I arrived in Austin Sunday night to get ready for a factory tour on Monday, a kickoff dinner and then two days of briefings from Dell executives, including Michael Dell himself! Dell’s ISG business is growing at a very fast pace and continues to build momentum and focus within the broader organization.

We had a nice overview of the product roadmap, including some of the exciting enhancements Dell is making to their storage products such as the MD3000 and the new EqualLogic PS5000 series iSCSI solutions.

I really enjoyed the Council meeting and it reminds me all over again; what I admire about Dell is the way they and Michael Dell himself stay close to the customer. The entire purpose of this event is to “get it right” and determine meaningful ways to embrace change (including change in the manufacturing process) in order to make their customers more successful. Ah shucks, you may say that all companies behave this way… well I must tell you that is not true and at times, I find it difficult as we continue to grow to stay as close as I would like to all of our customers varying needs and directions.

This concept of gathering, internalizing and embracing customer feedback is a simple principle of Business Success stories. Always trying to improve the pace of change and build meaningful sticky relationships with customers. Dell’s very successful Ideastorm site where customers post product feedback and are active participants in the Dell community is a great example of how to do this right. No other hardware vendor that we have worked with or attempted to work with has ever gone to the extent of embracing change that Dell has during our 5-year relationship.

From the custom factory integration services to the attention to detail in the order and manufacturing, and logistics processes, Dell helps us execute for our customers and I must admit that we could not have built the business as quickly or efficiently without Dell!

So thank you Michael Dell for building a business that embraces change and is focused on helping your ISG customers succeed.

Having a validated drug discovery platform is the first and most important criterion for defining a good platform company. The platform is typically comprised of a combination of technology, experienced personnel and intellectual property that can generate a stream of drug candidates. Most importantly, investing should be done only after a product of the platform demonstrates activity in clinical trials. Having a clinically validated product is not a guarantee for future success of the platform nor does it mean that the specific agent will reach the market, but it does imply that one or more of the platform’s products stand a reasonable chance of becoming a commercial drug. A validated platform may increase overall success rates, yet the odds of a particular drug candidate to make it all the way to approval are still low.

...

Exelixis is active in the ever growing market of kinase inhibitors (KIs) for the treatment of cancer, that is, drugs that block the activity of kinases in cancer cells. Cancer cells are often described as cells that are out of control: They proliferate quickly, ignore death signals, invade nearby tissues and eventually metastasize to distant organs. These disease onset and advancement are associated with processes such as cell growth, motility and blood-vessel formation, which are governed by a complex network made of kinases. Thus, blocking these processes by inhibiting the relevant kinases has emerged as one of the most attractive approaches to fighting cancer.

Together with monoclonal antibodies, kinase inhibitors represent a paradigm shift in cancer treatment from cytotoxic agents to targeted therapies, a trend that is constantly growing. Like antibodies for cancer, kinase inhibitors target tumors while sparing healthy cells and consequently lead to better activity with fewer side effects. Kinase inhibitors, however, possess several advantages over antibodies. The most evident advantage is that KIs can hit targets inside the cell while antibodies can only bind targets presented on the cell surface, so internal targets are approachable only by KIs. Another advantage is the fact that KIs can be given orally, which is a major factor in terms of patient convenience, especially given the typical long treatment duration associated with targeted therapies. Another advantage, which will be later discussed in the article, is the ability to produce KIs that hit several targets at once.

It's become a big deal in IT security, too. Many corporate customers are demanding ROI models to demonstrate that a particular security investment pays off. And in response, vendors are providing ROI models that demonstrate how their particular security solution provides the best return on investment.

It's a good idea in theory, but it's mostly bunk in practice.

Before I get into the details, there's one point I have to make. "ROI" as used in a security context is inaccurate. Security is not an investment that provides a return, like a new factory or a financial instrument. It's an expense that, hopefully, pays for itself in cost savings. Security is about loss prevention, not about earnings. The term just doesn't make sense in this context.

But as anyone who has lived through a company's vicious end-of-year budget-slashing exercises knows, when you're trying to make your numbers, cutting costs is the same as increasing revenues. So while security can't produce ROI, loss prevention most certainly affects a company's bottom line.

And a company should implement only security countermeasures that affect its bottom line positively. It shouldn't spend more on a security problem than the problem is worth. Conversely, it shouldn't ignore problems that are costing it money when there are cheaper mitigation alternatives. A smart company needs to approach security as it would any other business decision: costs versus benefits.

