×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

U.S. Investigating Sale of Snort as Security Risk

CowboyNeal posted more than 8 years ago | from the homeland-security dept.

327

msmoriarty writes "The Associated Press is reporting today that the same U.S. committee that approved the Dubai ports deal is 'strongly objecting' to Israeli-based Check Point's acquisition of Snort's parent company, Sourcefire, because it doesn't want a foreign company to own Snort's underlying technology. According to the article, the broader 45-day review process rejected for the ports deal is already underway regarding this transaction, and 'secret' meetings between the FBI, DoD and Check Point have been held."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

327 comments

Racism? Nah. (-1, Troll)

NekoIncardine (838965) | more than 8 years ago | (#14838933)

Arab management companies? Sure, it's a show of confidence in them. Israeli technology companies? NEIN. WE MUST NOT ALLOW FOREIGNERS TO CONTROL OUR TECHNOLOGY. NEIN.

Re:Racism? Nah. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14838982)

Wow your ignorant.

Re:Racism? Nah. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14839033)

A fit of irony.

Well... (1)

einhverfr (238914) | more than 8 years ago | (#14839041)

The Port deal was much ado about nothing. The Dubai firm was not really taking over the ports so much as taking over management of a few cargo docks. They would have nothing to do with the security operations or the overall port management.

Security operations are managed by a range of government agencies, and the overall management is usually handled by the city or county port authority.

The Checkpoint/Snort deal is quite a bit more interesting. The likely concern is that if the US government relies on the technology as part of a security infrastructure, they may not want to give control over that technology to Israel. However, as long as Snort is open source, then it seems to me that this is largely a moot issue. It seems that the appropriate response would be to contractually require Checkpoint to continue to offer Snort as an open source package for as long as they maintain it or derivative works.

Re:Well... (1)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 8 years ago | (#14839123)

I mostly agree with what you're saying... except that Israel is in no way comparable to Dubai and your comment about "much ado about nothing."

The US military relies on a great number of technological innovations that have come out of Israel, some of which are still sourced from there.

I mean, come on, the US of A already sells the Israelis a variety of controlled technologies in the form of planes, tanks and missle systems.

Any 'security' review of an Israeli company is going to get rubber stamped. At least with the Dubai deal there were some legitimate concerns (other than blatant xenophobia) that the public wanted addressed. That's why it wasn't "much ado about nothing," because while the various agencies may have been satisfied with the deal, the public wasn't.

Re:Well... (1)

Secrity (742221) | more than 8 years ago | (#14839196)

The government doesn't care about the open source version of Snort, it cares about the commercial version, which is what the Government and Industry buys. The government is worried about back doors and other nasties in the binaries.

Re:Well... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14839293)

Except that there is no difference, in between Snort and sourcefires IDS technology, i think they are thhe same. (IIRC, I haven't seen a sourcefire device in awhile)

What is good for the goose (1)

dnoyeb (547705) | more than 8 years ago | (#14838934)

Well the govt starts programs then pays their buddies newly created company to provide a service. As opposed to the government providing the service itself. All in the name of 'smaller government.'

Well, selling of the company comes with the territory.

Re:What is good for the goose (2, Interesting)

Philip K Dickhead (906971) | more than 8 years ago | (#14839009)

Use the SOURCE, Avi... I mean Luke.

It is long since time we all forked from Marty, anyway. The Nessus debacle looms, again.

Per Leonid Shebarshin, ex-chief of the Soviet Foreign Intelligence Service:
Referring to his meeting with an unnamed al-Qaeda expert at the Rand Corporation, a nonprofit research organization in the U.S., Shebarshin said: "We have agreed that [al-Qaeda] is not a group but a notion."

Oh man (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14838935)

After I saw this article headline and for a few seconds before I read the actual article summary, I was just sitting there dumbfounded, going "wait, so that War On Drugs thing is still going on?"

Re:Oh man (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14838992)

Okay, everyone get your arbitrary "Drug" jokes out of the way here as is the case with all Snort articles.

gotta love it (5, Insightful)

dorko16 (797086) | more than 8 years ago | (#14838946)

You've got to love how the post can have no mention of exactly what Snort is or the objectional underlying technology actually is or does.

