Kaspersky to shut down US operations, lay off employees after US government ban

A Kasperksy logo sits illuminated at night above the headquarters of the cyber-security firm, in Moscow, Russia, on Tuesday, Dec. 9, 2014.

Image Credits: Alexander Zemlianichenko Jr./Bloomberg / Getty Images

Russian cybersecurity giant Kaspersky will lay off dozens of staff and leave the U.S. market following a U.S. government order in June banning the sale of the company’s software, citing security risks.

Kaspersky said it will “gradually wind down” its U.S. operations beginning July 20, when the ban comes into effect, adding that its U.S. business is “no longer viable.”

Independent journalist Kim Zetter first broke the news on Monday of the company shutting down its stateside business. Zetter said the number of employees affected by the layoffs is “less than 50” in the United States. 

Kaspersky spokesperson Sawyer VanHorn confirmed the company’s statement and layoffs to TechCrunch in an email Tuesday. The spokesperson was also part of the layoffs, said VanHorn.

Kaspersky initially planned to challenge the ban, saying at the time the ban was announced that it “does not engage in activities which threaten U.S. national security,” and that it would “pursue all legally available options to preserve its current operations and relationships.”

In June, the U.S. Commerce Department announced the “first of its kind” ban on the sale of Kaspersky’s antivirus software to U.S. consumers, citing increased security and privacy risks because the company is headquartered in Russia. 

“Russia has shown it has the capacity, and even more than that, the intent to exploit Russian companies like Kaspersky to collect and weaponize the personal information of Americans,” U.S. Commerce Secretary, Gina Raimondo, said in a call with reporters at the time.

Once the ban comes into effect, Kaspersky will no longer be allowed to sell its software to U.S. consumers directly or through U.S.-based resellers of Kaspersky software, some of whom have criticized the ban for affecting their businesses. After September 29, Kaspersky will no longer be allowed to push software or security updates to U.S. customers. That will result in degraded protection from the antivirus software.

The Commerce Department said it took a staggered approach to the ban to allow U.S. consumers to find an alternative to Kaspersky software.

The U.S. Treasury also sanctioned several senior Kaspersky executives, effectively barring U.S. customers from paying Kaspersky for its software or transacting with any future company run by its executives. Chief executive Eugene Kaspersky was not sanctioned, the Treasury said. 

The U.S. government has acted against Kaspersky during both the Trump and Biden administrations. In 2017, the Trump administration banned the use of Kaspersky software across the federal government after Russian government hackers earlier that year stole U.S. classified documents from an intelligence contractor’s home computer, which was running Kaspersky software at the time.

By their nature, antivirus products typically have broad, if not complete, access to the devices they are installed on to identify malicious cyber threats. 

When seen by TechCrunch on Tuesday, Kaspersky’s products were unavailable for purchase on its U.S. website. “For legal compliance purposes, Kaspersky products cannot be purchased from your country,” its website reads.

Updated with Kaspersky comment.

Kaspersky resellers deride US government ban: ‘Complete bulls—t’

Elon Musk's X is down for users globally in its latest outage

Fidelity marks down X valuation by 71.5%

Elon Musk's X is down for users globally in its latest outage

Image Credits: TechCrunch

Mutual fund company Fidelity has marked down its investment in X holdings — the parent company of X (formerly Twitter) owned by Elon Musk — by 71.5% from the original valuation of shares, according to a new disclosure.

Fidelity spent $19.2 million to acquire a stake in X back in October 2022. The fund manager made a valuation cut of 65% in October 2023. And now in the November 2023 disclosure, the firm has made a further cut in X’s valuation. Notably, Fidelity’s disclosures are one month behind the current date.

X has gone through quite a lot of changes in the past year, including getting a new CEO in former NBCU exec Linda Yaccarino. During an interview at the Code Conference in September 2023, Yaccarino claimed that the company would turn profitable in 2024.