The classic methodology is called annualized loss expectancy (ALE), and it's straightforward. Calculate the cost of a security incident in both tangibles like time and money, and intangibles like reputation and competitive advantage. Multiply that by the chance the incident will occur in a year. That tells you how much you should spend to mitigate the risk. So, for example, if your store has a 10 percent chance of getting robbed and the cost of being robbed is $10,000, then you should spend $1,000 a year on security. Spend more than that, and you're wasting money. Spend less than that, and you're also wasting money.

Of course, that $1,000 has to reduce the chance of being robbed to zero in order to be cost-effective. If a security measure cuts the chance of robbery by 40 percent -- to 6 percent a year -- then you should spend no more than $400 on it. If another security measure reduces it by 80 percent, it's worth $800. And if two security measures both reduce the chance of being robbed by 50 percent and one costs $300 and the other $700, the first one is worth it and the second isn't.

The Data Imperative

The key to making this work is good data; the term of art is "actuarial tail." If you're doing an ALE analysis of a security camera at a convenience store, you need to know the crime rate in the store's neighborhood and maybe have some idea of how much cameras improve the odds of convincing criminals to rob another store instead. You need to know how much a robbery costs: in merchandise, in time and annoyance, in lost sales due to spooked patrons, in employee morale. You need to know how much not having the cameras costs in terms of employee morale; maybe you're having trouble hiring salespeople to work the night shift. With all that data, you can figure out if the cost of the camera is cheaper than the loss of revenue if you close the store at night -- assuming that the closed store won't get robbed as well. And then you can decide whether to install one.

Cybersecurity is considerably harder, because there just isn't enough good data. There aren't good crime rates for cyberspace, and we have a lot less data about how individual security countermeasures -- or specific configurations of countermeasures -- mitigate those risks. We don't even have data on incident costs.

One problem is that the threat moves too quickly. The characteristics of the things we're trying to prevent change so quickly that we can't accumulate data fast enough. By the time we get some data, there's a new threat model for which we don't have enough data. So we can't create ALE models.

But there's another problem, and it's that the math quickly falls apart when it comes to rare and expensive events. Imagine you calculate the cost -- reputational costs, loss of customers, etc. -- of having your company's name in the newspaper after an embarrassing cybersecurity event to be $20 million. Also assume that the odds are 1 in 10,000 of that happening in any one year. ALE says you should spend no more than $2,000 mitigating that risk.

So far, so good. But maybe your CFO thinks an incident would cost only $10 million. You can't argue, since we're just estimating. But he just cut your security budget in half. A vendor trying to sell you a product finds a Web analysis claiming that the odds of this happening are actually 1 in 1,000. Accept this new number, and suddenly a product costing 10 times as much is still a good investment.

It gets worse when you deal with even more rare and expensive events. Imagine you're in charge of terrorism mitigation at a chlorine plant. What's the cost to your company, in money and reputation, of a large and very deadly explosion? $100 million? $1 billion? $10 billion? And the odds: 1 in a hundred thousand, 1 in a million, 1 in 10 million? Depending on how you answer those two questions -- and any answer is really just a guess -- you can justify spending anywhere from $10 to $100,000 annually to mitigate that risk.

Or take another example: airport security. Assume that all the new airport security measures increase the waiting time at airports by -- and I'm making this up -- 30 minutes per passenger. There were 760 million passenger boardings in the United States in 2007. This means that the extra waiting time at airports has cost us a collective 43,000 years of extra waiting time. Assume a 70-year life expectancy, and the increased waiting time has "killed" 620 people per year -- 930 if you calculate the numbers based on 16 hours of awake time per day. So the question is: If we did away with increased airport security, would the result be more people dead from terrorism or fewer?

Caveat Emptor

This kind of thing is why most ROI models you get from security vendors are nonsense. Of course their model demonstrates that their product or service makes financial sense: They've jiggered the numbers so that they do.

This doesn't mean that ALE is useless, but it does mean you should 1) mistrust any analyses that come from people with an agenda and 2) use any results as a general guideline only. So when you get an ROI model from your vendor, take its framework and plug in your own numbers. Don't even show the vendor your improvements; it won't consider any changes that make its product or service less cost-effective to be an "improvement." And use those results as a general guide, along with risk management and compliance analyses, when you're deciding what security products and services to buy.

