026, including general availability of the SOC Analyst Agent: https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/sumo-logics-new-dojo-ai-agents-investigate-and-resolve-security--cloud-operations-issues-at-machine-speed-302839720.html Are you interested in telling your story? ▶︎ Full Length Brand Story: https://www.studioc60.com/content-creation#full ▶︎ Brand Spotlight Story: https://www.studioc60.com/content-creation#spotlight ▶︎ Brand Highlight Story: https://www.studioc60.com/content-creation#highlight ▶︎ Get your own Brand Briefing at an upcoming event: https://www.studioc60.com/buy-brand-briefings KEYWORDS Bill Peterson, Sumo Logic, Marco Ciappelli, brand briefing, brand story, brand marketing, marketing podcast, Black Hat USA 2026, AI SOC, agentic AI, security operations, Dojo AI, SOC analyst agent, product marketing, CI/CD release cycles, AI adoption, human in the loop, security operations center, market maturity Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.
Recorded on site at Black Hat USA 2026 in Las Vegas, Seth Summersett joins Sean Martin to talk through the volume problem that shapes a modern security operations team. Seth Summersett spent about a decade at the NSA and roughly a decade at Mandiant, finishing there as head of innovation and custom engineering, then a couple of years at Meta supporting business unit level CISOs. He co-founded Embed Security with Jeffrey Johns, who ran the data science team alongside him at Mandiant. The catalyst came from watching a managed service run on human scale day after day. Two analysts and a hundred forwarded phishing emails means someone is choosing which ones to open and carrying the ones they cannot reach. Embed Security sits downstream of existing detection investments, taking signals from SIEM, EDR, identity, and email rather than asking a team to rip and replace what it already runs. What do security analysts actually want from AI in the SOC? According to Seth Summersett, it is not a verdict. Analysts want the work off their plate in a way they can verify, which is why Embed Security built what it calls chain of evidence, showing every question asked and the path to each conclusion. Teams also test it in reverse, running previously dispositioned alerts back through the platform to compare results against their own analysts. The numbers come from a competitive bake off at one of the company's largest clients. Embed Security dispositioned roughly 75% of that client's alerts to the point where the team stopped treating them as primary work, against a daily volume above 10,000 alerts. Why not build this in house? Seth Summersett says the demo is the easy part. What follows is evaluation loops that measure a change across hundreds of thousands of alerts rather than one, governance, and a way to capture organizational knowledge automatically. In regulated sectors, auditors may ask a team to prove how a conclusion was reached and that it holds consistently. There is a people side to this as well. Embed Security has supported a wellness program at BSides across its last two events, backing a calming kit and curriculum for analysts working under incident pressure. Seth Summersett closes with consistency for leaders, since a leader looking at 10% of alerts does not have a full risk profile, and career longevity for analysts who would rather build a long run in security operations than burn out in two or three years. GUEST Seth Summersett, Co-Founder and CEO, Embed Security LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/summersett/ RESOURCES Black Hat USA 2026 event coverage: https://www.itspmagazine.com/black-hat-usa-2026-cybersecurity-event-coverage-in-las-vegas Embed Security: https://www.embedsecurity.com Are you interested in telling your story? ▶︎ Full Length Brand Story: https://www.studioc60.com/content-creation#full ▶︎ Brand Spotlight Story: https://www.studioc60.com/content-creation#spotlight ▶︎ Brand Highlight Story: https://www.studioc60.com/content-creation#highlight ▶︎ Get your own Brand Briefing at an upcoming event: https://www.studioc60.com/buy-brand-briefings KEYWORDS seth summersett, embed security, sean martin, brand story, brand marketing, marketing podcast, brand spotlight, black hat usa 2026, security operations, soc analyst burnout, alert triage, agentic ai security, chain of evidence, siem alert fatigue, edr alerts, ai soc platform, security analyst workflow, build versus buy security ai, security operations governance, threat investigation Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.
Recorded on location at Black Hat USA 2026 in Las Vegas at the end of day two, Karthik Kannan, Founder and CEO at Anvilogic, walks through a seven year build that reached its original shape this year. The plan from the start was a full security operations platform covering data, the detection engineering process, triage and investigation, and case management. In the shorthand of the category, SIEM and SOAR combined. It arrived in phases. Detection engineering came first, implemented on top of Splunk for most customers, then the data platform expanded into data lakes including Snowflake, Databricks, and Microsoft Azure. Triage and investigation followed over the last two years. In the last year Anvilogic rolled out agents that carry out the work of specific personas, and this year the company launched Blueprints, an orchestrator agent that brings the discrete agents together to run a whole workflow with humans in the loop. What separates a security graph from a frontier model? It knows the environment. Karthik Kannan describes the enterprise security graph as Anvilogic's own model running inside the network, learning the micro environment, with frontier LLMs called on to fill gaps in the macro environment. His argument is that platforms operating as LLM wrappers miss the last mile, because AI on its own reaches 60, 70, or 80 percent of the way if you are lucky. How does a team keep control when agents run the workflow? Through gates, permissions, and a record of what happened. Workflows can be described in plain English, with human gates inserted as often as the team wants. Access controls sit at the persona, organization, and object levels, and activity is audited and logged, which matters to the GRC teams Anvilogic works with. Screens dedicated to what the company calls a maturity score show which feeds are coming in, what kinds of detections exist, and what coverage looks like against the MITRE ATT&CK framework, in a form available to executives and CISOs. Karthik Kannan also points to version 8.0, introduced the week before the event, which includes an Anvilogic MCP Server for connecting to third party tools. Customers are already building their own Blueprint workflows during proofs of concept, including a large life sciences customer Anvilogic expects to feature in a public case study. Karthik Kannan is careful about the claim being made here. This is not a proclamation of an autonomous SOC. It is automation that makes life in a SOC easier and more efficient, adopted at a crawl, walk, run pace, with every step visible along the way. This is a Brand Briefing. A Brand Briefing is an on-location conversation recorded on site at Black Hat USA 2026, putting a spotlight on the guest and their company and pairing it with the editorial reach of ITSPmagazine. Learn more: https://www.studioc60.com/performance/#briefing GUEST Karthik Kannan, Founder and CEO at Anvilogic On LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/karthikkannan001/ RESOURCES Black Hat USA 2026 event coverage from ITSPmagazine: https://www.itspmagazine.com/black-hat-usa-2026-cybersecurity-event-coverage-in-las-vegas Learn more about Anvilogic: https://www.anvilogic.com Anvilogic 8.0, from onboarding to investigation: https://www.anvilogic.com/learn/anvilogic-8-0-automate-the-soc Are you interested in telling your story? ▶︎ Full Length Brand Story: https://www.studioc60.com/content-creation#full ▶︎ Brand Spotlight Story: https://www.studioc60.com/content-creation#spotlight ▶︎ Brand Highlight Story: https://www.studioc60.com/content-creation#highlight ▶︎ Get your own Brand Briefing at an upcoming event: https://www.studioc60.com/buy-brand-briefings KEYWORDS karthik kannan, anvilogic, sean martin, brand briefing, brand story, brand marketing, marketing podcast, black hat usa 2026, agentic secops, ai soc platform, enterprise security graph, detection engineering, triage and investigation, blueprints orchestrator agent, mcp server, mitre att&ck coverage, human in the loop automation, siem and soar, security operations, grc audit logs Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.
Today we're speaking with Christopher Crowley, cybersecurity consultant through Montance and Senior Instructor with the SANS Institute, about the value of cybersecurity operations — how to measure it, how to express it to the business, and how AI is changing the work of the SOC.Christopher is a cybersecurity practitioner and educator focused on security operations, incident response, threat hunting, and building and maturing security operations centers. He is the author of the annual SANS SOC Survey, a security operations class called SOC-Class, and a new book entitled The Value of Cybersecurity Operations. He is a Senior Instructor with the SANS Institute, a faculty member at IANS, and a consultant through Montance. His background also includes network operations, software development, mobile security assessment, and security policy.Learn more at https://montance.com and get the book at https://shop.montance.comSupport our show by sharing your favorite episodes with a friend, subscribe, give us a rating or leave a comment on your podcast platform.This podcast is brought to you by LimaCharlie, maker of the SecOps Cloud Platform, infrastructure for SecOps where everything is built API first. Scale with confidence as your business grows. Start today for free at https://limacharlie.io/Subscribe to The Cybersecurity Defenders Podcast on Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/6ep00zeY3S8ffZ4o0UeSps
Federal Tech Podcast: Listen and learn how successful companies get federal contracts
For decades, software was "bespoke." Each application was carefully crafted to solve a specific problem. When this was applied to the federal government, they discovered that this process was slow and unpredictable. The solution: a software factory. From custom-built software to software that could be created in an organization that had a "bubble" that could standardize on federal security guidelines. From there, they could deliver safer, higher-quality software much faster. Today, we sit down with Jorge Lopez, Vice President of Security Operations and Trust and Safety at GitLab, to discuss the concept of software factories in the federal government. Lopez admits the importance of visibility, collaboration, and compliance in these factories. However, during the interview, he notes that gaps in DevSecOps often stem from organizational issues, such as miscommunication between security and development teams. He emphasizes the need for proper monitoring, incident response, and managing secrets to mitigate risks. Digging deeper, he states that if a federal organization does not have monitoring in place, they will only discover a problem after it happens. One approach is to go to the people responsible for defending the software. Lopez has seen success when security operations teams and software factory teams talk to each other. Lopes also discusses the impact of AI on code production and the importance of proactive measures to ensure software factory security.
