Flare launches partner program to take cyber threat intelligence downmarket

Robert Dutt: Welcome to In The Channel from ChannelBuzz.ca, bringing news and information to the Canadian IT channel community for the last 16 years. I’m Robert Dutt, editor of ChannelBuzz.ca, and your host for the show.

Today, we’re talking about a Montreal-based company that’s been growing quickly in the threat intelligence space and just formalized its channel strategy. Joining me are John Williamson, chief revenue officer at Flare, and Eunice Leung, director of partner marketing at Flare.

We’re going to talk about Ignite, their new partner program, what it means for Canadian MSSPs and resellers, and why identity has become the central battlefield in cybersecurity.

Let’s get right into it, my chat with John Williamson and Eunice Leung of Flare.

John, Eunice, thanks for taking the time. Nice to chat with you. I appreciate it.

John Williamson: Our pleasure.

Robert Dutt: John, you guys have been growing for years now — triple-digit growth, 300-plus clients, half of them MSSPs. That’s pretty impressive. Why formalize the program now? What were you seeing in the business that made this the right moment to go from ad hoc or organic working with MSSPs to the more structured program?

John Williamson: It’s a great question. I think a lot of it has to do with probably the most obvious talking point that dominates the airwaves these days, and that was AI.

I think, as we have been for many years from our founding, when we were really focused on the dark web — at that time it was primarily Tor, or The Onion Router, and potentially fraud and identity theft, things of that nature — from that time, we’ve been focused as an identity-first cyber threat intelligence platform.

And the reason for the release of this partner program at this time is this really coming to a head. We had made a bet that identity was going to be the last frontier, the last attack surface standing. And because of the way AI has progressed, it’s really made it much more dynamic for vulnerability assessments and scanning and exploitation. Technical barriers have been demolished and are continuing to be shortened.

For us, though, the human and non-human identity element is still highly subject to risk. And so for us, we’ve kind of hit a particular, call it momentum, with the business. And as we’ve grown and scaled — 150 people, we’re growing very quickly, to your point, we’ve experienced double- and triple-digit growth — we felt that it was time to really formalize our channel partnerships.

You’d mentioned, I know in our previous conversation, we were talking about how many MSSP partners we do have, which is anomalous. I mean, we have more than probably most. And I think that’s also a testament to how we’ve been dialing in our program since the beginning.

It’s not like this Ignite program is ushering in anything revolutionary in regard to how we’ve developed products, how easy it is to use, how it can be deployed through channel partnerships, both resellers and MSSPs. But we’ve entered a point where we’re starting to really understand how those are optimized, how resellers can leverage the timing, the AI backdrop, to sell more of these types of products, how MSSPs can so easily integrate this and take advantage of identity remediation, and how, importantly, both of them can sell something very different.

We’ve really, over the last — and this puts the end on your question — we’ve really rounded the corner on a promise that we’ve been making for quite some time. Threat intelligence up to this point has largely been, “Look at me. Look at me. You need to know this.” And it’s informational.

One of our vision goals was, let’s put a closed loop on it. How about we tell you, “Hey, instead of you have an identity that’s been breached,” what if we could say, “Hey, you have an identity that’s been breached, and we validated against your live identity access management system, and we’ve prioritized it for automated remediation. Would you like us to take action? We can reset those passwords right now, or we can revoke that session.”

That’s the last turn for us that’s really given us the impetus to say, “Let’s formalize a program. We’ve got a great product. We’ve been growing very quickly. It’s differentiated in the marketplace. Let’s now take a channel-first attitude and say, let’s really make sure that the program is designed for success and scale.”

Robert Dutt: You mentioned the role of identity and the importance of identity figuring prominently in the decision to go this way, and it certainly maps with what I’m seeing both from you and your peers in the vendor community and in the halls at partner conferences this year. Identity is showing up so much more on the security side of things.

I’m curious how you are seeing the kind of questions, the kind of sophistication your partners are coming at identity with, changing as it’s become more prominent and as the tools from yourself and others have evolved.

