>> : It's DEFCON time. Yeah, all right. This is secure because math a deep dive on machine learning based monitoring. So please join me in welcoming Alex Pinto.
>> : Thank you guys. Glad to see you all here and just before we start I just want to ask for all of you that are from the internet and you like to do the Twitterings we have a hash tag for the talk so make sure when you make fun of me you hash tag it or something like that because I also do want to laugh. I actually check Twitter while you're talking so I can read the funny stuff you are talking about. But anyway thank you so much. Let's get started. Just a little about me. Chief Data Sciences. The cool thing about doing your own stuff is that you can just make up any title that you want. I've pretty much been doing machine learning research learning and training for a while now and just for anyone who is interested in this subject I found out machine learning training is different from Pokťmon training. I might have got the wrong brochure or something but anyway... You guys might enjoy it. Anyway I'm focusing my research on national security and a little bit of response. As a child I never wanted to do that again so I'm trying to figure out a way where we have to do less or maybe do it in the more smart way. Anyway... If for some reason you think I have something and you need an attribution from me I am Caffeinated Capybara. All right. Let's get going. Anyway I want to talk about what is upcoming, security singularity later because of all the amazing products launched. And I just want to make sure that I give you some context, specifically about the messaging of, I obviously don't know precise detail technically what these companies are doing, itís secret and saucey. It's so secretive and stuff like that but I can guess based on their marketing materials and I just wanted to break down for you what I think that those people were doing and if that's what they are doing. So maybe these are the questions you should be asking them because this stuff is hard. I mean honestly math is hard. And there's a lot of potential pitfalls and a lot of kind of due diligence in your experiments and I just really want to spend quality time together talking about math here while we can try to decode a little bit. Anyway... Let's get going. So I specifically would like to thank all of you because you guys are on vacation now. Nobody has to work anymore and you guys actually are coming here to see someone talk about security singularity. Why. This has been solved for a while now. It's sad because the guys that did this network security thing have nothing to do with machine learning. I thought this was so amazing I had to put it out there. Maybe she should persue machine learning products because that would make it even more awesome I think. Anyway... Of course you kind of get the point where I'm coming from. Before I continue I just want to make a quick side note. If you ever do a Google images search for network security solve, Jack Daniel was the first hit. Thatís branding. I'll tell you that man. It's just amazing. I wish I was okay, who knows maybe Pokťmon will train us some day. The point is there's a lot of confusion. Right? And this is understandable. There's always a lot of confusion about specific technologies we're working on. We're always like for some reason there's a cycle where we stop trusting and we start looking for new so people have to come up with new stuff. And the point is that I'm frequently being asked a bunch of questions because of the kind of work I'm trying to do. Hey I'm talking to this guy and he tells me he's doing the math or something like that. Can you help me out and try to understand? I'm not talking about someone at the street. These are people who have been doing extensive product research or have been actual running security programs for a while. And they are failing to grasp, it's a pain to grasp what the hell the companies are doing. It's almost like, you know, there was some sort of marketing employ to make it kind of obscure to make people think it's better than then it is. I'm not saying that. But maybe you can argue the point. And I think that's kind of bad for everyone. Right? And this is pretty much the point I'm coming from here. By the way is if any of you ever want to do a big data presentation there's this big data fix tumbler. So waves with bits. Best data ever. But anyway no. I'm here to teach something. Right? If you pick something out of this talk it's the data fix tumbler. Anyway I guess my point is are we even trying to explain what's the security. You guys know that like if it's more than 3 you're already hyper right.? Artificial intelligence. It's like the third level of the matrix. What is that? I mean honestly. It kind of gets to me because I mean isn't enough to go to the cyber wars and things like that. Do we have to scare people? I mean... Yeah. And I wasn't able to find I don't know if I dreamed about it or if it was a company but I think it's perfect. It's exactly that. Itís secure because of math.