Re:gotta love it (1)

Eightyford (893696) | more than 8 years ago | (#14839108)

I thought it was about the ports deal. I was thinking about what a stupid name for a company Snort is, and I figured it was some combination of SEA and PORT.

You are not my mother (2, Funny)

Vindaloo (908408) | more than 8 years ago | (#14839140)

A Snort is a large piece of construction equipment which a tiny bird thinks may be its mother. I'm not sure what the security implications are.

Re:You are not my mother (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14839370)

I am not a cat, I am not a dog, I am not a cow... I am a SNORT!

Re:gotta love it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14839238)

Snort is a suite of software used to perform network intrusion / Detection.

Isn't snort open source? (3, Insightful)

commodoresloat (172735) | more than 8 years ago | (#14838956)

Is the worry that the Israeli company will change the license? If they can't do this, what is the security risk? If the technology is open source, does it really matter what country the company that owns it resides in?

Re:Isn't snort open source? (2, Insightful)

nuin (861435) | more than 8 years ago | (#14839120)

I think the US government is concerned that the new non-American owner could silently change the source code and hide backdoors in it. Of course, America is as paranoid as usal.

Who's paranoid? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14839143)

That's a pretty paranoid thing to say.

Re:Isn't snort open source? (1)

commodoresloat (172735) | more than 8 years ago | (#14839166)

How does one "silently" change the code of an open source product? Code changes will be obvious to anyone auditing it; if the US government is concerned, they should hire a code auditor (or just run the diffs). This is a reason why it's better to use open source tools for such applications than closed source ones, regardless of what country owns them. It would be a lot easier for a terrorist to "silently" change the code of a closed source application by bribing the right people even if the code was owned by an American company.

Re: Back Doors (1)

dch24 (904899) | more than 8 years ago | (#14839209)

That's [slashdot.org] not possible! [slashdot.org] Microsoft would never, ever put a backdoor into their software! Trust me!

On the other hand, Linux ... well, all those hackers are probably putting in backdoors all the time [slashdot.org] .

</sarcasm>

Slashdot prone to xenophobia? (2, Insightful)

mi (197448) | more than 8 years ago | (#14838959)

the same U.S. committee that approved the Dubai ports deal
What the heck?

Whether or not the committees's qualms about Snort are justified, bringing up the "ports deal" is a useless flamebait... We all know perfectly well, that it was not the fact of the government ownership of the Dubai company, that is the real problem with that deal...

Re:Slashdot prone to xenophobia? (4, Insightful)

Saeed al-Sahaf (665390) | more than 8 years ago | (#14838981)

Whether or not the committees's qualms about Snort are justified, bringing up the "ports deal" is a useless flamebait...

No, it's pointing out a double standard that seems to have its root in cronyism and personal financial interests.

Re:Slashdot prone to xenophobia? (2, Insightful)

mi (197448) | more than 8 years ago | (#14839021)

No, it's pointing out a double standard that seems to have its root in cronyism and personal financial interests.
Khmm, I was almost convinced, the US government (the crusaders) is owned by the Israelis :-) Suddenly, it opposition to a deal, that would benefit an Israeli company draws fire...

There is no "double standard" neccessarily — government ownership of a weapon (such as encryption) is a legitimate concern. Operating ports are not — despite all of the politicians' hysterics — a "key to our national security". That is and will be in the hands of US Coast Guard.

Re:Slashdot prone to xenophobia? (1)

Saeed al-Sahaf (665390) | more than 8 years ago | (#14839038)

I guess I didn't know Snort was an encryptation application. I thought is was a network intrusion suite.

Re:Slashdot prone to xenophobia? (1)

mi (197448) | more than 8 years ago | (#14839101)

I guess I didn't know Snort was an encryptation application. I thought is was a network intrusion suite.
Whatever — it is a (defensive) weapon, which makes it something, that government always wanted to regulate.

Whether or not such regulation makes sense (snort is open source) is irrelevant to your accusations of "double standard" and whatnot.

That said, the company being acquired — Sourcefire — may well have other products, more closely related to encryption.

Re:Slashdot prone to xenophobia? (1)

spicate (667270) | more than 8 years ago | (#14839093)

I've heard the security risk posed by the port deal is that, in practice, the Coast Guard relies a great deal on private companies to be honest and effective in identifying cargo. It's not like they inspect EVERY container....

