Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×

Feds Kill Check Point's Sourcefire Bid 181

Posted by ScuttleMonkey 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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Feds Kill Check Point's Sourcefire Bid More

Feds Kill Check Point's Sourcefire Bid

Comments Filter:

  • Most telling part of the article... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by trazom28 ( 134909 ) on Friday March 24, 2006 @01:38PM (#14989105)
    '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 :)
    • 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.
      • 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!

      • 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.

        I'll agree that the ports deal was a little overblown, but I am happy that someone finally took notice of the importance of port security. However it wasn't 'just a couple of cargo cranes'. These people would be responsiable for the staffing and managing of the day-to-day security, and would have intimate knowledge of the inspection process for the ports which they wo

        • WTF are you talking about? The port operator has ZERO to do with security! Security is run by the FBI, Homeland security, and the Coast Guard, not by the operators. If being unloaded later in the day is the way to get around security then there IS no security, because as we keep preaching security by obscurity is no security at all. You either have a secure process which doesn't require the participation of the shipper, or you don't have security.

          • WTF are you talking about? The port operator has ZERO to do with security! Security is run by the FBI, Homeland security, and the Coast Guard, not by the operators.

            Really, the Feds guard the gate, patrol the yard, and check ids. Right. Go to the nearest port and take a look around, I'm sure that the only security you'll see are ('so called') rent-a-cops. While not as 'glamorous' they are the 'day-to-day' security for our ports.

            The Feds, INSPECT (some) cargo, and the tend to 'oversee' some aspects of th

      • 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.

        Because it's obvious that none of the 300 million people in the US are security risks? Because it's impossible for a non-US attacker to get a plane ticket to the US and get a job at a call center?

        • Not the point. They are a huge customer of Microsoft's and they require (for whatever reason) support by U.S.-based staff. Certainly the Federal Government spends enough hard-earned taxpayer dollars on Microsoft that this shouldn't be a problem. However, if it's true that Microsoft is unwilling to meet their customers' requirements, then they should lose the business just like any other uncooperative vendor.

          The real issue is that someone in a foreign country is not subject to United States law. That's a
      • There's good reason for concern.

        An Israeli company in charge of US law enforcement wiretapping got caught selling wiretap info to drug dealers in LA. The FBI was also worried that Federal wiretap information was being supplied to the Mossad.

        Israel has figured out that the best way to spy on everybody else is to be the country making all the security hardware and software. Brilliant.

        It would behoove all companies to do due diligence as to exactly what connections the companies running their security hardwar

  • But it is freely available to anybody (Score:4, Informative)

    by andy314159pi ( 787550 ) on Friday March 24, 2006 @01:39PM (#14989113) Journal
    But snort is freely available to anybody right now:

    http://www.snort.org/ [snort.org]

  • irrational fear? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by rovingeyes ( 575063 ) on Friday March 24, 2006 @01:39PM (#14989116)
    Isn't snort open source? What am I missing?

    • Re:irrational fear? (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Never underestimate the incompetency of a government.
      • Or the anonymous coward. Sourefire isn't totally open source.

        Look at it another way and pretend to have a brain for a moment. Even with closed source software, it is possible to determine the components that make up the software and what each of them do (reverse engineering), this is what I do for a living. This is also a painstaking process for anything complicated. Then consider that you are also buying a physical box from them, which means in turn you have to audit all the firmware on the machine as w

    • Re:irrational fear? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by trazom28 ( 134909 )
      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?
      • The Dubai ports deal was far more superficial than even stereotypes, racism, and FUD. It was simply a fear of missing an opportunity for election time issues.
      • I actually watched a senate debate on c-span about this. Many of the senators who spoke onthe topic were less scared of the security matter and more worried as to why a multi-billion dollar contract could not go to an american company.

        The other main security was valid however. If the deal went through as it was planned originally it would have given low level managers in an arab country the ability to grant worker's passports to people so they can come to america to oversee the crane operation. The fear

    • Re:irrational fear? (Score:3, Interesting)

      by pegr ( 46683 )
      sn't snort open source? What am I missing?
       
      Well, Snort could always pull a nessus [slashdot.org] and close the source...
    • It's a specific implementation of snort, not just the code. If it was just the code, the company wouldn't be selling it, and another one wouldn't be buying it.
    • Oh, my! Snort is open source? But Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer both said that open source software is insecure!

