firewalls. What's a firewall? I'm sure you've heard of it. You may even use one. What do you use them for? Has anyone used one on their computer? Yes. No. Anyone used a computer before? You're trying to think whether the answer is yes or no. And use antivirus maybe? Some people may have used antivirus. Yeah? Well you can block different things whether it's the teacher or blocking other students. Sometimes antivirus software comes with some firewall features and you may have noticed sometimes you try to access a website or a piece of software is installed and you may get a warning or a message saying your computer is trying to access the internet. Do you want to allow or block it? Sometimes messages pop up saying do you want to accept this traffic in or out of your computer? And that's the firewall functionality of that software taking effect. The general role of a firewall is to control traffic, control packets coming into or out of a computer or a computer network for security purposes to control what can happen on a computer or on a particular network. We'll look at the general concepts of firewalls and go through some examples of how we could set one up to control what goes in and out of a network. Firewall is a form of access control. We want to control who can access our resources. If a firewall is for a particular computer we want to control who can access my computer. Who on another computer can access my computer from a network. So say on my laptop I may have some servers running, a web server, I have my own network connection. Other computers can potentially log into my laptop but I don't want other people to log into my laptop. I don't want them to access my website or I don't want them to get remote access to my computer. One role of a firewall would be to control and block others from accessing my laptop via a network. More useful in larger organizations is that let's say for SIT we have all our internal computers. Let's say all the office computers, the staff computers, even the lab computers inside SIT, they belong to SIT. We don't want people outside of SIT to access those computers. We don't want them to access our database servers, the lab computers. Even though those computers have network connections, network access, we don't want outsiders to be able to log into my lab computer and do things. So a firewall may be used to control who can access from outside of our network in and we may even use it the other way. I don't want students in my lab to access Facebook. I want the students to be doing work so I could use a firewall to control what those inside the network can access in the outside. So the firewall will control what comes in and what goes out, either into a computer or into an entire network. So what are some characteristics of a firewall? Well the needs for firewalls, well let's see. We know with most organizations the internet is a key resource. Most organizations need network access to achieve their goals. But of course having internet connectivity for an organization creates a threat because those malicious users outside may be able to try and access our resources when they shouldn't be able to or they may be able to try and do a denial of service attack or install viruses on our computers and then do further damage. And a lot of that, those potential attacks come from outside. So a firewall can be a useful means for protecting a local area network or an internal network we generally say. In the picture we say in the cloud on the left the internal network, let's say the network inside SIT and the cloud on the right is the rest of the world, the internet. We want to have a device, hardware or software that controls what comes into the internal network and sometimes controls what goes out from the internal out to the external and that's the role of the firewall. We'll see that we can implement that on different network devices like a router or dedicated hardware and usually using some specialized software to control what comes in and out. So in large organizations usually a firewall is a separate device that runs some software which controls what comes in and out of the network. In a smaller organization or even in your home the firewall may be some software running on your computer. So on my laptop I may run a firewall which controls what goes in and out. The idea of having one for the entire organization is it's much simpler to control and configure. Let's say for SIT we have one device that controls what comes in and out as opposed to having a firewall software installed on every computer inside SIT. That would be much harder to manage to keep that software up to date to get it configured. So what we commonly do for large organizations is have a single device maybe multiple firewalls that control the entire network. So the firewall is commonly inserted between the internal network and the external network. So on some network device that connects internal to outside. Where would we put it in a network? What's a good location for a firewall? What network device could we put it on? If we think a firewall is a piece of software and we want to run it on an existing network device what's a good place to put it? At the front but give me an example of a device. Well start simple maybe for your home network where you have five or six computers at home where would you run the firewall at home? Where? Where would you run your firewall if you want to run a firewall for your home network again? Computer all right so if you want to run it on your computer let's say at home you have what three or four phones two laptops a desktop you have six or seven computers. If you want to run the firewall on the computer at home you need to run the firewall software on every computer to protect them all. You need a firewall software on your tablet on your phone on your laptop and on the desktop. That's possible but as soon as the number of computers grows that becomes quite inconvenient. So not a good solution as the network gets larger. So what's an alternative? Run the firewall functionality on the router that connects your home network to outside. You have a Wi-Fi router or an an ADSL or cable modem which is actually a router. That can have a firewall software on it that controls what comes in and out and therefore controls and protects all devices inside not just the single device. In an organization like SIT we have a router that connects our campus out to actually we have from Bunker D out to Runxit we could have a firewall there or where we connect to our external internet service provider. So we connect to the internet via an ISP that device where the ISP's cable comes into we could run the firewall on there. So that's more common to protect the entire network have it on a router as opposed on the individual computers. What do we want to protect? What do we want to stop with the firewall? What do you want to protect? The data in your computer so you have some files on your computer you don't want someone to remotely log into your computer and copy the files off. Yes? What are the things that you may want to do? Malware, malicious software. If someone sends you a packet or an email or some message which contains a virus maybe the firewall can have some control that says okay don't allow this message in because if this message comes in malicious software may be installed on one of your internal computers. So protect from malware, protect people accessing your computers, protect people inside or stop people inside from doing things that they shouldn't be doing outside the network and the example stop all students from accessing Facebook. So that could be implemented in a firewall so this is not just controlling external to internal but prevent internal users from doing some things so maybe in both directions. So we say it's a perimeter defense that protects the from the outside of the network it doesn't protect individual computers directly it protects the entire network. For this to work for our firewall to be effective we have a few goals in setting up the firewall and the network. First we must ensure that all the traffic into our network passes through the firewall. Simple example let's say we consider a network for an organization like SIT here's our network and we have a gateway or router this router connects to our internet service provider our internet service provider which then connects out to the broader internet. So this is the rest of the world over here. So in this scenario that maybe the obvious location for the firewall is on that router what we would do is set the router up to act as also as a firewall and as a firewall it can control what comes in and out and what goes out. So install the firewall on this router and that will control what's coming out of SIT and what's coming into SIT network. Now the problem arises in that sometimes organizations have more than one connection to the outside world. We may have a second router that connects to another ISP maybe our backup internet connection or parallel one. So the idea here is the internal network has multiple connections to the outside world. Well our firewall must be implemented on all of those entry points on all of those routers. If we implement the firewall just on this router but then we start sending traffic out of this link and it starts coming into this link then the firewall cannot control that traffic and the result may be that the malware comes in via ISP2 into our network. So we need a firewall on every entry or exit point to our internal network FW for firewall and that can be quite complex for large organizations because they have more than just two, they may have multiple points of entry. The next thing is that we must have some rules or some policies that specify what can come in and what can come out. Can someone suggest some policies for SIT? What's a suggested policy for SIT for what should come in and what should go out?  