Check Point calls off Sourcefire buy

Check Point calls off Sourcefire buy
Robert Lemos, SecurityFocus 2006-03-24

Security company Check Point Software Technologies called off its planned $225 million acquisition of intrusion-prevention firm Sourcefire on Thursday, a week before a federal watchdog was scheduled to release a report which insiders say would have blocked the merger on the grounds of national-security interests.

Colapse all | Post comment

Check Point calls off Sourcefire buy 2006-03-24
Anonymous (1 replies)

This makes absolutely no sense, the Government cries "Foreign Control issues" as the reason why this is a bad idea. Last time I checked Israel owed its entire existence to us, and they are an allied nation. The CFIUS has effectively just said "We don't trust the Israelis" I'm sure this will bode e...

[ more ] [ reply ]

Re: Check Point calls off Sourcefire buy 2006-04-04
Anonymous

Terrorism???

it's YOU who KILL PEOPLE, drop atomic bombs, take over countries and so on...

open up your eyes, silly boy...

[ more ] [ reply ]

Check Point calls off Sourcefire buy 2006-03-25
Anonymous (1 replies)

Kind of a week story. Just what does Sourcefire make that is so precious?...

[ more ] [ reply ]

Re: Check Point calls off Sourcefire buy 2006-04-05
Anonymous

The Pig is kind of Cutie and you the Israelis would have just stopped that so, for the sake of the Pig, this happened....

[ more ] [ reply ]

Check Point calls off Sourcefire buy 2006-03-27
Anonymous

Someone might want to let the idiots in washington know that snort is open source and can be download from anywhere on the freaking planet. The SourceFire software, while enhanced and beefed out a bit, is still snort. This is what happens when you let people who do not understand technology make dec...

[ more ] [ reply ]

Check Point calls off Sourcefire buy 2006-03-27
Anonymous (3 replies)

I think you need to look up Jonathan Pollard to decide whether Israel could be perceived as a nation that may try to gain US intelligence. Because Israel owes existence to the US means nothing. Look at Afghanistan and the help the US provided against Russia. This does not affect whether Israel wi...

[ more ] [ reply ]

Re: Check Point calls off Sourcefire buy 2006-03-27
Anonymous

Snort is GPL'ed. It's not owned by Sourcefire, it's owned by the original developers. Meaning, even if CheckPoint were to acquire Sourcefire, they would never be able to procure the rights to close the source; as it would violate the licensing within the GPL....

[ more ] [ reply ]

Re: Check Point calls off Sourcefire buy 2006-03-27
Anonymous (1 replies)

Eh, this is no big deal. SourceFire isn't a very good IDS/IPS and CheckPoint isn't a very good firewall. SourceFire shoud get a better buyer anyway. Somebody to improve their products. CheckPoint should just die. I don't know why anybody buys their firewalls any longer. ...

[ more ] [ reply ]

Re: Check Point calls off Sourcefire buy 2006-03-29
rjbc

Maybe we are looking at this the wrong way. Maybe checkpoint backed out because the looked under the covers and realized it was not worth it. Sourcefire is a good product for some people but it seems like it would be a heck of a lot cheaper for Checkpoint to take snort put some $$ into supporting ...

[ more ] [ reply ]

Re: Check Point calls off Sourcefire buy 2006-03-30
Anonymous

Bush is a freaking idiot and has not got the brains for coding......

[ more ] [ reply ]

Check Point calls off Sourcefire buy 2006-04-12
Anonymous

Think about it...who do you think is one of Sourcefire's largest customers? You don't have to think very hard to understand why the CFIUS, who's job it is to protect our national security interests, would hex this deal. Sourcfire is an important asset.

-patriot...

[ more ] [ reply ]

Check Point calls off Sourcefire buy 2006-04-12
Anonymous

Why don't I read any Pro Sourcefire comments, moderator? (Symantec bias?)...

[ more ] [ reply ]

Check Point calls off Sourcefire buy 2008-10-26
Anonymous

Israel wants to be r00t in every USA company.

typical behaviour...

[ more ] [ reply ]