      I had no idea! We're going to have stop using Snort immediately!

      -- The FBI
      • I had no idea! We're going to have stop using Snort immediately!

        This almost happened where I work, but not because of open source, but because of regulations in the agency that forbids doing business with foreign countries/sensitive foreign countries.

    • Open source!= public. (Score:3, Informative)

      by wiredog ( 43288 )
      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.
      • Or, $SecretAgency could modify the code and compile it to binary and not distribute it, but allow Check Point Software access to the source as part of the support contract so that if $SecretAgency calls for support the support staff at Check Point Software won't simply scratch their heads and go, "that's not how it's supposed to work!"
      • Even better, the creators of Snort are the founders of SourceFire. They own the copyright on the Snort source code, and can do anything they like with it. They can even sell binaries to $SecretAgency and withhold the source.

    • Re:irrational fear? (Score:3, Informative)

      by vitamins ( 531658 )
      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.

    • Re:irrational fear? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by algae ( 2196 ) on Friday March 24, 2006 @02:12PM (#14989377)
      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.
      • So, basically, you are saying that due to ECONOMICAL concerns, the DoD is citing security concerns as an objection?

        Sounds wierd to me. In fact, it sounds like a misuse of objection power to me.

        Then again, what do I know. I'm not American, am an Israeli, and a former Check Point employee to boot.

        Shachar
    • The fact that the United States government and all members thereof have, in fact, lost their minds.

    • Snort is open-source.... SourceFire makes money off the other things they've created to work with/around Snort...

      Quoted from here [isp-planet.com]

      "Roesch sees Snort and Sourcefire as two different solutions aimed at distinctive markets. "The idea of Snort was to give people the best free, open source intrusion detection system we could, and we were pretty successful at that," he said. "The idea of Sourcefire is to say, 'Okay, we've got good intrusion detection technology: let's add everything else people need to use th

    • You're not really missing much - this is just people in the US Government being pricks. The US Government already has a great relationship with Checkpoint, certifies Checkpoint products for use in classified networks, and Checkpoint products are a common sight in those classified networks of the various US intelligence agencies. Checkpoint taking over Snort wouldn't really change much of anything.
  • 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.

    • Re:Not about the technology per se (Score:4, Funny)

      by pickyouupatnine ( 901260 ) on Friday March 24, 2006 @01:51PM (#14989224) Homepage
      If he said anymore, he'd have to KILL US ALL!!!!!
      • Funny, yes. But on some issues the government does not fuck around, security of classified information being one of them. If were to leak something we wouldn't have to worry about anything, besides never hearing him post here again. He might have a hell of a lot to worry about though.

    • Re:Not about the technology per se (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Homology ( 639438 ) on Friday March 24, 2006 @01:55PM (#14989255)
      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.

  • More than just source code... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by chill ( 34294 ) on Friday March 24, 2006 @01:46PM (#14989184) Journal
    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

  • Sigh... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 24, 2006 @01:47PM (#14989186)
    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.

  • closed source (Score:3, Informative)

    by Casca ( 4032 ) on Friday March 24, 2006 @01:47PM (#14989193) Journal
    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?
    • Why would it bother the US when they own the ultimate Israeli shutdown code?

      "You're on you're own."
    • Dan Brown must be jizzing his pants "adapting" this news story for his next book.

    • Re:closed source (Score:5, Informative)

      by chill ( 34294 ) on Friday March 24, 2006 @02:08PM (#14989349) Journal
      Check Point firewalls are prohibited in a lot of government departments, including the Pentagon and most of the DoD. There are exceptions, of course.

    • 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?

      I guess no more than it bothers the rest of us that large amounts of software used by our governments probably really does have a "secret US shutdown code". What's good for the goose is good for the gander, right? Oh I forgot, t

  • Isolationist in force not in trade (Score:4, Interesting)

    by dada21 ( 163177 ) * <adam.dada@gmail.com> on Friday March 24, 2006 @01:48PM (#14989196) Homepage Journal
    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.
    • 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.

      Funny, I thought that was exactly what the Commerce Clause was intended to allow. IANAL though. Unless you have a different view of commerce that somehow omits trade.
      • No, you're right -- the framers were vague (and conflicting) in their desire for the commerce clause. It's a debate I lose based on the facts. I still don't think the Constitution allows these barriers to be created, though.

