Securosis

Research

DLP Acquisitions: The Good, The Bad, And The Whatever

I’ve been covering the Data Loss Prevention/Content Monitoring and Filtering space pretty much since before it existed and it’s been pretty wild to watch a market grow from it’s inception to early mainstream. It’s also a weird experience to stand on the sidelines and watch as all the incredibly hard work of contacts in various vendors finally pays off. As complex and not-quite-mature as the market is, I’m still a fan of DLP. If you go in with the right intentions, especially understanding that it’s great for limiting accidents and bad processes, but not all that good against malicious threats, you’ll be able to reduce your risk in a business-friendly way. It helps solve a business problem, does it reasonably well despite needing some maturity, and has the added benefit of giving you good insight into where your data is and how it’s used. I’m predicting the core DLP market will do somewhere around $100M this year. No lower than $80M and not higher than $120M, but probably closer to $90-$100M. If we add in products with DLP features that aren’t pure plays, this grows to no more than $180M. In other words, the entire DLP market is, at most, about half of what Symantec paid for Vontu. I’ll talk more about the future of DLP at some point, but the big vendors that win will be those that see DLP as a strategic acquisition for a future platform base around content-aware security (and maybe more than security). The losers will be the ones that buy just to get into the game or add a feature to an existing product line. We’ve hit the point where I don’t expect to see more than one or two acquisitions before the end of the year, and I doubt either of those will be as big as even the PortAuthority/Websense deal ($80M), never mind Vontu/Symantec. It’s possible we’ll see one more near the $100M range, but I suspect nothing until next year. As such it’s a good time to reflect on the acquisitions over the past eighteen months and figure out which ones might be more successful than others. Disclaimer: Although I currently have business relationships with a few DLP vendors none of those relationships preclude me from giving my honest opinions. My position is that even if I lose some business in the short term (which I don’t expect), in the long run it’s far more important for me to retain my reputation for accuracy and objectivity.   I’ll discuss these in roughly chronological order, but I’m too lazy to look up the exact dates: McAfee/Onigma: McAfee acquired a small Israeli startup that specialized in endpoint DLP fairly early on. Onigma was unproven in the market and pre-acquisition I didn’t talk to any production references. Some of my Israeli contacts considered the technology interesting. McAfee no offers DLP as a combined network/endpoint solution, but based on the customers I’ve talked with it’s not very competitive as a stand-alone solution. It seems to be reasonable at protecting basic data like credit card numbers, and might be a good add-on if you just want basic DLP and already use the McAfee product line. It lacks content discovery or all-channel network protection, limiting its usefulness if you want a complete solution. I need to admit that this is the product I am least familiar with and I welcome additional information or criticism of this analysis. Overall, McAfee has a long way to go to be really competitive with DLP. Onigma got them into the game, but that’s about it. Rating- thumb slightly down. Websense/PortAuthority: Before the Vontu deal, PortAuthority was the one raising eyebrows when Websense acquired them for $80M. When they were still Vidius, I didn’t consider the product competitive, but a year after they injected some cash and changed the name the product became very solid with a couple unique features and good unstructured data capabilities. My initial evaluation was a thumbs up- Websense had the channels and exiting market for some good up sell, and their endpoint agent could be a good platform for the PortAuthority technology to extend DLP onto workstations (they do use technology from Safend, but some of the features of the Websense agent make it potentially a better option). The challenge, as you’ll see in some of these other deals, is that DLP is a different sell, to a different buying center, and a different way of looking at security. Nearly one year later I think Websense is still struggling a bit and Q4 numbers, when released, will be extremely telling. The Content Protection Suite is an opportunity for Websense to move a way from a more commoditized market (web filtering) and build a strong base for long term growth, but we have yet to see them fully execute in that direction. I’ve always considered this one a smart acquisition, but I worry a bit that the execution is faltering. Q4 will be a critical one for Websense, and 2008 an even more critical year since the initial integration pains should be over. Rating- thumb slightly up, able to go in either direction based on Q4. EMC/Tablus: Tablus was an early visionary in the market and, with PortAuthority, one of the top two technologies for working with unstructured data (as opposed to credit card/Social Security numbers). Despite a good core technology (and one of the first endpoint agents, via early acquisition) they faltered significantly on execution. The product suffered from integration and UI issues, and we didn’t see them in as many evaluations as some of the others. That said, the EMC acquisition (undisclosed numbers, but rumored in the $40M range) is one of the smarter ones in the market. EMC/RSA is the biggest threat in the data security market today- they have more components, ranging from database encryption to DRM to DLP, than anyone else. Because of Tablus’s stronger abilities in unstructured data it’s well positioned to integrate across the EMC product line. The biggest challenge is