Maybe we'd like to block students or people from playing games, online games for example. So what the firewall may do is be configured so the policy may be students are not allowed to play online games. It may be more specific and list what type of games but that's the aim so then we need to implement that policy in the firewall. So we must specify some policy what are our aims and then we must implement that policy such that we only allow authorized traffic through the firewall and with respect to games maybe we identify the IP addresses of the game servers and then we set up the firewall such that any packet that's going to one of those IP addresses is blocked is not allowed out. As a result your computer inside cannot access the game servers outside effectively stopping you from playing those games. We'll look at some other ways later. So we need to have some policies that will define what we want to achieve and an important thing is that the firewall cannot be compromised. The firewall is a security device it controls what goes in what goes out if some attacker can compromise the firewall then they can control what goes in and what goes out and maybe they can set up the firewall to allow them to get into the network. So it's important for the firewall to be protected from penetration and we'll look at some techniques toward the end of the slides. So how do we implement different policies? If the policy is stop students from playing games how can we implement that with a firewall? Well there are general techniques, four general approaches, service control, direction control, user control and behavior control. The example was here we'll make them a bit clearer. Well first direction control is easy. We make decisions depending upon where the packets are coming from. If it's coming from outside and going in we may have different rules than if it's coming from inside and going out. So if we want to block students from playing games then we'd set a policy that is implemented using the direction from going internal to out maybe block the packets going out. But if we want to stop malware from coming in to SIT then the direction of interest is coming in. We want to stop maybe packets or emails coming in containing a virus. So we consider the direction so we may have different rules depending upon the direction. Service control, service here really refers to servers, network servers and we commonly use addresses to identify different services. So based upon IP address or even port number we can control and filter packets depending upon our policy. So here the example of the games. I know the IP address of the most popular game service so I set up a rule that says if any packet is going to one of those IP addresses it is not allowed out so that's based upon service control. Or I don't want people to access external secure shell servers. I have a number of secure shell servers inside so I could use port numbers to identify that it's a secure shell server. We'll see examples of those. User control depending upon which user is generating those packets. I don't want to allow students to play games but I want to set up the firewall that allows faculty members to play games. So we could have specific rules that try to identify the users. So the packets which come to the firewall, the firewall needs to make a decision. Do I allow this packet out or not? Then that firewall can look at not just the addresses, the direction but also who's the user that generated that packet and make different decisions. And the other thing that the firewall may do is look at the content of the data. For example an email comes into our internal network via the firewall. The firewall looks at that email. It's destined to Steve at SIT but before it gets to my email inbox the firewall looks at it and does a scan for spam messages or viruses and if it detects them either blocks that email or removes it from the email before it's forwarded on to me. So that's based upon the behavior or the content we may make decisions. What are firewalls capable of? What capabilities do we need? We need to have a single point where all our traffic goes via. That's like this case. Here we have two firewalls but we must make sure all of our traffic passes through the firewall. As soon as the internal users have a way to access the external networks that bypasses the firewall, our security fails. We must ensure all traffic goes via the firewall or the firewalls if we have multiple. Firewalls not just control what comes in and what goes out but they can monitor different things. They can keep track and keep a log of the emails which have been received with viruses or with spam. They can keep a track of how many packets come into a particular user or which student is accessing or downloading the most. So the firewall because all the traffic goes through there, it's a good location to do other recording like recording the amount of traffic going in, recording the websites that students have accessed and recording other information that can be used not just for security purposes. So an example may be that for SIT we set up a system so that students have a quota for their internet access. They can only download 10 megabytes per day. So with such a policy it could be implemented using the firewall. The firewall would keep track of how many megabytes you've downloaded today. Once it reaches the upper limit the firewall starts blocking your traffic so you can't download anymore. Maybe this will come up in later topics when we talk about virtual private networks but it turns out a firewall is also a good location to act as a virtual private network endpoint. But that will become clearer when we spend some details of what is a virtual private network. What are the limitations of using firewalls? They cannot protect if someone bypasses the firewall. And there are different ways to bypass the firewall. For example, if the firewall is configured to allow all of the traffic from faculty members to go out then any attack or any malicious activity from a faculty member going out cannot be protected by that firewall. The firewall does not protect against internal threats. That is we have some computers inside. If one of these computers tries to attack another computer the firewall has no role in controlling that. The firewall is only controlling the data that's going out and coming in. It's not controlling anything that's happening internally only. So this may be a student trying to access Steve's laptop. The firewall of our network firewall has no control over what happens there. So that's the limitation of firewalls. It's only for internal to external or vice versa. It's not for internal only traffic. Then there may be other means for data to get in that effectively bypasses the firewall. And a couple of them listed here a very common one mobile phones. I use my mobile phone. I'm inside SIT but I use my mobile phone to access the internet. If I'm using the Wi-Fi of SIT then the data will go through the firewall but if I use my telecom company my mobile phone provider then the data goes via the wireless link to the AIS or whoever I'm subscribed to. So if I'm using a mobile device 3G 4G then that data and the access to the internet is not flowing through the firewall and therefore the firewall cannot control that. And that's a big problem for organizations because nowadays many people use their phones for their work purposes. It's hard for the organization to control what's coming in and out. So maybe policies on the use of mobile phones is necessary to cover that. And the last one is especially regarding malicious software. How do you get malicious software into our network? If the firewalls block the malicious software coming in there's still the opportunity someone brings in a USB disk from home which is infected with malicious software. They bring it in from home and they plug it into the lecture room computer and now that malicious software is loaded onto the internal computer effectively bypassing the firewall. So laptops, phones, portable devices which can be brought from outside in still allow malicious software to come into the internal network. And other network devices like personal wireless LAN devices or mobile phone connections allow people to access outside and also from outside in. So there are some limitations of firewalls. There are different types of firewalls and we're going to spend a lot of time on the first type called packet filtering and we'll get to some examples to illustrate them. But packet filtering the simple concept is that we look at the packet headers as they packets come into the firewall and make a decision whether to allow this packet in or not. So we'll look at some examples to illustrate that packet filtering firewalls. First let's remind ourselves about packet headers and in particular the common ones we'll see. This is a picture of the packet headers. The top one is for TCP and the bottom one is for IP. I think you have print out somewhere in your handouts. Let's look at them. This is an example for a TCP packet and the bottom one we'll see in a moment is for IP. So what a packet filtering firewall will do, packets come into the firewall. The firewall will be configured to make a decision whether to allow that packet or not. So there's two outcomes normally. In the simplest case we allow it or we reject it. So we accept or block the packet. If we allow it it means the packet keeps going to the normal destination. If we reject the packet the packet is discarded and it will not get to the normal destination. So that's what the firewall will do with the packet filtering firewall. The question then is how does the firewall make this decision to allow or reject the packet? And what a packet filtering firewall does is looks at the fields in the headers in that packet to make a decision. And which fields are of importance for the TCP packet? What fields tell us something about what's happening in terms of communications? Can you find this page? Yes, someone else has found it. Which fields are useful for identifying what's being communicated between users in these TCP and IP headers? Again, the data may be one that's useful. The data, so we have the