A possible reason TippingPoint is not focusing on security in the switch
on January 13th, 2007 at 11:00 amAlan Shimel posted about something said by Brian Smith, co-founder of TippingPoint and chief architect of 3Com, in an SC Magazine article. Here’s part of the excerpt Alan used:
Smith says he also plans to emphasize the benefits of
the bump-in-the-wire network approach to deploying security solutions.
Rather than embedding solutions into switchers and routers, Smith plans
to suggest overlaying solutions to allow for a more converged, cheaper
way to add intelligence to the network.”
Alan rightly points out that Mr. Smith may be smoking a big crack pipe. Alan then ponders the mystery by asking, “Do the Tipping Point people resent and hate their 3Com overlords so much that they refuse to see the natural evolution of converging security and network gear?” Alan, I may have an inkling to why Smith thinks this is the best approach. And if my suspicion is correct, then you are on the right track, but their resentment is not the reason. Let me ‘splain.
When I was an infosec manager, I was a TippingPoint customer. When I bought the TippingPoint box, stand-alone devices were still all the rage. UTM and NAC were pretty much still new terms. But right about the time TippingPoint was bought by 3com, the convergence track had started to emerge. Cisco was really getting into putting different devices in their switches. Things were really starting to move in that direction, and 3com probably thought they should do the same.
But just in case things were not what they seemed, 3com decided to test the waters (conjecture on my part, but plausible conjecture nonetheless). So they surveyed their customers (or TippingPoint customers, at least). I received one of these surveys. Among other things, it asked if I would buy a 3com enterpise switch with a TippingPoint IPS blade integrated into it. Understand that I come from the network engineering world. I have installed and configured many a switch and router. And for the immediate 4-5 years before this survey hit my inbox, 3com had been about as present in the enterprise switch space as a woman at an ISSA chapter meeting. The biggest place you saw 3com was on a NIC or a little white 8-port hub in a room full of cubicles. So, I answered a definitive “not no, but hell no”.
To clarify (if the above didn’t explain it well enough), it was the 3com switch that threw me. I wasn’t unhappy with TippingPoint (except that they had been bought by 3com). I liked the box. It served me well. If I could get a TippingPoint blade for the 4506, I would have seriously considered it. But there was no way I was going to replace my Catalyst 4506 with a 3com switch, no way, now how.
Of course, I cannot answer for every TippingPoint customer who received the survey, but I can guess that many of them answered the same way. And this makes me wonder if 3com and TippingPoint are sitting in ivory towers and ignoring the trends because it doesn’t compute that people don’t like their switches.
And to add one more thing that may add some credence to my hypothesis: I also had a couple of 3com reps come out to visit me during the final months of my tenure as an infosec manager. When my boss and I told the 3com guys that we would not consider in any way replacing our current switching infrastructure with 3com because of our impression of 3com as a serious player, they were completely surprised by our attitude. Now maybe they had never received that reaction before because we were just a little more harsh and up front with our opinions. But my immediate opinion was that they really didn’t know they had that kind of reputation. Maybe it is just me that thinks this about them, but I don’t think so.
Vet
One correction Chris – 3Com/TP was supposed to show this M60 chassis at the *last* RSA i.e. 2006 and not RSA 2007.
You are both way off-base! The reason Brian Smith was quoted in this article within this context is because Tippingpoint/3com are showing their honking M60 Security SWITCH at RSA! I think you guys are more interested in knocking the 3Com/Tippingpoint relationship than understanding what Brian was saying.
I’ve added my comments here:
http://rationalsecurity.typepad.com/blog/2007/01/upchuck_shrubbe.html
Besides, I happen to agree with him
Actually, that’s not what I am saying. What I am saying is that 3Com is possibly not aware (or won’t admit or are just plain dumb) that they suck as an enterprise switch, and a combination of the survey and their ignorance / arrogance / stupidity is making them look down the wrong path.
Saying that, I think your hypothesis is just as plausible. If 3com sucks at making a good product, then it is possible that they are not able to control their individual parts. Of course, if they are leaving TP alone to do what they do best, then I doubt TP would come up with this strategy on their own. So their has to be some form of influence / persuasion / threatening from above to make them go public with this drivel.
And yes, I would also be embarrassed if I was TP and was working for 3com. Having said that and all the above, $400 million can make up for a lot of embarrassment. I can’t say that I would turn that down either.
Michael- so what your saying is because 3Com sucks as an enterprise switch vendor, Tipping Point is trying to go it alone and going against the trend. That is probably in line with what the Tipping Point guys I have spoken to say that they are embarrassed to be part of 3Com. My answer is they weren’t too embarrassed to take their 400+ million dollars from 3Com. I will write more on this on my blog.