Math. The point, okay. This is hurting us. Right? We are unable to differentiate the products. The investors have no idea they're funding stuff. Oh I have this security magic there here, okay here is $10 million. And the point, it's like we're not even sure it's the same words yet in many levels and things. And I mean I don't know about you guys, I don't have a lot of time to waste. I don't want to be like beta testing a bunch of this stuff. I want to make sure the people that are trying to do the research or work I can have some way to identify more easily if what they're talking makes sense or not. I have people argue to me the point that it's all about communication really. Right? If you get the people from the technical side of things, right, and they try to explain
Come on guys I have to keep a straight face here. And they explain to the marketing field. This is what we do. So we're actually working on this big selection process ... No. No. No. That sounds advanced. Yeah let's go with advanced. So maybe it's that. Maybe I'm being unfair. Maybe there's a lot of very different good stuff happening under the hood but I sure as hell cannot figure it out. Right? By reading what they're doing. And anytime we try to get a little closer it's like no, no, no. That's the secret sauce. It's like someone telling you honestly my perspective is like no, no, no I'm using this proprietary crypto algorithm. To a point it's that. So let's do an exercise. I want you guys to guess the year when this was written. So I will make it more simpler because there's not like there's going to be a lot of interaction. Of the 3 which one do you think was written like today or like 2014? I would like a show of hands for number 1. Okay there's like very, very few people. Show of hands for number 2. Show of hands for number 3. Okay it looks like you guys don't like to play a lot of games. There's no right or wrong least all these suck so don't worry about it. Anyway... The first one is actually from 10 years ago. I don't know if there's any ISS bugs here. Guys released a product and I used to work for one of the largest integrators they had in Latin America. It was like the hugest thing, we sold a bazillion. We never could get the shit to work. I don't know maybe it was just us but... If you go to the middle one is actually from this year. I'm not telling you who it is but you can do research. And the third one is actually when it gets interesting. It's actually from 1995. It's from actually some research that is being done University research and they created a product pretty much like it was right there. That sounds very familiar. Right? And there's this woman, Dorothy Denning, a respected professor at the graduate school she did the first paper that came up with what the IDS should look like in 86. Okay there's two parts of this. One is it's a rule based engine where we have signatures and the other will be an anomaly detection engine that will help pick up the stuff that we don't have signatures for. Maybe this will give you a hint. Let's keep people informed that they shouldn't trust this part as much as that part. So 86. And anyway they actually built it out to the intrusion detection expert system. I think people drop the E because too many letters, too confusing. But the point I find funny actually is that from 95 was perfect colleagues all males stole her work and made it like the next generation idea. The next generation has been for a while here. So anyway let's get with the times. Right? And the point everything changed because of a 3 letter acronym really. So there was a 3 letter acronym that did something that was very significant for information security and that actually changed the way that we do research and we do a lot of things. It's probably not who you're thinking of. It's the KDD. It's actually a program program? It's kind of a research track or conference from ACM and guided by DARPA, because you will probably never need another signature engine. Boy were they right. And they decided to start funding and creating data sets that people could use. So they had their own data sets which was focused on user anomaly detection. Man I'm talking like, soloris whoa. This is what the specific organization looks like for like 6 weeks. Let's see if you can pick it up here. It was a great success. It was a great success in the sense that a lot of people started using those data sets for research and there was nothing previously there that people could reliably use and repeat. So a lot of the research was based on this and they used this to actually try to improve their algorithms. I mean at first it's okay but after a while if you go through this I mean it's like one bazillion in 99 and as you go across the years it looks like everyone is trying to warm up. The other one I got a little better percentage the data set and that's fine. I don't know what the fuck they do there but what bothers me is that if you do a search in Google today there are 300 papers in 2014 they are still using this 15 year old data set to come up with conclusions with what is good you know what is bad and what is promising in anomaly detection. I mean, I have no idea what exactly is the modifying information based selection but don't do it in a 15 year old data set. I'm pretty sure things have kind of evolved, things are kind of changed. Right? And I understand that there are limitations. Right? I understand the reproducibility thing. For some respect I'm going to get to that but I want you guys to think about this. I want you