header at the top, the 20 bytes of default header for TCP, maybe some optional fields and then the data. So the structure is that we have a set of header fields. The first 20 bytes are mandatory. They're always there. Source port, destination port, sequence numbers and so on. And then some data. So the data may be useful for determining whether this packet can come in or not. The problem with looking at the data is that many different applications will have many different formats of data and it's very hard to detect what's acceptable and what's not. It's also very time consuming. So focus on the header fields. Which ones tell us something about who's communicating or what applications are being used? Look at both TCP and IP. Which fields tell us who's communicating and what applications are being used? What tells us who's communicating? Who, source and destination what? Who's communicating? Again, source and destination IP address tells us who's communicating. When I say who, think of which computers are communicating. So we'll go down to IP. The source IP address is a field of interest and so is the destination IP address. This really tells us who is sending and who is receiving because IP addresses in theory identify computers in the internet. So if we look at the source IP address that tells us something about which computer in the internet sent this and the destination tells us who is going to receive it. So we can use the IP addresses to identify who is communicating. So those two fields are of importance. For example, my laptop has a fixed IP address. Every time I connect to the SIT network I get that IP address. So if the firewall is configured to allow Steve to play games but blocks students from playing games, then what the firewall can do is look and see if the packet is coming from my source IP address. If it is, let it go through. If it's not, then don't let it go through. So we can use the IP addresses to try and identify people or users in that network. What else? Let's focus on TCP. What identifies applications in the TCP header? By applications, let's say I was accessing a website, a web server. How would we know from the packet that I was accessing a web server? What identifies web servers? Again, what identifies that I'm from just from the TCP header, what tells us that I'm accessing a website? The port number. If I'm sending a packet to a web server, what will the destination port be? 80. Web servers use port number 80. Therefore, if I send a packet to a web server, the destination port should be 80. If I'm sending a packet to a secure shell server, what will the port number be? Can anyone remember secure shell? Not 44, 22. We may not remember them all, but over time we'll start to remember different application servers use different port numbers. Web servers use port 80. Secure web servers, 443. Secure shell, 22. Email, 25. So they're quite well defined. So the port numbers are useful for telling us what applications are being used, the source and destination, what application is being used. That can tell us something about that. The other one which is of interest and maybe less so is the protocol number, which tells us the transport protocol being used. Some examples, the protocol number, 6 means TCP, 17 means UDP, and there are others. But we'll commonly distinguish. We want to take different actions depending whether it's TCP or UDP. So the protocol number will tell us that. With port numbers, source and destination, web server uses port 80 or a secure web server. I'll just list some of them, 443. Secure shell, 22. Email servers, 25, but they also use some others as well. And other applications have well defined port numbers. So the idea for our packet fielding firewall is it will look at these five fields in particular. And it will look at the values and when we set up our firewall we'll configure some rules to say whether packets with those matching values should be accepted or not. So let's look at an example for a simple network to finish for today. Here's a simple network. And we'll start with the simplest case where we want to have a firewall on an individual computer just to explain the picture. And you have these in your handouts. This is just my simplified internet and the way to read it. We have a number of subnets, <IP_ADDRESS>. Here's one subnet and here's a second subnet and there's some others. And the squares are some computers on those subnets. And the circles are the routers connecting subnets. So we have router RA, RB, C, D and E. And we have computer, <IP_ADDRESS>, <IP_ADDRESS> on the first subnet and so on. So our simple internet for the very first case let's assume that the firewall is running on a computer not on a router. Like your home setup you have a firewall on every computer. So for a simple case to illustrate a rule let's say that the firewall is running on computer 12. Computer 12 is my laptop. It's running some firewall software. So there's my firewall in the network. That's my computer. My aim, my aim just to illustrate a rule. I want to stop, so I am computer 12 and I'm actually running the firewall on my computer. We're not running it on the router just yet. I want to stop computer 35, this one up the top here from pinging me, from sending me a ping request. Ping is an application and protocol where we send a request from a source to a destination computer and that computer responds. The protocol used, the transport protocol used by ping is ICMP. So to configure my firewall I write a rule and the rule states if we focus on those five packet fields it states what values those packet fields should match such that the firewall will take some action for the incoming packet and it specifies what action to take. So let's first write the rule and the conditions. So there were five fields of interest, source IP, destination IP and we had the source and destination port and the protocol number. So I want to create a rule where it specifies these five values such that if computer 35 tries to ping computer 12 that the packet that comes in will match the rule and then will take the action to block that packet. Think of the request, the ping request coming from 35 into computer 12. What would the source IP be? If computer 35 pings computer 12 what's the source IP address? Fill it in. What do we get? Source IP, computer 35 pinging computer 11. Who's the source? Computer 35 is a source, <IP_ADDRESS> is the source. So the source IP field would set to 3335. We're creating a set of conditions and if these conditions match our packet we'll take some action and the destination. Well it's our computer which we know, 11.1.12. Now let's go to the protocol number. What protocol number does ping use? What transport protocol does ping use? ICMP and that's a special case. ICMP is protocol number one. TCP is six, UDP is 17, ICMP is one. And another special case about ICMP there are no protocol, no port numbers used. We don't care about port numbers. So I'll say we don't care here. It could be any value and for any value what character can I use? Sometimes we use star to mean any value.  If the packet is coming from 3335 and it's going to 11.1.12 and it's using protocol number one ICMP then we want to take some action. So the packet if computer 35 tries to ping will come in, it will get here. The firewall looks at that packet and it checks if the header fields match these five values. It matches the source 35, it matches the destination, computer 12. We don't care about the port numbers it matches anything and the protocol if we're using ping it's an ICMP request, a ping request. So it matches the protocol number. So the firewall takes some action and the action we can specify I'll say drop. Drop or block or reject. The action is don't allow this packet to come in. So what I'm trying to arrive at is that when we configure a firewall so the firewall is running in my laptop I need to set it up and when I set it up I think about my policy, my aim. Okay, I want to stop computer 35 from pinging me. So when I set up the firewall the common way is I set a set of conditions. The conditions containing these five protocol fields. I want to set the source IP, destination, port numbers and protocol number and I set an action when I set up the firewall so that when computer 35 does ping me it sends the ICMP request into my computer the firewall looks at the packet. When it looks at the packet it compares the values in the packet header against my conditions. If they match then the action is taken on that packet and that packet is dropped and if the packet's dropped then it's not processed and there will be no response coming back. Effectively ping doesn't work. If it doesn't match these conditions then some action is also taken. Usually there's some default action like accept the packet. So in this case if computer 35 tries to ping computer 12 that request packet will be dropped. If computer 36 tries to ping 12 what's the action or the default action will take place. If computer 36 tries to ping 12 the source IP address would be 33336 it doesn't match this field.  So we don't drop it we'll take some default action which would also be specified. So another part of our firewall setup would be say the default action let's say is accept. We either accept packets or drop them. If computer 35 pings computer 12 this rule says drop that packet. If computer 36 pings computer 12 this rule does not match the conditions do not match therefore we take the default action of accepting the packet. Achieving our aim of stopping computer 35 from pinging me but still allowing others to ping me. So what we're going to do with some examples is to go through some other aims some other policies and define a set of rules using these five fields and specifying the action and those fields and that action set up in our firewall and we build up a set of rules which are used to configure the firewall. We're out of time for today so what we'll do next lecture tomorrow is go through some other examples and write some more rules using this format and build up more complex firewalls.


