U.S. Investigating Sale of Snort as Security Risk 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."
What is good for the goose (Score:2)
Well, selling of the company comes with the territory.
Re:What is good for the goose (Score:2, Interesting)
It is long since time we all forked from Marty, anyway. The Nessus debacle looms, again.
Oh man (Score:3, Informative)
gotta love it (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:gotta love it (Score:2)
You are not my mother (Score:2, Funny)
Re:gotta love it (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:gotta love it (Score:2)
Did you get the memo? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:gotta love it (Score:2, Informative)
Isn't snort open source? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Isn't snort open source? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Isn't snort open source? (Score:2)
Re: Back Doors (Score:2)
On the other hand, Linux ... well, all those hackers are probably putting in backdoors all the time [slashdot.org].
</sarcasm>
Re:Isn't snort open source? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Isn't snort open source? (Score:3, Funny)
Politics as usual (Score:2)
Besides, their firewall is targeted to lazy admins. That's why they sell so many. Snort doesn't fit their target audience.
Re:Isn't snort open source? (Score:2)
I don't know if the state of Israel would use a company based in Israel for syping but their past behavior would suggest that they have no moral or ethicals prohibitions against it.
Re:Who's paranoid? (Score:2)
US thinks it's non free and they should know. (Score:4, Insightful)
Under the sale, publicly announced Oct. 6, Check Point would own all Sourcefire's patents, source-code blueprints for its software and the expertise of employees. ...
Reinsch, a former Commerce Department undersecretary. "The most important case is where we're making an irrevocable technology transfer to a foreign party. Port operations raise security issues, but the ports are still in the United States."
Patents == Forever? What do they mean "irrevocable"?
Employees == Slaves.
Dude, you're moving to Israel! Maybee that's a stretch but the panel and the companies seem to think they own their employees. How insulting, but that's what a NDA is all about, isn't it?
Software freedom is important. Having the source code is useless if you don't have the legal right to compile it, change it and share it with your friends. Software patents, NDA's, closed source binaries keep you from doing what you want with your own computer. The DMCA will keep you from sharing what you know about someone else's stuff. What you find is that the "owner" holds the card you need. All the anti-competitive games people play have more serious consequences than meets the eye.
Lawmakers are more aware of the consequences of the laws they have written than you might give them credit for. US "Ownership" of whole categories of computer function is clearly the intent of much recent IP legislation. RIM's problems make sense, viewed through this lens. It won't due to have foreigners buy or otherwise enjoy that ownership. It makes me sick.
Re:Isn't snort open source? (Score:2)
Slashdot prone to xenophobia? (Score:2, Insightful)
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? (Score:5, Insightful)
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? (Score:3, Insightful)
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 "k
Re:Slashdot prone to xenophobia? (Score:2)
Re:Slashdot prone to xenophobia? (Score:2)
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.
The US in not owned by the Israelis (no, really!) (Score:2)
Exactly how is that something a "good"
Re:The US in not owned by the Israelis (no, really (Score:2)
Re:Slashdot prone to xenophobia? (Score:2)
Most military analysts would disagree. Control of ports and port security has always been a major national security issue.
It appears that the reason that the snort issue is being examined but the ports issue is not is simply d
Re:Slashdot prone to xenophobia? (Score:2)
http://www.defenselink.mil/photos/Sep2004/040901-
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? (Score:2)
FIGHT!
Re:Slashdot prone to xenophobia? (Score:2)
These are fought by the Coast Guard and Customs — regardless, who is operating the ports.
If you are seriously concerned, you should be against the current ports' operator [wikipedia.org] even more. While whether or not UAE citizens have ever attacked US remains unclear, the Shoe Bomber [bbc.co.uk] is a London-born British citizen...
Re:Slashdot prone to xenophobia? (Score:2)
I really think the claims of cronyism are unjustified in reguard to the ports deal, just as I th
Re:Slashdot prone to xenophobia? (Score:2)
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).
Re:Slashdot prone to xenophobia? (Score:2)
Why would you need to sneak in bombs through a port? People can make bombs from materials available locally. [google.com]
Re:Slashdot prone to xenophobia? (Score:2)
Because somebody buying huge quantities of materials to make tons of bombs is more likely to be caught than somebody who buys and builds them outside the country and then ships them in by a port operated by his cronies.
Re:Slashdot prone to xenophobia? (Score:2)
"What and who may be allowed into the country" is not up to the port's operator. It is — and will remain — up to US Coast Guard, Customs, and other border-control officials.
If anything, you should be worried about the ports' current operator [wikipedia.org]. They are from the same country as the Shoe Bomber...
Cronyism.. (Score:2)
This administration has overseen fairly egregious violations of citizen's rights in the wake of the 9/11 attacks in the name of national security. We have been asked to sacrifice a significant deal of privacy and had privacy in some cases taken without knowledge to them for the purposes of national security.