Then again, I live more than 1000 miles from an ocean, so what do I know about port security?

Re:Slashdot prone to xenophobia? (1)

Fizzog (600837) | more than 8 years ago | (#14839189)

You don't get to see these then:

http://www.defenselink.mil/photos/Sep2004/040901-C -4938N-077.html [defenselink.mil]

I work in downtown Seattle and often see these things zipping about. And yes, those are forward and rear mounted machine guns!

From memory I think they have twin 350hp Honda outboards, so they are quick little suckers too!

Re:Slashdot prone to xenophobia? (1)

rsax (603351) | more than 8 years ago | (#14839365)

Nuke(s) in a shipping container VS. forward and rear mounted machine guns.

FIGHT!

Re:Slashdot prone to xenophobia? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14839111)

I was almost convinced, the US government (the crusaders) is owned by the Israelis :-)

Only the ill informed and anti-semites believe that. If anything, it's the other way around. We've certainly invested enough [jewishvirtuallibrary.org] to make some claim to ownership.

There is no "double standard" neccessarily -- government ownership of a weapon (such as encryption) is a legitimate concern.

You are 100% right about that. The comparison being made between this and the ports deal is a poor one.

Re:Slashdot prone to xenophobia? (1)

batura (651273) | more than 8 years ago | (#14839192)

Actually, it really doesn't have any relevancy. Very regularly, technology acquisitions like these are blocked due to foreign export of technical data. This comes up a lot in the defense business, and if the federal government uses this technology for security, then it has the ability to block these transactions. The State Department can also grant export licenses for technology and could do so in this case.

I really think the claims of cronyism are unjustified in reguard to the ports deal, just as I thought the 9/11 arguement for blocking the ports deal was unjustified (local security has and always will protect the ports).

Re:Slashdot prone to xenophobia? (1)

rollingcalf (605357) | more than 8 years ago | (#14839294)

"local security has and always will protect the ports"

Protecting the ports themselves is not the issue. The issue is about what and who may be allowed into the country via the foreign-controlled ports. Sure, individual terrorists can sneak in anyway at the Mexican border, but at the border you can't just sneak in a huge boatload of bombs (pun intended).

Technology Versus Physical Security (1)

Alaren (682568) | more than 8 years ago | (#14839029)

I think the implication is supposed to be that the decision is hypocritical--holding technological security to a "higher standard" than physical security doesn't really make any sense.

But you're still right about it being useless flamebait. I mean, can you imagine this scenario:

Committee Member: "We have some more foreigners trying to purchase things."

Committee Chair: "Uh oh, another foreign company buying stuff. We really took a bath on that Dubai thing, let's go ahead and hold the review this time..."

Whether the uproar over Dubai was justified or not, it makes little sense to criticize the committee for approaching things with more caution all of the sudden. They know they are under scrutiny so they are trying not to make mistakes... but when you're under tight scrutiny, often even the proper actions are perceived as confirmation of a problem (see also Total Information Awareness, Public Surveillance, Privacy Laws, etc.).

Now, if this had happened prior to the Dubai incident, it might be worth some chin-scratching and conspiracy-theory-mongering. But that simply isn't how things went down.

Re:Technology Versus Physical Security (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14839135)

ummm dude... go back and read the time line.. The Checkpoint deal _DID_ happen before the whole port thing blew up...

Re:Slashdot prone to xenophobia? (1)

NitsujTPU (19263) | more than 8 years ago | (#14839088)

If Slashdot were prone to Xenophobia, there would be a lot less people saying essentially identical things to what you're saying. How about easing off of that crack pipe a bit and evaluating the posts before you call us all bigots next time? The fact of the matter is that most of the posts on that story (it got posted onto Slashdot... since it isn't at all about technology) were saying that people who don't support the deal are jerks.

You're getting modded insightful because people agree with your notions about the port deal (and you know what, it's going through anyway, so just about everyone else in this country agrees, we're not all bigots, contrary to popular believe). You haven't said anything that is insightful about Slashdot.