Whether it was to take all the brick bats that were thrown at me when a customer was drunk and didn't like stuff or take every shot on me when it came to food not being right. Right, so I am here with Sunil Shetty who obviously does not need an introduction. He has been unveiled as the brand ambassador of Vayu App which is a food delivery platform. What I want to know first of all is how did you get involved with Vayu App really? I have known Madhar and Anirudh for a bit and they have been ideating and saying they wanted to do something like this and if I would want to be a part of it. When I understood what the entire model was I thought it was brilliant because post pandemic, during the pandemic I have known of a lot of restaurants, my own family, so many restaurants shutting down because they couldn't manage. And after that this high commission that they had to go through. So when they told me the entire concept and what it was I thought it was exciting and I said sure I would love to be a part of it rather than you ask me I think I should be the one who should come forward and say make me a part of it because I see it as a very very successful model. What a lot of your Bollywood fans might not know is that you actually started working at the age of 16 for your father's restaurant. What all did the job entail from what I because I've been following you on LinkedIn used to get up at 5 in the morning and what all did your job entail really? Everything, everything that any other boy in the restaurant did I had to go through whether it was in the kitchen, whether it was service in the kitchen, whether it was managing the floor, whether it was helping clean the deep clean the place when I had to, whether it was seeing the customers off, whether it was to take all the brick bats that were thrown at me when a customer was drunk and didn't like stuff or take every shot on me when it came to food not being right. So I think everything that a young man needs to go through in the FNB business I was somebody that my dad put me through. And you know what happened to us? It became a part of my DNA where I believe that every job that I was doing I need to be ready to do anything. And that continued in the business of movies. You know I'm never embarrassed about doing anything. If there's a problem somewhere I'll go first and do everything. Somebody say, no, no, no, sir, you're not. And I keep saying, why, why not? I don't know who will do it. So I'm never embarrassed about everything. And it taught me to never complain and to be at it and even see failure at times in a very positive note believing that something that I've done wrong. My father always said the customer is always right. You know, and he said, bida, agar gali bide dho tse jair lo agle din it'll settle and it worked because the next day the customer came back and said, you know, I'm very, really sorry and how beautifully you took it. And you know, this is my family and these are my friends. That's how it grew because customer acquisition was about customers talking good about you.  Hundreds of them have done it and have got back families because we never advertised and the numbers were not large enough that people who drive from various areas to come into the restaurant. The captive audience was my area itself, you know, and I had to hold on to them. How do I build it? Amazing lessons that probably I've learned from this trade. And last question because he has to rush. He's got a bench press about 150 kilos. I heard that.   So how is that? Oh, I love it. See, the thing is I grew up always wanted to play for the country. I want to play cricket. So I spent my life life at Azad Medan, Cross Medan, Hindu, Islam, Wilson Gymkhana. So green was was in my DNA. I grew up my holidays in Mangalore, Mulki in a small town, backwaters, ponds, cattle, palms. So that has stayed with me. And today that obsession of mine for green, you know, in my Kandala home continues where I experiment. I do crazy things, whether it's rainwater harvesting or harvesting a spring growing different kind of trees. When somebody tells me this weather doesn't suit this plant, I'll try to grow it. I said, okay, fruit need to be paid. And it's worked for me. And I believe I'm lucky and I've continued it that way. And that's why I said because that that that for me is meditation. That's for me is is breaking away into a different world altogether. I don't think of anything when I'm when I'm with my plants and I'm desperate to find out and get my video to say how was it doing? How was it doing? Okay, add this. How's it doing? What is the color of the leaves? You know, so I keep keep doing that. And that's my focus for me. Meditation means being in that one particular place. I'm into something to get out of something. You know, I'm into gardening because I want to get out from from from the rest of the world. For me, meditation is listening to you talk and not focusing on anything else. If you're you're telling me something and that's of value to me, that's meditating. You know, that's focus. It's not about being in your own world, but also being able to listen to people, understand them and probably then help them or take help from them. So the green helps me a hell of a lot to just relax and chill. It's like going fishing or, you know, kayaking or skiing on your own. Right, right.  And thank you so much. It's always great meeting you all the time. All the best for why you and all the best for Hera Fairy 3 and so many other things to come. Thank you so much. Appreciate.


Hello and welcome to NewsClick. Today we have with us Prof. Satyajit Rat and we will be discussing COVID-19 and the various facets that is beginning to unfold. Satyajit, we have had this rather interesting article from the economist which has looked at what is the growth of numbers which they think have taken place as against the registered cases and therefore, how far are we away from, for instance, herd immunity, what are the likely trajectory of the disease and so on. But interestingly, the graphic also tells a story about India that India had very large numbers according to it quite early. March, April, they think the numbers were quite large based on the seroprevalence studies which we have already discussed. Now you see doctors seroprevalence studies, now the studies were adopted, the results were sort of selectively published and hotspots not published. Looking at it, what is the first, what are the impressions about what the economist has done, how correct is that and then we can talk about the prognosis that they have also talked about. Okay, so first off, right away, the economist is both right and wrong. You realize that this is what many of us say quite commonly about the economist. But the economist is both right and wrong. It's right in that the broad contours of the calculations that they've done are reasonable, sensible and we can talk about them in a minute. But I want to start out by underlining what I think is wrong. And what is wrong is that the economist article is actually averaging across massive variation. And averaging across massive variation gives you wildly erroneous estimates potentially. So you're talking about the ICMR is selectively cherry picking seroprevalence data from their April-May surveys. And one of the problems that we discussed at that time was that, in fact, they were taking samples in areas where the seroprevalence was low, they were excluding so-called hotspots and if they had taken those together, then the averaging would have looked completely different. But the trouble is that that average would not have been representative because we didn't know how many other hotspots there were. And it's in this sense that the sheer variety of an emerging pandemic make, let's make no mistake about it. This is still an emerging pandemic. We're not that far into the pandemic for us to say, oh, now everything is settled. It's not settled. And therefore, it's breaking out here, there, everywhere. And therefore, the sheer diversity within a community is so large that taking the small scale seroprevalence studies that we have and using them applied across boundaries of political geography is laying ourselves open to massively erroneous estimates. That is the real limitation of the economist's analysis. I wanted to interrupt you here for a moment that actually there are two levels of misconception here. One is that even if you do seroprevalence studies in certain districts, for instance, and that's what the Indian study was, but similar studies have been done elsewhere too, that there are two levels at which you can make mistakes at the level of the communities, even in an area that the seroprevalence study would show very different results if it is done uniformly across the area that it is done in sample basis, which is what was done. And secondly, the areas themselves being chosen are also not representative. And that's the nature of what you call the emerging pandemic that it moves from area to area from pocket to pocket. And there is no, in fact, statistical way of saying if I have calculated x number of samples, it will be representative of the country unless you really take a very large sample from every possible scaled size of the area. That means you take it at the village level, in the village you take it within the each locality level and so on. And that's a scale at which it really cannot be done. And even then you have to take it every month to see how it's moving. Exactly. So that's really the limitation of the economist analysis. But that said, as I said, the broad trajectory of their analysis is