John Williamson: It’s funny that it’s not as if it’s changed, it’s just that AI has industrialized it. It’s kind of one way of looking at it.

The leverage — and as we’ve talked about, this is synchronous warfare. I mean, it’s AI against AI. It’s good versus bad. But what it’s done is it’s created the dynamics where attacks on identities have multiplied, primarily because of just the sheer scale. Phishing kits, infostealer kits, these things are being deployed en masse because of how quickly they can be developed.

One of the things we’ve talked about, too, is how AI against AI — I think it’s now 70, almost 80%. I think it was 78% of all companies, this is kind of a global standard, have deployed AI in their security technology stack. So the ability to automatically remediate technical vulnerabilities and patch management and whatnot.

Microsoft is releasing patches now, and there’s over 800, I think, in the last Microsoft patch remediation. That was as much as they used to do in a year, and you’ve probably seen these.

And you can see the acceleration of AI. However, this industrialization of AI, particularly as it relates to credential attacks, number one, it’s making it much more scalable. And it’s really an area that’s actually increasing. That is the human element. Humans are still subject to phishing. They’re subject to infostealer malware by malicious links, and it’s happening en masse.

But I think, importantly too, AI has had another effect, and that is that, in many ways, the whole concept of identities is shifting. Not only is it human identities, but I don’t know if you’re familiar with NHI, or non-human identities, the sheer magnitude of the proliferation of non-human identity.

So again, these are things that are just starting to become evident. And I think that’s where — and again, I’m obviously Flare and I represent Flare — but I think Flare is particularly well positioned, obviously, for this. We’ve been planning for this for quite some time. And I think our channel program is really a way for us to be able to scale the distribution of our capabilities.

Robert Dutt: Eunice, Ignite is positioned specifically around, as John said, both MSSPs and resellers, which are two different camps that increasingly — there’s some interchange and intermingling. The multi-tenant platform, obviously a big part of your pitch.

When you were designing the program, what did you learn from the existing folks, those 300-odd MSSPs you’ve been working with, about what they actually need and want versus kind of the vendor-side lens of what the program should be?

Eunice Leung: What our partners really wanted to see from us was what it would look like to have a scalable growth path with Flare, primarily. And so we built this not for the benefit of the vendor, ourselves, but really, how can we advise and ramp up our partners to grow with us and also scale and build more business with us?

And so each tier of the program reflects that. So whether it be additional support or additional MDF or go-to-market support across the board, we are there to help our partners every step of the way, and we want this program to reflect that.

Robert Dutt: You have five tiers: Registered, Growth, Scale, Select, Premier. How do partners think about the progression there, and what’s kind of the gating? Is it about revenue volume, or are there other paths to advancement through the program?

Eunice Leung: Yeah, so right now it is reflective of the revenue achievement from the previous year. But as we actually launched it just recently, right now it will be based on the current commit levels of our partners, and then come January we’ll do that new leveling. But that’s the primary metric that we’ll be looking at.

Robert Dutt: Flare’s headquartered in Montreal. Eunice, you’re out in Vancouver. I think a lot of Canadian channel companies, and companies in general, wonder if a Canadian-headquartered vendor can compete at a global scale, or how they do so.

John, what’s the pitch to a Canadian partner who’s looking at Flare and comparing you to sort of one of the larger U.S.-based threat intelligence platforms?

John Williamson: Yeah, that’s a good one. Buy Canadian, I think, for sure. I mean, that’s an interesting question too because it’s a charged environment right now.

And I think that, in particular, there’s some particular strengths. Number one is data sovereignty. I think it’s interesting. One of the things that we found is — I don’t want to leave all of the non-Canadian partners out of this — but having said that, it’s our adherence to a lot of the sovereignty. I think it was Quebec Law 25, whereby, because we are Canadian and because we had built our infrastructure and our privacy controls around Canadian law, it’s actually been very advantageous for us for EU expansion and other markets because the privacy laws so closely match and are distinctive to those in North America.