guys to think about this. If you were going to med school and you're going to learn anatomy and all that you have to go for is this picture of Rembrandt. Right? Granted the human body hasn't changed that much. Right? But it's like hey professor what if we cut a fresh one open? That would be a privacy violation. Okay I'm not advocating like unlawful sharing but I'm pretty sure we can do better than public data sets right now. I'm pretty sure there's enough people interested in this that we can generate more stuff that people can use for this research. Right? And a funny side note is that actually there was a professor that was pretty much in 2000 raving about, okay, guys this was a bad identify. The data sets actually sucked. They are not representative of what should be going on and he was raving about reproducibility because, yeah, I mean it's not clear what technique these guys are using. And they are like like they like to one up the other one. They have a point percentage improvement so it doesn't seem like we're having success here. That's pretty much how everything works in academia but I don't know. It's like for me it's mind blowing and people talk a lot about potential disconnect from academia in some instances. Why are we using a 15 year old data set? I don't know. Maybe it's a joke. Maybe it's like if you're researching this stuff you actually have to go back to 1999. I'm not here to bash them. Right? They're all very scary people. Right? Yeah man. You should meet my friend Kyle who is a math smuggler. But anyway I just want to put you in the mind set. Right? You've done your research and let's assume for a point that I'm making up unnecessary fun of them and you have this publishing protocols and everything which you had to try to focus to do specific data sets. What I think could potentially happen, I'm not sure if this has actually happened before but I think a potential outcome from something like that and with apology to the guard life cycle I think the guy will get to grad school. Right? And he will be like, he will go there and go to the party and everybody would be like turn down for math. You know? And then they're going to come and it's like man I got this sweet, sweet data set. You guys want to have a look? You know? And he looks at the data set and gets hooked on it. Okay maybe there's interesting stuff in the data set. Let's do research. Low and behold he gets a bunch of results. These kind of things we talk about in machine learning is called over fitting which is pretty much that you know a data set so much inside out that you're actually writing instead of doing machine learning you're writing a program to exactly parse the data set. Right? And it's a very it's a very real problem. It happens all the time. And it's one of the reasons why in model design you're always like okay just get random stuff. If you don't know want to get, get random stuff because it doesn't have an immune system and you need to try to keep it on its toes. And that's the point. The guy publishes a bunch of papers then goes to his business friend and they're like oh my God you're going to be rich. Right? The security field is so hard. And then they go and they actually get customer data. I don't know how they actually convinced these guys. And we get to the results, you know? I was expecting this thing to be awesome. Right? But then when I tried to realize data it's something that doesn't look like it's going to work because you're actually training a very biased and very weird kind of model then you actually expose it to real life data. It doesn't know what to do. What ends up happening in my belief, right, is that people start, okay, let's not do this math thing anymore. Right? The guys get frustrated. The business guy, like hey bro we have to make some dough and yeah, okay let's do people or something like that. And low and behold math is hard. Let's go shopping. By shopping I mean selling. Right? I don't know you become general consulting company. You do response for people. But then that thing you said you were going to do specifically about machine learning is not actually what you do anymore. For some reason it still lingers in your marketing materials. That's not who you are. Right. I maybe sound a little too righteous. If you get money to build something and you donít, you are going to fail. Iím sorryÖ Right. What do I know? I mean there are these guys that are filthy rich. I had to think this morning if I was going to take the bottle from the mini bar. But the point is, guys, I'm pretty sure you're successful and doing great work but let other people play with the ball in a sense. If you're not doing machine learning don't crowd your marketing materials with machine learning because it gets people confused. Right? There are people who are actually trying to build programs. There are quite a few startups. And I don't know if the worst part is them or the guys that are like hey, machine learning we should put that in our brochure. It's like yeah we deliver lemons by bicycles with machine learning. How does that work? But I mean I'm pretty sure you guys would be able to figure that out. I mean those two different types of companies. Right? There is a sweet spot. But there are people; ain't not like I'm talking about myself. A bunch of people that are doing research. What I'm trying to do now for this next part of the talk is to go through a little bit more technical about if people are telling you about X this is probably what they're doing and what are the potential pitfalls.
