[Snort-users] Cisco Sourcefire

Mike Miller mike at ...16027...
Wed Jul 24 07:11:01 EDT 2013

It's what happened when they made a jump from custom design to HP sourced
equipment...they were, literally, HP servers with a Cisco blue faceplate.
I'm not looking to start a theological debate, and Cisco's got its fair
share of warts and assets...I'm just looking for silver linings and it
probably won't be -all- bad...but Cisco prices for Snort
software...well...at least it's solid code.

On Wednesday, July 24, 2013, Michal Purzynski wrote:

>  Man - everything but ASA.
> It lacked a very basis like a BGP support, not no mention other things. My
> home router, SRX100H does BGP just fine.
> And yeah, ASA = PC. Some cheaper models even displayed an IRQ list during
> boot and guess what - one was reserved for a sound card.
> I know some people so much attached to ASA, than after some models they
> had went bad, and it wasn't possible anymore to get them from Cisco or
> eBay, the literally made ASA out of commodity parts. It was enough to find
> the exact model of the motherboard with a BX chipset, the right Intel
> network cards and guess what - it was working.
> Still people learn ASA just by running the Linux it's based on in qemu and
> it's fine.
> On 7/24/13 2:53 AM, Mike Miller wrote:
> We had SSM-20's in our ASA5540's at my last job. Worked just fine, and
> since it had access to the backplane, could do some stuff that would have
> been difficult otherwise.
>  Funny if those feature modules didn't look a whole lot like a
> PC...booted from flash, DIMM memory, I'll bet there was an Intel CPU under
> the heatsink.
>  Whaddaya think a snort installation would do on that hardware?
> On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 2:28 PM, Scott <opiesan at ...11827...> wrote:
> If Cisco has any brains at all they'll leave Sourcefire as is for the most
> part. Keep in mind their objective is to buy a rock star security
> company/product because it makes good business sense and yes, money.
> Change is inevitable but not always bad. Sourcefire rocks because they
> know what they're doing and they do it better than most other IPS vendors.
> I believe they'll bust ass to make sure the great things stay great while
> making other things better. It's in Cisco's best interests to do the same.
> Otherwise it's like using the Turin shroud to wash your car. Even Cisco
> isn't that stupid.
> They've got a ways to go before this all approved and final. I recommend
> taking a deep breath, relax, and hold steady as she goes. It'll work out
> for the best.
> Scott
> P.S. - Congrats to any Sourcefire folks that become insanely rich. Next
> time we meet at a con drinks are on you. ;-)
>  On Jul 23, 2013 3:54 PM, "Joel Esler" <jesler at ...1935...> wrote:
>  All —
>  Okay, I am going to try and respond to everyone here, so bear with me.
>  We had an event here today where I was busy, that’s what took me so
> long.  So if anyone is running around their office sweating waiting for
> some kind of statement from me or Marty other than the blog post I put up
> this morning:
>  http://blog.snort.org/2013/07/a-continued-commitment-to-open-source.html
>  So, I’ll try and answer some of the emails in one thread and hopefully
> everyone will feel the same that I feel.
>   On Jul 23, 2013, at 1:46 PM, Jefferson, Shawn <
> Shawn.Jefferson at ...14448...> wrote:
>   It may not end up being that bad.  I was worried tha
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.snort.org/pipermail/snort-users/attachments/20130724/e97885ce/attachment.html>

More information about the Snort-users mailing list