Parce que… c'est l'épisode 0x322! Shameless plug 19 septembre 2026 - Bsides Montréal 20 au 26 septembre 2026 - BruCON 13 novembre 2026 - DEATHCon 16 au 19 novembre - European Cyber Week 1 au 3 décembre 2026 - Forum INCYBER - Canada 2026 24 et 25 février 2027 - SéQCure 2027 Notes IA ou Ghost in the shell Rogue ou pas rogue, là est la question OpenAI says its AI agent broke out of testing sandbox to hack Hugging Face OpenAI says its AI models hacked Hugging Face during testing OpenAI's accidental cyberattack against Hugging Face is science fiction that happened OpenAI Hacks Hugging Face, What Happened, Alignment and Paper Clips Frontier LLMs couldn't help Hugging Face fight off evil agents OpenAI scored an own goal with Hugging Face attack, showing how open Chinese models are winning OpenAI-Hugging Face attack doesn't mean agents are evil – unless you tell them to be The OpenAI Models That Hacked Hugging Face Were ‘Active on the Internet' for Days AI arms race in line for a reckoning after OpenAI hacking incident OpenAI says its AI went rogue and launched ‘unprecedented' cyber-attack An OpenAI model left notes about how to evade containment; we need more details OpenAI's Rogue Agent Went Unnoticed For a Week Be skeptical of OpenAI's rogue hacker agent story The first known runaway AI agent - or a very bad marketing stunt? Digital Intelligence: Why Humanity Created What It Does Not Understand Petit rogue Claude Cowork Flaw Could Let AI Agent Escape Its VM and Access Mac Files Recherche The Language of Security: How Prompt Syntax Shapes Secure Code Generation in Open LLMs Understanding How University Guidelines Address Privacy and Security Issues of Generative AI in Academic Settings LLM Unlearning for Cyber Defense: A Survey on Methods, Challenges, and Emerging Threats Adaptive Incident Prioritization for Security Operations at Scale AI Kill Switch Act would let Trump admin order shutdown of rogue AI systems Hermes AI agent used to automate attack on Thai Finance Ministry Why blocking AI models won't stop the cyber threats they create Linux Patches 400+ Kernel Vulnerabilities in 24 Hours With AI-Powered Detection UK AISI / CAISI Preliminary Assessment of Kimi K3's Cyber Capabilities Seeing AI Agents Is Not Enough. Security Teams Must Enforce What They Can Do Connecting AI agents to outside services explodes the risk radius La guerre, la guerre, c'est pas une raison pour se faire mal! Apps targeted at US troops contain Chinese and Russian code Souveraineté ou vive le numérique libre! Rien Privacy ou cachez ces informations que je ne saurais voir What the Flock The creepiest ‘sales demo' of all time A 77-year-old Republican man is staging a solo protest against St. Pete's Flock cameras Inside the growing vigilante movement to knock out Flock surveillance cameras Flock Safety kills acoustic system designed to detect ‘human distress' Graphene GrapheneOS protections against data extraction from locked devices US Accuses American of Allegedly Wiping His Phone Using a ‘Duress' Password During Border Search Tile's Security Is So Bad It's a Feature for Stalkers « Adafruit Industries – Makers, hackers, artists, designers and engineers! The EU is about to sell our most sensitive data to the US for visa-free travel - European Digital Rights (EDRi) Pluralistic: California's privacy obstacle course (23 Jul 2026) Encryption and Globalization 15 Years Later: End-to-End Encryption and the Third Round of the “Going Dark” Debate by Peter Swire, Kenesa Ahmad, Michael Specter :: SSRN I am the law Canada Rushing Lawful Access Backfires: Wyden Letter on Bill C-22 Highlights Political, Trade and Business Risks A Surveillance Treaty in Disguise: The Trouble With Canada's Quiet Decision to Sign the UN Cybercrime Convention Bitinde L'Inde coupe internet, puis exige le retrait du code de bitchat bitchat · Decentralized mesh messaging (iOS/macOS) Pif pouf Google hit with $1 billion in fines as EU braces for Trump battle Trump threatens new tariffs against EU over Google fine France Becomes First European Country To Ban Social Media Access For Under-15s Uncle Sam tells overseas cybercrooks their visas are canceled Red ou tout ce qui est brisé Researchers replace downloaded macOS apps with evil twins, Apple shrugs Malicious cloud customers can bring down the power grid Blue ou tout ce qui améliore notre posture Cool head npm's release cooldown is security theater A quote from Seth Larson Apple Fixes Hide My Email Vulnerability After 404 Media Coverage Threat-INFORM to Optimize Security Operations OVH reveals semi-secret plan to fix critical Januscape hypervisor bug with mass reboots – and an Australian crash-test dummy Divers ou parce que j'ai aucune idée où les placer CISOs vs. Boards: Myth or Misunderstanding? Microsoft Responds to LG Monitors Installing McAfee Ads On Windows Collaborateurs Nicolas-Loïc Fortin Crédits Montage par Intrasecure inc Locaux réels par Intrasecure inc
DailyCyber The Truth About Cyber Security with Brandon Krieger
Security operations centers are buried — enterprises now average more than 4,000 alerts a day and manage to investigate just over a third of them. In this episode, Brandon Krieger talks with Monzy Merza, Co-Founder and CEO of Crogl, about building an AI "knowledge engine" designed to close that gap. Monzy traces his path from 12 years as an applied security researcher at Sandia National Laboratories, through leadership roles in security research at Splunk and cybersecurity go-to-market at Databricks, to co-founding Crogl in 2023 — a company that raised $30M (a $25M Series A led by Menlo Ventures and a $5M seed led by Tola Capital) to build what TechCrunch called an AI "Iron Man suit" for security analysts. Topics include: Monzy's career arc from a national nuclear lab to founding a cybersecurity startup What compelled him to enter an already-crowded security market The biggest daily pain points facing SOC analysts How AI complements the work of security practitioners Whether AI will eventually replace jobs in data security Guest: Monzy Merza, Co-Founder and CEO, CroglHost: Brandon Krieger, CEO & vCISO Advisor Watch Full Episode: YouTube.com/BrandonKriegerListen: DailyCyber.ca
In this episode, Scott Bryant, Director of the TRM Distribution Center and Marcus Molinar, Deputy Director of Property and Security Operations discuss the Topeka Rescue Mission's Back to School Drive and why it makes a meaningful difference for local children and families. They explain the goal of providing backpacks and essential school supplies to around 400 kids across Shawnee County before the school year begins. They also share how listeners can contribute through the Amazon wish list, donation drop-offs, or volunteering. Beyond the supplies themselves, the episode explores how being prepared for school helps children feel confident, included, and ready to learn. It's a conversation about meeting practical needs, strengthening families, and creating lasting impact in the community.Send us a Message!
Crogl calls it a Knowledge Engine for Security Operations, and the idea is simple: analysts are drowning in alerts, and cutting corners isn't the fix. Every alert deserves a real look. So Crogl built an AI that works alongside the analyst, not instead of them, an assistant one investor called an "Iron Man suit" for security researchers. The goal isn't to replace the team. It's to make every single analyst as effective as the whole team combined. Monzy Merza, Co-founder and CEO of Crogl, joins us today on BarCode to talk community, what's coming at Black Hat, and why the best defense in cybersecurity might just be showing up and sharing what you know.SYMLINKS[Crogl] - https://crogl.com An AI-powered security operations platform that helps security teams investigate alerts, perform threat hunting, and automate cybersecurity workflows while keeping customer data within their own environment.[Monzy Mirza – LinkedIn] - https://www.linkedin.com/in/monzymerza/ The official LinkedIn profile of Monzy Mirza, Co-founder and CEO of Crogl, where he shares insights on AI, cybersecurity, and security operations.[MITRE ATT&CK® Framework] - https://attack.mitre.org/ A globally recognized cybersecurity knowledge base maintained by MITRE that documents adversary tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTPs). Crogl references the framework for investigating security alerts and threat hunting.[CISA] - https://www.cisa.gov/ The U.S. Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency. The episode discusses using CISA advisories, such as those related to Volt Typhoon, as inputs for threat hunting.[Volt Typhoon Advisory] - https://www.cisa.gov/news-events/cybersecurity-advisories CISA's collection of official cybersecurity advisories, including guidance on the Volt Typhoon threat actor. The episode references uploading these advisories into Crogl for automated threat hunting.[Slack] - https://slack.com/ A workplace collaboration platform. Crogl provides customers with access to a Slack community where users can interact directly with the engineering team and provide product feedback.[Black Hat USA] - https://www.blackhat.com/us-25/ One of the world's leading cybersecurity conferences. Monzy mentions that the Crogl team will host a booth, hackathon, and community sessions during Black Hat.
An upsurge in violence in Haiti could be in anticipation of more “assertive operations” by the recently formed UN-backed Gang Suppression Force as rival gangs in the beleaguered Caribbean Island nation fight for control of territory and resources.Gangs control the vast majority of the capital Port-au-Prince, and terrorize the population with murder, rape and kidnapping for ransom.Some 1.5 million Haitians have been driven from their homes by the gangs.The UN Designated Expert on Human Rights in Haiti, William O'Neill, is a frequent visitor to the country.UN News's Daniel Dickinson asked him what is driving the increase in violence.
Alert overload, 24/7 coverage gaps, and human threat actors who never stop — the SOC has problems that traditional SOAR and rule-based systems simply can't solve. In this sponsored videocast, KuppingerCole analyst Matthew Gardiner and Rick Bosworth, Head of Product Marketing at Torq, dig into the findings of KuppingerCole's Emerging AI SOC Leadership Compass and explore what it actually takes to build an AI-powered security operations center. Key Topics: ✅ Why rule-based SOAR has hit a wall — and how AI agents address what it can't✅ The autonomy dial: why full automation isn't the goal and how to build trust incrementally✅ Integrations, RAG, and MCP: the new data infrastructure powering AI agents in the SOC✅ DIY SOC vs. managed providers: how agentic AI is reshuffling the build-vs-buy decision✅ Where to start: alert triage, phishing, and typosquatting as low-risk entry points✅ Guardrails, transparency, and the non-deterministic challenge of AI-driven security "AI agents hate people because they're slow" — but full autonomy isn't the answer either. Find out how leading SOC teams are finding the right balance between speed and control. This videocast is sponsored by Torq — featured in KuppingerCole's Emerging AI SOC Leadership Compass. Read the report, then watch this session to hear the findings brought to life.