        At the time of the framing of the Constitution, commerce meant ""[i]ntercourse, exchange of one thing for another, interchange of anything; trade; traffick." This is per Sam Johnson's Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition 1765 [amazon.com]. I believed based on this definition alone I l
        • I still don't think the Constitution allows these barriers to be created, though.

          I agree with you in general that the commerce clause has been taken too far, but in this specific instance I have to raise a point: one of the most important sources of funding for the new government was... tarriffs. That being the case, it seems that the founders believed that the constitution permitted the creation of at least some barriers on foreign trade. Perhaps not as far as disallowing foreign investments, but barrie
        • While I think that most people would suggest that the Madison view of the Commerce clause has largely dead unfortunately, I think his intention was different than you make it out to be.

          The purpose of the Commerce Clause was simply to help ensure a uniform code of trade between the States and between the United States and foreign entities. It was designed to avoid trade wars between, say, New Jersey and New York and to prevent foreign states from exploiting such inconsistancies between states for their own
        • The fear at the time was that the states would erect trade barriers between each other. Thus, only the federal government was able to restrict trade between states, and [sarcasm]they would NEVER abuse that power, would they?[/sarcasm].

          HTML really needs a <sarcasm> tag.
          • Thus, only the federal government was able to restrict trade between states, and [sarcasm]they would NEVER abuse that power, would they?

            I don't think that the problem is that the government is abused the legitimate power to regulate interstate *commerce* but rather that this has been so broadly interpreted as to be nearly meaningless.

            I am sorry, but regulating the growing of marijuana for personal use is *not* interstate commerce (one of the few areas I agree with J. Thomas on). (Even so, there is nothing
    • 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.

      If the US government obeyed its constitution and the intentions of the framers, there wouldn't be a DoD or an FBI at all, so it wouldn't be a problem. There wouldn't be "Feds".

      You live in a country that takes over 35% of GDP in taxes and supp
    • there really is no Constitutional or reasonable allowance for letting them disturb trade

      U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8, "The Congress shall have Power ... To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations..."

      I don't like this decision, but it's pretty clear the government has the power to do so.
    • 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.

      Section 8 of the Constitution [usconstitution.net] literally says "The Congress shall have Power To ... provide for the common Defence and ... To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations." In addition, Congress has the power to "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers", which means they can create departments such as
  • I mean.... sourcefire is based in OpenSource.... there is no closing that lid.
    • That's the problem. It is open-source software and in the hands of "foreigners", thus they present a proven leak on security software. They don't want to fund a company that is doing this even if the company had good intentions, I assume.
  • If the issue is really preventing snort technology from falling into foreign hands, then shouldn't someone tell them that snort is opensource, and already in the hands of those nasty foreign devils?

  • Xenophobia, anyone? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by slavemowgli ( 585321 ) on Friday March 24, 2006 @01:53PM (#14989246) Homepage

    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.

    • It's hard to consider the United States Xenophobic when most of the world really does hate us.
    • Not xenophobia, they are just afraid of a security system they can not crack/control... ;-)

    • 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.

      An equally predictable reflex reaction of a liberal recklessly discounting legitimate threats and cheering for the next terror attack

  • national security vs capital loss (Score:4, Insightful)

    by dotpavan ( 829804 ) on Friday March 24, 2006 @01:56PM (#14989265) Homepage
    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.

    • there is a special team from the FBI, CIA, NSA, Commerce and a few other departments that looks at any merger where a foreign company buys a US company. They look at the national security aspects and either put conditions on the merger or kill it. Nothing you can do since there is a law that lets the government do this.

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

      You *do* realise this is slashdot... right?

  • Yet again. (Score:1, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I work for the gubment, and I can tell you.
    There is the hugest need for assh()le to elbow road maps here.

    Geesh, what's next, Exporting Knoppix will be illegal?

  • This makes less sense than it seems. Sure, all the comments make sense of things, but one thing doesn't fall into line. Why is the government stopping this sale when they could just as easily take the open source code, mangle it for their own, and carry on with their own internal protection software? Its obviously not rocket science, and makes sense to keep security development internal when its that sensitive.