The biggest challenge for the company is to convince advertisers to spend money on the platform. A lot of prominent advertisers — including Apple, Comcast/NBCUniversal, Disney, Warner Bros. Discovery, IBM, Paramount Global, Lionsgate and the European Commission — pulled out from the platform after Musk called an antisemitic conspiracy theory the “actual truth.”

Later in the month, at the DealBook Conference, he told advertisers to go fuck themselves.

“What this advertising boycott is going to do is kill the company,” Musk continued. “And the whole world will know that those advertisers killed the company, and we will document it in great detail.”

In December, Financial Times reported that X will look to appease small and medium businesses to spend ad money on the platform. X contested The New York Times’ claim that the platform will lose $75 million because of an advertiser boycott and told FT that the estimated drop will be around $10-12 million.

“Small and medium businesses are a very significant engine that we have definitely underplayed for a long time “It [was] always part of the plan — now we will go even further with it,” X told the publication.

Musk has also made controversial decisions to restore accounts of previously banned users such as conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, Kanye West, former U.S. President Donald Trump, far-right influencer Andrew Tate and right-wing academic Jordan Peterson.

Countdown Capital winding down is not a bad omen for micro funds

Hand holding snapshot of tree in bloom against the same tree in winter with no leaves; latin america cautious optimism

Image Credits: Thomas Jackson (opens in a new window) / Getty Images

Last week, my colleague Aria Alamalhodaei wrote an exclusive on defense and space tech venture firm Countdown Capital’s plan to shut down. Jai Malik, the founder of Countdown, said in a letter to his LPs that due to how competitive the industrial tech sector has become, he is no longer confident about smaller venture firms’ ability to secure the meaningful stakes in startups they’d need to produce worthwhile returns.

As Aria wrote, the letter reads like a cold glass of water to the face. While winding down the fund is a mature move — GPs have a fiduciary duty to their LPs, after all — the news doesn’t help the growing scuttlebutt in the VC world that most micro funds can’t survive outside of a bull market like 2021’s.

But Countdown shutting down is likely more of an isolated event than a sign of what’s to come for micro funds this year.

When I spoke with Malik back in 2022 about the launch of this very fund, he said that Countdown was created to fill a void in the defense sector. His logic was that while larger firms like Andreessen Horowitz and Lux were interested in backing startups at the Series A stage and later, no one wanted to write the first small checks startups need to get going.

That’s changed today, and it isn’t surprising given the sheer amount of capital it takes to get defense startups off the ground; the costs are incomparable to a category like SaaS.

This is also why Countdown’s fate doesn’t portend cloudy skies for micro funds in other categories. A micro fund manager in the AI space, for example, told me that despite how active AI has gotten over the last year, the increased interest actually hasn’t made a material difference in pricing at the pre-seed stage where their fund invests. So despite the category heating up, a $500,000 check can still net a firm meaningful ownership at the pre-seed stage, they said.

In VC, size does matter

Getting a meaningful stake is everything for micro funds, according to Michael Kim, the founder of Cendana Capital. A fund of funds that backs micro funds, Cendana has invested in more than 60 fund managers, and Kim said they’ve largely avoided capital-intensive sectors because of how difficult it can be to land a decent-sized stake. He added that in such sectors, the rounds that micro funds participate in are inherently riskier because they aren’t usually large enough to be able to tell if a company’s product could work or if a startup could find product-market fit.

“We have always looked for fund managers that got relatively high ownership with their first check,” Kim said. “We look for fund managers that are leading rounds [despite their size].”

Paige Doherty, the founding partner of Behind Genius Ventures, told me her firm has been priced out of rounds because their firm’s check size is $250,000 on average. Still, her firm has been able to avoid that scenario a lot by virtue of being “fiercely generalist,” she added.

Doherty said that while being generalist had made it harder for the firm to fundraise in the beginning, the strategy has since helped them move more flexibly with the market. If a category gets too expensive to get meaningful ownership, the firm can spend more time elsewhere, as it doesn’t have a mandate to back a specific sector.

It’s about more than the money

There are many things micro funds can do to ensure startups will make space for them on their cap tables regardless of how much money they bring.

