That was sarcasm.
To be fair, they sounded much much much better than MDLG (of course, is that really saying much?).
A few things I noted.
1. Chasteen was trying to make a case for the existence of CipherLoc but, in my opinion, made the case for it not being needed. Basically, he said the difference between the intelligence agencies that don't suffer hacks (as far as we know - my comment) and other agencies that do isn't their encryption. He indicated it was "tradecraft"... i.e. the intelligence agencies do things the right way and others don't. If that's the case, no encryption solution is going to help.
2. They are making a product to provide "encryption as a service". Consider this... you are some company and you decide you want to make use of this service. You have to send your data from wherever it is to the server that is providing the encryption service. If the idea is to protect your data with a better encryption... doesn't sending it to the server encrypted with an inferior encryption (if encrypted at all) defeat the entire purpose? Hint, the answer is yes.
3. They are talking about protecting databases. From what I could tell, they are only talking about encrypting that data as stored. This is essentially just file data and isn't any different than encrypting for other data at rest. Once the database loads any data from it will be kept in memory unencrypted. A hacker would have tools to look into memory and thus sidestep the encryption.
Just my .02 but it seems they don't actually understand what they are doing.