Moving ERP to the cloud doesn't mean security becomes someone else's problem. Discover how leading organizations balance shared responsibilities, AI-powered monitoring, and cyber resilience to protect the business around the clock.=====As ERP systems become the digital core of modern enterprises, security can no longer be treated as an afterthought. In this episode, EY's Michelle DeLiberty joins Richard Howells and Öykü Ilgar to explore 24/7 security monitoring, the realities of the shared responsibility model, and the growing impact of AI on cybersecurity. Learn where organizations often get security ownership wrong, how to improve cyber resilience, and what the future of ERP security looks like.Download Episode TranscriptUseful Links: SAP Cloud ERPEY-SAP AllianceFollow Us on Social Media!SAP S/4HANA Cloud ERP: LinkedIn=====Guest: Michelle DeLiberty, EYHost 1: Richard Howells, SAPRichard Howells has been working in the Supply Chain Management and Manufacturing space for over 30 years. He is responsible for driving the thought leadership and awareness of SAP's ERP, Finance, and Supply Chain solutions and is an active writer, podcaster, and thought leader on the topics of supply chain, Industry 4.0, digitization, and sustainability.Follow Richard Howell on LinkedIn and XHost 2: Oyku Ilgar, SAPOyku Ilgar is a marketer and thought leader specializing in SAP's digital supply chain and ERP solutions since 2017. As a marketer, blogger, and podcaster, she creates engaging content that highlights innovative SAP technologies and explores key topics including business trends, AI, Industry 4.0, and sustainability.Follow Oyku Ilgar on LinkedIn and SAP Community=====Key Topics: Cloud ERP, Cybersecurity, Security Monitoring, Shared Responsibility Model, SAP Security, AI Security, Cyber Resilience, Cloud Security, ERP Transformation, Risk Management, Identity Access Management, Threat Detection, Security Operations, Incident Respo.
The dominant structural shift highlighted is margin pressure and business model viability for MSPs due to workforce reduction driven by AI automation. This is exemplified by Microsoft's introduction of Agent365—an enterprise product licensing AI agents rather than human users—and industry reports forecasting that 30–50% of white-collar jobs may be replaced by AI technologies, according to publication summaries referenced during discussion. The shift fundamentally threatens the per-seat managed services pricing model that has anchored MSP revenue. Evidence of mounting financial risk is provided by the scenario where clients may halve their seat counts within a two-to-three-year window. As stated, this adjustment would immediately cut monthly recurring revenue (MMR) for MSPs. The discussion connects this trend to Microsoft's evolving licensing model and notes an industry-wide consensus reflected in a Capterra survey, which found all surveyed MSPs in 2024 facing significant increases in local competition. The implication is that margin pressure from both automation and intensifying competition is occurring simultaneously. Additional developments reinforce the risks to stability. Security complexity and associated liability are increasing, as non-specialist teams—originally tasked with legacy IT functions—are now expected to take responsibility for security operations without adequate expertise. This burden is heightened by the emergence of unmanaged AI adoption at client organizations, creating new avenues for data exposure and regulatory risk. Surveyed business owners are considering exit or consolidation, citing inability or unwillingness to restructure business models to accommodate these changes. Peer group participation is recognized as widespread but not a direct countermeasure to these structural challenges. For MSPs and IT service providers, the practical implications are clear: reliance on the per-seat model is a growing contract risk, with revenue volatility linked to workforce automation outpacing both the speed of traditional service adaptation and client technology adoption. Accountabilities around AI risk, security governance, and compliance are expanding—often without a corresponding increase in compensable scope or staff capability. Operators must assess vendor dependency (especially in rapidly shifting software licensing models), realign service portfolios towards advisory, compliance, and security, and prepare for sustained market turbulence marked by shrinking margins and rising operational complexity. Supported by: Small Biz Thoughts Community Sign up for the SMB Online Conference: www.smbonlineconference.com
Shane Tews — Non-Resident Senior Fellow at AEI and the person who explained the internet to Capitol Hill No Password Required Season 7: Episode 7 – Shane Tews Shane Tews is a Non-Resident Senior Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, where she focuses on cybersecurity, privacy, artificial intelligence, and internet governance. She is also President of Logan Circle Strategies, a strategic advisory firm working at the intersection of technology and policy. Before her think tank work, Shane helped introduce modems to the George H.W. Bush White House, walked the halls of Capitol Hill explaining the internet to blank-staring legislators, and spent years at VeriSign helping shape the foundational frameworks of how the internet would be governed. In this episode, Shane traces her unlikely path from the Bush administration to becoming one of Washington's most trusted voices on tech policy. She breaks down why regulating outcomes rather than inputs is the only sensible approach to technology governance, why the US and EU are operating from fundamentally different innovation philosophies, and why a national privacy bill is long overdue. She also explains why most organizations and individuals are far less protected than they think and why nobody knows who to call when something goes wrong. Jack Clabby and co-host Kayley Melton talk with Shane about legacy system vulnerabilities, the cybersecurity implications of agentic AI, and what policymakers absolutely must get right over the next decade. She also reflects on what the CISA reauthorization limbo means for companies that don't even know they've lost liability protection. In the Lifestyle Polygraph, Shane reveals she has 20,000 emails across eight accounts, admits she fakes laughs at bad jokes out of Midwestern politeness, shares her obsession with The Bear and Peaky Blinders, and tells us about her children's book project using Google Omni called "Shane on a Train." Follow Shane on LinkedIn and on X at @ShaneTews. Find her work at AEI.org and TechPolicyDaily.com. No Password Required is presented by ThreatLocker In this episode: Shane's path from the George H.W. Bush White House to becoming Capitol Hill's go-to internet explainer (00:34 - 02:22) Why the Clinton-era multi-stakeholder model got internet governance right and what that means for policy today (04:40 - 06:13) The case for a national privacy bill and why 50 state standards aren't working (07:24 - 09:27) What AEI covers and how Shane thinks about riding the top of the wave across the entire tech policy stack (09:35 - 11:23) Legacy systems, vendor debt, and why outdated software is the easiest entry point for bad actors (11:30 - 13:34) The gap between how protected people think they are and how exposed they actually are, including a generational perspective on MFA (14:07 - 16:25) The biggest disconnect between everyday cyber reality and the policy world (16:59 - 20:35) Government readiness for a major cyber attack and why most people don't have a plan (20:54 - 22:32) How the US and EU innovation philosophies differ and why Europe's banking system is the real tech problem (22:41 - 25:38) The DeepSeek false narrative and where the US is leading vs. reacting on AI (25:45 - 29:21) The shift from AI features to AI coordination and what agentic AI means for cybersecurity permissions (29:28 - 32:16) What policymakers must get right on AI over the next 10 years (32:25 - 34:11) The Lifestyle Polygraph: inbox chaos, fake laughs, The Bear, and Shane on a Train (00:04 - 12:48) Timestamp Highlights: (00:34) Shane's origin story: modems at the White House and blank stares on the Hill (04:40) Why the internet got policy right early on and what we can learn from it (07:24) The case for harmonizing breach standards with a national framework (11:30) Legacy systems and vendor debt as the easiest attack vectors (14:07) The real gap between how protected people think they are and how exposed they actually are (20:54) Government cyber readiness: do you know who to call when something goes wrong? (22:41) US vs. EU innovation: why Europe's banking system is the real tech problem (29:28) Agentic AI and the cybersecurity risks of permissions you forgot you gave (32:25) What policymakers must get right on AI over the next decade (06:44) Shane on a Train: using Google Omni to write a children's book series Resources & Links: AEI.org — Shane's think tank home base TechPolicyDaily.com — Daily tech policy coverage ThreatLocker — Supporter of this podcast Cyber Florida — The Mother Ship
At Infosecurity Europe 2026, Matt Middleton-Leal, Regional Vice President for Qualys across Northern Europe, joins Sean Martin inside the Risk Operations Center built into the Qualys booth. The premise is blunt: cybersecurity has spent years getting good at measuring risk and almost no time getting good at fixing it. The Risk Operations Center, or ROC, is the Qualys answer to that imbalance. So what is a ROC? It is not a product. Middleton-Leal describes it as an operating model that pulls scattered risk signals together, ranks them by business context and financial impact, and drives them toward remediation. If a SOC looks in the rearview mirror at what already happened, the ROC looks through the windshield at the risk ahead. Why now? Because risk moves at machine speed. In an AI-driven world of frontier models and autonomous agents, Middleton-Leal argues that remediation tied to service desk tickets is already too slow. He shares what happens when a client prepares to deploy tens of thousands of new agents before anyone knows what those agents touch or where their data goes. The example that lands hardest is a number: 62 million risk findings across one client's combined tooling. Middleton-Leal walks through how threat intelligence, business context, and safe exploitability testing collapse that figure to under one percent of fixes that genuinely reduce loss. It is a concrete look at how to prioritize remediation instead of drowning in dashboards. There is a quieter shift underneath it all: financial risk quantification, long reserved for the largest banks, reaching companies that never had the analysts to build it. Working with Richard Seiersen, Chief Risk Technology Officer at Qualys, the company is building ways to answer questions like what a ransomware event would likely cost a business in your sector and region. Middleton-Leal closes with the one place every organization should start, whether they use Qualys or not. This is a Brand Spotlight. A Brand Spotlight is a ~15 minute conversation designed to explore the guest, their company, and what makes their approach unique. Learn more: https://www.studioc60.com/creation#spotlight GUESTMatt Middleton-Leal, Regional Vice President, Northern Europe, Qualys LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/matt-middleton-leal-a56557/ RESOURCES Qualys: https://www.qualys.com ITSPmagazine Infosecurity Europe 2026 coverage: https://www.itspmagazine.com/infosecurity-europe-2026-infosec-london-cybersecurity-event-coverage Richard Seiersen, Chief Risk Technology Officer at Qualys, co-author of "How to Measure Anything in Cybersecurity Risk" Connect with Matt Middleton-Leal on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/matt-middleton-leal-a56557/ Are you interested in telling your story? ▶︎ Full Length Brand Story: https://www.studioc60.com/content-creation#full ▶︎ Brand Spotlight Story: https://www.studioc60.com/content-creation#spotlight ▶︎ Brand Highlight Story: https://www.studioc60.com/content-creation#highlight ▶︎ Get your own Brand Briefing at an upcoming event: https://www.studioc60.com/buy-brand-briefings KEYWORDS Matt Middleton-Leal, Qualys, Sean Martin, brand story, brand marketing, marketing podcast, brand spotlight, Risk Operations Center, ROC, risk remediation, cyber risk quantification, exposure management, vulnerability management, Richard Seiersen, AI security risk, Infosecurity Europe 2026, machine speed remediation, security operations Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.
