Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

CheckPoint Acquires Snort

Posted by CmdrTaco on Thu Oct 06, 2005 12:35 PM
from the done-sniffing-each-other dept.
bobdehnhardt writes "The Snort-announce list was burning with the news that CheckPoint has signed an agreement to acquire Sourcefire, the commercial arm of the Snort community. As part of the agreement, CheckPoint will "continue to develop and distribute Snort under the GPL, improve and document the program to stay on the cutting edge and expand the snort.org web site." Here is a message from Snort creator Marty Roesch."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold:
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • SnortFIRST (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 06 2005, @12:40PM (#13732270)
    best.Tool.Ever.

    Hope this does not compromise the GPL nature of this fantasitic project.
  • by b1gk1tty (670514) on Thursday October 06 2005, @12:40PM (#13732274)
    " Here is a message from Snort creator Marty Roesch."

    I'm rich I'm rich I'm filthy f*ckin rich!
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 06 2005, @12:44PM (#13732309)
    I think its usefulness is very limited.

    It is nice to know I am protecting/monitoring my LAN from KNOWN attacks,
    is does very little to stop a determined attacker who can write
    their own shellcode and exploits.

    Which, if you hop on IRC now days, represents quite a few attackers.
    The people we made fun of long ago have aquired the skills to get around
    snort rather easily.

    So, rest at night, thinking you have protected your lan, while in reality
    you have not.

  • Loopholes (Score:2, Interesting)

    by diogenesx (580716) <kyle.m.hall@Nospam.gmail.com> on Thursday October 06 2005, @12:44PM (#13732314)
    Even with such language, does that stop them from forking the sources and creating a new closed source program with a new name?
    • Re:Loopholes by 0racle (Score:2) Thursday October 06 2005, @01:02PM
    • Re:Loopholes by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Thursday October 06 2005, @12:57PM
      • Re:Loopholes by Afecks (Score:1) Thursday October 06 2005, @01:33PM
    • Re:Loopholes (Score:5, Informative)

      by monkeydo (173558) on Thursday October 06 2005, @12:58PM (#13732471)
      (http://slashdot.org/)
      No, it doesn't. The owner of the copyright can stop releasing new versions under the GPL. Any code already licensed under the GPL would remain so, but nothing stops them from making all new versions closed, or something in between.
      [ Parent ]
      • Re:Loopholes (Score:4, Informative)

        by FidelCatsro (861135) <fidelcatsro.gmail@com> on Thursday October 06 2005, @01:05PM (#13732551)
        (Last Journal: Wednesday July 26 2006, @04:50AM)
        Unless they accepted patches from a third party not directly involved in the project , They would need to track down each and every person that had (and acquire their blessing) or each and every code snippet and remove it .
        This is the same problem which faces the linux Kernel if they wished to move it to the GPL3
        [ Parent ]
        • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
      • Re:Loopholes by temojen (Score:2) Thursday October 06 2005, @01:14PM
      • Re:Loopholes by Afecks (Score:1) Thursday October 06 2005, @01:20PM
        • Re:Loopholes by at_slashdot (Score:2) Thursday October 06 2005, @01:43PM
          • Re: Fork by ImaLamer (Score:2) Thursday October 06 2005, @02:37PM
            • Re: Fork by at_slashdot (Score:2) Thursday October 06 2005, @02:50PM
      • Re:Loopholes by sgml4kids (Score:2) Thursday October 06 2005, @01:26PM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • More info from Checkpoint (Score:1, Redundant)

    by Parid (213793) on Thursday October 06 2005, @12:46PM (#13732342)
    Here is some more info from checkpoint including a FAQ.
    http://www.checkpoint.com/sourcefire/ [checkpoint.com]

    I use both firewall-1 and sourcefire currently. The one thing I hope they /don't/ do is merge the two support teams. Sourcefire's support is decent, but checkpoints is down right awful.
  • Checkpoint and Linux (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 06 2005, @12:48PM (#13732359)
    Checkpoint are not known for being too interested in providing versions of their software for Linux. Lack of a current Linux checkpoint vpn client is all that's keeping me running a (gack) Windows machine in my home..

    Soooo.... is Checkpoint Snort going to go Windows-only??