I want to start with anomaly detection. Anomaly detection is kind of interesting for me as a solution to something because when you are doing machine learning research when you're doing modeling when you're trying to figure out what you're going to train and predict against, alomaly detection like stuff I'm pretty much talking about the clustering, Iím talking about decomposition, it's actually very, very important for your exploratory phase because you just got a bunch of data and you have no idea what it looks like and what's the shape of it and what you can do with it so we start asking the computer like questions. Okay is this weird in some way? Is there a normal thing going on here? And then you use the feedback that the model gave you so you can actually design something that could potentially work. Okay. And so my point is the kind of stuff you do you would have no idea what's going on and it's weird for people to say we're doing anomaly detection. You're like what? What are you actually doing? What is normal? What is weird? I mean what's the measure? What are all those different things? And to be honest this actually works very well for when you have a very well defined process. Right? So this is a factory, you're putting together bolts, right? And you want to measure if the bolts you're pumping out from your bolt making machine, however it's done is not like too big or too small. It extends to that standard that you want to do. They know the standard and you have an effective way of measuring that. And even so when you check your balance, it actually still works well. A lot of historical work has been done. It's way more complicated than that now but historical work was based on this. How much was this guy standing and has he just been to Vegas and spent ten thousands of dollars? Never mind heís been to Defcon. So but this works because you measure one thing like money S you have one operation goes in or it goes out. Right? And so this was clearly picked up quickly by the dev guys. And because when you think about it they're actually running a pretty tight shop. Right? They got all this bunch of server farms and different things they can measure about the performance of the servers and anyway how many databases and all those things and when you look at those independently, stuff like anomaly detection, most people would do rooting averages. They actually work. Okay I know what I'm measuring and I know what I'm thinking about. I know what or I should expect to be the norm. So it makes very easy for a human being to make a decision. Right? And it's not like but it's not like if the bolt is like a little bit bigger and a little thinner that means it's (unknown) threat from China. Right? That's the leap of thinking that sometimes I do not understand.
I want to talk in more detail. Here when I talk about that I'm specifically talking about network/netflow behavior analysis and also this new user behavioral analysis thing which is a new hotness and there's 3 challenges I want to talk about. The curse of the missionality, the life of ground crew and the last is my favorite. So the curse of missionality is actually something real. The point is if you're trying to measure a bunch of different things at the same time and trying to see how similar they are or how different they are if you think about anomaly detection the actual problem you're trying to solve is I got this space, let's say I have a square. Right? And I have a bunch of points drawn in the square. So which one of these is the closest together? That's probably normal. Right? Because most of them are there. But the things that are further apart are potentially those anomalies. The fact is you need to measure the distance. Right? Okay. So what's the point? How do you separate a point? And you can do some very simple stuff like distance which would be like draw a straight line or the Manhattan distance where you have to go straight angles. Right. I think this is a stupid name but it's intuitive. The point is when you start growing the number of dimensions like when you go like okay 3D, 4D, like 10 dimensions the actual distances they stop meaning stuff. They stop meaning anything because it's such a huge space. Right? And until the regulation, on the real, Las Vegas, United States actually allows expanding you will not be able to see it properly. It's very hard to imagine but it's like very far away. Everything is so, so far away. It doesn't make any sense. It becomes very hard to measure distances between things. Right? And another way of seeing that is if you calculate like what's the size of a sphere, right? So you have a cube. What's the size of this sphere inside this? Which you can argue is like what's the unit distance between my point and this other point that I'm trying to measure. Right? The actual volume of this sphere compared to the cube becomes very, very close to zero very, very fast. And this is a graph I stole, because... But the point is the practical result is everything looks the same. Right? So what's the kind of stuff I'm talking about? Can you give us a more practical example? Well let's do Netflow data. Right? I have a company with N nodes. Right? Okay. All machines can talk to them. All machines can potentially talk to any machine, NTC port, UDP prot. Right? It chooses ports for each one of these. Pretty much means if I have a thousand nodes I potential have I half a trillion possible dimensions. So measuring how much packets went from one place to the other. Okay. That's very hard to figure something out. Right? To be honest this is a very, very open problem and people have been trying to work. I mean this is not like security stuff. This isn't math stuff, this is actually what people have been trying to figure outweighs to represent the data and better represent the matrix to actually solve this. And those solutions sometimes there's breakthroughs and okay we have