This essay previously appeared in CSO Magazine.

• Good news: router is now officially a firewall (it has been for a while, but many people are still stuck in "security device" vs "network device" cloud) - see Req 1
• From the "WTH dept": anti-virus is a MUST on ALL platforms - Req 5. Please ship me some of the stuff they are smoking; I want it! BTW, I am going to Amsterdam soon :-)
• WAF or code review for web application security is still a stupid "OR" - Req 6.6. OMG, please, software security folks, teach them the truth.
• Can we kill "plain text passwords" once and for all? Req 8 tries to achieve that noble goal (good thing!)
• Visit your offsite data storage - good (if costly) idea - added to Req 9. Requirements to secure electronic AND  paper media  are solid too.
• Love it, love it! Req 10 explains that logs needs to be actually available: 'three months of audit trail history must be “immediately available for analysis” or quickly accessible' (bye-bye, silly log dumps...)
• Some vulnerability stuff clarified in Req 11, mostly about ASVs and pentesting.
• Scope of security policy is expanded to "employee-facing technologies" (what a term!) - Req 12
• All over: more references to wireless  (WEP, access points, hidden SSIDs, etc) - indeed, recent data losses are often due to insecure wireless.

Overall, a minor change that, sadly, doesn't touch a few KEY areas, such as virtualization, for one.

The "Oyster card" used on the London Tube was at issue in the Dutch case, and a similar fare card used on the Boston "T" was the center of the U.S. case. The Dutch court got it right, and the American court, in Boston, got it wrong from the start -- despite facing an open-and-shut case of First Amendment prior restraint.

The U.S. court has since seen the error of its ways -- but the damage is done. The MIT security researchers who were prepared to discuss their Boston findings at the DefCon security conference were prevented from giving their talk.

The ethics of full disclosure are intimately familiar to those of us in the computer-security field. Before full disclosure became the norm, researchers would quietly disclose vulnerabilities to the vendors -- who would routinely ignore them. Sometimes vendors would even threaten researchers with legal action if they disclosed the vulnerabilities.

Later on, researchers started disclosing the existence of a vulnerability but not the details. Vendors responded by denying the security holes' existence, or calling them just theoretical. It wasn't until full disclosure became the norm that vendors began consistently fixing vulnerabilities quickly. Now that vendors routinely patch vulnerabilities, researchers generally give them advance notice to allow them to patch their systems before the vulnerability is published. But even with this "responsible disclosure" protocol, it's the threat of disclosure that motivates them to patch their systems. Full disclosure is the mechanism (.pdf) by which computer security improves.

Outside of computer security, secrecy is much more the norm. Some security communities, like locksmiths, behave much like medieval guilds, divulging the secrets of their profession only to those within it. These communities hate open research, and have responded with surprising vitriol to researchers who have found serious vulnerabilities in bicycle locks, combination safes (.pdf), master-key systems and many other security devices.

Researchers have received a similar reaction from other communities more used to secrecy than openness. Researchers -- sometimes young students -- who discovered and published flaws in copyright-protection schemes, voting-machine security and now wireless access cards have all suffered recriminations and sometimes lawsuits for not keeping the vulnerabilities secret. When Christopher Soghoian created a website allowing people to print fake airline boarding passes, he got several unpleasant visits from the FBI.

This preference for secrecy comes from confusing a vulnerability with information about that vulnerability. Using secrecy as a security measure is fundamentally fragile. It assumes that the bad guys don't do their own security research. It assumes that no one else will find the same vulnerability. It assumes that information won't leak out even if the research results are suppressed. These assumptions are all incorrect.

The problem isn't the researchers; it's the products themselves. Companies will only design security as good as what their customers know to ask for. Full disclosure helps customers evaluate the security of the products they buy, and educates them in how to ask for better security. The Dutch court got it exactly right when it wrote: "Damage to NXP is not the result of the publication of the article but of the production and sale of a chip that appears to have shortcomings."

In a world of forced secrecy, vendors make inflated claims about their products, vulnerabilities don't get fixed, and customers are no wiser. Security research is stifled, and security technology doesn't improve. The only beneficiaries are the bad guys.

