Re: SourceFire buys ClamAV

[Jordan Wiens <numatrix () ufl edu>]

I actually asked that question on their investor call this morning.

They said as a part of the acquisition they pledged to leave the  
malware database and signatures under the same license they're under  
now.

Besides, I'm sure the bleeding threats guys or someone else would  
fill in the void for truely open source signatures.  In fact, who  
says you need VRT sigs now to be "properly" protected?  There's  
plenty of other sources of quality signatures.

What is interesting is that part of the goal is to produce a "clean"  
codebase, I assume to be "untained" by pesky contributions so that  
they can dual-license the product.  The goal for that was about a  
year from now.

At least they're not just arbitrarily changing the license without  
getting permission from contributers this time (sorry, Marty!).

--
Jordan Wiens, CISSP
UF Network Security Engineer
(352)392-2061


On Aug 17, 2007, at 10:46 AM, C Q wrote:

> Anybody feels like placing bets on how
> long it's going to take SourceFire to pull
> the same trick with ClamAV signatures
> they pulled with Snort signatures where
> you'll need to "conveniently" license
> the signatures from SourceFire to have
> the latest ones to be properly protected :-)
>
> The engine source code will be useless
> if you don't have the very latest AV sigs...

_______________________________________________
Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts.
https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec
Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.