unexceptionable. It's quite reasonable. And they are saying things that, in fact, most analysts have been saying for the past few months, as a matter of fact, we on our weekly discussions have made many of those points ourselves. So none of the economist's analysis is a surprise. But if I may, let me use the hook of the economist's analysis on a global scale and turn that around and use three completely isolated examples of very small, relatively very small scale surveys that converge very interestingly. So those three zero surveys have been reported, two in preprints and one in an article in the New England Journal of Medicine over the past couple of weeks. One is in the ski resort town of Ishgl in Austria. One is in the entirety of Iceland, which is really not even Daravi size. And one is in the Brazilian Amazon, as the authors call it, although in reality in the cities of Manaus and Sao Paulo. And for these three widely disparate locations, we have remarkably interesting data sets. We have the zero survey. We have the number of so-called hospitalized cases, which is the less interesting number. But the even more interesting number is we have fatality numbers. And this is a situation in which we can actually extrapolate from the local zero survey to calculate the number of people infected. And because there is an estimate of the number of fatalities, we can actually calculate the infection fatality rate. Okay. So what you are also implying, I guess, is that the fatality is a hard statistic while infection, disease, all of them are relatively more difficult to really get as a hard statistic. So I'm going to be irritating about this and say yes and no. Okay. So your point is your question is absolutely yes for the Austrian location and the Icelandic location and not quite for the Brazilian locations. But here's what happens. The remarkable convergence and it's quite noteworthy that the infection fatality rate calculated for Ischgl in Austria is about 0.3 percent. The infection fatality rate for Iceland is about 0.3 percent. The infection fatality rate, if you take virus-detected fatalities in Manaus and Sao Paulo is 0.1718 percent. But the authors point out that a large number of deaths that otherwise looked exactly as though they were COVID-19 deaths, but were not tested for virus are included. Then the infection fatality rates both in Manaus and in Sao Paulo come to about 0.25 to 0.28 percent. Okay. This is a remarkable convergence of infection fatality rates across. I'm going to again interrupt for a moment and say that there is two things we have to also tell our viewers. There is an infection to fatality rate that we are talking about, but the case fatality rate which we have earlier talked about is those who have the symptoms of the disease and have been identified with the disease and case fatality and infection fatality are two different things. Unless you're going to tell me yes and no again. Well, unfortunately I am because health authorities across the world over these past few months have been constantly redefining what they mean by a case. Okay. What you have said is what we should be doing. The WHO still say this is the way to look at case fatality ratio. Yes, but the difficulty is WHO is actually not defining what a case is. That is also true. And the trouble is that health authorities across the world started out by using the definition you pointed out, which is people who feel that they are unwell are cases. The trouble is everybody who was virus positive when they were found in contact tracing are most of them, if not all the way, most of them have no symptoms, but they are being recorded by health authorities as cases found. Okay. So the idea of the case fatality rate for me has steadily lost ground and relevance because it's not comparable from time to time to time. From March to August. Precisely. This is why the infection fatality rate has reflected by some reasonable cumulative evidence of infection prevalence by antibodies and CRO surveys and the cumulative evidence of recorded deaths with all the errors inherent in that is still the number that I would prefer to be looking at more and more and that number in these three studies is quite remarkably overlap. But I wanted to again do a sideways leap over here, but when we talk about for instance the influenza cases, we actually talk about not the antibody, antigen response, but we actually talk about the people who have the disease. And then when you talk about the case fatality ratio in the case of flu, which is less than 0.1%, it is really those who have been identified with the disease. Well, epidemiologists might disagree because again, even for influenza, different health authorities do different things a little bit. But let me reinforce your point by pointing out that even if you simply take the 0.05 to 1% number, for whatever it is worth for seasonal influenza, versus a 0.25 to 0.3% number, infection fatality rate for COVID-19, that's three times as much number. But let me add to that, there is steadily growing evidence that unlike influenza, a very substantial proportion of COVID-19 infected individuals do not recover, they don't die, but have protracted illness. How protracted? We don't know. But I am beginning to see numbers from around the world and at least 20% of people are still sick more than two months after detection of infection. That's very unlike influenza. And secondly, influenza, those who are infected but don't show disease, do not infect others in the same way that COVID-19 seems to do. So the transmissibility of COVID-19 seems to be also therefore, relatively much higher and it's not seasonal unlike flu. So there are other issues too. So you're absolutely correct. In addition to the infection fatality rate difference, the point that you make about the noisy patchy inefficient transmissibility of influenza infection as opposed to the rapid spread of COVID-19 is a major issue for communities, as is the third point we just discussed, which is the potential long-term consequences in a fairly substantial proportion of infected individuals for COVID-19. All of that together makes COVID-19 nothing like simply again to use the inimitable idiocies of the leader of the free world, something more than just a strenuous flu. Which we now know he really knew wasn't true. So it was not ignorance, but it was basically propaganda if you will, if you put a best spin on it. Coming back to the issue that you're raising, you can go back to the economist article. So what you're saying is broadly the numbers in spite of all the problems that they have are ballpark-wise not very different from what perhaps really happened. Of course, we will know that if we do much more extensive sero-service, you might have better figures, but this seems the ballpark figure seems to be right. Is that what you would say? Very reluctantly. Give or take a factor of 10 maybe. Give me a fairly large uncertainty. Okay. So they have said 600 million, odd million could be infected. I guess 30 million who we know or we have identified. So it could be 20 times. It could be 10 times. It could be 30 times. We don't really know. But that's really the kind of uncertainty we are talking about. But it still means that a significant part of the people are still without protection. Even if we accept that if we're infected, probably the immunity will stay with you for a year or so. At least for a year, maybe two years, we don't know. But probably about a year or so at least. Yes. And again, the Iceland survey that I mentioned actually suggests that unlike some other sero-service, they don't show as rapid a loss of antibody levels. So I suspect again that between communities, between different parts of the world, there are going to be differences about how long natural SARS-CoV-2 infection immune responses at least at the level of antibodies last. And it's possible that the data are going to be equally noisy in that context as much as they've been noisy in other contexts. But yes, I would guess between six months to a year is quite likely. So some total of it is still irrespective of all these results. We still need the vaccine if we want herd immunity. Given that it's not therefore a small flu, we have already crossed a million deaths. So it is something much higher than any other disease, except perhaps the annual death of tuberculosis, which also includes a lot of HIV patients who died because of TB. So if you take all of that put together, this is continuing to be in seven months, one of the highest mortalities that we are seeing due to infections. So this is still going to be a major problem for the world unless we have the vaccines. Absolutely. And in that sense, let me have an unqualified good thing to say about the Economist article. Their analysis of excess deaths is quite spot on. And their analysis suggests, in fact, that even in prosperous countries, there may be a substantial undercounting of COVID-19 related deaths. They suggest, I think if I am remembering correctly, a global undercounting of by about a third, meaning that they think that there are 50% more deaths than we've counted so far. That's an undercounting by about one third. I think that therefore, the undercounting of COVID-19 related deaths is quite significant and is going to be even more significant in poor communities than in prosperous communities. And I think therefore that that component of the Economist's analysis is very valuable in making the point that you're making that this is a truly substantial significant problem. Remember the dramatic point that the Economist makes. With respect to the