Doherty runs an annual survey asking her portfolio company founders what they like about working with her fund. She’s found that her network and ability to introduce companies to potential lead investors helps, but how she interacts with founders is likely what makes the biggest difference.

“Having early conviction in a founder is really meaningful,” Doherty said. “[I ask myself] if I would invest 3x the amount of this check in this founder, in this company. Each investment, I want to be at that ‘hell yes’ level of conviction. The feedback I’ve gotten is, that is one of the things that really sticks out.”

Of course, founders can build such intimate relationships with larger funds, too, but it’s less likely to happen due to the sheer size of the portfolios some larger funds have. There’s also the fact that each VC only has so much time to spend with each company. Micro funds may very well need to go above and beyond to show that they can fill that crucial gap.

According to Kim, a micro fund manager can stand out if they have a deep knowledge base and are already considered to be a thought leader in the sector they are targeting. Having a background as an entrepreneur can also be a big help, he said.

None of this is to say Countdown Capital did not do or have these things. Sometimes there just isn’t a solution to being in an inopportune situation at a bad time. Instead, I simply want to point out that many micro funds shouldn’t be too worried about what has unfolded so far this year.

As long as a fund manager can position themselves as a must-have investor, and not a nice-to-have backer, and can land deals with meaningful stakes, the size of their funds won’t hold them back.

iOS 18 cracks down on apps asking for full address book access

Image Credits: Apple

iOS apps that build their own social networks on the back of users’ address books may soon become a thing of the past. In iOS 18, Apple is cracking down on the social apps that ask users’ permission to access their contacts — something social apps often do to connect users with their friends or make suggestions for who to follow. Now, Apple is adding a new two-step permissions pop-up screen that will first ask users to allow or deny access to their contacts, as before, and then, if the user allows access, will allow them to choose which contacts they want to share, if not all.

The changes were introduced in a session at Apple’s Worldwide Developers Conference focused on user privacy features.

When consumers share their contacts with a third-party app, that app will receive ongoing access to their contacts over time, even as new ones are added, according to Apple. To give users more control over the contacts an app can and cannot access, the permissions screen has two stages.

In the first screen, users confirm if they want to share their contacts with the app or not. This is similar to the prompt that’s available today, though some app makers have utilized the contact-sharing option as a way to block users who decline to share their contacts from accessing their app.

For example, last year the photo-sharing app Lapse climbed to the top of the App Store by employing a mechanism that forced users to invite their friends in order to join. Before that, apps like Poparazzi and Clubhouse demanded full address book access — a growth hack that helped them quickly expand their networks. Amo ID, an app from the founder of Zenly (which sold to Snap), also gained steam by requiring users to invite friends to get in.

These techniques may work to provide an initial rush of user adoption, but in many cases, that hack does not drive sustainable growth in the long term. In the meantime, users have to give up access to the address books in full just to try out new social experiences.

That may now become more difficult, as users who opt to share their address book by tapping “Continue” on the first screen will be taken to a second screen in iOS 18 where they can choose whether or not they want to share all their contacts with an app. Here, users will be able to tap on “Allow Full Access” or a new option to “Select Contacts” if they’d rather limit access.

What’s more, iOS 18 does not require the app developer to make any changes on their part for this functionality to work, nor implement any new API. Instead, if a developer’s app asks for access to the Contacts, these new screens will appear automatically.

On X, developer Nikita Bier, who had sold growth-hacked social apps like Gas and tbh to Discord and Facebook, joked, “It’s the end of the world,” followed by a screenshot of Apple’s announcement of the new privacy feature.

For those more interested in security and privacy, however, the addition is welcome. As security firm Mysk wrote on X, the change would be “sad news for data harvesting apps…” Others pointed out that this would hopefully prevent apps that ask repeatedly for address book access even after they had been denied. Now users could grant them access but limit which contacts they could actually ingest.

In addition, if a developer’s app lets people search for contacts to add, they also don’t need to request full access with iOS 18.

Instead, the new Contact Access Button lets an app show results for contacts the app doesn’t have access to along with a button that says “Add” next to each contact’s name. That way, users can pick and choose which contacts they want to provide to the app on a one-by-one basis with just a tap.