For example, they’re more stringent, and they take into account more detailed protection of individual and private data. And so for us, it’s been an advantage. It’s actually streamlined our global reach in some respects because of just kind of building it right for a more global audience out of the gate.

But I think, given today, we have kind of a hybrid environment. I mean, we’re able to sell effectively into Canada because of our Canadian roots. We have been very successful in North America. We’ve been very successful in Europe. We still have plans to expand beyond that.

But from a Canadian standpoint, we’re a very proud Canadian business, and I think that’s something that has been very beneficial to us. It’s still probably disproportionately a larger market for a share of revenue than other companies around the globe, but I think that’s also a testament to the ties we have.

Robert Dutt: Yeah, I was actually curious how much of the current partner base is Canadian versus global. I imagine there’s at least some degree of hometown, home-field advantage going on there. And basically, how are you thinking about building presence here in Canada from where you’re at now?

John Williamson: Structurally, existentially, we’re based in Montreal, Quebec. That’s where our permanent headquarters are located. That’s where all of our office-bound employees are located. The majority of our development engineering staff are located in Montreal. We also have resources in the Toronto area as well, in Ontario.

But I think from that perspective, we are very Canadian. And that’s, I think, partly from a standpoint of the resources that you might expect, the level of cultural alignment. French is our primary language in the office, from a Quebec standpoint, of course.

But I think those things are all conducive to Canadian partnerships. Certainly, like I said, I don’t want to exclude broad swaths geographically, but for our positioning as a Canadian company, our founding in Montreal has been very advantageous for Flare in Canada, for sure.

Robert Dutt: For an MSSP who’s never sold threat intelligence as a service before — maybe they’ve heard of the idea, they want to add it in — what does the readiness path look like? How long does it take me to go from signed up for the program to having a first customer conversation to being realistically proficient and functional at an operating level in a realistic scenario?

John Williamson: I’ll answer this, Eunice, at a high level, and I’ll let you take it from a programmatic level.

One of the strategic initiatives that we had this year — and this goes all the way back to the beginning of the year, so we’re now obviously entering stages of maturity — was how can we facilitate the most streamlined process for MSSPs who want to adopt cyber threat intelligence?

I hope I get these numbers right, so I’m sure the audience is going to correct me. I’ll do the best I can. I believe in 2025, the threat intelligence category was about $12 billion, $11 billion and change. It’s expected to be, by 2030, $22 billion. So it’s essentially going to double.

The demand and market for cyber threat intelligence, external security, if you will, is going to more than double in the next four to five years. The question then is, where’s that growth going to come from?

One of the things that I think is interesting about MSSPs is a couple of things. Number one is they have installed bases of primarily small to mid-sized businesses. When I say small to mid-sized, that doesn’t mean the smallest. That means, let’s say, up to 5,000 employees. That is the fastest-growing segment of those taking advantage of cyber threat intelligence as an external source of information.

I think there’s a particular opportunity for MSSPs to very swiftly hoover up both their existing, but also create distinctive products for new customer acquisition as well.

In order to do that, though, it goes to your question, Robert: it needs to be easy. They need to be able to take a look at Flare, adopt it, test it, utilize the technologies themselves, have not-for-sale environments where they can do demos and POCs and whatnot.

Very importantly, they need to integrate it into their existing technology stack. It’s one of the reasons that we’ve developed technology that’s very much like a Swiss Army knife of integration capabilities and API endpoints, so that it very quickly integrates with their existing technologies.

To answer your question more specifically, it takes no more than about 30 to 45 days total for full integration and go-to-market to effect. That, bear in mind, includes not only the technical integration, but that includes setting up the testing environments for them to be able to utilize for their own utilizations internally, but also for POCs and demos and whatnot.

It includes sales enablement and training, a big part of our program. It includes technical resources as well, and technical training.

Then, very importantly for MSSPs, I think this is something that’s worth mentioning: we also bring to bear research services.

You might wonder, how do research services factor into a scalable automated service that could be delivered from an MSSP? There’s a lot to be said around, A, understanding your geographic market, but two, being able to provide fresh, meaningful, important content to your customer base to illustrate the value of the services and the products.

