Feds Kill Check Point's Sourcefire Bid 181
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."
Most telling part of the article... (Score:5, Insightful)
So, they can't merge, but the items in question will be shared anyway.. so much for regulation and oversight
Why does the media always get these things wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Why does the media always get these things wron (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Why does the media always get these things wron (Score:2)
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
Re:Why does the media always get these things wron (Score:2)
Re:Why does the media always get these things wron (Score:2)
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
Re:Why does the media always get these things wron (Score:2)
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?
Re:Why does the media always get these things wron (Score:2)
The real issue is that someone in a foreign country is not subject to United States law. That's a
Re:Why does the media always get these things wron (Score:2)
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
Re:Why does the media always get these things wron (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Why does the media always get these things wron (Score:1)
Re:Why does the media always get these things wron (Score:1)
No.
Re:Why does the media always get these things wron (Score:2)
Re:Why does the media always get these things wron (Score:2)
Are you honestly that clueless?
The FBI, DoD, etc. often require US citizens for the support as well. In fact, for some projects you have to have security clearance to offer tech support, since you might have to be disclosed some sensitive infrastructure information.
The GP poster had it dead on.
Re:This sounds specious (Score:2)
You mean like the Snort rules?
Think about it. Suppose the Israelis (or someone else) put a backdoor in the Checkpoint firewalls that would give them remote access. Or suppose they found a flaw that would do the same.
Suppose the same company also has access to most of the information about how the I
Re:This sounds specious (Score:2)
Really, as a foreign national you can't even enter a building that has a classified section to it without going through literally months of hurdles, I can assure you that this was indeed a huge deal for the government.
But it is freely available to anybody (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.snort.org/ [snort.org]
Re:But it is freely available to anybody (Score:2, Informative)
Re:But it is freely available to anybody (Score:1)
Re:But it is freely available to anybody (Score:2, Informative)
Re:But it is freely available to anybody (Score:1)
irrational fear? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:irrational fear? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:irrational fear? (Score:2)
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)
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?
Re:irrational fear? (Score:2)
Re:irrational fear? (Score:2)
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)
Well, Snort could always pull a nessus [slashdot.org] and close the source...
Re:irrational fear? (Score:1)
Re:irrational fear? (Score:3, Funny)
I had no idea! We're going to have stop using Snort immediately!
-- The FBI
Re:irrational fear? (Score:2)
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)
Re:Open source!= public. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Open source!= public. (Score:2)
Re:irrational fear? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:irrational fear? (Score:2)
Re:irrational fear? (Score:2)
Re:irrational fear? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:irrational fear? (Score:2)
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
Re:irrational fear? (Score:2)
If the DoD said "ok, let Check Point buy Sourcefire, but we will sieze to buy our support from the new unified company", that is an understandable statement (regarding not letting debug info leaving the country etc.).
Objecting to the actual SELL, however, is not.
I'll even go further. If the DoD said as above, it is not impossible that Check Point would have sa
Re:irrational fear? (Score:1)
Re:irrational fear? (Score:2, Informative)
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
Re:irrational fear? (Score:2)
Not about the technology per se (Score:5, Informative)
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)
Re:Not about the technology per se (Score:2)
Re:Not about the technology per se (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Not about the technology per se (Score:3, Interesting)
Not the software companies contracted by the military and DoD. All defence contracts stick to American companies and all work stays in America. Notice how Lockheed Martin and Raytheon don't have any international competition (in the defence department, Lockheed has international competition on its non-defence products). I am willing to bet all open source the government uses has been modified, w
Re:Oh, this makes a ton of sense (Score:2)
Your lack of understanding about the world stage and the UAE's role is astounding.
That you actually believe what you said is incredibly depressing.
Try and do some research before painting every arab nation with the same brush.
Trying to do business with the UAE invoked some shred of respect for Bush with me, even if it was hilarious that his "war on terror" campaign backfired on him with reactions like yours.
Re:Oh, this makes a ton of sense (Score:2)
Israel is one of those 'keep your friends close and your enemies closer' type of Allies. They maintain a very active intelligence program against the US. but, I'm not telling you anything that you couldn't learn from google [google.com]
More than just source code... (Score:5, Interesting)
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)
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.
Re:Sigh... (Score:2)
closed source (Score:3, Informative)
Re:closed source (Score:2)
"You're on you're own."
O Noes, Digital Fortress 2! (Score:1)
Re:closed source (Score:5, Informative)
Re:closed source (Score:2)
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)
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.
Re:Isolationist in force not in trade (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Isolationist in force not in trade (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re:Isolationist in force not in trade (Score:2)
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
Re:Isolationist in force not in trade (Score:3, Interesting)
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 (Score:2)
HTML really needs a <sarcasm> tag.
Re:The fear at the time (Score:2)
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
Re:Isolationist in force not in trade (Score:2)
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
Re:Isolationist in force not in trade (Score:2)
Re:Isolationist in force not in trade (Score:2)
Re:Isolationist in force not in trade (Score:2)
U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8, "The Congress shall have Power
I don't like this decision, but it's pretty clear the government has the power to do so.
Re:Isolationist in force not in trade (Score:2)
Section 8 of the Constitution [usconstitution.net] literally says "The Congress shall have Power To
That is SO stupid (Score:1)
Re:That is SO stupid (Score:1)
Snort Technology (Score:2)
Xenophobia, anyone? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Xenophobia, anyone? (Score:2)
Re:Xenophobia, anyone? (Score:1)
Recklessness (Score:2)
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)
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.
Re:national security vs capital loss (Score:2)
Re:national security vs capital loss (Score:1)
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)
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... (Score:2)
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)
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)
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.
Re:A different view on things (Score:2)
Sorry, I've nothing better to do right now...
Re:A different view on things (Score:2)
As opposed to when they say yes... [google.com]
spying and the art of disinformation (Score:2)
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)
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.
Re:This will contribute to inflation of the USD (Score:2)
Re:This will contribute to inflation of the USD (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic le/2005/06/23/AR2005062302065.html [washingtonpost.com]
There are a lot of US dollars on the sidelines waiting to invest in the U.S. Although these deals, amounting to billions, seem insignificant, you should account for all the others looking at what is happening, looking at their billions in reserves and scratching their heads wondering wha
Re:This will contribute to inflation of the USD (Score:2)
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.
Re:This will contribute to inflation of the USD (Score:2)
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
Re:This will contribute to inflation of the USD (Score:2)
Yes, but they didn't aquire it in a year, and certainly won't cash-out in a year.
This is all completely besides the point. Do you even remember the subject, now??? You were saying that USDs
Re:This will contribute to inflation of the USD (Score:2)
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)
Things are just getting wierd. (Score:2)
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.
I have a solution (Score:2)
Some things to consider... (Score:2, Interesting)
As fa
Re:but the fed wants to give physical ports to UAE (Score:4, Interesting)
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
Re:but the fed wants to give physical ports to UAE (Score:2, Interesting)
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 som