Slashdot Mirror
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."
'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
{} ------ When I think of a good sig, I'll put it here
http://www.snort.org/
Isn't snort open source? What am I missing?
It is about support contracts and how much information about DoD infrastructure they want a foreign firm to have. This is far more of a serious and legitimate issue than the sale of the operation of a few cargo cranes to a Dubai firm.
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.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
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.
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.
So um, anyone have a problem with the fact that Checkpoint NGX is closed source firewall software, that quite a few government sites use? It doesn't bother them that there could be a backdoor waiting for the "secret Israeli shutdown code" in every Checkpoint firewall in the world?
Casca
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.
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.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
The GPL only requires that you provide source code if you provide the binary. So if you do a version for $SecretAgency, with $SecretStuff in it, then you only have to provide the source to $SecretAgency. Not to the general public.
Best Slashdot Co
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.
quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
"Hello? Tech support in north korea? I have a problem with this encryption that is not exportable outside the us, and..."
Slow Down, Cowboy! It's been 60 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment.
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.
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
I have read more BS in these threads than anywhere else in recent memory.
So, I'll in you on the truth.
Foreign nations are actively seeking to get their hands into US classified govt sites, to get the underlying information which they want DESPERATELY. Israel, France, China, Russia - they are the most aggressive.
A few years back I was working for DOD. Someone was trying to make a sales pitch for equipment they wanted to sell us, for use in classified environments. They claimed to be a US company.
My boss asked me to look into the company and get back to him. It took a few hours, but I found exactly what I think he already suspected.
The company was a US company in name only. The entire company was infested at the upper levels by former intelligence personnel from one of the above countries already mentioned. Most of their company also, was in this foreign country too. Only a small amount of sales ppl actually were in the US for the company.
They made a huge amount of factual misrepresentations, trying to trick us.
When the US govt says no, there is normally a reason behind it, or active intelligence efforts supporting their rationale. Don't believe some moronic reporter with shit for brains that is labelling something as "protectionism".
But when the UAE, a nation with strong direct terrorist ties, is interested in aquiring 6 major US sea ports, the fed tries to give it to them with no oversight and sneak it under our noses in violation of federal law.
Are you on the same planet we are? I'd have to say no, considering the UAE is one of the friendliest nations. Considering the US Navy stops there on average 400 times per year for shore leave, they can't be all bad. And that's a fact. Get rid of your stereotyping, and you may learn something.
{} ------ When I think of a good sig, I'll put it here
All these foreigners collect dollars by selling products/services, and when they try to use these dollars - with the Dubai ports deal or this case - they are rejected by the US Government.
So essentially foreigners are stuck with 'funny money' which they cannot use as true currency. Sooner or later they will wake up, sell dollars en masse and opt for another currency after they realize they have been had. They've been giving us commodities and services while we give them monopoly money.
2 years and no mod points. Join reddit. Because openness is good.
Yes... security... stop the sale. But AT&T, SBC, MCI - you guys go ahead and buy each other up all you want. Monopoly good. But WHOA - you're putzing with some OSS stuff we use! Bad company! NO PURCHASE FOR YOU!
Excuse my speling.
Making The Bar Project
This will great for the value of Sourcefire. Image if the Feds said that your company was too valuable to them to sell to a foreign country. Woot! That will be several hundred million extra, please.
The main factor for Check Point's acquisition was for the RNA technology and the way that the rest of SourceFire's products fit into a centralized management architecture (like Check Point's). Check Point's firewalls have been doing IPS/IDS firewalling for some time. Now combine the existing technology with SourceFire's passive IDS approach and you have quite an interesting technology. Check Point is constantly pushing the envelope and it would have been exciting to see what this would have brought.
As far as all the "US gov't doesn't use Check Point" consider this: one of Check Point's largest customers is the U.S. Army. So we can pretty much put that to rest.
Let's put another one to rest: this whole "Check Point sucks because its all closed source and they make money" is tiring. While yes Check Point's security applications are closed source, the development platform for all the apps is Linux. Check Point's own hardened Linux version SecurePlatform is available at no extra cost, is supported without extra cost and is the preferred platform. Download a version and see for yourself http://www.vmware.com/vmtn/appliances/. You'll see that Check Point makes extensive use of OSS, and even contributes back to the community from what I hear.
Check Point is a strong advocate for Open Source where it makes sense, and I don't think they need to apologize for being profitable when US based companies like Cisco and Microsoft make billions off the crap they have slopped together.
This whole Israeli "back door" thing is ridiculous, and stings of anti-semetic conspiracy. Israel has consistently been the US's most staunch ally (when allowed). What possible benefit would Israel or Check Point gain by allowing a backdoor to be widely distributed throughout the world? Think about it, Check Point has been in business for 13+ years, and has hundreds of thousands of Internet perimeter firewalls out there in operation. Don't you think that if there was a deliberate back door that it would have been found by now. Yeah those crazy Jews are out for world domination again. Ridiculous.
It is no secret that Check Point is run by mad scientists who make great product, but don't have a clue when it comes to running a business (well maybe just the bribing part). Could it be that Check Point maybe didn't grease Washington the way it should have? Could it be that Sam Nunn being on the board of directors for direct competitor of Sourcefire and Check Point's might have had something to do with this? Could it be that market powerhouses like Cisco who spend more money on marketing the mythical "self-defending network" than actually fixing their sh!t helped put a stop to this?
Follow the money. It was big businees and big Bush that killed this deal. And yes Check Point is a $Billion+ company so I'm sure they will survive (sniff sniff), but how does this play into the mythical "global free market" we keep hearng about? Is protecting stagnant companies like ISS and Cisco what is really best for the security market and the rest of us?