For example, recently we did a custom research project with one of our Canadian partners and I think it was a FTSE 500 company, financial services company operation. It led to thousands of leaked, stolen credentials that could be utilized for nefarious reasons. That was a joint research project between us and one of our partners.

Those are the kinds of things we bring to bear that make it not only easy from a technical standpoint, but also a go-to-market standpoint, giving them tools, information, content that helps them to articulate the value of cyber threat intelligence, how it can be utilized, and the kinds of threats that they can be facing and can be remediated. Those are all parts of the program.

Robert Dutt: That research piece is one that caught my eye and kind of raised my eyebrow when I was looking at the details of the program. It seems like a pretty unusual and useful benefit for partners.

That’s one example. Any other color on how — I know it’s relatively new — but how partners can and are using that? And do you find it’s generally a door opener, or does it kind of convert into ongoing engagement? What’s kind of the role that you see it playing?

John Williamson: Yeah, also—

Eunice Leung: Go ahead, John, please.

John Williamson: I’m sorry.

Eunice Leung: Sounds like it. Yeah, so that research component of it definitely is, like you said, a standout of the program itself.

And just a quick correction on John’s previous point. It’s a UK partner, so just our Canadian cousins over the ocean over there. But then, yes, it was on the FTSE 100. They got picked up by Forbes. It was a continuous piece of content that was used later on as well in different campaigns with that partner.

And so the thing is, with Flare, is that we have done so much research-led content for years now, and we’ve established a really strong CTI foundation in the community. What we really want from our partners is to be able to leverage this in a lot of the conversations that they’re having with their prospects.

And so these research reports, they’re in-depth. It’s a lot of data, but how we work with them is to identify really the key industry that they want to target, right? Either key industry or audience, and we build something that’s custom to them that will actually speak with their audience base.

Having the ability to leverage our research team is probably one of the strongest pieces here. It’s definitely something that we want to continue to scale up and have this continuous piece of content. We have people creating marketing campaigns from the sales campaigns. It’s the bridge from Flare to the partner to the customer.

John Williamson: I agree. And I was going to add, too, that the research is not just a — it is obviously a very valuable part of our partner program. It’s a valuable part of how Flare has evolved.

Our utilization of our researchers is very much a part about our understanding of emergent threats, the content that we collect, how we collect that content, where we collect it, from whom, and a couple of examples of how research has manifested itself into helping both Flare, but also our partners, take advantage of emergent trends.

For example, a lot of people, when they think about the dark web, they think about Tor and some of the other dark webs. Increasingly, it’s Telegram. Telegram is a command-and-control environment. It’s utilized for phishing kit exfils. It’s where a tremendous amount of talk is going. It’s much more scalable. It’s perfect for flat-file uploads and whatnot. So it’s starting to play a key role in infrastructure.

We’re seeing similar things happening in Signal. We’re seeing the utilization of unique malware variants that we’re able to identify, collect, and then index and provide as part of our graph framework.

These things are all from research. It plays a very powerful role. It’s one of the reasons that, when we think about deploying it on behalf of our partners, it’s not something that we’ve just introduced as an interesting partner trick. It’s really part of the Flare fabric.

And it’s just something that we believe, if we extend it further into our partners, it’ll help them to articulate to their customers why these things are so important and how they can be protected.

Robert Dutt: John, you’re coming at this from SOCRadar and the broader threat intel space, so you know the market well.

For a Canadian MSP or MSSP that’s evaluating this kind of threat intel recurring service model, what’s the realistic business case for them? Are we talking about something that adds some incremental service revenue, or does this become a meaningful line of business unto itself? Basically, what’s the typical mindset of a partner going into this?

John Williamson: It depends on the partner, obviously. I can only give you maybe some anecdotes on the different, let’s call it, mindsets that we work with generally. And I’ll kind of use the most compelling for the purposes of this answer.

One is absolutely the emergence of external threat intelligence as a primary driver in any information security model, or depending on where they are in their information security maturity. It’s becoming increasingly important.