United States of America, the Economist points out that COVID-19 deaths in the US in this calendar year have been half of the number of cancer related deaths in the calendar year and that will be expected from cancer related deaths. And the year is not done anywhere near yet, as the Economist points out. So we're talking about a very large disease and death footprint across the world for the pandemic. So absolutely, we need vaccines. So coming back to Indian data, we know the number of places it was, if it was, you had other co-morbidities and other problems, quite often COVID-19 was not stated in the death certificate. Of course, even the figures that the government has given, it does not actually tally in number of places with the figures we are getting from the crematorium or the burial grounds. So the all kinds of mismatches. And we have to also really think about this, that because of COVID-19, people are afraid to go to hospitals, go to hospitals later than they otherwise would. And some of the hospitals without, for instance, COVID-19 certificate will not admit you. So they're not geared up to take patients who have COVID-19 and therefore they say prove that you are not COVID-19 affected when you are really in an emergency situation. So we have all kinds of other issues also, by the number of deaths, which are not directly COVID related, but are related to the public health crisis that COVID has caused. So that is also something that we have to take into account in particular in countries like India. Coming back to this, and we don't really have the time to discuss in detail the vaccine issue, but Punawala has raised a very important point. He says that the vaccine costs are going to 80,000 crores is government of India prepared for it. He's not given a breakup of the 80,000 crore cost. But if we do a simple back of the calculation that even at $3 in a vaccine shot and it's a two shot vaccine in his case, oxford vaccine, we come to something like 60,000 crores. Now, if you take the cold chain and giving the shots, all that delivery costs into account, you're really not talking about something like 150,000 crore a year in cost for providing the vaccine to all the Indian people. Now, is there any preparation that we see or we know that the government is doing on this count? Well, we've discussed this earlier that there is a committee that the Government of India seems to have formed under the chairmanship of a Nithya Aayog member for planning implementation of a vaccination program. But what this committee has thought, I have not seen reported. So, unfortunately, no, we don't know what the government is planning by way of implementation. This is particularly worrisome because a lot of the vaccines are going to require stringent cold chains. A lot of them are going to require second doses. Many of those second doses are differently spaced. So, for some of these vaccine candidates, there is a three-week interval. For some, there is a four-week interval. Just the fact that there may be multiple vaccines complicates a vaccination implementation program immeasurably because how do you decide whom to give what? Which vaccine? Are you going to implement it region by region? This is a logistical nightmare that needs to have been thought about by governments much more granularly and much more transparently than we have evidence for so far. This is, of course, about the Government of India. But I actually don't think that any other government in the world has done particularly better at this. In fact, I'll end with this, the Government of the United States, where it says it's going to start the vaccination, and this is what needs to be done. The state authorities there, this is also a federal country, said, hey, you haven't told us anything about this, and now suddenly you say we have to make vaccination programs, cold chains, and some of the cold chains are not like what we are probably going to have as vaccines here, but some of their cold chains are minus 72, minus 80 degrees centigrade cold chains. So if they are scared of how they are going to do it for a smaller population with much more resources, with a much better refrigeration, freezer system than we have, this is really going to be a major issue. And just for the viewers, we have all Spolio programs have at best done 130 billion or 13 crores per year. And we are really talking about something like 100 crore per year, if not at least 70 crore per year, and don't forget that even by the best criteria that we are now seeing is a 50% protection. So really are talking of something of major dimension, and not one dimension, but multiple dimensions for which we should be transparent with how we are going to do it. Otherwise, I don't see it being successful, particularly as this government has centralized itself so much that participation in the states and local authorities is going to be absolutely necessary. And the public health community, none of these are in the offing as of now. Absolutely. So and all of this is in the background when I say that the numbers of how many thousand crores it will take for a vaccination program that you referred to as Mr. Aditya Poonawala saying, I think those are just shots in the dark. I don't think we have any realistic estimate of what it will cost because we have no estimate of how we are going to do this. Thanks Aditya for being with us. And we hope that at least the good sense will dawn on the government that they don't start vaccination using the local farmers and the police stations like they have implemented all public health measures till date. This is all the time we have in Newsweek today. Do keep watching Newsweek and do visit our website.


Good morning. Welcome to CMC markets on Friday the 23rd of March and this quick look at the week ahead The 26th of March, and I think events for the coming week are going to be likely overshadowed By the events of this week namely the escalation between the United States and China and The trade dispute currently playing out between the two now Currently as it stands as I record this video. We have had President Trump and out $60 billion worth of tariffs on Chinese trade and investment and they will be 25 percent tariffs China has Inevitably pushed back on that But I think what struck me by their response has been the fact that they really only pushed back to the tune of three billion dollars So that would suggest to me that ultimately while They are concerned about this escalation. They still see room for Maneuver and still see room for negotiation And I think one of the criticisms that has been levelled at the United States has been the fact that ultimately while they know What they don't like they haven't really stated what they want from China They've asked China for solutions without really I think outlining What they're totally unhappy with so We've seen a massive decline in equity markets this morning what and and this week and What struck me? I think more than anything else is the fact that While equity markets have taken the strain of this increase in trade tensions Currently markets haven't as yet And the dollar index is still pretty much off the lows that we saw in the wake of the February route in stock markets and while some indices have Have performed worse than others namely the FTSE 100 which has taken out its February lows The European indices still remain above their February lows Notably the German decks which we're looking at right now and we can see on this chart here It's a daily chart candle chart currently trading above the 11,850 level We do appear to be on the cusp of rolling over but this This series of lows between 11,690 and 11,850 I think are very very important levels in the wider scheme of things We have posted a death cross where the 50-day moving average is crossed below the 200-day moving average We've also seen similar patterns play out on the other main benchmark indices here in Europe What we haven't seen is the play out in the US and I think if we look at say for example The FTSE 100 which has borne the brunt of the sell-off Over the course of the past few weeks we can see that we've moved well below the 7000 level we're now below The 6900 level but we are closing in on a very very key support level in the form of the 200-week moving average If we look at this chart here In particular we can see that over the course of the last few years the 200-week moving average Has acted as a very decent area of support For a number of declines while the market has been above it So that suggests to me that it is likely to play a key role In the event that the FTSE 100 goes down there and retests it And that particular level we can see that on this chart here It's around about the 6800 area just about 6800 and 356840 So worth keeping an eye out for that particular index the 200-week moving average This is a daily chart we can see here that We've posted a significant number of days of declines here So there is there is a it is not inconceivable we could see a little bit of profit-taking in and around these sorts of levels So that's sort of the overview of where we are at the moment and the key support levels For the key benchmark indices. Let's have a quick look at the s and p 500 To to give the us angle and we can see here That again we're above the February lows and once again There's potential that we could close in on the 200 day moving average Which held on the downside in February and that comes in just below 2600 around about 2590 there or thereabouts Okay, so Looking ahead as we head into easter. We've got a four-day week next week We've had the Federal