Verdane partners with Guardsquare to boost mobile security growth
The agreement brings together Verdane's growth investment experience and Guardsquare's technical knowledge in the mobile security field. Battery Ventures, an existing investor in Guardsquare, continues its involvement as the company takes steps to scale its operations in response to the growing complexity of mobile security threats facing businesses of all sizes.
Mobile applications have become a main point of interaction between companies and their customers, yet security challenges in this area remain substantial. Cyberthreats targeting mobile apps are increasing, with criminals adapting rapidly to exploit vulnerabilities at scale. The partnership is set against this backdrop, as businesses across industries seek more comprehensive protection for their mobile applications.
Guardsquare's mobile application security platform is recognised in the industry, having received the Mobile App Security Award from Cyber Defense Magazine earlier this year. The company supports over 900 organisations across various sectors, providing services ranging from app security testing and code hardening to real-time monitoring of the threat landscape.
Roel Caers, Chief Executive Officer at Guardsquare, expressed confidence in the new partnership's potential to support continued expansion. In his statement, Caers said: "I'm excited to embark on this new partnership with Verdane. It marks an inspiring and well-aligned progression toward our long-term vision. We will benefit from their expertise as, together, we take Guardsquare to the next level, significantly expand our market share, and increase our global reach through organic growth, ongoing product enhancements, and M&A. We're grateful for the support provided by Battery Ventures over the past several years as we became the market leader in mobile application protection. Their guidance enabled us to scale our business globally and attract top talent, particularly in the U.S."
The partnership is designed not only to drive organic growth at Guardsquare but also to leverage opportunities for mergers and acquisitions to further increase its market presence. Verdane, which has invested in over 200 technology-focused companies, will play a key role in executing this strategy across its areas of expertise—digitalisation and sustainability.
Morten Weicher, Partner at Verdane, commented on the rationale behind the investment: "Guardsquare's industry-leading mobile application protection is a critical cybersecurity service, and we're excited to partner with Roel and the entire Guardsquare team to make this available for even more businesses globally. The company's growth from a European to a global leader has been very impressive to behold, and we're looking forward to supporting the company in its future journey."
Battery Ventures, which has previously worked to help Guardsquare grow internationally, also welcomed the new chapter for the company. Dharmesh Thakker, Partner at Battery Ventures, stated: "It has been a privilege to partner with the Guardsquare team and support the company's growth journey. As it scaled its business, Guardsquare has consistently demonstrated its commitment to innovation and leadership in mobile application security. We are confident that this new partnership with Verdane will open up many new growth opportunities and allow Guardsquare to continue to help set the standard for mobile application security worldwide."
The completion of the transaction is pending standard regulatory approvals. Both parties are preparing to build on Guardsquare's existing track record in the sector, with an emphasis on further product enhancements and expansion into new markets.
Follow us on:
Share on:
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scoop
14 hours ago
- Scoop
How Did New Zealand Compare In The First Half Of The 2020s?
The following two tables show New Zealand and the 24 other economies in the world most easily and fruitfully compared to New Zealand. The countries are sorted with the worst-performing economies (in terms of economic growth per capita) listed at the top. Thus, taking four-year compounded growth for 2020, 2021, 2022 and 2023, Germany was the worst performer (ranked 25 out of 25); its economy, adjusted for population growth, shrank over four years by 1.2 percent. The 'top' three countries in the table all had such negative growth. On growth, New Zealand was in the middle of the pack, with 3.9 percent compounded growth per capita; that averages out to just below one percent per annum. On inflation and interest rates, a high ranking is generally regarded as a poor performance; although a low inflation rate may be outside the policy target zone, just as a high inflation rate may be. New Zealand had the fourth-highest CPI inflation over that four-year period, comparing consumer prices in December 2023 with December 2019. In December 2023, consumer prices were 20.6% higher than in December 2019. The country with highest compounded inflation was Austria with 22.4%, and the lowest Switzerland with 5.5%. New Zealand had the highest compounded