Re:Slashdot prone to xenophobia? (1)

mi (197448) | more than 8 years ago | (#14839126)

If Slashdot were prone to Xenophobia, there would be a lot less people saying essentially identical things to what you're saying.
I'm glad, the Slashdot readership agrees with me in the reaction to Slashdot editor's mixing up the two deals in one sentence.

Re:Slashdot prone to xenophobia? (1)

Jack9 (11421) | more than 8 years ago | (#14839326)

The insert did not commment on an assessment of the decision, only pointed out a relevant fact that we would expect be pointed out. It is neither xenophobic nor /.'s fault that the port deal is in the news. If it was decided by another news-worthy (or in this case, culturally relevant) entity, readers EXPECT this to be highlighted in the copy.

Follow the money... (0, Troll)

Saeed al-Sahaf (665390) | more than 8 years ago | (#14838960)

Obviously, none of George Bush's friends or cronies have any financial interest in Check Point...

Troll? (1)

Saeed al-Sahaf (665390) | more than 8 years ago | (#14838993)

It's not a "troll". There is quite a bit of evidence that the port deal has to do with money interests of friends of GWB, otherwise the White House would not have push for it. Speculation maybe, but not a "troll".

Re:Troll? (1)

mi (197448) | more than 8 years ago | (#14839079)

There is quite a bit of evidence that the port deal has to do with money interests of friends of GWB, otherwise the White House would not have push for it.
There is also "evidence" of Bush being behind 9/11 and, likely, the last December's tragic tsunami...

White House pushes for it, because they don't want America to appear as xenophobic, as it, sadly, is... From September 12th, 2001 Bush kept saying, that we are not at war with neither Islam nor Arabs. The 99% of the opposition to the "ports deal" is rooted in the fact, that UAE is both Islamic and Arabic...

Re:Troll? (1)

causality (777677) | more than 8 years ago | (#14839124)

Why does someone get such a benefit of doubt just because they are elected to a position? "Oh sure, he's just trying to improve america's image so people don't think we're being xenophobic." Yeah right. Because our elected officials are always the Good Guys(tm) who are just trying to make this a better place to live, why, they'd never do anything for personal power/monetary gain reasons, and we should never closely scrutinize their reasons for acting nor demand proof that there are, in fact, no conflicts of interest.". I wish I could live in your world, it's better than the real one.

Re:Troll? (1)

mi (197448) | more than 8 years ago | (#14839193)

Why does someone get such a benefit of doubt just because they are elected to a position?
Everyone does. Presumption of innocence, remember?
"Oh sure, he's just trying to improve america's image so people don't think we're being xenophobic."
You can't deny Bush's efforts in that direction. His speeches and directives were protecting Muslims and Arabs in this country since Sep 12, 2001. Heck, Michael Moore even made a movie about it... :-)

Re:Troll? (1)

schnikies79 (788746) | more than 8 years ago | (#14839239)

Why does someone get blamed just because they are in an elected position. What ever happened to innocent until proven guily?

Re:Troll? (1)

august sun (799030) | more than 8 years ago | (#14839165)

So it wouldn't be a troll for me to "speculate" about your IQ or whatever else might be offensive to you? I mean as long as we're openning the door on unvetted speculation why not go all out, right?

Re:Troll? (1)

Saeed al-Sahaf (665390) | more than 8 years ago | (#14839319)

So it wouldn't be a troll for me to "speculate" about your IQ or whatever else might be offensive to you?

Go right ahead. I have no idea what my IQ is, so whateve I might say about that would only be speculation as well. As to whats offensive to me? Very little, but you can try...

Israelis are just fine (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14838964)

This is ridiculous. The Israelis are our allies. I would never allow the sale of any company to muslims because in some way, somehow, money will trickle back to pro-terrorist organizations in the dump they call the middle east.

Re:Israelis are just fine (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14838983)

Ah, yet another bigot. Let me guess, American? There's no bigot quite as loud, as virulent or as violent as an American bigot.

Re:Israelis are just fine (1)

hunterx11 (778171) | more than 8 years ago | (#14839013)

I must congratulate your sir, as I am entirely unable to discern whether your post was a stroke of genius or of stupidity.