It’s very common for us to provide demos, POCs and whatnot for us to illuminate virtually in real time on a demo the types of threats that an individual company is facing.

So we tend not to just say, “Hey, let’s just show you what we do. Let me show you an example of what an infostealer malware output might look like, or what a leaked credential might look like and where it might be coming from.”

We go into these situations because we know how to tune the systems very quickly so that we can show them specifically, these are the kinds of things you are likely facing. In this particular case, it’s existential. You are facing these.

So in those particular cases, that could be a high-value additional service line. That could be very complementary to a managed detection and response service, or to some type of penetration or red teaming. It would be the ability to say, “Here are the kinds of things we found. Here are the things that you could do in order to remediate these types of risks.”

They might be multi-factor authentication. It might be password vaults. It could be any number of things, including automated remediation once you see these things in the wild.

Opening up new service lines is very much a use case.

Number two is that oftentimes — and I kind of alluded to this in my previous — oftentimes it helps them sell more of their existing capabilities or software. For example, the illumination of the kind of threats that Flare uncovers oftentimes drives the need for the kinds of security processes, products and services that are already in their mainline product list.

It also helps them to extend intelligence to help them augment additional, or actually sell existing, products and services.

The third part is probably one of the most compelling in some respects, both in terms of scale and volume, is some of our larger MSSP and channel partners who have large existing customer bases.

They find that the promise of threat intelligence, particularly identity-first cyber threat intelligence, which is obviously a Flare specialty, is highly compelling on the renewal side. The ability to upsell, saying, “This is something that is incrementally of high value. I’d like to show you a quick idea. We can run some quick tests on it.”

What they’re finding is that that really can tweak net recurring revenue on a retention and expansion basis. That’s probably the most compelling. We find the highest levels of adoption and traction in those, but that’s kind of the spectrum of how we generally approach.

Create a new service line. Two, it helps you sell more of your existing products. Number three, it’s outstanding on renewal and expansion and add revenue.

Robert Dutt: And a bit more on the nuts-and-bolts side of things, but important because you do reward on partner-sourced recurring revenue: what does deal reg look like in practice? Is it first come, first served, territory protection? What does it kind of look like for the partners involved?

Eunice Leung: Yeah, so right now it is a bit of a first-come, first-served situation. But for deal registration, once it is registered, we give that partner priority.

And then, John, you might have to correct me here. I believe we have a 10% protection on any renewal deals as well, right?

John Williamson: We do. And it’s a real simple process.

Obviously, part of the program’s announcement is the partner portal. It’s easy to make those deal registrations. It’s important to note that as we move into these markets, part of the advances we’ve made is in our deal registration, how those are treated, how they’re protected, the margins associated with them and whatnot.

And obviously, this is very self-serve. This is not something that you need to do as it relates to calling Flare or anything. The process of registering a deal is just a matter of getting credentials to our portal.

Robert Dutt: You touched earlier on the identity side of things as being kind of a differentiator. I’m curious what your partners tell you are the Flare differentiators, the reason that they’re going with Flare as opposed to a competitor in this space. It’s a crowded space.

John Williamson: One is going to be — if I was going to give one, I could give you a couple — but if I was going to state the most unequivocally dominant reason that they would go with Flare: if we find something that they were not aware of and that another provider didn’t find, we win.

And when I say we, us and our partners, obviously. The division of the services, part of what we’re talking about, is how that’s uncorking this level of kind of partnership-based distribution.

In those particular cases, it’s where Flare can prove that we have access to the broadest and deepest source of credential- or identity-based data that could be weaponized and utilized by threat actors to create meaningful breaches or system access.

When Flare has data that nobody else has, when it’s the freshest data, we win.

On top of that, too, we’ve taken it a step further. One is our claim that we have the most important, the best and most comprehensive set of data. And this includes all of its sources. Like we’ve already talked about Telegram and other chats, the dark web, clear web, GitHub repositories for leaked code and things of that nature, or code injection on API keys.