Reserve meeting this week in the Bank of England outlook And it's clear to me that central bankers Want to keep the prospect of further tightening further rate rises on the table We saw that this week's Bank of England meeting with two dissenters to the decision to keep rates unchanged And we also saw that with the Federal Reserve where the dot plot charts for 2019 We're predicting an additional rate rise in 2019 while keeping the prospect of three rate rises in 2018 Unchanged certainly hasn't affected the dollar the dollar has still remained under pressure But what is significant is that? Despite the dollar remaining under pressure most of the strain has come in the form of the dolly n Chart whereby we've broken below those lows that we saw in february Around about 105 20 so I think unless Unless we run the risk of a further move lower to around about 103 104 30 and then 103 We need to get back above 105 40 105 50 to stabilize on dolly n and now that we are below that The key things that I'm keeping out for this week. We're fairly light in the coming week. It will fairly light on data It's us fourth quarter gdp the final numbers there And uk fourth quarter gdp as well We're expecting an around about a figure in the region of around about 1.4 per cent annualized for us GDP uk gdp similar sort of annualized numbers around about 1.7 1.8 as well and on a quarterly basis We're looking at around about 0.3 or 0.4 on the earnings front again. It's a fairly light calendar We've got four year results for labrox coral group on the 27th of march with recent publicity about a crackdown on betting terminals Wang on the share price of that particular sector labrox coral has by and large been fairly immune to that because of its large sport spitting business And the fact is that the regulator has suggested that the But there there should be a watering down of proposals on fixed odd betting terminals So that may well give the numbers there a decent lift We've also got aj ag bar for your earnings makers of iron brew On the 27th we've got monsanto second quarter the eu appears to have given the green light to Um That particular tie up with germany's buyer now it needs to get past us regulators So there's still an awful lot of uncertainty there, and then we've also got wargreens boots second quarter earnings On the 28th So that's it for today. Um And this week, um, thanks very much for listening the spike of use and talking to you from cmc markets


Live from Cambridge, Massachusetts, it's The Cube at the MIT Chief Data Officer and Information Quality Symposium with hosts Dave Vellante and Jeff Kelly. Welcome back to Cambridge, Massachusetts, everybody. This is Dave Vellante at Wikibon.org. I'm here with Jeff Kelly, who's Wikibon's big data analyst. This is Silicon Angles, The Cube. The Cube is a live mobile studio. We bring to all shapes and sizes of events. No event is too small. There are about three, four hundred people at this event, Jeff, would you say? Something around here. It's a great event. We were here last year. It's the hashtag M-I-T-I-Q, which stands for Information Quality, and the focus, of course, is on information quality, although last year really was a big theme around the Chief Data Officer and it has really evolved into a Chief Data Officer event. Informatica is one of the sponsors of the event. Dominic Sartorio is here. Informatica is all about information quality, Dominic. So thanks very much for making some time and slipping into the Cube here. Glad to have you. Thanks for having me. Yeah, so talk about Informatica's interests in this conference. I guess it's kind of obvious, but I want to talk about that and what you see as the CDO role and how that's emerging. Right. Well, Informatica has had a long history in data management and data integration. We started as an ETL vendor, but we've grown as the industry around data has grown. And in the last few years, we've observed how many enterprises, most of them are our customers, treat data more strategically. They treat it as a critical asset to the business. And in more recent years, especially the last two or three years, we have found that organizations take it so seriously they establish a C-level role, the Chief Data Officer, with the responsibility of ensuring that data is a valuable asset to be trusted by the business. So we found that that is a key stakeholder in our relationship with those customers. And hence that brings us to events such as this, so we can network and learn from that. And we were talking off camera, to date it's been very industry specific. I think you were throwing, your numbers suggest that around, would you say, 20% of organizations? About 20% of organizations, enterprises, now have one or more Chief Data Officers. And that's grown tremendously by our own surveys. It was low teens last year, single digits the year before. It started as being more focused in data driven industries with a lot of regulatory requirements, like financial services, public sector. But more recently we've seen it now in all industries. We're seeing it in retail and manufacturing. We're seeing it in oil and gas. So industries that you may not really think of being regulatory driven, but nonetheless need data to drive better business results. In your experience, in most cases, is that CDO an independent role? Or does it report into the CIO? It varies, actually. Sometimes it reports to the CIO, but I'd say a majority of the time, certainly more than half, it actually reports up to a business function, like a Chief Marketing Officer or a Chief Operating Officer. And sometimes you may have multiple CDOs per line of business. So we found that the CDO role, and the role, excuse me, generally the role of accountability to ensure that data has value to the business is most successful when it's actually embedded in the business. Because the business knows better than anybody else exactly what they need out of their data. What does it need for data to be trustworthy in a form that business and users cannot make the most of it? Dominic, in those situations where you're seeing, I don't mean a pejorative, but a CDO creep, we have multiple CDOs. You saw that certainly with the IT, the CIO function. Is there an Uber? Data czar, an Uber CDO, or is it more sort of a line of business driven? What are you seeing there? Or both? It almost depends on the class or category of data you're dealing with. There's certain data that has enterprise-wide relevance, customer data.  And that should be centrally managed. There should be one overall owner executive accountable for ensuring the trust of that data and the organization policies around it. And other kinds of data may only be relevant to a given business function or a given line of business. And that's OK to manage locally. No need to over-engineer that kind of data. So let's dig in a little bit about what you're seeing in terms of the actual responsibilities of a CDO. So I think we most would agree, certainly it's around data governance and data quality, making sure you've got trusted data throughout the organization. But there's also the component of actually making use of that data. Is there maybe a component around the actual tools and technologies used to process data? How are you seeing that the responsibility is specific to CDOs involved in the last couple of years? Yeah, and it's still evolving. There's no once if it's all answered. But there are some patterns that we're starting to see. One is they do own data governance. And governance includes both the people, the process, and the choice of tools and technologies used to both define and enforce those policies. They also have some accountability over what are the results of business results of that data. So they may own the analytics function. They may own the business intelligence and data warehousing and other tools that are used for that. They may also own some degree of the operations of disseminating data and ensuring the right data gets to the right people at the right time. Often that manifests itself as a master data management kind of function, a customer hub or a product hub, for example. So that's part of the ownership that I've seen under the Chief Data Officer. But I think separately, but also very importantly, I also see CDOs as being the chief data evangelist in the organization. Building a culture of accountability and valuing data as an asset, educating different business groups about why it's important for them to take effective ownership of their data so they can make better decisions. Yeah, so talk a little bit more about that, the role of the CDO when it comes to actually, not just evangelizing, but also kind of being a, I've heard it called the Chief Diplomacy Officer. You've got a mediated conflict between you've got the business, you've got operations, you've got IT, you could have disputes over data ownership over objectives of data related projects. Talk about some of those relationship building skills that a CDO might need. Right, right. So often when a new CDO joins the company and where they get promoted to the role if they're internal, what led that role to exist in the first place is generally a vague sense among the senior executives that data is important, but they're not gonna know down in the trenches of how to actually execute and implement that. So you have to bring in the CDO whose first job is to kind of figure it out. So usually the successful CDO tries not to boil the ocean. They start small. They look at what is the most critical business processes or business problems that need good quality data in order to be most effective. Frequently it's a regulatory requirement, but it doesn't have to be. So let's start there. And that's usually the quickest win that they can achieve because it is a critical business function where the importance of data is pretty unambiguous. It's pretty easy to build the organizational support around it. Then you build the policies and processes that are gonna be successful there. And once you've demonstrated straight its success, then you can highlight that. Use that as a banner. You can wave with other organizations, with other domains of data. Then you can gradually build your sphere of influence that way. So that's why a CDO is effective. It starts small. And just in terms of your, I mean, what's your opinion on the establishment of the CDO generally? You say the idea of, you know, establishing a new state level position is not something to take lightly. Right.  