If you'll forgive the analogy, the ethics of full disclosure parallel the ethics of not paying kidnapping ransoms. We all know why we don't pay kidnappers: It encourages more kidnappings. Yet in every kidnapping case, there's someone -- a spouse, a parent, an employer -- with a good reason why, in this one case, we should make an exception.

The reason we want researchers to publish vulnerabilities is because that's how security improves. But in every case there's someone -- the Massachusetts Bay Transit Authority, the locksmiths, an election machine manufacturer -- who argues that, in this one case, we should make an exception.

We shouldn't. The benefits of responsibly publishing attacks greatly outweigh the potential harm. Disclosure encourages companies to build security properly rather than relying on shoddy design and secrecy, and discourages them from promising security based on their ability to threaten researchers. It's how we learn about security, and how we improve future security.

This essay previously appeared on Wired.com.

EDITED TO ADD (8/26): Matt Blaze has a good essay on the topic.

The convergence of voice and video traffic are quickly transforming the growing complexity of networks at a torrid pace. IDC estimates that the skills gap in VOIP should grow to 19% by 2011.

This changing profile in the role of the network plays a key role in the skills shortage. Network enabled collaboration tools such as social networking apps and the Webex conferencing/collaboration solutions we use in our business each and every day are demanding a new set of IT skills to deliver business value.

My perspective is two-fold on this issue; the first is what I have seen in the resources we have attempted to hire! We give a very straightforward quick written/oral test to all new technical hires. This requires basic networking knowledge and some Unix commands. On average, (after filters from reputable recruiting firms, some with 5-10 years experience) less than 10% pass muster for the first filter we use in our hiring process. This is a troubling fact, which has cost us considerable time and effort to secure the right resources with competent skills. So I can say from our market assessment in a very strong technological job skills market, core Unix and networking foundation skills are slipping.

The second is that we as an IT Operations Management (ITOM) industry need to keep pushing hard to build better proactive and intuitive solutions to aggregate instrumentation from all Data Center tools, including more work around VOIP, video streaming, and collaboration so that we can ease this transition. If ITOM solutions become more proactive across the typical Cisco infrastructure that is commonly installed in the Data Center, we can free up some additional time for advanced “emerging technologies” training where existing IT workers can enhance their core skills and re-invigorate their careers. We have to do a much better job of getting our existing IT professionals trained on emerging technologies!

While there’s less that ScienceLogic can do around training, we certainly strive to do our part to enhance a day in the life of the networking engineers who use our solutions to simplify monitoring of increasingly complex networking, Wireless, VOIP, and collaboration needs.

The "Oyster card" used on the London Tube was at issue in the Dutch case, and a similar fare card used on the Boston "T" was the center of the U.S. case. The Dutch court got it right, and the American court, in Boston, got it wrong from the start -- despite facing an open-and-shut case of First Amendment prior restraint.

The U.S. court has since seen the error of its ways -- but the damage is done. The MIT security researchers who were prepared to discuss their Boston findings at the DefCon security conference were prevented from giving their talk.

The ethics of full disclosure are intimately familiar to those of us in the computer-security field. Before full disclosure became the norm, researchers would quietly disclose vulnerabilities to the vendors -- who would routinely ignore them. Sometimes vendors would even threaten researchers with legal action if they disclosed the vulnerabilities.

Later on, researchers started disclosing the existence of a vulnerability but not the details. Vendors responded by denying the security holes' existence, or calling them just theoretical. It wasn't until full disclosure became the norm that vendors began consistently fixing vulnerabilities quickly. Now that vendors routinely patch vulnerabilities, researchers generally give them advance notice to allow them to patch their systems before the vulnerability is published. But even with this "responsible disclosure" protocol, it's the threat of disclosure that motivates them to patch their systems. Full disclosure is the mechanism (.pdf) by which computer security improves.

Outside of computer security, secrecy is much more the norm. Some security communities, like locksmiths, behave much like medieval guilds, divulging the secrets of their profession only to those within it. These communities hate open research, and have responded with surprising vitriol to researchers who have found serious vulnerabilities in bicycle locks, combination safes (.pdf), master-key systems and many other security devices.

Researchers have received a similar reaction from other communities more used to secrecy than openness. Researchers -- sometimes young students -- who discovered and published flaws in copyright-protection schemes, voting-machine security and now wireless access cards have all suffered recriminations and sometimes lawsuits for not keeping the vulnerabilities secret. When Christopher Soghoian created a website allowing people to print fake airline boarding passes, he got several unpleasant visits from the FBI.