Eh, I didn't say all Americans (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14839179)

There's just this very strong anti-Arab streak in American society lately. What can I say, I wasn't a big fan of Nazi Germany either.

Re:Israelis are just fine (2, Insightful)

einhverfr (238914) | more than 8 years ago | (#14839072)

Where do you buy your gasolene? I am sure none of that money makes it back to Muslim countries.

Re:Israelis are just fine (1)

daft_one (532587) | more than 8 years ago | (#14839369)

Personally, I buy my gasoline at random gas stations here in Montana... And considering most of our crude comes from Canada (and most of the rest from Mexico), your presumption is correct, Sir. Good on you. As for the rest of America, well... you might be surprised how little of their oil money actually goes to Arabs... http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_ publications/company_level_imports/current/import. html [doe.gov]

Re:Israelis are just fine (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14839178)

Obviously you don't believe the theories that the Isrealis were behind 9-11!!

Re:Israelis are just fine (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14839214)

What is wrong with people. Isreal or the evil muslims? I rather think most sane people would choose Israel. Bush is simply protecting his image so the frakking muslims don't get the diapers on the heads all in a twist in something that looks like possible favoritism towards the Jews.

Israelis Aren't "just fine" In Tech Industries (5, Insightful)

cmholm (69081) | more than 8 years ago | (#14839235)

Let's repeat that: the Israelis aren't just fine in tech industries. While there's quite a bit of cultural affinity with the US, the Israelis have a national interest which overlaps that of the US in only a few areas. Their commercial interests even less so. They have, like the French, been more than happy to sell or resell intelligence, technologies, and material to nations the US would just as soon they didn't.

In the case of Sourcefire, I suspect the goodies that go into the US Federal Govt's version of Snort are more 'interesting' than what you and I can download. And, whether it's more interesting or not, hiding information from one's adversaries isn't all about the latest rocket science. A look at what used to be classified shows that it's what seems mundane that's the most important to hide. "When is Admiral Yamamoto's plane leaving?" "Uday is in that house." "The FBI standardized on Snort 1.5.x."

It's nothing to transfer Sourcefire's IP, or the cubes where the work really gets done, or the sales and customer support data to Haifa or Tel Aviv.

Compare that to P&O's sale to - in essence - the Sheik of Dubai. The infrastructure P&O runs stay in the US, the dock workers and their management up several rungs remain American. There's pissing and moaning because Al Qaeda has links in Dubai. No shit. Dubai, Singapore, Lichtenstein, to a large degree Israel, on and on... sucessful small nations have to be hard core entreprenuerial to stay afloat, which means everybody and their uncle are running contriband and shady deals through them, in addition to Costco's jugs of olive oil. Tax havens, duty free ports, and other such city-states of commerce don't stay in business by asking too many questions.

Re:Israelis Aren't "just fine" In Tech Industries (2, Interesting)

az99p11 (958575) | more than 8 years ago | (#14839371)

The thing that people dont realize how many federal and military branches use Check Point products throughout their networks. They also use Check Point Integrity as their desktop soloutions(Integrity came from the Zone Labs Acquisition). 100% of Fortune 100 companies use Check Point as well as 90% of the Fortune 500 companies. So I don't see what the issue is, since most of the government agencies and contractors use Check Point. Also, Sourcefire isnt just Snort, they have an enterprise version which adds onto the snort engine and sells to enterprises for a pretty penny.

I do not see what the issue is since the Snort engine is open source, and Check Point already has an in depth knowledge of the Sourcefire product. Either way its ridiculous to try to veto this acquisition.

So? (1)

JanneM (7445) | more than 8 years ago | (#14838972)

So they learned from the huge row erupting from the Dubai deal, and are doing a real review of any foreign company to avoid another fight. Isn't that what you'd like (if you think controlling access in this manner is a good idea in the first place)?

Isn't Snort just for Packet Sniffing? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14838977)

I'm a little confused here. Isn't Snort nothing but a sniffer? How could this legitimately create a problem for the U.S. government??

Re:Isn't Snort just for Packet Sniffing? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14839054)

Snort is a Sniffer. But in it's actual capacity, it's an IDS and IPS. I think the big deal is that people are afraid of A) an Isreali company owning Snort. B) them closing the source once they do and C) oh yeah, Snort is used by like... every company, and like.. every branch of gov't??? (I'm guessing, i have no facts)

Would YOU want your IDS controlled by the Mossad?