this new idea which is going to help a bunch of these problems and some become very specific. And there's actually some companies, right, they are basing their claims on anomaly detection on a lot of research they have been doing on trying to account for this problem. Some of them believe I mean after 20 years of research they actually have some very good solutions involving subspaces et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. If that's true that is actually very, very, very awesome because there's a whole class of problems that can be solved by this. Right? This is not just security. I mean I do get a little bit, you know, sinai glare. If people had actually solved this, right, we would be I don't know first of all we would be doing a killing in the ad selling market. That's for sure. Second of all we could potentially be literally free of cancer with stuff like this because I mean Google just did project baseline which is okay let's get this DNA data and put the data sets together and do some anomaly detection to figure out what are the gene that is are actually not represented. So Google with all the resources are going to start something similar to this. Because it's hard. Because it's not a solved problem at all. Anyway people might have solved aspects of the problem. It might be a good part of their research. Right? I just wanted to ask. I just wanted to try to understand and you might not be able to understand the actual technical part of it. I certainly don't. When I say interesting that means I couldn't get past the abstract otherwise I would totally tell you about the ideas. But what I don't want is that you guys fall prey to this guy. We do not want the goal to have this one trick. Right? And anyway the point I'm trying to make here guys is that this is not something that's been new. It's been here forever. Right? And it's something that it's something that you can wave your hand away. You just have to deal with it. Right? Just deal with it. Right? And try to come up with some solutions for that. I have to put the other glasses on otherwise I can't see. So anyway... The second class is what I talk about normality attacks. Which pretty much the problem that you have in anomaly detection in general which is there is no real labeling. There's no real ground truth. You don't know what you're holding against and again it comes back to what is normal. When you do the other machine learning which is label you know that okay I think that these things are good. I have a very good feeling things are good, let's try to get them apart. So some of the end the problems of this is there's asymmetry because there's usually much more stuff that looks kind of normal than stuff that looks anomalous. So, you have to, sometimes you have to push the models too hard to actually recognize what's anomalous and they become problems. If you have detected anomaly you know what I'm talking about. It's hard to fine tune and also very easy to tamper with. Some of you are familiar with waves and people like the cross source. Oh there was a car crash here. So I have a bunch of friends they're about to leave work and there's a bunch of accidents around and they can get out and go. Anyway... I'm taking too long here. I have to rush a little bit. Finally and I think is the most important thing even if you okay my anomalies are very accurate. What does an anomaly even mean? Right? Why is it necessarily evil? Right? And this is a thing I saw all the time, is that you turn on something like anomaly detection engine and it picks up all sorts of weird stuff that is not necessarily security. This is mostly a problem of process, of how do you actually put this in and it's funny you will never see an anomaly detection company specifically only marketing itself as security. It will also use the word performance because that's what anomaly detection is good for. I guess the point I'm trying to make is if there's a spy on the production server it's using a bench of memory, who is more likely to have done this? Is it the evil hacker or is it the hipster developer that said yeah let's bring the machine closer... I mean honestly guys. It can't be all of that. So I just want to get to user behavior quickly. User behavior actually works but you've got to have a limited scope. So everyone here who does the product security, so yeah we are the start up or we have this product on the web, you will be doing user behavioral analysis and fraud detection things in your product. It works surprisingly well because you have a limited scope. You know exactly your application inside out so you can actually program relatively easy all the shortcuts you need to have to go through some of the problems that I described. What bothers me, right, and again people use anomaly detection to actually then view the classification model. Right? But what bothers me is can this be generalized? Right? Can we come to people and say, oh, I just filed these. It works like a charm, the math is amazing. You just have to have role based access to all your users and do classifications. If I do that I do not. This is something that bothers me. I guess a lot of these companies actually come from more of military background where this is all a given. Right? And I'm pretty sure it potentially has good results in that environment. It's just that that's not how the thing works. Anyway... The other point is if I'm actually doing user behavior do I average it all out like all the different oh, yeah. I was putting a bunch of stuff in my expense system here because I've been to DEFCON then it blocks my access to the work order because I was dos.ing this. How does this work, how does this actually interact with the other? How does one thing actually direct? There's a lot of open questions. I really wish there was a way to build a general user behavioral thing. Right? But I mean question mark for me too. Anyway I'm very late.