At Infosecurity Europe 2026 in London, Bill Peterson, Senior Director of Product Marketing at Sumo Logic, joins us to unpack a tension every regulated security team knows well. When an incident hits, the business has to keep running. At the same time, regulators expect sensitive data to stay in region. For a long time, those two demands have pulled in opposite directions. Sumo Logic has spent 15 years as a SaaS platform on AWS, processing roughly four exabytes of data a day for around 2,000 customers. The core promise is speed, driving mean time to resolve as low as possible. Peterson frames it in business terms, because the person signing the check wants to know the return, not the bits and bytes. The news from the show is Sumo Logic availability on the AWS European Sovereign Cloud. EU organizations can keep their data in region, handled by EU staff, while still running the full platform for incident response. That turns a painful either/or into a checklist a regulated buyer can complete. Genesys is the first customer live in the sovereign cloud, with payment processor OpenPay preparing to follow. How does this play out for highly regulated industries? Sumo Logic is focused on finance, healthcare, telco, and government, the verticals feeling the most pressure. The path Peterson describes is simple: let Sumo Logic handle incident management, let AWS move and grow the data in region, and check the sovereignty box without giving up operational readiness. Underneath sits a full-featured SIEM and Dojo AI, the agentic approach Sumo Logic launched earlier this year. The goal is not to replace analysts but to keep a human in the loop while handing proven, repetitive work to an agent. Fix one server, confirm the solution, then let an agent patch the other 599 under oversight. A SOC Analyst Agent reaches general availability at Black Hat later this year, alongside an MCP server. On observability, the differentiator is reading both structured and unstructured data without normalizing it first. A zip code is structured; a cryptic web hook error is not. Sumo Logic reads both, which feeds directly into faster time to identify and faster time to resolve. For any leader weighing sovereignty against uptime, Bill Peterson makes a clear case that they can finally live in the same plan. This is a Brand Spotlight. A Brand Spotlight is a ~15 minute conversation designed to explore the guest, their company, and what makes their approach unique. Learn more: https://www.studioc60.com/creation#spotlight GUEST Bill Peterson, Senior Director of Product Marketing, Sumo Logic LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/williampetersonjr/ RESOURCES Learn more about Sumo Logic: https://www.sumologic.com/ Sumo Logic on the AWS European Sovereign Cloud (announced at Infosecurity Europe 2026): https://www.sumologic.com/newsroom Infosecurity Europe 2026 event coverage: https://www.itspmagazine.com/infosecurity-europe-2026-infosec-london-cybersecurity-event-coverage Are you interested in telling your story? ▶︎ Full Length Brand Story: https://www.studioc60.com/content-creation#full ▶︎ Brand Spotlight Story: https://www.studioc60.com/content-creation#spotlight ▶︎ Brand Highlight Story: https://www.studioc60.com/content-creation#highlight ▶︎ Get your own Brand Briefing at an upcoming event: https://www.studioc60.com/buy-brand-briefings KEYWORDS Bill Peterson, Sumo Logic, Sean Martin, brand story, brand marketing, marketing podcast, brand spotlight, AWS European Sovereign Cloud, data sovereignty, incident response, mean time to resolve, SIEM, security operations, Dojo AI, agentic AI, SOC analyst agent, observability, log analytics, Infosecurity Europe 2026 Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.
Interview with Filip Stojkovski on the State of AI in SecOps Filip joins us to talk through the 2+ year rollercoaster that Security Operations tooling has been on since AI entered the chat. We discuss the AI SecOps market, which Filip closely tracks through his SecOps Unpacked project. We also discuss how most of the market has traditionally been focused on the "middle" of the process, which is effectively alert management. Where the conversation really gets interesting is shifting left to discuss building better quality detections. Segment Resources: Be sure to check out SecOps Unpacked - it has more than just vendor information: there are articles, frameworks, podcast episodes, research, and articles/thought leadership Topic: The Unintended Consequences of Vulnmaxxing We discuss my latest blog post where I share a theory that perhaps Project Glasswing is a clever exclusive freemium tier, where Anthropic is hoping to ensnare the world's largest producers of software into using its most expensive model to fix their code for the foreseeable future, creating a much needed new revenue stream for the AI giant with a Trillion dollar valuation. There are some potential unintended consequences that come along with an expensive vulnerability discovery/remediation process that threatens to raise the security poverty line and leave less wealthy companies behind. The Weekly Enterprise News Finally, in the enterprise security news, If you were starting a cybersecurity company today, which category would you pick? layoffs funding the White House AI executive order OpenAI's frontier governance framework Anthropic's Zero Trust for AI agents guide IBM's vulnmaxxing efforts RICO as a service for job seekers Instagram had possibly the most embarrassing hack ever All that and more, on this episode of Enterprise Security Weekly. Visit https://www.securityweekly.com/esw for all the latest episodes! Show Notes: https://securityweekly.com/esw-462
Interview with Filip Stojkovski on the State of AI in SecOps Filip joins us to talk through the 2+ year rollercoaster that Security Operations tooling has been on since AI entered the chat. We discuss the AI SecOps market, which Filip closely tracks through his SecOps Unpacked project. We also discuss how most of the market has traditionally been focused on the "middle" of the process, which is effectively alert management. Where the conversation really gets interesting is shifting left to discuss building better quality detections. Segment Resources: Be sure to check out SecOps Unpacked - it has more than just vendor information: there are articles, frameworks, podcast episodes, research, and articles/thought leadership Topic: The Unintended Consequences of Vulnmaxxing We discuss my latest blog post where I share a theory that perhaps Project Glasswing is a clever exclusive freemium tier, where Anthropic is hoping to ensnare the world's largest producers of software into using its most expensive model to fix their code for the foreseeable future, creating a much needed new revenue stream for the AI giant with a Trillion dollar valuation. There are some potential unintended consequences that come along with an expensive vulnerability discovery/remediation process that threatens to raise the security poverty line and leave less wealthy companies behind. The Weekly Enterprise News Finally, in the enterprise security news, If you were starting a cybersecurity company today, which category would you pick? layoffs funding the White House AI executive order OpenAI's frontier governance framework Anthropic's Zero Trust for AI agents guide IBM's vulnmaxxing efforts RICO as a service for job seekers Instagram had possibly the most embarrassing hack ever All that and more, on this episode of Enterprise Security Weekly. Visit https://www.securityweekly.com/esw for all the latest episodes! Show Notes: https://securityweekly.com/esw-462
Interview with Filip Stojkovski on the State of AI in SecOps Filip joins us to talk through the 2+ year rollercoaster that Security Operations tooling has been on since AI entered the chat. We discuss the AI SecOps market, which Filip closely tracks through his SecOps Unpacked project. We also discuss how most of the market has traditionally been focused on the "middle" of the process, which is effectively alert management. Where the conversation really gets interesting is shifting left to discuss building better quality detections. Segment Resources: Be sure to check out SecOps Unpacked - it has more than just vendor information: there are articles, frameworks, podcast episodes, research, and articles/thought leadership Topic: The Unintended Consequences of Vulnmaxxing We discuss my latest blog post where I share a theory that perhaps Project Glasswing is a clever exclusive freemium tier, where Anthropic is hoping to ensnare the world's largest producers of software into using its most expensive model to fix their code for the foreseeable future, creating a much needed new revenue stream for the AI giant with a Trillion dollar valuation. There are some potential unintended consequences that come along with an expensive vulnerability discovery/remediation process that threatens to raise the security poverty line and leave less wealthy companies behind. The Weekly Enterprise News Finally, in the enterprise security news, If you were starting a cybersecurity company today, which category would you pick? layoffs funding the White House AI executive order OpenAI's frontier governance framework Anthropic's Zero Trust for AI agents guide IBM's vulnmaxxing efforts RICO as a service for job seekers Instagram had possibly the most embarrassing hack ever All that and more, on this episode of Enterprise Security Weekly. Show Notes: https://securityweekly.com/esw-462
The document is a sworn OIG interview transcript from June 15, 2021, involving the Bureau of Prisons captain who oversaw security operations at MCC New York during the period surrounding Jeffrey Epstein's death. The captain described the command structure inside the jail, including his role supervising lieutenants and reporting up to associate wardens or the warden, while investigators walked him through staffing, rosters, post assignments, suicide-watch procedures, SHU operations, and the chain of responsibility on August 9–10, 2019. The transcript is important because it does not present Epstein's death as a clean, orderly institutional event; instead, it shows a jail struggling with bad staffing, confusing handoffs, unfilled posts, questionable paperwork, and a command structure where critical responsibilities appear to have been either missed, misunderstood, or passed around.The most serious value of the interview is in the irregularities it surfaces. The captain reportedly discussed inaccurate rosters or logs, acknowledged questions around skipped SHU rounds, addressed the fact that Epstein had previously been on suicide watch, and said he would not necessarily have known in real time if officers were failing to conduct required checks. Even more troubling, he expressed concern that certain documents may have been deliberately removed from files that should have been reviewed or audited, and investigators also raised an inmate-count issue involving an inmate named Reyes, whose release may not have been properly reflected in the institution's count — something the captain treated as a protocol violation. Taken together, the transcript adds another layer to the larger Epstein death record: not a single clean explanation, but a bureaucratic mess of missing or questionable documentation, staffing failures, broken supervision, and institutional chaos at precisely the moment when the most high-profile federal inmate in America was supposed to be under careful control.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00111830.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
The document is a sworn OIG interview transcript from June 15, 2021, involving the Bureau of Prisons captain who oversaw security operations at MCC New York during the period surrounding Jeffrey Epstein's death. The captain described the command structure inside the jail, including his role supervising lieutenants and reporting up to associate wardens or the warden, while investigators walked him through staffing, rosters, post assignments, suicide-watch procedures, SHU operations, and the chain of responsibility on August 9–10, 2019. The transcript is important because it does not present Epstein's death as a clean, orderly institutional event; instead, it shows a jail struggling with bad staffing, confusing handoffs, unfilled posts, questionable paperwork, and a command structure where critical responsibilities appear to have been either missed, misunderstood, or passed around.The most serious value of the interview is in the irregularities it surfaces. The captain reportedly discussed inaccurate rosters or logs, acknowledged questions around skipped SHU rounds, addressed the fact that Epstein had previously been on suicide watch, and said he would not necessarily have known in real time if officers were failing to conduct required checks. Even more troubling, he expressed concern that certain documents may have been deliberately removed from files that should have been reviewed or audited, and investigators also raised an inmate-count issue involving an inmate named Reyes, whose release may not have been properly reflected in the institution's count — something the captain treated as a protocol violation. Taken together, the transcript adds another layer to the larger Epstein death record: not a single clean explanation, but a bureaucratic mess of missing or questionable documentation, staffing failures, broken supervision, and institutional chaos at precisely the moment when the most high-profile federal inmate in America was supposed to be under careful control.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00111830.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.
