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/
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
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?
{} ------ When I think of a good sig, I'll put it here
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.
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
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.
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.
Check Point firewalls are prohibited in a lot of government departments, including the Pentagon and most of the DoD. There are exceptions, of course.
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
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
To clarify snort is to sourcefire what fedora is to redhat enterprise linux. (I forget what I got on my SAT.) So the developers of snort are trying to make some money by marketing a pre built platform "SourceFire". Also I have heard that even though Check Point is used by many fortune 500 companies it is not used by the U.S. Government because it is developed in another country.
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.
Causation can cause correlation
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".
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.