This preference for secrecy comes from confusing a vulnerability with information about that vulnerability. Using secrecy as a security measure is fundamentally fragile. It assumes that the bad guys don't do their own security research. It assumes that no one else will find the same vulnerability. It assumes that information won't leak out even if the research results are suppressed. These assumptions are all incorrect.

The problem isn't the researchers; it's the products themselves. Companies will only design security as good as what their customers know to ask for. Full disclosure helps customers evaluate the security of the products they buy, and educates them in how to ask for better security. The Dutch court got it exactly right when it wrote: "Damage to NXP is not the result of the publication of the article but of the production and sale of a chip that appears to have shortcomings."

In a world of forced secrecy, vendors make inflated claims about their products, vulnerabilities don't get fixed, and customers are no wiser. Security research is stifled, and security technology doesn't improve. The only beneficiaries are the bad guys.

If you'll forgive the analogy, the ethics of full disclosure parallel the ethics of not paying kidnapping ransoms. We all know why we don't pay kidnappers: It encourages more kidnappings. Yet in every kidnapping case, there's someone -- a spouse, a parent, an employer -- with a good reason why, in this one case, we should make an exception.

The reason we want researchers to publish vulnerabilities is because that's how security improves. But in every case there's someone -- the Massachusetts Bay Transit Authority, the locksmiths, an election machine manufacturer -- who argues that, in this one case, we should make an exception.

We shouldn't. The benefits of responsibly publishing attacks greatly outweigh the potential harm. Disclosure encourages companies to build security properly rather than relying on shoddy design and secrecy, and discourages them from promising security based on their ability to threaten researchers. It's how we learn about security, and how we improve future security.

---

Bruce Schneier is Chief Security Technology Officer of BT Global Services and author of Beyond Fear: Thinking Sensibly About Security in an Uncertain World. You can read more of his writings on his website.

To kick off our celebration of our first five years, we asked ScienceLogic founders Dave Link, Richard Chart and Chris Cordray for their thoughts and memories on events leading to today’s milestone. How and why did they set out on this venture? What happened along the way – expected and unexpected? Why were they successful in times when other new (and established) businesses have come and gone?

How did you three put together this team?

We all worked together at a large Managed Service Provider for a couple of years before leaving to start ScienceLogic, so we all knew each other and knew our collective strengths. More importantly, each of us had worked with network management tools on some level (sales and marketing, engineering and product development), and knew first-hand all of the customer pain points, from every perspective. So we left and began rapidly figuring out how to build a better network management solution based upon our real world operational experience..

Dave: One interesting aspect is that our areas of expertise don’t overlap, which has contributed to our success. Chris is excellent with developing the product front-end and interface, Richard handled the backend architecture and engineering and I focused on the technical business side of sales and marketing. Our roles have been to build a product that works well and that provides real value to operations teams that experience the same day to day frustrations that we felt.

Whose idea was it to start the company?

Dave: It was really a collective effort. We were all passionate about “getting it right” and not just starting a company. We knew the industry need and between us, we had the knowledge and skill sets to address all of the right aspects of developing a product and a building a business around it.

What process did you go through to get started?

Richard: From the beginning we knew the type of solution the market needed and we knew that we wanted to build it as an appliance. From different vantage points, we had each experienced the effects of long, difficult and expensive installations that still exist with traditional network tools. Every install has unique variations: there are always different server types, varying hardware and software versions, different patches installed, and on and on. Every installation was time consuming and unpredictable. We knew that an appliance model would address all of these variables and save a lot of time on how quickly customers could achieve immediate value.

The harder decisions were around actually starting the business, assessing the market and of course determining the product pricing.

EM7 completely flips the traditional model of complex, lengthy and expensive deployments. How did you convince others that the EM7 Meta-Appliance product was valid?

Dave: Yes, EM7 totally disrupts the traditional model for network management. While others take a narrow approach, we intentionally designed EM7 to focus on the broad problem – managing the data center. How do you cover a variety of technologies and make sure they work seamlessly together? The vision was to make it easier, not harder, for customers.