The document is a sworn OIG interview transcript from June 15, 2021, involving the Bureau of Prisons captain who oversaw security operations at MCC New York during the period surrounding Jeffrey Epstein's death. The captain described the command structure inside the jail, including his role supervising lieutenants and reporting up to associate wardens or the warden, while investigators walked him through staffing, rosters, post assignments, suicide-watch procedures, SHU operations, and the chain of responsibility on August 9–10, 2019. The transcript is important because it does not present Epstein's death as a clean, orderly institutional event; instead, it shows a jail struggling with bad staffing, confusing handoffs, unfilled posts, questionable paperwork, and a command structure where critical responsibilities appear to have been either missed, misunderstood, or passed around.The most serious value of the interview is in the irregularities it surfaces. The captain reportedly discussed inaccurate rosters or logs, acknowledged questions around skipped SHU rounds, addressed the fact that Epstein had previously been on suicide watch, and said he would not necessarily have known in real time if officers were failing to conduct required checks. Even more troubling, he expressed concern that certain documents may have been deliberately removed from files that should have been reviewed or audited, and investigators also raised an inmate-count issue involving an inmate named Reyes, whose release may not have been properly reflected in the institution's count — something the captain treated as a protocol violation. Taken together, the transcript adds another layer to the larger Epstein death record: not a single clean explanation, but a bureaucratic mess of missing or questionable documentation, staffing failures, broken supervision, and institutional chaos at precisely the moment when the most high-profile federal inmate in America was supposed to be under careful control.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00111830.pdf
The document is a sworn OIG interview transcript from June 15, 2021, involving the Bureau of Prisons captain who oversaw security operations at MCC New York during the period surrounding Jeffrey Epstein's death. The captain described the command structure inside the jail, including his role supervising lieutenants and reporting up to associate wardens or the warden, while investigators walked him through staffing, rosters, post assignments, suicide-watch procedures, SHU operations, and the chain of responsibility on August 9–10, 2019. The transcript is important because it does not present Epstein's death as a clean, orderly institutional event; instead, it shows a jail struggling with bad staffing, confusing handoffs, unfilled posts, questionable paperwork, and a command structure where critical responsibilities appear to have been either missed, misunderstood, or passed around.The most serious value of the interview is in the irregularities it surfaces. The captain reportedly discussed inaccurate rosters or logs, acknowledged questions around skipped SHU rounds, addressed the fact that Epstein had previously been on suicide watch, and said he would not necessarily have known in real time if officers were failing to conduct required checks. Even more troubling, he expressed concern that certain documents may have been deliberately removed from files that should have been reviewed or audited, and investigators also raised an inmate-count issue involving an inmate named Reyes, whose release may not have been properly reflected in the institution's count — something the captain treated as a protocol violation. Taken together, the transcript adds another layer to the larger Epstein death record: not a single clean explanation, but a bureaucratic mess of missing or questionable documentation, staffing failures, broken supervision, and institutional chaos at precisely the moment when the most high-profile federal inmate in America was supposed to be under careful control.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00111830.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
The document is a sworn OIG interview transcript from June 15, 2021, involving the Bureau of Prisons captain who oversaw security operations at MCC New York during the period surrounding Jeffrey Epstein's death. The captain described the command structure inside the jail, including his role supervising lieutenants and reporting up to associate wardens or the warden, while investigators walked him through staffing, rosters, post assignments, suicide-watch procedures, SHU operations, and the chain of responsibility on August 9–10, 2019. The transcript is important because it does not present Epstein's death as a clean, orderly institutional event; instead, it shows a jail struggling with bad staffing, confusing handoffs, unfilled posts, questionable paperwork, and a command structure where critical responsibilities appear to have been either missed, misunderstood, or passed around.The most serious value of the interview is in the irregularities it surfaces. The captain reportedly discussed inaccurate rosters or logs, acknowledged questions around skipped SHU rounds, addressed the fact that Epstein had previously been on suicide watch, and said he would not necessarily have known in real time if officers were failing to conduct required checks. Even more troubling, he expressed concern that certain documents may have been deliberately removed from files that should have been reviewed or audited, and investigators also raised an inmate-count issue involving an inmate named Reyes, whose release may not have been properly reflected in the institution's count — something the captain treated as a protocol violation. Taken together, the transcript adds another layer to the larger Epstein death record: not a single clean explanation, but a bureaucratic mess of missing or questionable documentation, staffing failures, broken supervision, and institutional chaos at precisely the moment when the most high-profile federal inmate in America was supposed to be under careful control.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00111830.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.
The document is a sworn OIG interview transcript from June 15, 2021, involving the Bureau of Prisons captain who oversaw security operations at MCC New York during the period surrounding Jeffrey Epstein's death. The captain described the command structure inside the jail, including his role supervising lieutenants and reporting up to associate wardens or the warden, while investigators walked him through staffing, rosters, post assignments, suicide-watch procedures, SHU operations, and the chain of responsibility on August 9–10, 2019. The transcript is important because it does not present Epstein's death as a clean, orderly institutional event; instead, it shows a jail struggling with bad staffing, confusing handoffs, unfilled posts, questionable paperwork, and a command structure where critical responsibilities appear to have been either missed, misunderstood, or passed around.The most serious value of the interview is in the irregularities it surfaces. The captain reportedly discussed inaccurate rosters or logs, acknowledged questions around skipped SHU rounds, addressed the fact that Epstein had previously been on suicide watch, and said he would not necessarily have known in real time if officers were failing to conduct required checks. Even more troubling, he expressed concern that certain documents may have been deliberately removed from files that should have been reviewed or audited, and investigators also raised an inmate-count issue involving an inmate named Reyes, whose release may not have been properly reflected in the institution's count — something the captain treated as a protocol violation. Taken together, the transcript adds another layer to the larger Epstein death record: not a single clean explanation, but a bureaucratic mess of missing or questionable documentation, staffing failures, broken supervision, and institutional chaos at precisely the moment when the most high-profile federal inmate in America was supposed to be under careful control.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00111830.pdf
The document is a sworn OIG interview transcript from June 15, 2021, involving the Bureau of Prisons captain who oversaw security operations at MCC New York during the period surrounding Jeffrey Epstein's death. The captain described the command structure inside the jail, including his role supervising lieutenants and reporting up to associate wardens or the warden, while investigators walked him through staffing, rosters, post assignments, suicide-watch procedures, SHU operations, and the chain of responsibility on August 9–10, 2019. The transcript is important because it does not present Epstein's death as a clean, orderly institutional event; instead, it shows a jail struggling with bad staffing, confusing handoffs, unfilled posts, questionable paperwork, and a command structure where critical responsibilities appear to have been either missed, misunderstood, or passed around.The most serious value of the interview is in the irregularities it surfaces. The captain reportedly discussed inaccurate rosters or logs, acknowledged questions around skipped SHU rounds, addressed the fact that Epstein had previously been on suicide watch, and said he would not necessarily have known in real time if officers were failing to conduct required checks. Even more troubling, he expressed concern that certain documents may have been deliberately removed from files that should have been reviewed or audited, and investigators also raised an inmate-count issue involving an inmate named Reyes, whose release may not have been properly reflected in the institution's count — something the captain treated as a protocol violation. Taken together, the transcript adds another layer to the larger Epstein death record: not a single clean explanation, but a bureaucratic mess of missing or questionable documentation, staffing failures, broken supervision, and institutional chaos at precisely the moment when the most high-profile federal inmate in America was supposed to be under careful control.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00111830.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
The document is a sworn OIG interview transcript from June 15, 2021, involving the Bureau of Prisons captain who oversaw security operations at MCC New York during the period surrounding Jeffrey Epstein's death. The captain described the command structure inside the jail, including his role supervising lieutenants and reporting up to associate wardens or the warden, while investigators walked him through staffing, rosters, post assignments, suicide-watch procedures, SHU operations, and the chain of responsibility on August 9–10, 2019. The transcript is important because it does not present Epstein's death as a clean, orderly institutional event; instead, it shows a jail struggling with bad staffing, confusing handoffs, unfilled posts, questionable paperwork, and a command structure where critical responsibilities appear to have been either missed, misunderstood, or passed around.The most serious value of the interview is in the irregularities it surfaces. The captain reportedly discussed inaccurate rosters or logs, acknowledged questions around skipped SHU rounds, addressed the fact that Epstein had previously been on suicide watch, and said he would not necessarily have known in real time if officers were failing to conduct required checks. Even more troubling, he expressed concern that certain documents may have been deliberately removed from files that should have been reviewed or audited, and investigators also raised an inmate-count issue involving an inmate named Reyes, whose release may not have been properly reflected in the institution's count — something the captain treated as a protocol violation. Taken together, the transcript adds another layer to the larger Epstein death record: not a single clean explanation, but a bureaucratic mess of missing or questionable documentation, staffing failures, broken supervision, and institutional chaos at precisely the moment when the most high-profile federal inmate in America was supposed to be under careful control.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00111830.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.
