Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Feds Kill Check Point's Sourcefire Bid

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the i-don't-want-to-wash-the-people's-truck dept.

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."

3 of 181 comments (clear)

  1. More than just source code... by chill · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'll bet their objections stem more from the realization that a lot of organizations download the latest rules and trust them blindly, installing them automatically. It is pretty trivial to create a server-side filter to provide "custom" rules based on the client or requesting IP address, thus "infiltrating" a particular organization.

    After all, VRT-certified rules require a subscription and how many places have the expertiese and time to validate them?

    I figure someone at the Pentagon asked the simple question "Hey, do we use Snort?" and got the answer "Yeah, it is everywhere. Why?" and just about had heart failure.

      -Charles

    --
    Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
  2. Isolationist in force not in trade by dada21 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I really am frustrated that we've allowed the Feds this power -- there really is no Constitutional or reasonable allowance for letting them disturb trade. The "secrets" everyone is so adamant in protecting are already all over the world, almost nothing is secret anymore.

    The reason I am frustrated is not just because the Feds attempt to use security as a reason for trade barriers, but because it also seems to leave me with the opinion that such coercion could have underlying cronyist reasons. I don't like giving powers and rights up to the Feds when I don't know who is truly profiting from these actions. There are a lot of global motivators hidden in the closet, and we don't have an open book to the finances of those in power.

    I don't trust anyone with securing the borders anymore, not when they do it with trade barriers rather than a real defense of our land and only our land. I prefer isolationism of government -- keeping our government only in our sight, away from prying and entangling and financing others. I prefer open trade -- no tariffs, no embargoes, no taxes, no favoritism, no protectionism and no limits to what people can sell and buy.

  3. Re:but the fed wants to give physical ports to UAE by dammy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    First of all UAE is our partner in fighting terrorism. Unless of course, your just racist by nature, then that wouldn't matter to you. Second, it was not ports being sold to the UAE corp, it was the terminals which operate in those ports. Those terminals are actually leased, not owned by those corps, even if that corp built the facility. The actual owner is the government and they get all the toys at the end of the lease, which they turn around and lease yet again.

    Same thing at airports. Hangers or terminals maybe built and paid for by corporations or individuals, but at the end of the lease, the airport authority (usually state but could be county or city) has ownership of those structures.

    Dammy