But more importantly as well, we also make the claim that when we do find that information, we’re going to give you more transparent data than anybody else. We’re very transparent about where our sources are.

A lot of people will be very careful about what they want to show, how much they want to show. Flare completely opens the kimono and lets the partner make the meaningful decisions based on that context.

And then I would say lastly, what they’ve really found with regards to working with Flare is — and this is one of the reasons we’re excited about this partner program — how hands-on we’ve been traditionally with our partners, always with regards to helping them to both understand Flare, how to sell it, how it’s positioned, how we’ve been able to achieve the kind of growth that we have, how we can empower and enable those types of techniques for them.

And the role we’ll play on an ongoing basis with regards to technical integration and forward-deployed engineering help and assistance, the setup of test environments and not-for-sale environments where they can utilize these things to better articulate it.

Everything that we’ve done on our side to grow the business at this point, we’ve basically forklifted into our partner program. And that’s really what this is all about.

Robert Dutt: And sort of the flip side of that question, Eunice, from your side, what’s the most common objection you hear from prospective partners, and how do you answer it?

Eunice Leung: So I would say, for me, I’m usually on the go-to-market side. But anytime you have a partner who is a little bit more hesitant on trying to see if there’s the right kind of vendor for them, it’s going through a discovery process of getting to understand what their services are and what their practice currently looks like, right?

Because a lot of times people may say, “Well, this is CTI.” And like John said earlier, CTI used to just be, “Hey, look at me.” There’s nothing that you can really propose to a customer because half the customers just go, “Well, this is a lot of data that I don’t know what to do with now.”

But once we flip that on its head and go, “Well, what about all your current services?” One of the things that we’ve been integrated into with other security packages is MDR.

And so any partner that has an existing kind of security package that includes MDR, or even with or without it, it starts to make a lot more sense when we start to talk about the workflows and APIs that they can actually integrate into. And they start to see that value there.

And just to bring it all back to that validation and remediation aspect that we have within the platform, that’s where the true value comes out.

And we’re able to kind of close the book with a partner because they go, “Well, this actually makes my job 10 times easier, because I thought all I’m looking for is data threats, but this actually helps a big bulk of automation that we didn’t have previously.”

John Williamson: Yeah, I think, too, when I think about the objections we get — a reason I really liked your question is these objections have driven the program.

And what I mean by that is one common objection is, how easy is this to get going? How much of a commitment are you guys talking? What are we talking about here in terms of commitment?

And we’ve gone to great pains to make it as easy as possible to get started with the minimum.

And I’ll give you one example. MSSPs, a lot of times — I remember in my, you talked about, I’ve been in this business for quite some time, and I’ve been hearing these objections for quite some time — we don’t want to start too big. How quickly can I get going? What if I’ve just got one customer that I’m thinking about? And what if it’s a really small customer? And how quickly is it going to take to get this done? How much money am I going to make?

The three things are: how do I get started? How easy is this to get going? And then what are the margins and what are the broader implications?

Part of this program and some of the quieter elements are that we’ve built really interesting tools, and we’ve applied a lot of our thinking, what we know.

We can sit down with any partner and have those discussions and say, number one, we can start as small as you need to. And the program is designed so that we can grow with you, and that’s advantageous, obviously, because of the margins.

Number two, we will make sure that it’s very quick and easy to deploy.

And three, we actually have built some programmatic software to help them understand what are the implications from an economic perspective in terms of: what are my current customers? What’s the penetration I think we can make against those? What would I sell them? What are the range of products?

We can run these scenarios very swiftly and give them a very good sense of, what’s my low, medium and high prospects over the first year, two or three of this partnership?

All driven, again, largely because of the objections that have been inherent for quite some time.

Robert Dutt: Okay. So if we were looking back at this a year from now, and you were looking back and saying, “Okay, Ignite was a success,” what are the one or two metrics that you’re going to be looking at to determine that?

Is it number of partners, average partner revenue, something else altogether? What’s the dashboard that you’re looking at to decide if this did what you wanted it to?

John Williamson: I’ll say that—

Eunice Leung: Go ahead.