Share:
Read Post

(Updated) DLP Acquisitions: The Good, The Bad, And The Whatever

Updated- based on a challenge in email, and redoing some math, I’m going out on a limb and revising my market projections down. My best guess is the market will do closer to $80M this year, unless Q4 is unusually strong. I’ve been covering the Data Loss Prevention/Content Monitoring and Filtering space pretty much since before it existed and it’s been pretty wild to watch a market grow from its inception to early mainstream. It’s also a weird experience to stand on the sidelines and watch as all the incredibly hard work of contacts in various vendors finally pays off. As complex and not-quite-mature as the market is, I’m still a fan of DLP. If you go in with the right intentions, especially understanding that it’s great for limiting accidents and bad processes, but not all that good against malicious threats, you’ll be able to reduce your risk in a business-friendly way. It helps solve a business problem, does it reasonably well despite needing some maturity, and has the added benefit of giving you good insight into where your data is and how it’s used. I’m predicting the core DLP market will do somewhere around $100M $60M-80M this year. No lower than $80M $55M and not higher than $120M $100M, but probably closer to $90-$100M $60-$70M. If we add in products with DLP features that aren’t pure plays, this grows to no more than $180M. In other words, the entire DLP market is, at most, about half of what Symantec paid for Vontu. I’ll talk more about the future of DLP at some point, but the big vendors that win will be those which see DLP as a strategic acquisition for a future platform base around content-aware security (and maybe more than security). The losers will be the ones which buy just to get into the game or add a feature to an existing product line. We’ve hit the point where I don’t expect to see more than one or two acquisitions before the end of the year, and I doubt either of those will be as big as even the PortAuthority/Websense deal ($80M), never mind Vontu/Symantec. It’s possible we’ll see one more near the $100M range, but I suspect nothing until next year. As such it’s a good time to reflect on the acquisitions over the past eighteen months and figure out which ones might be more successful than others. Disclaimer: Although I currently have business relationships with a few DLP vendors, none of those relationships precludes me from giving my honest opinions. My position is that even if I lose some business in the short term (which I don’t expect), in the long run it’s far more important for me to retain my reputation for accuracy and objectivity. I’ll discuss these in roughly chronological order, but I’m too lazy to look up the exact dates: McAfee/Onigma: McAfee acquired a small Israeli startup that specialized in endpoint DLP fairly early on. Onigma was unproven in the market and pre-acquisition I didn’t talk to any production references. Some of my Israeli contacts considered the technology interesting. McAfee now offers DLP as a combined network/endpoint solution, but based on the customers I’ve talked with it’s not very competitive as a stand-alone solution. It seems to be reasonable at protecting basic data like credit card numbers, and might be a good add-on if you just want basic DLP and already use the McAfee product line. It lacks content discovery or all-channel network protection, limiting its usefulness if you want a complete solution. I need to admit that this is the product I am least familiar with and I welcome additional information or criticism of this analysis. Overall, McAfee has a long way to go to be really competitive in DLP. Onigma got them into the game, but that’s about it. Rating: thumb slightly down. Websense/PortAuthority: Before the Vontu deal, PortAuthority was the one raising eyebrows when Websense acquired them for $80M. When they were still Vidius, I didn’t consider the product competitive, but a year after they injected some cash and changed the name the product became very solid with a couple unique features and good unstructured data capabilities. My initial evaluation was a thumbs up- Websense had the channels and exiting market for some good upsell, and their endpoint agent could be a good platform for the PortAuthority technology to extend DLP onto workstations (they do use technology from Safend, but some of the features of the Websense agent make it potentially a better option). The challenge, as you’ll see in some of these other deals, is that DLP is a different sell, to a different buying center, and a different way of looking at security. Nearly one year later I think Websense is still struggling a bit and Q4 numbers, when released, will be extremely telling. The Content Protection Suite is an opportunity for Websense to move away from a more commoditized market (web filtering) and build a strong base for long term growth, but we have yet to see them fully execute in that direction. I’ve always considered this one a smart acquisition, but I worry a bit that the execution is faltering. Q4 will be a critical one for Websense, and 2008 an even more critical year since the initial integration pains should be over. Rating: thumb slightly up, able to go in either direction based on Q4. EMC/Tablus: Tablus was an early visionary in the market and, with PortAuthority, one of the top two technologies for working with unstructured data (as opposed to credit card/Social Security numbers). Despite a good core technology (and one of the first endpoint agents, via early acquisition) they faltered significantly on execution. The product suffered from integration and UI issues, and we didn’t see them in as many evaluations as some of the others. That said, the EMC acquisition (undisclosed numbers, but rumored in the $40M range) is one of the smarter ones in the market. EMC/RSA is the biggest threat in

Share:
Read Post
dinosaur-sidebar

Totally Transparent Research is the embodiment of how we work at Securosis. It’s our core operating philosophy, our research policy, and a specific process. We initially developed it to help maintain objectivity while producing licensed research, but its benefits extend to all aspects of our business.