Elon Musk's X is down for users globally in its latest outage

Fidelity marks down X valuation by 71.5%

Elon Musk's X is down for users globally in its latest outage

Image Credits: TechCrunch

Mutual fund company Fidelity has marked down its investment in X holdings — the parent company of X (formerly Twitter) owned by Elon Musk — by 71.5% from the original valuation of shares, according to a new disclosure.

Fidelity spent $19.2 million to acquire a stake in X back in October 2022. The fund manager made a valuation cut of 65% in October 2023. And now in the November 2023 disclosure, the firm has made a further cut in X’s valuation. Notably, Fidelity’s disclosures are one month behind the current date.

X has gone through quite a lot of changes in the past year, including getting a new CEO in former NBCU exec Linda Yaccarino. During an interview at the Code Conference in September 2023, Yaccarino claimed that the company would turn profitable in 2024.

The biggest challenge for the company is to convince advertisers to spend money on the platform. A lot of prominent advertisers — including Apple, Comcast/NBCUniversal, Disney, Warner Bros. Discovery, IBM, Paramount Global, Lionsgate and the European Commission — pulled out from the platform after Musk called an antisemitic conspiracy theory the “actual truth.”

Later in the month, at the DealBook Conference, he told advertisers to go fuck themselves.

“What this advertising boycott is going to do is kill the company,” Musk continued. “And the whole world will know that those advertisers killed the company, and we will document it in great detail.”

In December, Financial Times reported that X will look to appease small and medium businesses to spend ad money on the platform. X contested The New York Times’ claim that the platform will lose $75 million because of an advertiser boycott and told FT that the estimated drop will be around $10-12 million.

“Small and medium businesses are a very significant engine that we have definitely underplayed for a long time “It [was] always part of the plan — now we will go even further with it,” X told the publication.

Musk has also made controversial decisions to restore accounts of previously banned users such as conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, Kanye West, former U.S. President Donald Trump, far-right influencer Andrew Tate and right-wing academic Jordan Peterson.

Financial investment illustration concept shows the pile of golden coin with the growing sign of plant anf increasing graph of stock market for growth of stock market.

Funding to Black founders was down in 2023 for the third year in a row

Financial investment illustration concept shows the pile of golden coin with the growing sign of plant anf increasing graph of stock market for growth of stock market.

Image Credits: Getty Images

Black founders in the U.S. raised 0.48% of all venture dollars allocated last year. That’s around $661 million out of $136 billion, according to the latest Crunchbase data.

That number is the lowest it’s been in recent history. The past two years saw Black founders raising at least 1%. Last year, though, suspicions were confirmed when the market cooling really did appear to have an extreme impact on the Black community. In Q1’23 and Q2’23, Black founders raised 0.74%. In Q3’23, the group raised 0.13%, and in Q4’23 they raised 0.20%.

There’s been a consistent yearly decline in funding since the murder of George Floyd in 2020, which saw a record-breaking amount of capital flow to Black founders as the tech industry promised to better support them.

“As we pull this data quarter after quarter, year after year, it remains clear that any progress made by the venture industry investing in Black-founded startups following George Floyd’s tragic death in 2020 has completely stalled,” Gené Teare, senior editor at Crunchbase News, told TechCrunch+. “The percentage of funding going to Black founders remained well below 1% in 2023, with the lowest totals coming in the latter half of the year.”

Data visualization by Miranda Halpern, created with Flourish

Crunchbase data shows that Black fund managers are also seeing the impact of the bear market, as deal counts overall were low in the industry: Only four Black-founded funds announced they raised capital in 2023, compared to 13 in 2022 and 13 in 2021.

This dip in funding to Black founders may be part of a wider trend of tech’s decreased support for the Black community. Black founders have started to call it “the Great Rollback” as companies continue cutting their DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion) initiatives and critics of DEI become more mainstream. The Congressional Black Caucus is also worried that the recent spate of tech layoffs is disproportionately affecting the Black community; the group wrote to the Department of Labor to start an investigation into how Big Tech companies are conducting these dismissals.