    Then again, maybe this heralds a new era of cooperation between Checkpoint and the non-Windows world.
  • makes sense (Score:4, Interesting)

    by spurious cowherd (104353) on Thursday October 06 2005, @12:51PM (#13732387)
    "We believe Sourcefire has world-class solutions for internal security through their Intrusion Sensor, Real-time Network Awareness (RNA), and Defense Center product lines.

    Checkpoint needs this type of network awareness technology to keep up with Cisco
    I know they lost my company's contract because the network admins like the way Cisco stuff integrates

    I'll start by stating again what I've stated in the past, Snort is now and will continue to be free to end-users. We will continue to develop and distribute the Snort engine under the GPL, improve and document the program to stay on the cutting edge and expand the snort.org web site. The community continues, as always, to be important to us as a group of people who use the code pervasively throughout the entire Internet, report on problems and make suggestions and contributions to the project.

    This is critical to me for many reason. It's good to see. Marty is a man of integrity & I'll bet this is in the aquisition contract

    Check Point to acquire privately held Sourcefire for a total consideration of approximately $225 million.

    Who says you can't make money from FOSS?
    Marty deserves the fiduciary rewards he'll get for all his hard work over the years

    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • Snort.org (Score:1)

    by marcantonio (895721) on Thursday October 06 2005, @12:51PM (#13732396)
    Wow, it's been a while since I've been to the Snort website. It got very corporatey professional looking.
  • Snort... hrmm (Score:2)

    by Lucractius (649116) <<Lucractius> <at> <gmail.com>> on Thursday October 06 2005, @12:52PM (#13732409)
    (Last Journal: Thursday October 06 2005, @01:38PM)
    So CheckPoint is Snorting now is it... Do the cops now, have the DEA been called in to raid their offices.
  • Oh no! (Score:2)

    by wootest (694923) on Thursday October 06 2005, @01:00PM (#13732495)
    Does that mean my father will have to pay for permission when he chuckles?
  • no big deal (Score:5, Informative)

    by qwertphobia (825473) on Thursday October 06 2005, @01:01PM (#13732503)
    This is no big deal. Snort will continue to be GPL and freely available to the world.

    I'm more worried about the recent Nessus changes, have you heard about this?
    Nessus License Change Announcement [nessus.org]

    Nessus 2 will continue to be free
    Nessus 3 will be a free of charge, binary only release
    • Re:no big deal by Kevin Burtch (Score:3) Thursday October 06 2005, @01:14PM
    • Re:no big deal by m50d (Score:2) Thursday October 06 2005, @01:37PM
      • Re:no big deal by Flower (Score:2) Thursday October 06 2005, @02:54PM
      • Re:no big deal by puddpunk (Score:1) Thursday October 06 2005, @03:11PM
      • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    • Re:no big deal by Cyno (Score:2) Thursday October 06 2005, @03:44PM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • by DrugCheese (266151) on Thursday October 06 2005, @01:31PM (#13732833)
    when he tried to cross the border with snort.
  • in other news... (Score:3, Funny)

    by portscan (140282) on Thursday October 06 2005, @01:40PM (#13732917)
    checkpoint has had yet another security breach. this time, instead of all of their background records being released onto the internet, the source code of their newly acquired security tool, "snort" was released onto the internet. many have already downloaded this and started using free of charge, not to mention modifying it as they see fit and redistributing it also free of charge. this is a truly embarassing second offense for the security company.
  • by SnappingTurtle (688331) on Thursday October 06 2005, @02:34PM (#13733370)
    (http://www.idocs.com/)
    ... every time I get one of these damn sinus infections, but I don't put out a damn press release about it.
  • by loggia (309962) on Thursday October 06 2005, @02:37PM (#13733396)
    I see nothing positive about Snort being acquired by CheckPoint.

    CheckPoint bought Zone Labs a couple of years ago and Zone Alarm went from being a rock solid firewall to an absolute mess. There are so many problems with the new version of Zone Alarm that their forums are filled with complaints.
  • by raddan (519638) on Thursday October 06 2005, @02:38PM (#13733398)
    ...so that they can find out what's wrong with their shitty VPN software.
  • by waldonova (769039) on Thursday October 06 2005, @02:49PM (#13733482)
    I have snort running with BASE, for a nice NID management setup. Without the rules, not much will happen.
    There are currently three levels of access to rules, as seen at http://www.snort.org/rules/ [snort.org]

    1. Anyone can get the rule set that is released with the latest version.
    2. People who pay the big bucks ($1,795/year) can get updated rule sets as soon as they are released.
    3. A third level sits in the middle; where if you register with sourcefire you can get the updated rules five days after they are released to the premium members.