interest rates for that period; it had top-ranking for high-interest. If $1,000 was 'invested' at the Official Cash Rate each December from December 2020, and reinvested each December for four years in total, the accumulated amount would have been $1,111. Next highest were the United States and Canada. This ranking gives a sense of the monetary policy in the four years after the 2020 covid wave; New Zealand had the tightest monetary policy for the period as a whole, meaning the strongest 'anti-inflationary policy'. If you see Table 2 below, you will see that New Zealand had the lowest economic growth in 2024, a direct consequence of that tighter monetary policy stance. On interest rates, we note that the countries in the Euro currency zone all experience the same monetary policy setting. It means that those Euro countries which are more aggressively anti-inflation tend to resort most to fiscal consolidation, a euphemism for government retrenchment and austerity. There is no simple measure for tight fiscal policy; the Budget deficit/surplus is often used incorrectly because government retrenchment significantly undermines government revenue. On inflation, we note that some of those northern European countries which we normally expect to have low inflation actually had the highest inflation: Austria, Netherlands, Germany. One country similar to New Zealand on inflation and interest, and with zero growth per capita, was the United Kingdom. Australia was better than New Zealand on all three measures: growth, inflation, and interest. And much the same as New Zealand on population growth. Table 2 shows the same data items for 2024. Of particular interest is the 2024 growth and inflation rates in 2024, compared to the interest rates for the preceding four years. New Zealand, with the toughest monetary policy over a longer period certainly got the recession it asked for; and was the median country for CPI inflation in 2024, virtually bang-on the policy target. (Was the pain worth it?) It's important to note that many countries with significantly lower inflation than New Zealand did not have anything like the very high policy interest rates that New Zealand was subjected to; eg Sweden, Italy, France, Denmark, Slovenia. Any beneficial link from high interest rates to low inflation remains moot; and it is clear that high-interest-rate policies do much damage to the wider economy. While Japan had higher inflation in 2024 than New Zealand, we note that Japan's overall increase in consumer prices in the half-decade was much lower than New Zealand's. Japan's inflationary pressures are almost entirely imported, with New Zealand's domestically generated CPI inflation being significantly greater than Japan's. We should note that southern Europe was doing particularly well in 2024. Although Greece's per capita growth is fuelled in part by substantial population losses. Spain, on the other hand, is getting its population back. Further north, the Austrian economy is looking particularly problematic; it's no wonder the 'far-right' political party did so well there in elections at the end of 2024 (ten percentage points higher than the Hitler-led NSDAP party got in Germany in 1930). And Finland is not looking happy either, despite low inflation. United States, United Kingdom and Australia continued to have above-median inflation in 2024, despite – or, more likely, because of – their continued perseverance with high-interest monetary policies. On population growth we see that Canada has been the overall 'winner', presumably in the sense that it both attracts and accepts immigrants. Surprisingly, in 2024 Australia slumped in its population growth, whereas New Zealand did not. I suspect that 2025 will show more immigration in Australia than New Zealand. Finally All is not well in the New Zealand economy. And it's also quite unwell in some other countries, especially the North European Euro-zone countries, and the United Kingdom. And the United States, with its tight monetary policies, seems to have only averted the fate of the United Kingdom and New Zealand (and Germany and Austria) by virtue of stimulus to its military-industrial complex. Or, strictly speaking, to its military complex. Civilian industry remains weak in the USA. ------------- Keith Rankin (keith at rankin dot nz), trained as an economic historian, is a retired lecturer in Economics and Statistics. He lives in Auckland, New Zealand. Keith Rankin Political Economist, Scoop Columnist Keith Rankin taught economics at Unitec in Mt Albert since 1999. An economic historian by training, his research has included an analysis of labour supply in the Great Depression of the 1930s, and has included estimates of New Zealand's GNP going back to the 1850s. Keith believes that many of the economic issues that beguile us cannot be understood by relying on the orthodox interpretations of our social science disciplines. Keith favours a critical approach that emphasises new perspectives rather than simply opposing those practices and policies that we don't like. Keith retired in 2020 and lives with his family in Glen Eden, Auckland.
