Feds Kill Check Point's Sourcefire Bid

Caffeinated Geek writes to tell us The Register is reporting that Check Point Software has removed their bid to buyout rival software company Sourcefire following objections from the FBI and the Pentagon to the Treasury's Committee on Foreign Investments. From the article: "Federal agency objections to the security software tie-up center on the implementation of Sourcefire's anti-intrusion software 'Snort' by the Bureau and Department of Defense, AP reports. In private meetings between the panel and Check Point, FBI and Pentagon officials took exception to letting foreigners acquire the sensitive technology."

Comments

Most telling part of the article...

[trazom28]

'Check Point says the two companies will find ways round the roadblock. CEO Gil Shwed said: "We've decided to pursue alternative ways for Check Point and Sourcefire to partner in order to bring to market the most comprehensive security solutions."'

So, they can't merge, but the items in question will be shared anyway.. so much for regulation and oversight :)

Re:irrational fear?

[trazom28]

Same fear that kept the Dubai ports deal from going though. Stereotypes and the FUD factor.

The world is going from a less global-centric to a more local-centric way of life. A step backwards I'd think.. how can one relate to those not like themselves, if they refuse to relate to them?

Sigh...

[Anonymous Coward]

I work for a very large MSSP, and this makes me quite sad.

Sad, because Snort's source code is not exactly a mystery. And Check Point's technology already does a much better job at preventing intrusions, since it is a firewall and Snort is a really shitty IPS. (All IPS are shitty, sorry. I like Snort for IDS, really) My sadness here is deep and mournful.

I'm also really disappointed, because I hate Sourcefire. I was really looking forward to Check Point reigning in their way-out-of-line sales guys. More than that, tech support at Sourcefire (all 3 guys!) sucks, 'cause they're all arrogant pricks who don't really give a shit about the customer, and honestly believe their code is perfect and never has problems. Actually, that sums up SF pretty well. Check Point, for all their problems, actually listens when we complain, which is nice, though getting things fixed is an ungodly slow process.

Oh well. Fuckin' government.

Why does the media always get these things wrong

[einhverfr]

The ports issue was blown way out of purportion. The ports themselves were not being taken over, just the operation of a few cargo cranes.

Here it is not about the technology and control thereof. It is about ensuring that the DoD, FBI, etc. don't have to provide sensitive information about their infrastructure to foreign firms as a part of technical support.

I have it on good authority that some branches of the DoD are moving away from Microsoft software because they keep getting their tech support calls routed to India and they *require* support from engineers in the US.

Xenophobia, anyone?

[slavemowgli]

FBI and Pentagon officials took exception to letting foreigners acquire the sensitive technology.

Ah, yes, nothing like some good old xenophobia, mixed with a nice measure of nationalism. You just can't trust those foreigners - many don't even speak English, or have funny skin colours, or similar things. The government is really just protecting you from these traitors, citizen.

Re:Not about the technology per se

[Homology]

The issue is that the DoD is very serious about controlling the amount of access foreigners have to their infrastructure and information on that infrastructure. I have it on very good authority that some DoD divisions are moving away (at a cautious rate) from Microsoft technologies precisely due to their difficulty in avoiding having their tech support calls routed outside the US. However, this is probably all I can say on this board.

Yeah, no kidding. Many foreigners are serious about this as well, but when they try to do something about it, there are huge cries about "free" and "fair" trade from USA and demands for sanctions.

national security vs capital loss

[dotpavan]

This brings up a point, why should Sourcefire sacrifice its profits/capital gain for National security? Would they be compensated monetarily for having lost this deal, because of not trade sanctions or rules, but national security. And who gets to decide what is safe for US and what is not? When big coprporations who have lobbying power get port deals (not flamebait, just comparison as its fresh in memory) and they arent seen as national threat, then how come this is. And someone has rightly pointed, this being open source.

reminds me of a toon at a local newspaper here:

scene: night time, husband and wife in bed (please dont stretch your imaginations)

Husband: ah, now that we know for sure that the Dubai company isnt handling the US ports, I can get a sound sleep.

Wife: Yes, Its good and heartening that the DHS still oversees security.

They pause, give a shocked and scared-to-death look.

Re:irrational fear?

[algae]

Maybe you're missing the possibility that whoever's using Snort in the DoD doesn't want to have to hire a full-time programmer to act as tech support when they can just get a contract with Sourcefire instead? As far as I can tell, this isn't about code, it's about support. Sensitive information occasionally needs to be given to tech support in order to diagnose/fix problems, and the DoD would prefer whoever's on the recieving end to be an American. I wonder if Sourcefire have any support personnel with gov't security clearances.