Re:Slashdot prone to xenophobia? (Score:5, Informative)
1. The ports were already in the hands of a foreign company (Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company).
2. Dubai and the UAE are US allies. The fact that a few criminals came from there does not change that.
3. The inspection of cargo will still be handled by US Customs and Border Protection.
4. Security will still be provided by the Coast Guard.
Now, Israel, on the other hand, has a history of spying on the US, including having their spies caught on US soil. I'm not familiar with Snort, but since it is computer security related, I think further investigation is probably warranted before this is allowed. Israel, while nominally a US ally, could potentially be a great threat.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Slashdot prone to xenophobia? (Score:2)
You're getting modded insightful because people agree with your notions
Re:Slashdot prone to xenophobia? (Score:2)
Re:Slashdot prone to xenophobia? (Score:2)
Not slashdot (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Slashdot prone to xenophobia? (Score:2)
So? (Score:2)
I could be wrong... (Score:3, Interesting)
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... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:I could be wrong... (Score:2)
Re:I could be wrong... (Score:2)
ttyl
Re:I could be wrong... (Score:2)
I thought... (Score:2)
Additional Info (Score:2)
Anti Business Practices (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Anti Business Practices (Score:2)
Allies or not, arabic interests owning American assets is a perceived security risk. That isn't dumb as much as it's consistent policy. If the PR for the war on terror hadn't been so effective, no person would have blinked.
Re:Anti Business Practices (Score:2)
Re:No. (Score:2)
Sale of 'Family Silver' (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Sale of 'Family Silver' (Score:2)
Eh, big deal. (Score:5, Interesting)
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 (Score:2)
Makes sense (Score:2)
Also, maybe during the 45 days they can find out what "open source" means, and how that Israeli company can already own and modify a copy of Snort.
Re:Makes sense (Score:2)
So secret it'll be slashdotted in seconds (Score:2)
Snort, Dubai, and India (Score:3, Insightful)
Hypocrisy is rampant.
Re:Snort, Dubai, and India (Score:2)
Oh, wait a minute, that's not right at all. Err Ummm... Actually they are extemely pro israel and anti arab.
So maybe this snort thing has nothing to do with any of that at all. It may have to do with the fact that checkpoint has not bribed enough congress critters yet. I suggest they ask for a 45 delay which will give them time to spread the dough aro
Re:Snort, Dubai, and India (Score:2)
Umm... Ok. The article begs for flame (Score:2)
"This raises a lot more important issues," said Reinsch, a former Commerce Department undersecretary. "The most important case is where we're making an irrevocable technology transfer to a foreign party. Port operations rai
Strange politics (Score:2, Interesting)
But you have to remember that this is all politics. According to the people who work in the ports themselves, the only thing that will change after the Dubai deal is who signs their paychecks. All they do is unload shipping containers off ships, and they don't even know what's in those contain
Re:Strange politics (Score:3, Informative)
/. effect (Score:2, Informative)
Somthineg isn't kosher about this transaction (Score:4, Funny)
Troll? (Score:2)
Re:Troll? (Score:2)
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 ro
Re:Troll? (Score:2)
Everyone does. Presumption of innocence, remember?
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? (Score:2)
Re:Troll? (Score:2)
Bush speaks with forked tongue. On the one hand he throws out platitutes, on the other he kills arabs, tortrures them, rounds them up, hassles them, and makes them disappear. And yes that list includes perfectly innocent arabs whose sole crime was to be an arab in the US after 9/11.
Actions speak louder then words in this case.
Re:Troll? (Score:2)
Re:Troll? (Score:2)
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...
Re:Israelis are just fine (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Israelis are just fine (Score:2)
Israelis Aren't "just fine" In Tech Industries (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Israelis are just fine (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Israelis are just fine (Score:2)
Re:Eh, I didn't say all Americans (Score:2)
Well... (Score:2)
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 t
Re:Well... (Score:2)
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 w
Re:Well... (Score:2)
Re:Well... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:where do they get these quotes (Score:2)
ttyl
Farrell
Re:where do they get these quotes (Score:2)
Re:Israeli Security (Score:2)
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 (Score:2)
Re:Israeli Security (Score:2)
And the 9/11 hijackers would never have been able to enter an El Al cockpit.
Re:Israeli Security (Score:2)
Re:Israeli Security (Score:4, Interesting)
You sound also equally unaware that the Israeli's are routinely in the top 5 countries that use gov't-sourced espionage to illegally assist native (Israeli) businesses? (France and China are two others. I can't remember the rest off the top of my head.)
What is boils down to is Israel is more like the U.S. that almost anywhere else in when push comes to shove, they will put their best interests first and fuck everyone else and everone else's opinion.
Very involved.. (Score:2)
Re:Very involved.. (Score:2)
Re:Israel not like UAE (Score:2)
Just like how the laws go changed to allow the sale of US missile technology to the Chinese?