I could be wrong... (2, Interesting)

farrellj (563) | more than 8 years ago | (#14838978)

But isn't Snort Open Source? Doesn't that mean that the "technology" is already *out* there?

Could this just be another bogus attempt by the Bush's krewe to "spin" things, and make it look like they actually care about the US surviving another 200 years, as opposed to preparing for "The Rapture" that Fundamentalist Christians have been saying is 'comming soon', for the past 1,000 years?

Good thing there are term limits!

ttyl
          Farrell

Re:I could be wrong... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14839023)

there was no concept of the rapture until aound the mid 1800's when groups like the millerites etc began "interpreting" revelations

I thought... (1)

jd (1658) | more than 8 years ago | (#14839312)

...a copy of Jurassic Park had travelled back in time and they'd misheard "raptor".

Re:I could be wrong... (1)

tbonius (837427) | more than 8 years ago | (#14839026)

But isn't Snort Open Source? Doesn't that mean that the "technology" is already*out* there? I agree.. it is a bit confusing, although it looks like the acquisition includes "Sourcefire's patents, source-code blueprints for its software and the expertise of employees". Could this just be another bogus attempt by the Bush's krewe to "spin" things, and make it look like they actually care about the US surviving another 200 years, as opposed to preparing for "The Rapture" that Fundamentalist Christians have been saying is 'comming soon', for the past 1,000 years? No offense.. but Bush and his "krewe" are about as Christian as I am.. the only difference is I don't have 50 million or so constituents to whom I need to cater.

Re:I could be wrong... (1)

farrellj (563) | more than 8 years ago | (#14839091)

I agree, Mr. Bush & Co. give Christians a bad name...both in the US, and around the world.

ttyl

Re:I could be wrong... (2, Informative)

Secrity (742221) | more than 8 years ago | (#14839159)

Snort is dual licensed. There is an open source version and a commercial version. The problem is that the commercial version, which the US government and industry buys, could be diddled with. It is possible to put back doors and other nasties in the commercial version.

Anti Business Practices (2, Insightful)

Rac3r5 (804639) | more than 8 years ago | (#14838998)

This seems to be a really dumb move. Its basically telling the world that its ok for the US to take over foreign companies, but its not ok for foreign companies to take over a US business.

What doesn't make sense is Snort is OPEN SOURCE. So if someone wanted to do something to the US computers, they would have already done so. There are lots of highly skilled network layer programmers all over the world that are capable of reporducing snort's functionality. This deal will just screw the US company involved, nothing more.

No. (0, Offtopic)

Saeed al-Sahaf (665390) | more than 8 years ago | (#14839022)

This seems to be a really dumb move. Its basically telling the world that its ok for the US to take over foreign companies, but its not ok for foreign companies to take over a US business.

It is a dumb move, but you're not making sense. Foreign companies buy controlling interests in US companies all the time. And the company Dubai Ports wants to buy is British owned anyway.

Sale of 'Family Silver' (2, Interesting)

chris_sawtell (10326) | more than 8 years ago | (#14839002)

When both countries and people have run up debts that they cannot service they have to be prepared to sell off things to repay those debts. Warmongering is an expensive exercise, you have to pay for by selling assets. US, get used to the idea; it will happen more and more in the future.

Re:Sale of 'Family Silver' (1)

TooMuchToDo (882796) | more than 8 years ago | (#14839137)

You're assuming that the US can't just walk away from it's debt at any time (which it owes to other countries). For example, all of the US debt that China buys. While it may cause gigantic economic problems if done, if the US wanted to turn around and say "Fuck off" to anyone it owed money to, it can.

where do they get these quotes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14839035)

From the bottom of my slashdot page:

How's the wife? Is she at home enjoying capitalism?

WTF? I like it though, one of those wierd ass random things that makes you go huh...

Re:where do they get these quotes (1)

triptolemus (956825) | more than 8 years ago | (#14839085)

Enjoying capitalism? Maybe...as long as she's not at home enjoying a pile of snort.