Data visualization by Miranda Halpern, created with Flourish

Meanwhile, Black founders and fund managers were not surprised by the dips in funding and knew the bear market’s venture pullback would disproportionately affect them.

Monique Woodard, founder of Cake Ventures, was one of the Black-led firms to announce last year, though the firm technically completed fundraising in 2022. Woodard is looking forward to what this year brings despite the increasing anti-DEI sentiments. “My optimism comes from complete and blind belief in myself,” she said.

Woodard never expected an easy fundraise and said, “If you want to be in business and you have a strategy that LPs find differentiated and likely to deliver outsized returns, you’ll raise a fund.” Still, she said venture investors are entering this new year with a sense of “optimistic uncertainty,” especially the funds with a thesis to back diverse founders.

“Optimistic in the performance of their funds and the founders they’ve backed, but uncertain whether that will be enough given the current rollback on DEI-focused investing from some LPs,” she said, adding that the Great Rollback has left a terrible stain on the industry, even if much of the anti-DEI rhetoric is just noise.

There is also optimism on the founder’s side of the business. Devo Harris, the founder of Adventr AI, closed a $3 million bridge round in October and said fundraising wasn’t too bad for him, as he simply went back to existing investors to double down on his latest round. Still, he noticed that capital is harder to come by for Black founders.

Still, he is optimistic. “When I got started, there were virtually no Black-founded companies,” he said. “With the spike in investment a couple of years ago, there are many Black founder-led companies that are succeeding, so there are at least reference points that investors can pattern match to and improve the odds of Black founders getting funded, rollback or not.”

Hand holding snapshot of tree in bloom against the same tree in winter with no leaves; latin america cautious optimism

Countdown Capital winding down is not a bad omen for micro funds

Hand holding snapshot of tree in bloom against the same tree in winter with no leaves; latin america cautious optimism

Image Credits: Thomas Jackson (opens in a new window) / Getty Images

Last week, my colleague Aria Alamalhodaei wrote an exclusive on defense and space tech venture firm Countdown Capital’s plan to shut down. Jai Malik, the founder of Countdown, said in a letter to his LPs that due to how competitive the industrial tech sector has become, he is no longer confident about smaller venture firms’ ability to secure the meaningful stakes in startups they’d need to produce worthwhile returns.

As Aria wrote, the letter reads like a cold glass of water to the face. While winding down the fund is a mature move — GPs have a fiduciary duty to their LPs, after all — the news doesn’t help the growing scuttlebutt in the VC world that most micro funds can’t survive outside of a bull market like 2021’s.

But Countdown shutting down is likely more of an isolated event than a sign of what’s to come for micro funds this year.

When I spoke with Malik back in 2022 about the launch of this very fund, he said that Countdown was created to fill a void in the defense sector. His logic was that while larger firms like Andreessen Horowitz and Lux were interested in backing startups at the Series A stage and later, no one wanted to write the first small checks startups need to get going.

That’s changed today, and it isn’t surprising given the sheer amount of capital it takes to get defense startups off the ground; the costs are incomparable to a category like SaaS.

This is also why Countdown’s fate doesn’t portend cloudy skies for micro funds in other categories. A micro fund manager in the AI space, for example, told me that despite how active AI has gotten over the last year, the increased interest actually hasn’t made a material difference in pricing at the pre-seed stage where their fund invests. So despite the category heating up, a $500,000 check can still net a firm meaningful ownership at the pre-seed stage, they said.

In VC, size does matter

Getting a meaningful stake is everything for micro funds, according to Michael Kim, the founder of Cendana Capital. A fund of funds that backs micro funds, Cendana has invested in more than 60 fund managers, and Kim said they’ve largely avoided capital-intensive sectors because of how difficult it can be to land a decent-sized stake. He added that in such sectors, the rounds that micro funds participate in are inherently riskier because they aren’t usually large enough to be able to tell if a company’s product could work or if a startup could find product-market fit.

