RE: Concerns with NFR" and "Trons 7.0 (was Re: RealSecure IDS 6.5)"
From: Gary Halleen (ghalleen@cisco.com)Date: 06/26/02
- Previous message: Brad.Dunn@Intelsat.com: "RE: NFR Response: Concerns with NFR"
- In reply to: Samuel Cure: ""RE: Concerns with NFR" and "Trons 7.0 (was Re: RealSecure IDS 6.5)""
- Next in thread: Matt Curtin: "Re: Concerns with NFR"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
From: "Gary Halleen" <ghalleen@cisco.com> To: "Samuel Cure" <scure@redbulltech.com>, "'Greg Shipley'" <gshipley@neohapsis.com> Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 12:27:51 -0700
Yes, Cisco has dropped Cisco Secure Scanner, formerly known as NetSonar. I
believe it our intention to integrate vulnerability scanning into a future
version of our management software.
Gary
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Samuel Cure [mailto:scure@redbulltech.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2002 12:27 PM
> To: 'Greg Shipley'
> Cc: focus-ids@securityfocus.com
> Subject: "RE: Concerns with NFR" and "Trons 7.0 (was Re: RealSecure IDS
> 6.5)"
>
>
> Thanks to everyone who helped address my concerns in my last two postings.
>
> For "Concerns with NFR":
> Jack Reis from NFR promptly responded and assured me they have a large
> customer base, they are financially healthy, and are not in any type of
> bankruptcy situation. Additionally, he confirmed that Marcus
> Ranum has left
> the company and remains a large shareholder in NFR and he is available for
> consulting should NFR require his support.
>
> For "Trons 7.0 (was Re: RealSecure IDS 6.5)":
> Cisco hasn't chimed in on this one yet, but I received several responses
> stating that Cisco dropped or is dropping their vulnerability assessment
> scanner and so far Cisco has no plans for fusion-like capabilities.
>
> -------------------
> Samuel J. Cure
> Chief Technology Officer
> Red Bull Technologies, Inc.
> www.redbulltech.com
> -------------------
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Greg Shipley [mailto:gshipley@neohapsis.com]
> Sent: Monday, June 24, 2002 2:39 PM
> To: Samuel Cure
> Cc: focus-ids@securityfocus.com
> Subject: Re: Concerns with NFR
>
>
>
> On Fri, 21 Jun 2002, Samuel Cure wrote:
>
> > There is a rumor floating around that they are having financial
> > bankruptcy problems and I usually do not trust rumors, but with a
> > private company that does not disclose its financial status, it is hard
> > to tell. Does anyone know if this is even remotely possible?
>
> First off, it's good to hear that people are investigating the back-end
> financials of companies, and not just the technology. Financial viability
> is something that our industry, IMHO, sort of forgot about in the late
> 90s, and it has certainly come back to bite us. (ISPs that went bye-bye,
> anyone? .COMs? CLECs? Yeah....)
>
> However, one has to be really careful with commenting on these types of
> issues, especially in public forums, without really solid facts. It's
> pretty easy to walk right into a business slander suit if one isn't
> careful, and financial analysis is a field onto itself.
>
> So cutting to the chase, if you look at the NIDS space, you have a few
> publicly traded companies on the market - companies like:
>
> - Cisco (CSCO)
> - Enterasys (ETS)
> - ISS (ISSX)
> - Intrusion (INTZ)
> - TippingPoint (TPTI - how's that for odd? Public startup, sorta...)
>
> ...and then you've got private companies like:
>
> - NFR
> - Recourse
> - Lancope
> - Intruvert
> - OneSecure
> - ...the list goes on....
>
> [Note: neither of these lists are complete - examples only]
>
> So with the publicly traded companies, at least you can see how they are
> doing, financially. (finance.yahoo.com works wonders) With the private
> ones, they are usually in one of a few states: not-profitable and still
> burning VC, not-profitable and burning cash reserves (almost the same
> thing), break-even, or profitable. Profitable is obviously preferred, but
> even some (most!) of those publicly traded companies are not profitable
> right now. But I am a far cry from a financial analyst, and I'm
> digressing, so I'll shutup before I get into trouble...
>
> Back to your question about NFR - I'd look at the technology, see if it is
> a fit for your existing customers and target customers, and do as much due
> diligence on the financial/biz side as possible. But I would also
> suggest that one performs both a financial viability AND technology review
> of any product/partnership - you really need to look at both areas.
>
>
> > With too many IDS companies to choose from, I believe this market is
> > going to consolidate and many of these players won't be around tomorrow.
> > I'm trying to be picky in my selecting of IDS technology. If there is
> > other IDS technologies that people would highly recommend, please let me
> > know.
>
> I have issues with the way IDC reports their IDS estimates (hardware vs.
> software NIDS? Ergh...silly, IMNSHO), but the last time I saw their
> reports quoted they were claiming something like the 2002 IDS market being
> between $400mil and $500mil. How many NIDS vendors alone are there? I
> know I'm tracking at least 12, and Andy (talisker) tracks way more then I
> do. Can I $500mil market, if that, support that many players?
>
> Yeah, I don't see them all sticking around in their current form. The
> next 12-24 months will be interesting, that's for sure.
>
> -Greg
>
>
- Previous message: Brad.Dunn@Intelsat.com: "RE: NFR Response: Concerns with NFR"
- In reply to: Samuel Cure: ""RE: Concerns with NFR" and "Trons 7.0 (was Re: RealSecure IDS 6.5)""
- Next in thread: Matt Curtin: "Re: Concerns with NFR"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