I just want to quickly go through classification. I'm sorry this is a repeat slide but there's no way to talk about this to someone. So you're trying to talk about cats and dogs and you are trying to teach the program what is a cat and what is a dog. The point is it's really about how many cats and how many dogs and how many different cats and how many different dogs. If you only got grumpy cats in your data set you have a serious case of bad labeling, you will definitely not be able to pick this cat. It's a happy cat. There are no such things as happy cats because all the cats, so because all the cats I've seen are grumpy. It's a problem that's similar. In the sense that you don't have a good sample. It's a little biased. In the same way if it's all majestic and you will miss this guy. I mean come on. Poor guy. I love teen tuna. Tuna is awesome. Anyway there's been malware activity. The point is everyone has been doing this. There's been a lot of public data sets and a renaissance of a sort of research because a lot of people are publishing those hundreds and hundreds of gigabytes of malware so it's productive of doing this. My opinion, right, is that we've actually got pretty good in telling malware apart. I already know this is malware so I can know pretty much what family it comes from by analyzing code paths and things like that. I've seen interesting work in that field. But actually detecting it, I mean just like that based on this stuff it's not there. One of the arguments is companies have been doing that forever. I mean we all think this is brand new but the people who started doing this, I don't know, like 5 years ago I was hearing about the implementation about story and processing the malware. I don't think we're much better off. I don't think they've actually cracked the problem. Right? People tell me the lead researchers here and there left for this other company because the guys at the avís didn't believe that was the way to go. But I don't know. Maybe there is something here. I just really, really wanted to be better than those avís on my computer because that crashes my computer every single time. Let's all hope for that. Right? Again we have to make sure about the bad data. The bad specific labels that you're picking up. So I mean the problem is if you're writing a paper and you're doing classification and you're like, yeah, I'm comparing this evil effort I'm pretty sure your models will be great. But that's not representative of what is really out there, what people actually use. So imagine what could we possibly use to compare a piece of evil malware from the internet, the file system, that can access the camera and send data to a remote controller, if there was legitimate problems that look exactly like this and do exactly this kind of thing, right, and the point is that looking at that I almost thought I had it figured out because oh my God I know the thing that tells them apart is the features. Browsers have sand boxes. So thatís what we should be looking for as a feature. Then I remember, ah, sorry FireFox, we almost had discovered but anyway... Point is good data. It's not so much having all the bad samples. You also have to have good representative good samples for the research that you're trying to do. And I'm really beating myself up here like everyone makes mistakes. Right? How the fuck do I do training of my machine learning models and all that I have to show for good is stuff for I don't think I even got to use Chromium. It was not only different classes of things I was comparing at the time and were more representative of stuff you're going to get, right? And of course the model was like, oh yeah here is a banana and a fire engine. So can you tell these apart? Yeah I'm pretty sure I can. So, um, anyway the point is don't use bad data for good samples. I mean there's much more stuff and anyway you can go for that. But let me try to wrap it up here. How's it going then in right? How have things been? So what I've been trying to do is really to extrapolate information from intelligent feeds. So the problem I'm currently trying to solve is if I got a bunch of samples of bad data and just like mal ware the amount of information we have increased exponentially for the last years or so. So there's good samples there that can be used and I'm talking about indicators and domain indicators and things like that. Right? And so models with this information and give it the same data that an analyst would use. Get addresses for analyzing. Where are they coming from? Why should you care? You should care because I think it's much easier to do everything in the computer to do the first triage. If you want to do it yourself I have some tools you can use to reach them and do statistical thinking with them. This was covered in the other talk that I did this year. But I think having everything automatic is kind of cool. And the actual ground truth I use like I said is the data from the anomaly sorry the data from the feeds and there's a lot of things I've tacked on. Using Alexa. The good thing about designing this model the way I did is that I don't have to worry too much about data tampering because the only thing that I can actually change is the log data inside the company which they would be sending me to compare this. If they're changing the log data there's a whole bunch of different problems much right? But they cannot inject something that would look more normal because I'm not really doing anomaly detection here. All the stuff I'm using is actually external to any other company. And they're kind of hard.
It's hard to change that then just to try to inject random stuff into your environment. False positives. The point is it's intrinsic and will always be. It's like the 100 percent in machine security thing. There's no 100 percent accuracy. If you do model it's 100 percent you've done something wrong. Go back to the drawing board. That's the biggest thing you can find. I believe it's all about you creating an actual process around this. Right? And the idea what I'm presenting this as is it's a way to facilitate triage. You still have to have a human being to do the last leg of the investigation and they'll be able to actually tell us for feedback that something was bad or something was not bad. And based on all that I propose a buyerís guide. Specifically these questions I've talked about, right, these are the questions you should be asking the machine learning. And for some reason you do not use them. If they give you bad answers if for some reason you try to argue and they are like no, no, no we're different, you don't understand. That's the other guys. That's not me. I am very different. You know, you can hash tag them not all algorithms. Right? Because that's pretty much the argument they're making and feel free to tag me as well of course. But just make sure you disagree with me first. Anyway this is us. Don't take my word for it. You can try it out. We're trying to get this data up and running, we have some limited capacity. Take your time. I mean it might take a little while and that's pretty much all I have. Thank you very much, guys.