    This really smells like interference for reasons that are not floating on the surface. Only time a

  • A different view on things (Score:5, Informative)

    by brennz ( 715237 ) on Friday March 24, 2006 @02:18PM (#14989417)
    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".

    • Re:A different view on things (Score:5, Informative)

      by RyanCowardin ( 961379 ) on Friday March 24, 2006 @02:45PM (#14989641)

      And just to rehash history... it's not like Israel has EVER tried to spy [cnn.com] on the US [msn.com] before or anything.

      When the government does business with a US company, it's a heck of a lot easier for the administration to send someone over to said company threatening, "Hey, we don't like what you're doing! Keep it up and we'll happily send your entire company on a quail hunting trip with Dick Cheney!" It just doesn't have the same affect on a foreign owned company, unfortunatly.

    • When the US govt says no, there is normally a reason behind it, or active intelligence efforts supporting their rationale.

      As opposed to when they say yes... [google.com]
    • If this is true this was VERY VERY POOR spying :
      Quote " 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."

      So I guess this is not what was happenning, or else they are VERY STUPID spies. I am not a spy but what I would do is the following : crea

  • This will contribute to inflation of the USD (Score:4, Informative)

    by Serveert ( 102805 ) on Friday March 24, 2006 @02:39PM (#14989577)
    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.
    • You're sort-of right and sort-of wrong. I think you're right for the wrong reasons. Since our paper money isn't backed by any hard currency, the currency's value is proportional to everything you can purchase with the currency. By taking some things off the table, that reduces (in a very small way) the amount that can be purchased and thus inflates the currency. But relative to the $N trillion of value that you can buy, Sourcefire isn't even a drop in the bucket. The ports aren't even a drop in the buc

    • So essentially foreigners are stuck with 'funny money' which they cannot use as true currency.

      That's absolutely ridiculous. Foreign interests are able to own more US companies than ever before. The fact that they can't own EVERYTHING isn't going to slow them down one bit.

      Even if you're incredible paranoid theory was right, and they couldn't invest in anything, they could still quite easily cash-out by currency exchange, buying gold, or buying just about anything else of value.

      • That's absolutely ridiculous. Foreign interests are able to own more US companies than ever before. The fact that they can't own EVERYTHING isn't going to slow them down one bit.

        Even if you're incredible paranoid theory was right, and they couldn't invest in anything, they could still quite easily cash-out by currency exchange, buying gold, or buying just about anything else of value.

        The amount of liquid dollars abroad is staggering, I don't think you realize what the trillions of USD sitting idle in China

        • By 2008 China alone will have accumulated $1 trilion in USD, just under half of the annual federal budget.

          Yes, but they didn't aquire it in a year, and certainly won't cash-out in a year.

          I'd like to see your attitude when IBM, Microsoft, every corporation you think of as American, is owned by foreigners, I don't think it's a bad thing but a lot of other Americans will think that's not a good thing.

          This is all completely besides the point. Do you even remember the subject, now??? You were saying that USDs


          • Yes, but they didn't aquire it in a year, and certainly won't cash-out in a year.
            No, they will slowly cash out over time and looking at the forex that is happening, foreigners havent been showing up to US treasury auctions like they used to since December.



            This is all completely besides the point. Do you even remember the subject, now??? You were saying that USDs are worthless because they can't buy snort or the ports... BFD. USD are anything but worthless, just because there are a handful of things they can

  • Great for Sourcefire (Score:3, Funny)

    by Kludge ( 13653 ) on Friday March 24, 2006 @03:02PM (#14989781)
    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.
  • Snort is now a national asset.
    I am jealous, I want to write a national asset of mine own so that the feds can block its sale to a Canadian Homebrew Club.
  • Since the issue is mostly that the US gov is using snort and is at risk, how about not using snort anymore? Seriously they are preventing the sale of private companies because they are to lazy to seek alternative solutions. Please don't reply to this post with 'snort is free and open source!' the US gov has money, and will license the code if needed to any solution that they need or request copies (Like microsoft vs china)
  • The main factor for Check Point's acquisition was for the RNA technology [sourcefire.com] 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 fa

Slashdot Top Deals

Love may laugh at locksmiths, but he has a profound respect for money bags. -- Sidney Paternoster, "The Folly of the Wise"

Close