The document is a sworn OIG interview transcript from June 15, 2021, involving the Bureau of Prisons captain who oversaw security operations at MCC New York during the period surrounding Jeffrey Epstein's death. The captain described the command structure inside the jail, including his role supervising lieutenants and reporting up to associate wardens or the warden, while investigators walked him through staffing, rosters, post assignments, suicide-watch procedures, SHU operations, and the chain of responsibility on August 9–10, 2019. The transcript is important because it does not present Epstein's death as a clean, orderly institutional event; instead, it shows a jail struggling with bad staffing, confusing handoffs, unfilled posts, questionable paperwork, and a command structure where critical responsibilities appear to have been either missed, misunderstood, or passed around.The most serious value of the interview is in the irregularities it surfaces. The captain reportedly discussed inaccurate rosters or logs, acknowledged questions around skipped SHU rounds, addressed the fact that Epstein had previously been on suicide watch, and said he would not necessarily have known in real time if officers were failing to conduct required checks. Even more troubling, he expressed concern that certain documents may have been deliberately removed from files that should have been reviewed or audited, and investigators also raised an inmate-count issue involving an inmate named Reyes, whose release may not have been properly reflected in the institution's count — something the captain treated as a protocol violation. Taken together, the transcript adds another layer to the larger Epstein death record: not a single clean explanation, but a bureaucratic mess of missing or questionable documentation, staffing failures, broken supervision, and institutional chaos at precisely the moment when the most high-profile federal inmate in America was supposed to be under careful control.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00111830.pdf
The document is a sworn OIG interview transcript from June 15, 2021, involving the Bureau of Prisons captain who oversaw security operations at MCC New York during the period surrounding Jeffrey Epstein's death. The captain described the command structure inside the jail, including his role supervising lieutenants and reporting up to associate wardens or the warden, while investigators walked him through staffing, rosters, post assignments, suicide-watch procedures, SHU operations, and the chain of responsibility on August 9–10, 2019. The transcript is important because it does not present Epstein's death as a clean, orderly institutional event; instead, it shows a jail struggling with bad staffing, confusing handoffs, unfilled posts, questionable paperwork, and a command structure where critical responsibilities appear to have been either missed, misunderstood, or passed around.The most serious value of the interview is in the irregularities it surfaces. The captain reportedly discussed inaccurate rosters or logs, acknowledged questions around skipped SHU rounds, addressed the fact that Epstein had previously been on suicide watch, and said he would not necessarily have known in real time if officers were failing to conduct required checks. Even more troubling, he expressed concern that certain documents may have been deliberately removed from files that should have been reviewed or audited, and investigators also raised an inmate-count issue involving an inmate named Reyes, whose release may not have been properly reflected in the institution's count — something the captain treated as a protocol violation. Taken together, the transcript adds another layer to the larger Epstein death record: not a single clean explanation, but a bureaucratic mess of missing or questionable documentation, staffing failures, broken supervision, and institutional chaos at precisely the moment when the most high-profile federal inmate in America was supposed to be under careful control.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00111830.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
The document is a sworn OIG interview transcript from June 15, 2021, involving the Bureau of Prisons captain who oversaw security operations at MCC New York during the period surrounding Jeffrey Epstein's death. The captain described the command structure inside the jail, including his role supervising lieutenants and reporting up to associate wardens or the warden, while investigators walked him through staffing, rosters, post assignments, suicide-watch procedures, SHU operations, and the chain of responsibility on August 9–10, 2019. The transcript is important because it does not present Epstein's death as a clean, orderly institutional event; instead, it shows a jail struggling with bad staffing, confusing handoffs, unfilled posts, questionable paperwork, and a command structure where critical responsibilities appear to have been either missed, misunderstood, or passed around.The most serious value of the interview is in the irregularities it surfaces. The captain reportedly discussed inaccurate rosters or logs, acknowledged questions around skipped SHU rounds, addressed the fact that Epstein had previously been on suicide watch, and said he would not necessarily have known in real time if officers were failing to conduct required checks. Even more troubling, he expressed concern that certain documents may have been deliberately removed from files that should have been reviewed or audited, and investigators also raised an inmate-count issue involving an inmate named Reyes, whose release may not have been properly reflected in the institution's count — something the captain treated as a protocol violation. Taken together, the transcript adds another layer to the larger Epstein death record: not a single clean explanation, but a bureaucratic mess of missing or questionable documentation, staffing failures, broken supervision, and institutional chaos at precisely the moment when the most high-profile federal inmate in America was supposed to be under careful control.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00111830.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.
The document is a sworn OIG interview transcript from June 15, 2021, involving the Bureau of Prisons captain who oversaw security operations at MCC New York during the period surrounding Jeffrey Epstein's death. The captain described the command structure inside the jail, including his role supervising lieutenants and reporting up to associate wardens or the warden, while investigators walked him through staffing, rosters, post assignments, suicide-watch procedures, SHU operations, and the chain of responsibility on August 9–10, 2019. The transcript is important because it does not present Epstein's death as a clean, orderly institutional event; instead, it shows a jail struggling with bad staffing, confusing handoffs, unfilled posts, questionable paperwork, and a command structure where critical responsibilities appear to have been either missed, misunderstood, or passed around.The most serious value of the interview is in the irregularities it surfaces. The captain reportedly discussed inaccurate rosters or logs, acknowledged questions around skipped SHU rounds, addressed the fact that Epstein had previously been on suicide watch, and said he would not necessarily have known in real time if officers were failing to conduct required checks. Even more troubling, he expressed concern that certain documents may have been deliberately removed from files that should have been reviewed or audited, and investigators also raised an inmate-count issue involving an inmate named Reyes, whose release may not have been properly reflected in the institution's count — something the captain treated as a protocol violation. Taken together, the transcript adds another layer to the larger Epstein death record: not a single clean explanation, but a bureaucratic mess of missing or questionable documentation, staffing failures, broken supervision, and institutional chaos at precisely the moment when the most high-profile federal inmate in America was supposed to be under careful control.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00111830.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
The document is a sworn OIG interview transcript from June 15, 2021, involving the Bureau of Prisons captain who oversaw security operations at MCC New York during the period surrounding Jeffrey Epstein's death. The captain described the command structure inside the jail, including his role supervising lieutenants and reporting up to associate wardens or the warden, while investigators walked him through staffing, rosters, post assignments, suicide-watch procedures, SHU operations, and the chain of responsibility on August 9–10, 2019. The transcript is important because it does not present Epstein's death as a clean, orderly institutional event; instead, it shows a jail struggling with bad staffing, confusing handoffs, unfilled posts, questionable paperwork, and a command structure where critical responsibilities appear to have been either missed, misunderstood, or passed around.The most serious value of the interview is in the irregularities it surfaces. The captain reportedly discussed inaccurate rosters or logs, acknowledged questions around skipped SHU rounds, addressed the fact that Epstein had previously been on suicide watch, and said he would not necessarily have known in real time if officers were failing to conduct required checks. Even more troubling, he expressed concern that certain documents may have been deliberately removed from files that should have been reviewed or audited, and investigators also raised an inmate-count issue involving an inmate named Reyes, whose release may not have been properly reflected in the institution's count — something the captain treated as a protocol violation. Taken together, the transcript adds another layer to the larger Epstein death record: not a single clean explanation, but a bureaucratic mess of missing or questionable documentation, staffing failures, broken supervision, and institutional chaos at precisely the moment when the most high-profile federal inmate in America was supposed to be under careful control.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00111830.pdf
The document is a sworn OIG interview transcript from June 15, 2021, involving the Bureau of Prisons captain who oversaw security operations at MCC New York during the period surrounding Jeffrey Epstein's death. The captain described the command structure inside the jail, including his role supervising lieutenants and reporting up to associate wardens or the warden, while investigators walked him through staffing, rosters, post assignments, suicide-watch procedures, SHU operations, and the chain of responsibility on August 9–10, 2019. The transcript is important because it does not present Epstein's death as a clean, orderly institutional event; instead, it shows a jail struggling with bad staffing, confusing handoffs, unfilled posts, questionable paperwork, and a command structure where critical responsibilities appear to have been either missed, misunderstood, or passed around.The most serious value of the interview is in the irregularities it surfaces. The captain reportedly discussed inaccurate rosters or logs, acknowledged questions around skipped SHU rounds, addressed the fact that Epstein had previously been on suicide watch, and said he would not necessarily have known in real time if officers were failing to conduct required checks. Even more troubling, he expressed concern that certain documents may have been deliberately removed from files that should have been reviewed or audited, and investigators also raised an inmate-count issue involving an inmate named Reyes, whose release may not have been properly reflected in the institution's count — something the captain treated as a protocol violation. Taken together, the transcript adds another layer to the larger Epstein death record: not a single clean explanation, but a bureaucratic mess of missing or questionable documentation, staffing failures, broken supervision, and institutional chaos at precisely the moment when the most high-profile federal inmate in America was supposed to be under careful control.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00111830.pdf
The document is a sworn OIG interview transcript from June 15, 2021, involving the Bureau of Prisons captain who oversaw security operations at MCC New York during the period surrounding Jeffrey Epstein's death. The captain described the command structure inside the jail, including his role supervising lieutenants and reporting up to associate wardens or the warden, while investigators walked him through staffing, rosters, post assignments, suicide-watch procedures, SHU operations, and the chain of responsibility on August 9–10, 2019. The transcript is important because it does not present Epstein's death as a clean, orderly institutional event; instead, it shows a jail struggling with bad staffing, confusing handoffs, unfilled posts, questionable paperwork, and a command structure where critical responsibilities appear to have been either missed, misunderstood, or passed around.The most serious value of the interview is in the irregularities it surfaces. The captain reportedly discussed inaccurate rosters or logs, acknowledged questions around skipped SHU rounds, addressed the fact that Epstein had previously been on suicide watch, and said he would not necessarily have known in real time if officers were failing to conduct required checks. Even more troubling, he expressed concern that certain documents may have been deliberately removed from files that should have been reviewed or audited, and investigators also raised an inmate-count issue involving an inmate named Reyes, whose release may not have been properly reflected in the institution's count — something the captain treated as a protocol violation. Taken together, the transcript adds another layer to the larger Epstein death record: not a single clean explanation, but a bureaucratic mess of missing or questionable documentation, staffing failures, broken supervision, and institutional chaos at precisely the moment when the most high-profile federal inmate in America was supposed to be under careful control.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00111830.pdf