Going beyond Open Source Research, and a far cry from the traditional syndicated research model, we think it’s the best way to produce independent, objective, quality research.

Here’s how it works:

  • Content is developed ‘live’ on the blog. Primary research is generally released in pieces, as a series of posts, so we can digest and integrate feedback, making the end results much stronger than traditional “ivory tower” research.
  • Comments are enabled for posts. All comments are kept except for spam, personal insults of a clearly inflammatory nature, and completely off-topic content that distracts from the discussion. We welcome comments critical of the work, even if somewhat insulting to the authors. Really.
  • Anyone can comment, and no registration is required. Vendors or consultants with a relevant product or offering must properly identify themselves. While their comments won’t be deleted, the writer/moderator will “call out”, identify, and possibly ridicule vendors who fail to do so.
  • Vendors considering licensing the content are welcome to provide feedback, but it must be posted in the comments - just like everyone else. There is no back channel influence on the research findings or posts.
    Analysts must reply to comments and defend the research position, or agree to modify the content.
  • At the end of the post series, the analyst compiles the posts into a paper, presentation, or other delivery vehicle. Public comments/input factors into the research, where appropriate.
  • If the research is distributed as a paper, significant commenters/contributors are acknowledged in the opening of the report. If they did not post their real names, handles used for comments are listed. Commenters do not retain any rights to the report, but their contributions will be recognized.
  • All primary research will be released under a Creative Commons license. The current license is Non-Commercial, Attribution. The analyst, at their discretion, may add a Derivative Works or Share Alike condition.
  • Securosis primary research does not discuss specific vendors or specific products/offerings, unless used to provide context, contrast or to make a point (which is very very rare).
    Although quotes from published primary research (and published primary research only) may be used in press releases, said quotes may never mention a specific vendor, even if the vendor is mentioned in the source report. Securosis must approve any quote to appear in any vendor marketing collateral.
  • Final primary research will be posted on the blog with open comments.
  • Research will be updated periodically to reflect market realities, based on the discretion of the primary analyst. Updated research will be dated and given a version number.
    For research that cannot be developed using this model, such as complex principles or models that are unsuited for a series of blog posts, the content will be chunked up and posted at or before release of the paper to solicit public feedback, and provide an open venue for comments and criticisms.
  • In rare cases Securosis may write papers outside of the primary research agenda, but only if the end result can be non-biased and valuable to the user community to supplement industry-wide efforts or advances. A “Radically Transparent Research” process will be followed in developing these papers, where absolutely all materials are public at all stages of development, including communications (email, call notes).
    Only the free primary research released on our site can be licensed. We will not accept licensing fees on research we charge users to access.
  • All licensed research will be clearly labeled with the licensees. No licensed research will be released without indicating the sources of licensing fees. Again, there will be no back channel influence. We’re open and transparent about our revenue sources.

In essence, we develop all of our research out in the open, and not only seek public comments, but keep those comments indefinitely as a record of the research creation process. If you believe we are biased or not doing our homework, you can call us out on it and it will be there in the record. Our philosophy involves cracking open the research process, and using our readers to eliminate bias and enhance the quality of the work.

On the back end, here’s how we handle this approach with licensees:

  • Licensees may propose paper topics. The topic may be accepted if it is consistent with the Securosis research agenda and goals, but only if it can be covered without bias and will be valuable to the end user community.
  • Analysts produce research according to their own research agendas, and may offer licensing under the same objectivity requirements.
  • The potential licensee will be provided an outline of our research positions and the potential research product so they can determine if it is likely to meet their objectives.
  • Once the licensee agrees, development of the primary research content begins, following the Totally Transparent Research process as outlined above. At this point, there is no money exchanged.
  • Upon completion of the paper, the licensee will receive a release candidate to determine whether the final result still meets their needs.
  • If the content does not meet their needs, the licensee is not required to pay, and the research will be released without licensing or with alternate licensees.
  • Licensees may host and reuse the content for the length of the license (typically one year). This includes placing the content behind a registration process, posting on white paper networks, or translation into other languages. The research will always be hosted at Securosis for free without registration.

Here is the language we currently place in our research project agreements:

Content will be created independently of LICENSEE with no obligations for payment. Once content is complete, LICENSEE will have a 3 day review period to determine if the content meets corporate objectives. If the content is unsuitable, LICENSEE will not be obligated for any payment and Securosis is free to distribute the whitepaper without branding or with alternate licensees, and will not complete any associated webcasts for the declining LICENSEE. Content licensing, webcasts and payment are contingent on the content being acceptable to LICENSEE. This maintains objectivity while limiting the risk to LICENSEE. Securosis maintains all rights to the content and to include Securosis branding in addition to any licensee branding.

Even this process itself is open to criticism. If you have questions or comments, you can email us or comment on the blog.