NZ Herald
16 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Balancing economic interests and security concerns, European officials said they got the best deal possible
European officials and analysts said the tentative agreement does not even end the uncertainty because so many details must still be worked out. To the harshest critics, including some in France who spoke of a 'capitulation' and 'humiliation', the agreement is proof of a deeply unbalanced alliance, and the latest example of European appeasement of Trump. At Nato, allies similarly strained to pledge a huge increase in military spending demanded by Trump. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, who announced the deal with Trump while sitting next to him at one of his golf resorts in Scotland, touted 'a huge deal' clearly playing to Trump's love of largeness. But at her news conference soon afterwards, von der Leyen appeared far more sober, calling the 15% tariffs she had accepted on European automobiles to be 'the best we could get'. The EU, and in particular Germany, its auto-making powerhouse had hoped to eliminate the 25% US car tariffs entirely. 'We should not forget where we came from,' von der Leyen said. 'Fifteen per cent is certainly a challenge for some, but we should not forget it keeps us the access to the American markets.' Trump indeed had threatened far worse, including a 30% across the board tariff that upended months of painstaking negotiations. Under the new deal, the US will now impose a 15% duty on most imports from the EU. The blanket rate foisted on the EU mirrors a US deal announced this month with Japan, another Group of Seven ally, but it is higher than the 10% that Britain secured earlier this year and that EU officials had grudgingly accepted in recent talks. Since World War II, trade agreements have largely sought to reduce the cost of buying and selling goods across borders. A 2017 deal the EU struck with Canada eliminated tariffs on most goods traded between them. An agreement signed with Vietnam in 2019 aims to phase out nearly all customs duties. Trump's accord with the EU goes in the opposite direction, raising tariffs, with some exceptions. Economists say the tariffs will increase costs for importers, who must pay the duties, and put upward pressure on inflation. Consumers and businesses will likely bear some of the extra costs, experts say. Reaction in EU countries In France, where President Emmanuel Macron had urged the EU to take a harder line, the deal drew sharp backlash. While Macron was quiet on today, Prime Minister Francois Bayrou said it was 'a dark day when an alliance of free people, brought together to assert their values and defend their interests, resigns itself to submission'. Von der Leyen's European Commission, the EU's executive body which negotiates trade policy for its 27 member nations, had faced calls from Germany and Italy, two countries that do outsize business with the US, for an accord that would limit damage to their export-dependent companies. But even capitals that had urged a conciliatory approach were not exactly celebrating today. 'The agreement successfully averted a trade conflict that would have hit the export-oriented German economy hard,' German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said. Still, members of the European Parliament from Germany blasted the deal even as it reduced Trump's tariff on cars, one of Germany's central demands. 'My first assessment: not satisfactory; this is a lopsided deal,' said Bernd Lange, who chairs the European Parliament's committee on international trade. 'Concessions have clearly been made that are difficult to accept. Deal with significant imbalance. Furthermore, lot of questions still open.' Workers at a Volkswagen factory in Zwickau, Germany. Photo / Ingmar Nolting, the New York Times Dutch Prime Minister Dick Schoof acknowledged that 'no tariffs would have been better' but called the deal 'vital for an open economy like ours'. Belgian Prime Minister Bart De Wever said: 'One thing is clear: This is a moment of relief but not of celebration'. Influence of security The talks laid bare the EU's queasiness at using its economic muscle, one of its few areas of leverage against Washington, at a time when allies have had to calibrate repeatedly to keep Trump on board as Russia wages war in Ukraine. Ultimately, after months of mixed signals and threats from Trump, EU leaders said they accepted a deal to give their industries a reprieve from the months of uncertainty that threatened to cripple business. Officials suggested they had relented out of concern that Trump was prepared to raise tariffs to a level that would effectively halt trade between Europe and the US. 'Let's pause for a moment and consider the alternative: A trade war may seem appealing to some but it comes with serious consequences,' said the EU trade commissioner, Maros Sefcovic, who shuttled to Washington in recent months for difficult talks with Trump officials. 'Our businesses have sent us a unanimous message: avoid escalation and work towards a solution that brings immediate tariff relief,' Sefcovic told reporters today. He said he and his team had travelled to Washington 10 times for a deal and said that the EU's calculations reached beyond trade. 'It's about security, it's about Ukraine, it's about current geopolitical volatility,' Sefcovic said. He said he couldn't go into detail on what was discussed in the room with Trump yesterday, 'but I can assure it was not just about the trade'. Details of the deal Now, nearly 70% of European goods will face the blanket tariff, a big increase in charges, according to a senior EU official who spoke on the condition of anonymity to speak frankly about the details of the deal, which is still under negotiation. The EU had sought carve-outs from the US tariff regime for key sectors including wine and spirits and aircraft parts. The announced agreement eliminates tariffs on airplane parts but a decision on wine and spirits was postponed. EU officials said talks will continue in the coming weeks. The two sides appeared to diverge on other details. The White House indicated that a 50% tariff on steel would remain in place, while EU officials said there would be further negotiations on lowering steel tariffs. Many officials and experts said that it was crucial to sort out the details. 'We need to understand what is included,' said Brando Benifei, an Italian member of the European Parliament and head of its delegation for relations with the US. Benifei and others questioned whether US probes into the national security aspect of trade relations might result in extra tariffs down the line, such as on EU pharmaceutical products. At first glance, Benifei said the deal 'seems very asymmetric'. 'The result is due in my view to the push by some governments to have a deal at any cost, which has weakened our stance,' he added. 'Because the US knew some governments wanted a deal whatever the cost.' Others noted that Trump's threats managed to shift the view on what constituted relief. Just a few weeks ago, EU and US negotiators neared an agreement that involved a blanket tariff of 10%, before a Truth Social post by Trump derailed them. Today, some investors saw benefits for Europe's key auto industry, for instance, which would see US car tariffs reduced to 15% from 25%. The tariffs, however, were at 2.5% before Trump's global trade blitz, and some industry groups noted their dismay. 'The US tariff rate of 15%, which also applies to automotive products, will cost German automotive companies billions annually and burdens them,' Hildegard Mueller, president of Germany's main auto industry group, the VDA, told Agence France-Presse. On some issues, the Europeans stood their ground. Trump officials had pressed the EU for concessions on tech industry regulations and on food standards, which the bloc insisted were non-negotiable. As part of the deal, Trump said Europe had committed to buying more US energy and weapons and boosting investment in the US. But those provisions are mostly aspirational promises without guarantees. European nations were already poised to buy more US weapons under an arrangement with Trump to continue arming Ukraine, and the bloc was already seeking alternative energy sources, including liquefied natural gas from the US, as part of its push to phase out Russian energy imports. More energy purchases and European investments would come from member states and companies which Brussels does not control. Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, seen as a close Trump ally in the EU, heralded the deal, while saying details still need to be worked out. 'I obviously welcome the fact that an agreement has been reached,' Meloni told reporters. Still, she added, 'we need to verify the possible exemptions, particularly for certain agricultural products. So there are a number of elements that are missing.'