Re:where do they get these quotes (1)

farrellj (563) | more than 8 years ago | (#14839107)

You mean she printed out the source code for Snort, and is laying on it? Ouchouchouch...the paper cuts! :-)

ttyl
          Farrell

Re:where do they get these quotes (1)

commodoresloat (172735) | more than 8 years ago | (#14839204)

or perhaps she is being enjoyed by a stranger who brought her something to snort... either way, you might want to leave work early and go find out what's going on at home.

But Snort is open source ! (1)

ChiefPilot (566606) | more than 8 years ago | (#14839136)

Geez, any organization that wants to use the Snort source against us just has to check out the code from the CVS tree. Maybe the US is afraid they're going to corrupt the rules set? Then what are they (whoever buys Snort) going to about http://bleedingsnort.org/ [bleedingsnort.org] ?

National Security g33k (0, Flamebait)

unix_geek_512 (810627) | more than 8 years ago | (#14839146)

As much as I love Israel, I would be against this transaction on national security grounds.

I am also against the port deal also on national security grounds - although the deal has been blown out of proportion.

I support rewarding our allies like Israel and the UAE based on their contributions.

It is quite reasonable to prevent FOREIGN GOVERNMENTs and FOREIGN COMPANIES from owning key assets in the US however.

While foreign investment can be a good thing I particularly object to ANY FOREIGN GOVERNMENT ( don't care if it's the UAE, or a more traditional ally) managing our ports.

Semper Fi Carry^H^H^H^H^H Linux on! :D

Israeli Security (1)

KutuluWare (791333) | more than 8 years ago | (#14839160)

I find it a bit ironic that the US is concerned about a lack of security from Isreal. Frankly, I think their track record is far better in that department than ours is. Wether you neccessarily agree with their politics, you gotta admit, those guys know their security.

Re:Israeli Security (1)

commodoresloat (172735) | more than 8 years ago | (#14839223)

Uhhh, yeah... that's why there are so many more successful terrorist attacks in the US than there are in Israel.

If what you're saying is their society is more intensely militarized and paranoid than American society, I agree, but whether such militarization provides security is debatable (and, I would argue, demonstrably false).

Re:Israeli Security (1)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 8 years ago | (#14839297)

It may not work very well against terror, but it has done well against invasion from hostile neighbors.

Re:Israeli Security (1)

jackbird (721605) | more than 8 years ago | (#14839301)

Well, there's a hell of a lot more attempts, too. If migrant mexican workers started suicide bombing in Texas and lobbing home-built sugar-burning rockets over the border, I think we'd be a bit less able to deal with it than the Israelis currently are.

And the 9/11 hijackers would never have been able to enter an El Al cockpit.

Re:Israeli Security (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14839250)

They also know how to pass off genocide and other heinous human rights abuses as legal.

Re:Israeli Security (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14839267)

That's just a perception created by the people who are are performing "genocide and other heinous human rights abuses" every day .

Re:Israeli Security (1)

Software (179033) | more than 8 years ago | (#14839282)

I think the problem is that Israel could use the technology in Snort to spy on the US. That's the reason behind doing the review, anyway.

Ok, where were these people for IBM? (1)

sethstorm (512897) | more than 8 years ago | (#14839171)

Maybe these people should have been paying attention to IBM a bit more and actually putting forth effort to block the sale of their PCD to Lenovo.

Oh, wait... we gave China a blank check on trade. And yes, that sucking sound going towards China is our jobs leaving.

Misleading and ignorant? (1)

THE ROCK (127208) | more than 8 years ago | (#14839172)

What a nonsensical article.

First, the title implies that this whole fiasco revolves around Snort, which is absurd. Snort is an open source program, anybody in the world has free and total access to its source. The only relation here is that Sourcefire was founded by the person who wrote Snort.

Secondly, I fail to see how the Dubai ports mess relates to this. It seems like the person who wrote this is just talking out of his ass and really has no grasp of what is actually going on.

Great work. Thats some top notch journalism, keep it coming!

Re:Misleading and ignorant? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14839381)

Actually. you are wrong

sourcefire was founded by Marty Roesch (who, is a user here on slashdot and prolly just cringed at you writing that), marty wrote Snort. Sourcefire USES Snort in their devices.