“We have always looked for fund managers that got relatively high ownership with their first check,” Kim said. “We look for fund managers that are leading rounds [despite their size].”

Paige Doherty, the founding partner of Behind Genius Ventures, told me her firm has been priced out of rounds because their firm’s check size is $250,000 on average. Still, her firm has been able to avoid that scenario a lot by virtue of being “fiercely generalist,” she added.

Doherty said that while being generalist had made it harder for the firm to fundraise in the beginning, the strategy has since helped them move more flexibly with the market. If a category gets too expensive to get meaningful ownership, the firm can spend more time elsewhere, as it doesn’t have a mandate to back a specific sector.

It’s about more than the money

There are many things micro funds can do to ensure startups will make space for them on their cap tables regardless of how much money they bring.

Doherty runs an annual survey asking her portfolio company founders what they like about working with her fund. She’s found that her network and ability to introduce companies to potential lead investors helps, but how she interacts with founders is likely what makes the biggest difference.

“Having early conviction in a founder is really meaningful,” Doherty said. “[I ask myself] if I would invest 3x the amount of this check in this founder, in this company. Each investment, I want to be at that ‘hell yes’ level of conviction. The feedback I’ve gotten is, that is one of the things that really sticks out.”

Of course, founders can build such intimate relationships with larger funds, too, but it’s less likely to happen due to the sheer size of the portfolios some larger funds have. There’s also the fact that each VC only has so much time to spend with each company. Micro funds may very well need to go above and beyond to show that they can fill that crucial gap.

According to Kim, a micro fund manager can stand out if they have a deep knowledge base and are already considered to be a thought leader in the sector they are targeting. Having a background as an entrepreneur can also be a big help, he said.

None of this is to say Countdown Capital did not do or have these things. Sometimes there just isn’t a solution to being in an inopportune situation at a bad time. Instead, I simply want to point out that many micro funds shouldn’t be too worried about what has unfolded so far this year.

As long as a fund manager can position themselves as a must-have investor, and not a nice-to-have backer, and can land deals with meaningful stakes, the size of their funds won’t hold them back.

Japan's SLIM lander powers down on the moon as it awaits the sun's rays

Image Credits: JAXA

Japan’s first lunar lander has officially powered down on the moon after its solar cells were unable to generate electricity, though the nation’s space agency said there is a possibility of turning things around when the direction of the sun’s rays change.

Japan made history last week when its lander, Smart Lander for Investigating Moon (SLIM), successfully touched down on the moon’s surface last week. Shortly after landing, directors of the mission explained that while the soft landing was a minimal success, the spacecraft’s solar cells were not generating power.

An update, posted yesterday on X, appears to confirm that the solar cell anomaly is related to an “attitude,” or pointing, issue with the spacecraft, as opposed to some electrical or mechanical issue with the solar cells themselves.

“According to the telemetry data, SLIM’s solar cells are facing west,” the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) said in the update. “So if sunlight begins to shine on the lunar surface from the west, there is a possibility of generating power, and we are preparing for recovery. SLIM can operate with power only from the solar cells.”

In the meantime, JAXA said that the battery was disconnected at a 12% power level, as planned, to avoid over-discharge.

Japan can count a handful of other major wins in the mission, even if the solar cells never manage to charge up sufficiently for a recovery operation. The agency “obtained a lot of data” from the landing descent and on the lunar surface, officials said; in addition, the two rovers that were aboard the lander were successfully deployed on the surface.

The agency has yet to announce why the spacecraft did not land pointing in the right direction, but JAXA officials are preparing an additional update on the status of the spacecraft at the end of the week.

“Although the attitude after landing did not go as planned, we are glad we could [sic] achieve so much and are happy to have landed successfully,” the agency said. “We’re also excited to analyze the data.”

Japanese lunar lander touches down and Axiom space launches its third mission with SpaceX

Image Credits: TechCrunch

Hello and welcome back to TechCrunch Space. What a week! For the second week in a row, we have lunar lander news to report on. Plus, a final update on Astrobotic’s Peregrine lander, news on the Artemis program and the first crewed launch of the year.