NZ Herald
19 hours ago
- NZ Herald
US President's new deals contain mostly top-line figures but have landed at politically useful time
'I'm very surprised how the EU gave in to Trump's demands,' said Douglas Irwin, a professor of economics at Dartmouth College. 'I thought the EU would be the most prone to retaliation. And yet, they didn't do it. They really gave in to most of what Trump wanted.' Though many details of the agreement were unclear, the EU and the US agreed to a broad-brush trade deal that sets a 15% tariff on most EU goods, including cars, averting what could have become a painful trade war with a bloc that is the US' single biggest source of imports. The EU also agreed to purchase US$750 billion worth of US energy, which Ursula von der Leyen, president of the EU's executive branch, said would be spread over three years. That, she noted, is roughly the length of Trump's remaining term in office. The bloc also agreed to increase its investment in the US by more than US$600b. The two sides agreed to drop tariffs to zero on a range of goods including aircraft, plane parts, certain chemicals, certain generic drugs, semiconductor equipment and some agricultural products, von der Leyen said. She acknowledged that the tariffs could prove tough for some European businesses but defended the deal in light of higher tariffs Trump had threatened. 'Fifteen per cent is not to be underestimated, but it is the best we could get,' she said. It was a positive political development for Trump on a number of fronts. Economists have mostly been sour on the idea of his sweeping tariffs, warning of dire consequences including inflation and rising unemployment. And even as many criticised the wisdom of Trump's economic policies, his Administration came under added fire over its struggle to negotiate deals. The agreement with the EU, the America's largest trading partner, may tamp down some of the criticism. The agreement may also offer Trump a way to divert the news cycle from his Administration's handling of the Jeffrey Epstein files - a controversy that has dogged him for weeks. At a news conference on the trade deal, a reporter asked Trump whether he had rushed the agreement forward in an attempt to knock the Epstein story line out of the news. 'You've got to be kidding,' a frustrated Trump responded. 'That had nothing to do with it.' Trade negotiations are famously complex and time-consuming, so most analysts doubted that Trump could have much success in quickly striking deals. The Peterson Institute for International Economics said in a 2016 analysis that negotiations for a single trade deal can take more than a year, with implementation taking multiple years. That didn't stop the White House from issuing bold predictions. Within days of the April 2 announcement of tariffs on countries across the globe, White House officials said about 70 countries were calling to strike deals. Trump's trade adviser predicted 90 agreements in 90 days. As the deals proved tougher to negotiate than advertised, Trump lamented the pressure he was under. 'Everyone says, 'When, when, when are you going to sign deals?'' he said in May. At one point he said: 'We don't have to sign deals'. The agreements Trump has announced in recent days contain mostly top-line figures. They are not the detailed, complex documents that the US has historically negotiated, which can number in the hundreds of pages. And the new deal with the EU could still run into trouble. The Trump Administration faces nearly a dozen lawsuits seeking to have its tariffs declared illegal on the grounds that Trump does not have the authority to impose them without the consent of Congress. Should those suits succeed, Trump would be back to square one. Andrew Hale, a trade policy analyst for the conservative Heritage Foundation, cautioned against reading too much into the deal with the EU until the text is released and the lawsuits are resolved. 'These are not comprehensive free trade agreements,' he said. 'Let's make that very clear. And much of this may evaporate.' This article originally appeared in The New York Times. Written by: Luke Broadwater ©2025 THE NEW YORK TIMES