John Williamson: Eunice, I didn’t want to interrupt. I think you were getting ready to say something.

Eunice Leung: No, I think we’re probably on the same page here regarding — it’s probably going to look at the partner revenue growth that comes with Ignite.

One of the things that we wanted to roll out with this was to establish 30-, 60-, 90-day goals with our partners and actually go through a full go-to-market planning session with all of our partners.

This process, we wanted to really help ramp them up as fast as possible. Like John said before, the setup’s not bad at all, how easy it is to actually, within 90 days, start generating business with Flare.

John, I don’t know if you have another point to add to this one.

John Williamson: No, I agree. There are the obvious ones, right, Robert? It’s going to be partner revenue. It’s going to be sell-through. It’s going to be overall.

I’d say that it’s going to be a case-by-case basis, in the sense that I would prefer, if we had to launch this program and envision scenarios, if we were very successful and it was with only five partners, and those five partners had a meaningful impact on their business, they had raised their net promoter scores amongst their existing client base, they were able to very clearly, without any level of vagary, determine that they were able to solve 100% of threats on a consistent basis, and that their customer retention was very high — if it was just five of them, I would consider this program a success in that regard.

Obviously, we’re built for scale. Flare is a company that — we have extremely high ambition. Our growth rates have given us that ambition.

But importantly, I think that we want to get this partner program right. I don’t want to just be a shell saying, “Hey, everybody, sign up for Flare. It’s going to be the easiest thing, easiest money you’ve ever made.”

Really, we realize we have to put real skin in the game. We know how the threats are evolving. We understand how AI is driving the acceleration of these threats. We understand how to position it. We understand how to demo. We understand how to POC it. We understand how to price it.

I mean, these have all been inherent in our ability to go to market. Our plan is just to share that knowledge with the partners that choose to engage with us and optimize it for each.

So clearly, there’s high-level metrics that we’re looking at, but I think it’s the quality of those partnerships and the longevity of those partnerships that are ultimately how it’s going to be judged.

Robert Dutt: So bring on a not necessarily small number, but relatively smaller number of partners and really kind of guide them, shepherd them through the process, make sure they’re successful, as opposed to sign up everyone and end up with a bunch of partners that you don’t hear from in a year. That makes sense to me.

Last one for me. For a Canadian MSP or MSSP who’s listening to this and thinking, “Okay, maybe threat intel is the next service for me to add,” whether it’s Flare-specific or industry-specific, what’s kind of the one thing they should know before they reach out to you?

John Williamson: I hope this answers your question. I would say 60%.

Sixty percent is how many data breaches are caused by an identity or credential compromise. It is such a pervasive access point. And as I mentioned before, it’s being exacerbated, and the risks are accelerating because of AI.

And Flare is an identity-first platform, first and foremost, in the category. It’s our distinguishing characteristic.

And I think we’ve proven that that is a bet that is worth not only us making, but it’s something that we want to provide on behalf of our customers.

This is a threat that is very large, present, and it’s growing because of the market dynamics. So I think that would be the one thing that I would leave with people.

Robert Dutt: All right. You make the case well.

John, Eunice, thank you for taking the time, and good luck with the Ignite launch and getting that out there. It was great talking with you.

John Williamson: Thanks, Robert.

Eunice Leung: Thank you so much.

Robert Dutt: There you have it, John Williamson and Eunice Leung from Flare. I’d like to thank John and Eunice for their time.

To our listeners, if you’re an MSP or a reseller thinking about threat intelligence, the numbers that John cited are worth sitting with. Sixty percent of data breaches start with an identity or credential compromise, and the threat intelligence market is on track to nearly double by 2030.

Flare’s bet is that identity-first intelligence with automated remediation is the way to close the loop, and Ignite is their attempt to make it accessible to the channel.

If you want to explore it, check out the link in the show notes or the blog post.

Follow and subscribe on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube, wherever you get your podcasts. Always appreciated.

Until next time, I’m Robert Dutt for ChannelBuzz.ca, and I’ll see you in the channel.