Are we still too early to tell? What is your opinion about just the sheer existence of the position? Oh, absolutely, it's beneficial. That the fact that the role exists demonstrates that there definitely is a culture change, maybe almost a societal change going on and valuing data as its own asset. You know, for a long time, organizations have viewed obviously finances as an asset, human resources as an asset, real estate facilities, et cetera. These are all assets that for a long time have had a C level or equivalent with an organization's job is to get value out of it. And data has always been important to organizations, but it's only recently that I think people are starting to realize it. So having a C level person there with an organization around them, I think is great. It raises more awareness around data being a critical asset to the organization. I wonder if we could talk a little bit about Informatica and its role in this whole big data meme. It's been an interesting company been around for a long time. Went through the dot-com bubble and had a big ascendancy and has really come back in a pretty big way. What's driven that? Obviously the analytics pieces has been a driver, execution, other things, but I wonder if you could talk about that journey a little bit and where you fit. Right, right. So I've seen it more as an evolutionary trend than a revolution. I think a lot of industry players and vendors like to think of this as a revolutionary thing. And there are some new technologies such as Hadoop that enable processing data much greater values than before. But the part of this that's evolutionary is that I actually see there's been a gradual rollout of a combination of technologies that enable processing data much more broadly or in much greater volumes and being able to process a wide varieties of data, including unstructured and social, if there's a do. Think of all the sensors and devices out there. They're the internet ones, at least I'm talking about the internet of things. Talk about mobile devices that makes data much more accessible to the average consumer. And they're also societal changes. So new generations entering the workplace that grew up immersed in computing and immersed in data. So you have a combination of these things that have been happening gradually, both technologies and also societal and generational changes that result in more data being available and being used by more consumers for more use cases and a greater variety of things. So for Informatica, we've also treated this as kind of an evolutionary way. Our technology for processing data, the guts of it, which we call the Vibe data processing engine, really hasn't changed significantly in 15 years. But what has changed is the scale at which it can operate, the number of use cases it can operate, you can write it in Hadoop, you can write it in the cloud. So the sheer diversity of use cases that we've made it relevant for. So that's how we view big data. It's an evolution of both technology, society trends and also breadth of use cases that data is useful. But it feels like there's a tailwind for a company like yours. I think I've often said a lot of the promises enterprise data warehouse were not lived up to in the last decade and now all of a sudden the promises are back, front and center and there seems to be light at the end of that. The more than light, there seems to be, I can say, a big tailwind. So that has had to help your business. I agree with what you were saying, that combinatorial effect of all these mega trends. How is it that you guys have been able to take advantage of that? Whereas others seem to somehow, if they're a hot startup, if you're cloud air and you can raise 700 million, okay, great, you're going to get a good valuation and you're not a public company, but some of the visualization guys, obviously there's guys like Splunk, but you guys are a traditional company that has been able to benefit from that. Why is that? Where some others have struggled? Yeah, we started as basically a one use case company, ETL, and now it made shock folks to hear this. It's now a relatively small minority use case for us, revenue wise. And we've gone out of our way to establish good strategic relationships at senior levels of our organization. And we see and understand, what are the different things you're doing with data? It's not enough to just load your data warehouse, that data needs to be clean and trusted. And it's not enough to just trust it, it also needs to be secure. And it's not enough to just always have a new data warehouse all the time. Sometimes you need to put it in other environments or technologies to be more accessible. Sometimes you need to archive it. So by engaging with our customers in a more strategic way, we're able to see that there are these other patterns and other use cases that many of our customers want to manage more holistically. They don't see this as one or more projects in isolation want to manage them holistically. So I think that we've done well to be responsive to customer needs and then be able to invest in the relevant use cases and technologies as they come along. All right, Dominic, we'll leave it there. Thanks very much for taking time out and coming to theCUBE on short notice and I really appreciate it. Thank you for having me. All right, keep it right there, everybody. Jeff Kelly and I and Paul Gillum will be back right after this word. This is theCUBE, we're live from MIT in Cambridge.


Hello, in this lecture, we will define Form 941. According to fundamental accounting principles, Wilde 22nd edition, the definition of Form 941 is, IRS Form filed to report FICA taxes owed and remitted. When we think about Form 941, we're thinking about payroll taxes, a payroll tax form, a payroll tax reporting form. FICA is going to be the law that governs social security and Medicare. The Form 941 is going to show what the liability is in relation to the social security, the Medicare, as well as the federal income tax that has been withheld, not for the corporation on corporate wages or corporate net income, that is, but for the withholdings from employees for their federal income tax withholding. The form is going to look like this. We've got the information up top. It's an information form reporting form that's done quarterly here, each quarter. This form needs to be reported. It's going to basically show the wages that have been earned by all the employees for that time period. It's going to show the amount of federal income tax withholding from all the employees. Only way to get that is just basically to add up what those withholdings are because of the complication in terms of the progressive tax system. Then it's going to calculate the social security and Medicare taxes, which is going to be a different number in terms of total wages generally because there could be a different number because there could be a cap in terms of social security. But once we have that number, we can actually calculate the liability very easily because it's a flat tax. So we'll calculate the liability on that. And in essence, we're going to then compare that to what the payments have been made throughout the time period. So like a form 1040, when we report our own individual income taxes, we've already withheld all the taxes by the time we report the 1040 at the end of the year. It's more of just an information form in that we're saying here's our tax liability based on the income that we now know. Here's the payments that we have already made for the year. Typically we get a refund in terms of the form 1040 if we're a W2 employee. That's how the system's typically set up. In terms of the 941, we can actually be much more exact because of the fact that social security Medicare are flat taxes. So we're saying to the IRS, here's the amount of liability based on what we know. And we should have paid pretty much that exact same amount, therefore not owing anything. However, if we do owe something, then we would report what we do owe or what has been overpaid at this point on the form. Also important to note when we think about social security and Medicare, there's an employee portion and an employer portion. The employee portion is gonna be pulled out of the wages. It's gonna be reported on form W2. This report's gonna report both the employee portion and the employer portion because the employer is responsible for actually making the check payments to or electronic payments to the IRS. So half of the payments that they're making are actually being pulled from the employee's wages. The other half are being pulled from the employer's checking account, but the actual money is going from the employer to the IRS and is being reported on form 941. The end.