Want to reach out with a tip? Email Aria at [email protected] or send me a message on Signal at 512-937-3988. You can also send a note to the whole TechCrunch crew at [email protected]For more secure communicationsclick here to contact us, which includes SecureDrop (instructions here) and links to encrypted messaging apps. 

Story of the week

How could the story of the week be anything other than SLIM (Smart Lander for Investigating Moon), the Japanese lunar lander that touched down on the moon on Friday?

This makes Japan the fifth country to put a lander on the moon, joining the ranks of the United States, China, Russia and India. The Japanese Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) confirmed that they had received telemetry data from SLIM just after 10:20 AM EST.

While the landing was a success, not all went to plan, unfortunately: JAXA later said that the lander’s solar cells are not currently generating electricity, which means that the mission lifetime will be greatly reduced. There’s a small chance that the solar cells could charge as the angle of the sun changes, but that depends on whether the cause is due to a pointing issue or some other anomaly, JAXA officials said in a press conference.

But even with the issue, the mission achieved a huge portion of its goal, which was to demonstrate a soft lunar landing using optical navigation technology. This new type of technology can help ensure “pinpoint” landings, or landings with an accuracy of around 100 meters, as opposed to many kilometers.

Image Credits: Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency

Launch highlights

We saw our first crewed mission this year – but even more notably, it was a completely private mission (as in not a NASA astronaut mission). Axiom Space launched its third mission with launch partner SpaceX on Thursday, with the crew successfully docking with the International Space Station at 5:42 AM EST on Saturday, January 20.

Axiom’s plan is to continue flying these private missions to the ISS at a pace of around two missions per year through 2026, which is when the company hopes to launch its first commercial space station module, Derek Hassmann, chief of mission integration and operations at Axiom Space, said during a prelaunch press conference. Axiom’s fourth flight, Ax-4, is scheduled for later this year, though a specific launch window has not been announced.

axiom 3 mission
Image credit: SpaceX

What we’re reading

Loren Grush very nicely lays out some of NASA’s forward-thinking strategy with its Commercial Lunar Payload Services (CLPS) program: accept some risk. The program was established to help kickstart the development of payload delivery surfaces to the moon’s surface, and it stands in sharp contrast to NASA’s standard quo.

Astrobotic’s Peregrine lander, which suffered a fatal propulsion leak that prevented the spacecraft from having any chance of landing on the moon, is the result of a CLPS award. While Astrobotic did not complete the mission, Grush describes how NASA designed the program to be more risk-tolerant than its other endeavors.

peregrine astrobotic ula vulcan. lunar laner loaded in nose of rocket
Astrobotic Peregrine Lunar Lander

This week in space history

Thirty-two years ago this week, microgravity research was born. In 1992, NASA launched the first International Microgravity Laboratory on board the space shuttle Discovery, and it carried a number of scientific research and experiments looking into the effects of zero G on materials and living organisms. The lab was pressurized, so the mission also carried a crew of seven; they returned to Earth after eight days in space.

Crew of STS-42
Image credit: NASA

3D rendered depiction of a digital avatar

Oasis Security leaves stealth with $40M to lock down the wild west of non-human identity management

3D rendered depiction of a digital avatar

Image Credits: DKosig / Getty Images

When people hear the term “identity management” in an enterprise context, they typically think of apps that help users authenticate who they are on a network in order to access certain services. In a security context, however, human users are just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to managing access and making sure it doesn’t get breached.

A whole, considerably more complex, universe of machine-based authentications underpin how just about everything IT works with everything else — a universe that is arguably considerably even more vulnerable to hacking simply because of that size and complexity, with some 50 “non-human” identities for every human typically in an organization, and sometimes more. Today, a startup out of Israel called Oasis Security is emerging from stealth with technology that it has built to address this.

It’s coming out of stealth only today but has already raised funding and acquired customers while still under the radar. The fast-casual food chain Chipotle, property firm JLL and Mercury Financial are among its early users.