The document is a sworn OIG interview transcript from June 15, 2021, involving the Bureau of Prisons captain who oversaw security operations at MCC New York during the period surrounding Jeffrey Epstein's death. The captain described the command structure inside the jail, including his role supervising lieutenants and reporting up to associate wardens or the warden, while investigators walked him through staffing, rosters, post assignments, suicide-watch procedures, SHU operations, and the chain of responsibility on August 9–10, 2019. The transcript is important because it does not present Epstein's death as a clean, orderly institutional event; instead, it shows a jail struggling with bad staffing, confusing handoffs, unfilled posts, questionable paperwork, and a command structure where critical responsibilities appear to have been either missed, misunderstood, or passed around.The most serious value of the interview is in the irregularities it surfaces. The captain reportedly discussed inaccurate rosters or logs, acknowledged questions around skipped SHU rounds, addressed the fact that Epstein had previously been on suicide watch, and said he would not necessarily have known in real time if officers were failing to conduct required checks. Even more troubling, he expressed concern that certain documents may have been deliberately removed from files that should have been reviewed or audited, and investigators also raised an inmate-count issue involving an inmate named Reyes, whose release may not have been properly reflected in the institution's count — something the captain treated as a protocol violation. Taken together, the transcript adds another layer to the larger Epstein death record: not a single clean explanation, but a bureaucratic mess of missing or questionable documentation, staffing failures, broken supervision, and institutional chaos at precisely the moment when the most high-profile federal inmate in America was supposed to be under careful control.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00111830.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
The document is a sworn OIG interview transcript from June 15, 2021, involving the Bureau of Prisons captain who oversaw security operations at MCC New York during the period surrounding Jeffrey Epstein's death. The captain described the command structure inside the jail, including his role supervising lieutenants and reporting up to associate wardens or the warden, while investigators walked him through staffing, rosters, post assignments, suicide-watch procedures, SHU operations, and the chain of responsibility on August 9–10, 2019. The transcript is important because it does not present Epstein's death as a clean, orderly institutional event; instead, it shows a jail struggling with bad staffing, confusing handoffs, unfilled posts, questionable paperwork, and a command structure where critical responsibilities appear to have been either missed, misunderstood, or passed around.The most serious value of the interview is in the irregularities it surfaces. The captain reportedly discussed inaccurate rosters or logs, acknowledged questions around skipped SHU rounds, addressed the fact that Epstein had previously been on suicide watch, and said he would not necessarily have known in real time if officers were failing to conduct required checks. Even more troubling, he expressed concern that certain documents may have been deliberately removed from files that should have been reviewed or audited, and investigators also raised an inmate-count issue involving an inmate named Reyes, whose release may not have been properly reflected in the institution's count — something the captain treated as a protocol violation. Taken together, the transcript adds another layer to the larger Epstein death record: not a single clean explanation, but a bureaucratic mess of missing or questionable documentation, staffing failures, broken supervision, and institutional chaos at precisely the moment when the most high-profile federal inmate in America was supposed to be under careful control.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00111830.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
The document is a sworn OIG interview transcript from June 15, 2021, involving the Bureau of Prisons captain who oversaw security operations at MCC New York during the period surrounding Jeffrey Epstein's death. The captain described the command structure inside the jail, including his role supervising lieutenants and reporting up to associate wardens or the warden, while investigators walked him through staffing, rosters, post assignments, suicide-watch procedures, SHU operations, and the chain of responsibility on August 9–10, 2019. The transcript is important because it does not present Epstein's death as a clean, orderly institutional event; instead, it shows a jail struggling with bad staffing, confusing handoffs, unfilled posts, questionable paperwork, and a command structure where critical responsibilities appear to have been either missed, misunderstood, or passed around.The most serious value of the interview is in the irregularities it surfaces. The captain reportedly discussed inaccurate rosters or logs, acknowledged questions around skipped SHU rounds, addressed the fact that Epstein had previously been on suicide watch, and said he would not necessarily have known in real time if officers were failing to conduct required checks. Even more troubling, he expressed concern that certain documents may have been deliberately removed from files that should have been reviewed or audited, and investigators also raised an inmate-count issue involving an inmate named Reyes, whose release may not have been properly reflected in the institution's count — something the captain treated as a protocol violation. Taken together, the transcript adds another layer to the larger Epstein death record: not a single clean explanation, but a bureaucratic mess of missing or questionable documentation, staffing failures, broken supervision, and institutional chaos at precisely the moment when the most high-profile federal inmate in America was supposed to be under careful control.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00111830.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.
The document is a sworn OIG interview transcript from June 15, 2021, involving the Bureau of Prisons captain who oversaw security operations at MCC New York during the period surrounding Jeffrey Epstein's death. The captain described the command structure inside the jail, including his role supervising lieutenants and reporting up to associate wardens or the warden, while investigators walked him through staffing, rosters, post assignments, suicide-watch procedures, SHU operations, and the chain of responsibility on August 9–10, 2019. The transcript is important because it does not present Epstein's death as a clean, orderly institutional event; instead, it shows a jail struggling with bad staffing, confusing handoffs, unfilled posts, questionable paperwork, and a command structure where critical responsibilities appear to have been either missed, misunderstood, or passed around.The most serious value of the interview is in the irregularities it surfaces. The captain reportedly discussed inaccurate rosters or logs, acknowledged questions around skipped SHU rounds, addressed the fact that Epstein had previously been on suicide watch, and said he would not necessarily have known in real time if officers were failing to conduct required checks. Even more troubling, he expressed concern that certain documents may have been deliberately removed from files that should have been reviewed or audited, and investigators also raised an inmate-count issue involving an inmate named Reyes, whose release may not have been properly reflected in the institution's count — something the captain treated as a protocol violation. Taken together, the transcript adds another layer to the larger Epstein death record: not a single clean explanation, but a bureaucratic mess of missing or questionable documentation, staffing failures, broken supervision, and institutional chaos at precisely the moment when the most high-profile federal inmate in America was supposed to be under careful control.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00111830.pdf
The document is a sworn OIG interview transcript from June 15, 2021, involving the Bureau of Prisons captain who oversaw security operations at MCC New York during the period surrounding Jeffrey Epstein's death. The captain described the command structure inside the jail, including his role supervising lieutenants and reporting up to associate wardens or the warden, while investigators walked him through staffing, rosters, post assignments, suicide-watch procedures, SHU operations, and the chain of responsibility on August 9–10, 2019. The transcript is important because it does not present Epstein's death as a clean, orderly institutional event; instead, it shows a jail struggling with bad staffing, confusing handoffs, unfilled posts, questionable paperwork, and a command structure where critical responsibilities appear to have been either missed, misunderstood, or passed around.The most serious value of the interview is in the irregularities it surfaces. The captain reportedly discussed inaccurate rosters or logs, acknowledged questions around skipped SHU rounds, addressed the fact that Epstein had previously been on suicide watch, and said he would not necessarily have known in real time if officers were failing to conduct required checks. Even more troubling, he expressed concern that certain documents may have been deliberately removed from files that should have been reviewed or audited, and investigators also raised an inmate-count issue involving an inmate named Reyes, whose release may not have been properly reflected in the institution's count — something the captain treated as a protocol violation. Taken together, the transcript adds another layer to the larger Epstein death record: not a single clean explanation, but a bureaucratic mess of missing or questionable documentation, staffing failures, broken supervision, and institutional chaos at precisely the moment when the most high-profile federal inmate in America was supposed to be under careful control.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00111830.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
The document is a sworn OIG interview transcript from June 15, 2021, involving the Bureau of Prisons captain who oversaw security operations at MCC New York during the period surrounding Jeffrey Epstein's death. The captain described the command structure inside the jail, including his role supervising lieutenants and reporting up to associate wardens or the warden, while investigators walked him through staffing, rosters, post assignments, suicide-watch procedures, SHU operations, and the chain of responsibility on August 9–10, 2019. The transcript is important because it does not present Epstein's death as a clean, orderly institutional event; instead, it shows a jail struggling with bad staffing, confusing handoffs, unfilled posts, questionable paperwork, and a command structure where critical responsibilities appear to have been either missed, misunderstood, or passed around.The most serious value of the interview is in the irregularities it surfaces. The captain reportedly discussed inaccurate rosters or logs, acknowledged questions around skipped SHU rounds, addressed the fact that Epstein had previously been on suicide watch, and said he would not necessarily have known in real time if officers were failing to conduct required checks. Even more troubling, he expressed concern that certain documents may have been deliberately removed from files that should have been reviewed or audited, and investigators also raised an inmate-count issue involving an inmate named Reyes, whose release may not have been properly reflected in the institution's count — something the captain treated as a protocol violation. Taken together, the transcript adds another layer to the larger Epstein death record: not a single clean explanation, but a bureaucratic mess of missing or questionable documentation, staffing failures, broken supervision, and institutional chaos at precisely the moment when the most high-profile federal inmate in America was supposed to be under careful control.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00111830.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
The document is a sworn OIG interview transcript from June 15, 2021, involving the Bureau of Prisons captain who oversaw security operations at MCC New York during the period surrounding Jeffrey Epstein's death. The captain described the command structure inside the jail, including his role supervising lieutenants and reporting up to associate wardens or the warden, while investigators walked him through staffing, rosters, post assignments, suicide-watch procedures, SHU operations, and the chain of responsibility on August 9–10, 2019. The transcript is important because it does not present Epstein's death as a clean, orderly institutional event; instead, it shows a jail struggling with bad staffing, confusing handoffs, unfilled posts, questionable paperwork, and a command structure where critical responsibilities appear to have been either missed, misunderstood, or passed around.The most serious value of the interview is in the irregularities it surfaces. The captain reportedly discussed inaccurate rosters or logs, acknowledged questions around skipped SHU rounds, addressed the fact that Epstein had previously been on suicide watch, and said he would not necessarily have known in real time if officers were failing to conduct required checks. Even more troubling, he expressed concern that certain documents may have been deliberately removed from files that should have been reviewed or audited, and investigators also raised an inmate-count issue involving an inmate named Reyes, whose release may not have been properly reflected in the institution's count — something the captain treated as a protocol violation. Taken together, the transcript adds another layer to the larger Epstein death record: not a single clean explanation, but a bureaucratic mess of missing or questionable documentation, staffing failures, broken supervision, and institutional chaos at precisely the moment when the most high-profile federal inmate in America was supposed to be under careful control.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00111830.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.