    Martin, I am sure that "Check Point is very excited about continuing Sourcefire's involvement with the open source community!". I hope that doesn't mean that they are excited about getting fees for any and all rules from the open source community.
  • *ARGHH* headline! (Score:2)

    by Cally (10873) on Thursday October 06 2005, @02:51PM (#13733499)
    (http://www.vanitydomainsarelikeso20thcentury.org/)
    'Checkpoint buys Snort' - 10/10 for an arresting headline, minus several billion for good thinking. Checkpoint has bought Sourcefire, not *Snort*. That's like saying OSDN have "bought Linux" because they happen to pay Linus.

    Honestly, the "slashdot's going down hill" trolls have been making me roll my eyes pretty much as soon as I became a regular, but things like this really make me wonder :(

  • Kate Moss (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 06 2005, @03:41PM (#13733930)
    Kate Moss unavailable for comment.
  • Here's my question (Score:2)

    by Flower (31351) on Thursday October 06 2005, @03:51PM (#13734012)
    (http://slashdot.org/)
    How much *significant* code has been contributed to Snort by people outside of SourceFire? I'm talking about things like Frag3, etc. - the underpinnings of Snort.
  • by recharged95 (782975) on Thursday October 06 2005, @04:05PM (#13734164)
    (Last Journal: Friday September 17 2004, @04:10PM)
    Problem is all the competitors have better tools out there [or in the works...] now for IDS. Believe me, it's just no one's buying.

    The neat thing about snort is it's history and that I hope companies look at it as a model of S/W developement (i.e. FOSS). I wish they turn their rules language via an XML Schema.

    Interesting triva to ask is where did snort originate? The feds come to mind ;).

    [Funny] It's understandable why Marty had to sell! A big house and a brand new [huge] office building for the peeps (better than the last location) will suck the $$$ dry quickly.

    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • by easternerd (861245) on Friday October 07 2005, @05:32AM (#13738064)
    (http://securityrisk.org/)
    I am very sure that Checkpoint would not remove Snort from GPL, and its a good news for all the snort fans out there.. with Checkpoints popularity and financial power they might be able to improvise the snort to be able to offer better Inline IPS features..
    The main reason i am very enthusiastic is that there is not much competition in the IDS sphere, and checkpoint systems for one doesnt have a base in IDS hence with this acquisition i guess there will be good competition for Cisco , MCafee and TippingPoint.

    just hope to get the best anyway...
  • Re:In other news (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 06 2005, @01:18PM (#13732688)
    Who are these companies?

    Note to non-technical people: either STFU or stay the f*** off of /. Frankly, if you don't know who CheckPoint is, half of the stuff here has to be over your head, anyway.

    Can't we have some type of "technical abilities" test, so we can adjust a post's initial score, based on the result? Of course, we'd never see AC posts, but still - it's sad that someone had to use mod points on this.
    [ Parent ]
  • Re:Letter Text (Score:1)

    by kc0re (739168) on Thursday October 06 2005, @01:35PM (#13732876)
    (http://esler.is-a-geek.net/ | Last Journal: Monday February 09 2004, @10:13AM)
    Interesting. Snort looks like a pretty cool tool. Anyone know more about it? How does it hold up against other intrusion detection packages?

    Snort is the most widely used IDS in the world today. > 2,000,000 downloads. It beats every competitor, Cisco, ISS, McAfee, 3COM. Rated #1 by SC Magazine.. etc..etc..etc..
    [ Parent ]
  • by ripcrd (31538) on Thursday October 06 2005, @01:41PM (#13732927)
    What rock have you been under? If you like to keep up on network admin tools, then you are way behind. I first heard of Snort in 2001 or 2002. Snort runs on my IPCop firewall and scans for baddies trying to get in.

    Hell, they are past version 2.4 and you are just NOW hearing about it? Holy crap!
    [ Parent ]
  • Re:In other news (Score:1)

    by Frank T. Lofaro Jr. (142215) on Thursday October 06 2005, @03:36PM (#13733882)
    (http://www.linux.com/)
    You got a big Mac at Fry's?

    How's OSX? ;)

    [ Parent ]
  • 15 replies beneath your current threshold.