The funding, meanwhile, speaks to the early enthusiasm from investors. Led by Sequoia (specifically Doug Leone and Bogomil Balkansky); Accel, Cyberstarts, Maple Capital, Guy Podjarny (founder of Snyk) and Michael Fey (co-founder and CEO of enterprise browser startup Island) also participated across two different rounds that are being announced today: a $5 million seed and a $35 million Series A.

Sidenote on the funding: One investor mentioned Oasis to me months ago, describing the jockeying among VCs to back the still-unlaunched Oasis as an “incredible frenzy.”

The crux of what Oasis is tackling is the fact that non-human identity — which covers not just how two apps may interact together by way of an authentication, but also how two machines or any processes might work in tandem in an organization — may have become an amorphous but essential aspect of how modern businesses work today. But because so much of it does not involve people at all, there is a strong lack of visibility around how much of it works, including when it doesn’t work.

Human identity management is already fertile ground for bad actors, who use phishing and many other techniques to catch people off guard, to steal their identities and use them to essentially worm their way into networks. Oasis’ founder and CEO Danny Brickman says that non-human identity is very much the next frontier for those bad actors.

“If we’re just playing the statistics game, if it’s true that identity is the new perimeter when it comes to security, then this is the new risk for organizations,” he said in an interview in London. “If you have 50 times more non-human identities than human ones, that means the attack surface is 50 times larger.” For CISOs, he added, how to handle non-human identities “is top of mind right now.”

To tackle this, Oasis has built a three-part system, which in its most simplest terms can be described as “discover, resolve, automate.”

The first of these builds and tracks a full picture of how a network looks and operates, and creates, essentially, a giant recreation of all the places where machines or any non-human identities interface with each other. It describes this as a visualized map.

It can then use this map to track what data moves around where, and when it appears that something is not working as it should. That might or might not be related to an authentication: It could also relate to how data moves through a system once it’s authenticated. In both cases, Oasis then provides remediation suggestions to respond to anything unusual. As with many remediation solutions, these suggestions can be carried out automatically or triaged by humans.

The third part is the proactive continuing work: an automated refresh of the map and the ongoing observation around it.

Brickman’s track record is as elusive as the threat that his startup is aiming to contain, but the basics of it give some clue as to why investors were willing to give him money before the product even launched, and why the startup is able to sign on users so early on.

He spent more than seven years in the Israeli Defense Forces, where he worked in cybersecurity. There, he tells me he led a team that identified and then fixed a major problem in the military.

What was that problem, and how was it fixed? Brickman wouldn’t say, no matter how many ways I asked him.

Leading a team of engineers, he said, “We worked in a basement. Nobody knew about our project. We didn’t want to lose momentum.” Eventually, they had a breakthrough, and they won an innovation prize awarded by the head of the army for the work. Which no one still knows about, it seems.

It was through that work that Brickman met many other engineers, including Amit Zimmerman, who became his co-collaborator on that secret, award-winning project and is now his co-founder at Oasis, where he is the chief product officer.

There are a number of companies that are now focusing on the challenge of tracking non-human, machine-to-machine authentication and identity management. One of them, another Israeli startup called Silverfort, just last week announced a big funding round of its own. Silverfort is taking a big-picture approach to the problem, including human identity as part of its bigger remit: Its premise is that the two continue to be inextricably linked, so one must consider them simultaneously in order to truly secure a system.

This is not something that Oasis wants to look at, for now at least. True to its name, it thinks that there is something salient and distinct and ultimately more lucrative in definitively quantifying and solving the myriad problems in the non-human space first.

“We’re focused on non-human identity,” Brickman said. “We want to drive the value from there.”

“Identity is the new perimeter, and non-human identity is the gaping hole in that perimeter,” said Balkansky at Sequoia Capital in a statement. “We are excited to work with the Oasis team to solve one of the biggest challenges in cybersecurity today. The company has come out of the gate very strong and fast, signing up blue chip customers less than a year after it was founded, which is a testament to the latent demand for such a solution and to this team’s capabilities and commitment.”