Look at it..
http://www.snort.org/ [snort.org] 0wned by sourcefire
http://www.sourcefire.com/ [sourcefire.com] Powered by snort

The committee has good reason (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14839173)

There is good reason for this--

The israelis have been busted twice backdooring equipment into US govt and military,

COMVERSE Infosystems, an Israeli company which supplied wiretap equipment (snort for phones..) we itself reverse wiretapped by the israelis to do surveillance on US law enforcement.

AMDOCs also was busted as billing records for US companies were illegally being used for intelligence.

Re:The committee has good reason (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14839259)

You have to understand also that while Snort is open source, it's Sourcefire that decides what gets put into the codebase..

A subtle bug that could be exploited could backdoor any network where snort is running.

Re:The committee has good reason (1)

THE ROCK (127208) | more than 8 years ago | (#14839280)

Thats the game, such as it is.

Governments and huge corporations, there really isn't too much difference when the stakes are high enough.

Everybody is trying to spy on everybody else. Our government has operatives in your government, your government tries to infiltrate my government. I am sure the situation is similar for corporations like Microsoft and Cisco...if (for example) the Chinese or US government could plant a mole inside Microsoft, and (for example) manage to plant a backdoor of sorts into (for example) media player...suddenly they have a way into a VAST majority of the machines on the internet, that could go undetected for a DECADE.

Another hypothetical example... look at what happened to Valve with the HL2 source. Just imagine how many unknown/undisclosed holes such as that exist in so many popular programs used today. Blame MS if you want, but the main reason they are so often targeted is because their software dominates the market.

This type of stuff might seem like it belongs in movies, but its very real and its happening now. If you want to be secure, unplug your net connection. Otherwise you're just asking to get burned...and if what you seek to protect is worth enough, you can bet somebody with deep pockets might set their sights at it.

Eh, big deal. (4, Interesting)

irregular_hero (444800) | more than 8 years ago | (#14839210)

First, I should point out that some of the other posters here seem to think Sourcefire == Snort. It does not, although Sourcefire's products have some dependency on Snort as a general engine. Sourcefire's main product line is actually far deeper than just SnortOnABox -- it delves into areas like vulnerability management and event collection/aggregation, things that "open source" Snort does only if you have a really good administrator who knows how to piece together all the various moving parts into something manageable.

Second, it's remarkable that the DoD would question Check Point's intentions. If they truly cared whether this particular deal was in the best interests of "national security" (whatever that happens to mean today, then they wouldn't use Check Point's firewall products either. But they do! The US Navy uses Check Point firewalls in great, prodigious quantities -- enough that they need Check Point's ISP-class management console software to run all of them! And they're not the only branch of the military using it, not to mention the multitude of other Federal agencies.

This sounds like a reach to me. Something based in rumor, started by a politician, that has to be ended by the press finding the real story inside the rumor...

Snort - Open Source (1)

PineHall (206441) | more than 8 years ago | (#14839228)

What is the big deal? Snort is open source. It can be forked if concerns about foreign ownership prove true.

Israel not like UAE (1)

readin (838620) | more than 8 years ago | (#14839345)

Israel has, in the past, tried to sell military technology to countries hostile to the United States. In 2000, the US had to make a big stink to stop the sale of Phalcon, an advanced, airborne early-warning system, to China. (This was particularly infuriating in my opinion because it threatened Taiwan, which is in the same boat with Israel as a country with few international friends that has to rely heavily on the US for protection from its neighbor[s] just to maintain its existence. How would Isreal feel if Taiwan were selling advanced weapons to Syria, Iran, or the Palestinians?) http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2003_03/israelexpor ts_mar03.asp [armscontrol.org] And more recently there have been concerns about the sale of drones. http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,1505209, 00.html [guardian.co.uk]

To my knowledge there has never been a problem with the UAE making such sales.

Furthermore, we have trouble the Israeli spying on the US. Jonathon Pollard was caught and imprisoned for selling information to Israel.

Have there been similar cases with Dubai?

There are other legitimate concerns about Dubai, but given that the sale of Snort involves technology, it can't really be compared to the port operations. I nearly always favor Israel in its dealings with the world, but that doesn't mean I would trust it with all our technology. I would trust it to run a port though.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...