Chris: I have to give it to Dave – very early on, he realized the power of a demo. If Dave could get in front of someone, he’d make them a believer. He’d use the Peter Falk/Columbo technique of “let me show you one more thing.” It was very effective. It’s getting easier, but even today people sometimes have to see EM7 in action before they become believers.

Can you describe the early days of running a new business?

Dave: ScienceLogic is a classic case of entrepreneurship. For the first year we worked out of our basements. We kept the costs low in every conceivable way and spent the first year developing the product before we even made a sale.

Chris: We stayed at lots of odd places when we were on the road, took cheap flights with multiple layovers and purchased lots of our first test equipment on eBay. This was during the dot-com bust so there was lots of equipment for sale on eBay, really cheap!

Richard: The amount of equipment I had in my house was absolutely crazy. Back then, servers were huge – I had a Cisco 6509 Catalyst, a Compaq Proliant DL380, Brocade switch, IBM Netfinity 4500R, and tons of other machines.

Chris: I had to install a new circuit box at home because I was blowing breakers. I remember when that 6509 crashed, we revived it and it died again. The second death was final.

So you started in your houses – what was your first office space?

Dave: My friend, the CEO at Ernst & Young Technology had a few extra cubes and a data center in their office that they graciously allowed us to use. Their help was an important step in helping us really formalize the business. We started doing well and adding people, but ironically, their company was downsizing. Before long, many of their original YET people were gone and the ScienceLogic team kept growing in to the open cubes.

Our first leased space was converted warehouse space in Chantilly, VA that once housed an internet radio station. It was cool – it had a large salt water fish tank, a loft, a spiral staircase and a Star Trek door that retracted into the walls with the customary lights and “whooshing” sound.

We outgrew the Chantilly space, leading to our current office in Reston, VA.

Who was the first ScienceLogic customer?

Our first paying customer was Martins Point Health Care. We deployed there in July 2004 and are pleased to say they continue to be a ScienceLogic customer. Other early (and still) EM7 customers include Navy Knowledge Online and the Department of Transportation. Nearly all of our customers are still actively using EM7 and renewing their maintenance.

Where do you see the company in the next 5, 10 or 15 years?

Well, our revenue has doubled year-over-year in each of the last three years, so of course we’d like to continue to grow like that or even faster. In five years we’ve gone from three founders to the point where Dave does not know everyone’s fondest childhood memory. We’ll continue to scale our growth to cover the demands of our growing customer base.

Where do you see the industry going over the coming years?

Chris: IT is always moving and gaining in complexity, so network management is also becoming more complicated. There’s increasing diversity, new standards, virtualization and cloud computing. All of these are today’s technologies. Customers have a mix of the old and the new, so EM7 has to accommodate and support both.

Richard: Each generation of products has a new set of ways to monitor, but the “old” doesn’t go away. Even when a new, hot technology comes along, the old technologies still need to be supported. We work to ensure EM7 keeps up with both.

Dave: After five years we’re just hitting our stride and we’re just now reaching the tipping point in awareness of ScienceLogic and EM7. We’re all still passionate about the product and as Chris and Rich said, there’s still a lot do. We’ll continue disrupting the market with EM7. Our vision hasn’t changed, and with the increasing levels of automation that customers demand, the market needs are greater than ever. Our future is as bright, or brighter, than ever and we’ll continue to be looking for smart ways to automate traditionally manual IT Operations processes.

What’s your advice for someone interested in starting their own business?

Chris: Be passionate. That’s what has gotten me through the tough times. I didn’t really appreciate this thought when I heard others say it before. But it’s very true.

Richard: I agree. We met and talked with lots of people who told us, “That’s been done before.” But we kept going because we truly believed in what we were doing and we knew that while our approach was different, that it would be successful.

Richard: Be fearless. You can’t be too nervous and you need to be able to expect and handle the stress because it will be there. You have to learn to accept the stressful times as a necessary part of the process of starting out on your own.

Dave: Know your niche from the beginning and give potential customers a compelling reason to trust you and really benefit from your solution. You have to know the problem, see the gap and have a clear and consistent vision of how to solve the problem. Then you have to execute. If you don’t build your team with “doers” you won’t make it.

Chris: It helps to have friends. ScienceLogic was built on friendships and relationships, starting with the three of us. If you look at our team, most of our hires are referrals – people who developed and maintained great connections with other great people throughout their careers. Maintain your connections and keep in touch with your network of friends.