The document is a sworn OIG interview transcript from June 15, 2021, involving the Bureau of Prisons captain who oversaw security operations at MCC New York during the period surrounding Jeffrey Epstein's death. The captain described the command structure inside the jail, including his role supervising lieutenants and reporting up to associate wardens or the warden, while investigators walked him through staffing, rosters, post assignments, suicide-watch procedures, SHU operations, and the chain of responsibility on August 9–10, 2019. The transcript is important because it does not present Epstein's death as a clean, orderly institutional event; instead, it shows a jail struggling with bad staffing, confusing handoffs, unfilled posts, questionable paperwork, and a command structure where critical responsibilities appear to have been either missed, misunderstood, or passed around.The most serious value of the interview is in the irregularities it surfaces. The captain reportedly discussed inaccurate rosters or logs, acknowledged questions around skipped SHU rounds, addressed the fact that Epstein had previously been on suicide watch, and said he would not necessarily have known in real time if officers were failing to conduct required checks. Even more troubling, he expressed concern that certain documents may have been deliberately removed from files that should have been reviewed or audited, and investigators also raised an inmate-count issue involving an inmate named Reyes, whose release may not have been properly reflected in the institution's count — something the captain treated as a protocol violation. Taken together, the transcript adds another layer to the larger Epstein death record: not a single clean explanation, but a bureaucratic mess of missing or questionable documentation, staffing failures, broken supervision, and institutional chaos at precisely the moment when the most high-profile federal inmate in America was supposed to be under careful control.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00111830.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.
The document is a sworn OIG interview transcript from June 15, 2021, involving the Bureau of Prisons captain who oversaw security operations at MCC New York during the period surrounding Jeffrey Epstein's death. The captain described the command structure inside the jail, including his role supervising lieutenants and reporting up to associate wardens or the warden, while investigators walked him through staffing, rosters, post assignments, suicide-watch procedures, SHU operations, and the chain of responsibility on August 9–10, 2019. The transcript is important because it does not present Epstein's death as a clean, orderly institutional event; instead, it shows a jail struggling with bad staffing, confusing handoffs, unfilled posts, questionable paperwork, and a command structure where critical responsibilities appear to have been either missed, misunderstood, or passed around.The most serious value of the interview is in the irregularities it surfaces. The captain reportedly discussed inaccurate rosters or logs, acknowledged questions around skipped SHU rounds, addressed the fact that Epstein had previously been on suicide watch, and said he would not necessarily have known in real time if officers were failing to conduct required checks. Even more troubling, he expressed concern that certain documents may have been deliberately removed from files that should have been reviewed or audited, and investigators also raised an inmate-count issue involving an inmate named Reyes, whose release may not have been properly reflected in the institution's count — something the captain treated as a protocol violation. Taken together, the transcript adds another layer to the larger Epstein death record: not a single clean explanation, but a bureaucratic mess of missing or questionable documentation, staffing failures, broken supervision, and institutional chaos at precisely the moment when the most high-profile federal inmate in America was supposed to be under careful control.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00111830.pdf
The document is a sworn OIG interview transcript from June 15, 2021, involving the Bureau of Prisons captain who oversaw security operations at MCC New York during the period surrounding Jeffrey Epstein's death. The captain described the command structure inside the jail, including his role supervising lieutenants and reporting up to associate wardens or the warden, while investigators walked him through staffing, rosters, post assignments, suicide-watch procedures, SHU operations, and the chain of responsibility on August 9–10, 2019. The transcript is important because it does not present Epstein's death as a clean, orderly institutional event; instead, it shows a jail struggling with bad staffing, confusing handoffs, unfilled posts, questionable paperwork, and a command structure where critical responsibilities appear to have been either missed, misunderstood, or passed around.The most serious value of the interview is in the irregularities it surfaces. The captain reportedly discussed inaccurate rosters or logs, acknowledged questions around skipped SHU rounds, addressed the fact that Epstein had previously been on suicide watch, and said he would not necessarily have known in real time if officers were failing to conduct required checks. Even more troubling, he expressed concern that certain documents may have been deliberately removed from files that should have been reviewed or audited, and investigators also raised an inmate-count issue involving an inmate named Reyes, whose release may not have been properly reflected in the institution's count — something the captain treated as a protocol violation. Taken together, the transcript adds another layer to the larger Epstein death record: not a single clean explanation, but a bureaucratic mess of missing or questionable documentation, staffing failures, broken supervision, and institutional chaos at precisely the moment when the most high-profile federal inmate in America was supposed to be under careful control.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00111830.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
Surface every AI agent in your tenant and expose the ones throwing security signals — across both the IT and SOC view. Triage high-severity alerts as IT in the Microsoft 365 admin center, then pivot into the full incident graph as a SOC analyst in Microsoft Defender. Block malicious tool invocations the instant they fire and catch jailbreak attempts on Copilot Studio agents before they take hold. Trace a compromised user back to suspicious agent activity, then trigger Microsoft Entra conditional access to revoke the session and force a password reset straight from the incident. Hunt overpermissioned agents with pre-built advanced hunting templates — including one that exposes every agent running MCP tools on the maker's standing credentials — and pull risky builds from the Agent Store using the Agent Registry. Spencer Berg, AI & Security Product Manager, shares how to turn agent risk signals into coordinated remediation across Defender, Entra, and the Microsoft 365 admin center. ► QUICK LINKS: 00:00 - Stay in control with Agent 365 00:40 - Gain visibility with unified control plane 01:48 - Unified IT & SOC agent view 02:54 - Real-time blocking and jailbreak detection 04:08 - Auto-revoke via Entra conditional access 04:32 - Prevent future incidents 05:28 - Advanced hunting for AI agents 06:43 - Block risky agents 07:15 - Wrap up ► Link References Check out https://aka.ms/Agent365SecOps ► Unfamiliar with Microsoft Mechanics? As Microsoft's official video series for IT, you can watch and share valuable content and demos of current and upcoming tech from the people who build it at Microsoft. • Subscribe to our YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/c/MicrosoftMechanicsSeries • Talk with other IT Pros, join us on the Microsoft Tech Community: https://techcommunity.microsoft.com/t5/microsoft-mechanics-blog/bg-p/MicrosoftMechanicsBlog • Watch or listen from anywhere, subscribe to our podcast: https://microsoftmechanics.libsyn.com/podcast ► Keep getting this insider knowledge, join us on social: • Follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/MSFTMechanics • Share knowledge on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/microsoft-mechanics/ • Enjoy us on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/msftmechanics/ • Loosen up with us on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@msftmechanics
The document is a sworn OIG interview transcript from June 15, 2021, involving the Bureau of Prisons captain who oversaw security operations at MCC New York during the period surrounding Jeffrey Epstein's death. The captain described the command structure inside the jail, including his role supervising lieutenants and reporting up to associate wardens or the warden, while investigators walked him through staffing, rosters, post assignments, suicide-watch procedures, SHU operations, and the chain of responsibility on August 9–10, 2019. The transcript is important because it does not present Epstein's death as a clean, orderly institutional event; instead, it shows a jail struggling with bad staffing, confusing handoffs, unfilled posts, questionable paperwork, and a command structure where critical responsibilities appear to have been either missed, misunderstood, or passed around.The most serious value of the interview is in the irregularities it surfaces. The captain reportedly discussed inaccurate rosters or logs, acknowledged questions around skipped SHU rounds, addressed the fact that Epstein had previously been on suicide watch, and said he would not necessarily have known in real time if officers were failing to conduct required checks. Even more troubling, he expressed concern that certain documents may have been deliberately removed from files that should have been reviewed or audited, and investigators also raised an inmate-count issue involving an inmate named Reyes, whose release may not have been properly reflected in the institution's count — something the captain treated as a protocol violation. Taken together, the transcript adds another layer to the larger Epstein death record: not a single clean explanation, but a bureaucratic mess of missing or questionable documentation, staffing failures, broken supervision, and institutional chaos at precisely the moment when the most high-profile federal inmate in America was supposed to be under careful control.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00111830.pdf
The document is a sworn OIG interview transcript from June 15, 2021, involving the Bureau of Prisons captain who oversaw security operations at MCC New York during the period surrounding Jeffrey Epstein's death. The captain described the command structure inside the jail, including his role supervising lieutenants and reporting up to associate wardens or the warden, while investigators walked him through staffing, rosters, post assignments, suicide-watch procedures, SHU operations, and the chain of responsibility on August 9–10, 2019. The transcript is important because it does not present Epstein's death as a clean, orderly institutional event; instead, it shows a jail struggling with bad staffing, confusing handoffs, unfilled posts, questionable paperwork, and a command structure where critical responsibilities appear to have been either missed, misunderstood, or passed around.The most serious value of the interview is in the irregularities it surfaces. The captain reportedly discussed inaccurate rosters or logs, acknowledged questions around skipped SHU rounds, addressed the fact that Epstein had previously been on suicide watch, and said he would not necessarily have known in real time if officers were failing to conduct required checks. Even more troubling, he expressed concern that certain documents may have been deliberately removed from files that should have been reviewed or audited, and investigators also raised an inmate-count issue involving an inmate named Reyes, whose release may not have been properly reflected in the institution's count — something the captain treated as a protocol violation. Taken together, the transcript adds another layer to the larger Epstein death record: not a single clean explanation, but a bureaucratic mess of missing or questionable documentation, staffing failures, broken supervision, and institutional chaos at precisely the moment when the most high-profile federal inmate in America was supposed to be under careful control.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00111830.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
The document is a sworn OIG interview transcript from June 15, 2021, involving the Bureau of Prisons captain who oversaw security operations at MCC New York during the period surrounding Jeffrey Epstein's death. The captain described the command structure inside the jail, including his role supervising lieutenants and reporting up to associate wardens or the warden, while investigators walked him through staffing, rosters, post assignments, suicide-watch procedures, SHU operations, and the chain of responsibility on August 9–10, 2019. The transcript is important because it does not present Epstein's death as a clean, orderly institutional event; instead, it shows a jail struggling with bad staffing, confusing handoffs, unfilled posts, questionable paperwork, and a command structure where critical responsibilities appear to have been either missed, misunderstood, or passed around.The most serious value of the interview is in the irregularities it surfaces. The captain reportedly discussed inaccurate rosters or logs, acknowledged questions around skipped SHU rounds, addressed the fact that Epstein had previously been on suicide watch, and said he would not necessarily have known in real time if officers were failing to conduct required checks. Even more troubling, he expressed concern that certain documents may have been deliberately removed from files that should have been reviewed or audited, and investigators also raised an inmate-count issue involving an inmate named Reyes, whose release may not have been properly reflected in the institution's count — something the captain treated as a protocol violation. Taken together, the transcript adds another layer to the larger Epstein death record: not a single clean explanation, but a bureaucratic mess of missing or questionable documentation, staffing failures, broken supervision, and institutional chaos at precisely the moment when the most high-profile federal inmate in America was supposed to be under careful control.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00111830.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
© 2020-2026 Ivy Podcast Discovery LLC
