Securosis

Menu

Research

Nitro & Q1: SIEM/Log Management vendors dropping right and left

Mike Rothman October 4, 2011 5 Comments

It must be SIEM acquisition Tuesday. McAfee hit first by announcing their expected deal with Nitro Security. But then IBM surprised pretty much everyone by acquiring Q1 Labs. Don’t blink or you may miss another 2-3 SIEM/Log Management vendor acquisitions. Obviously we have been talking about consolidation in the SIEM/Log Management space for quite a while – there are about 20 vendors left now – but it’s strange that deals involving the two most significant independent vendors happened on the same day. Coincidence? Our pal and contributor James Arlen doesn’t believe in it, and neither do we… Hot Tamales First let’s discuss why these SIEM/LM players are such hot commodities. As many of us have been whining, compliance drives security nowadays, and log management is a must-have technologies for compliance. So almost everyone has some kind of log aggregation capability to cover the basic requirements. Most customers are thinking about enterprise-class options, which is driving business in the SIEM/Log Management space, as they want to do stuff with the vast amounts of data they collect. At the same time, the products are maturing. They aren’t easy to use, but they are getting better, and vendors’ ability to support enterprise-class requirements has improved, especially for Q1 and Nitro. That’s it. Also consider that security management was always destined to become part of the IT management and operations stack. That’s what drove the EMC/RSA/Network Intelligence and HP/ArcSight deals of yore, and is driving today’s deals. In simplest terms, SIEM/LM was never destined to be an independent technology over the long term, so these deals are just the logical conclusion of a 3-4 year consolidation. Why Buy? Let’s look at the buyer profiles – why did both McAfee and IBM buy the leading (independent) players in this market? In McAfee’s case the answer is simple. They had NOTHING to address this client requirement. They needed something – not having either LM or SIEM was forcing their customers to buy other solutions, such as ArcSight and RSA – which is unacceptable if your goal is to own the entire security stack. McAfee had to buy something, and frankly they should have done this a long time ago. IBM, on the other hand, had a number of SIEM-type platforms, most buried within the Tivoli group. But none were competitive, and I can’t tell you the last time I heard an end-user organization taking an IBM SIEM offering seriously. They do a bit of security management as a managed service (using the former ISS platform), but that wasn’t an answer. The real kicker, and what forced IBM’s hand, was clearly HP. HP’s ownership of ArcSight as the cornerstone of its enterprise security strategy put IBM at a clear disadvantage. Eventually not having a competing offering would have hurt them. I’m sure they did the math and decided it was easier to buy Q1 now (even for a pretty big number), than to wait until Q1 went public. Clearly IBM was going to pay to get into this market, so they decided to pay now. Why Sell? You always have to wonder why companies with clear momentum in a growing market sell. But don’t worry about it too much – I suspect it just came down to economics. Every company has a price, and clearly since it took so long for McAfee to consummate the Nitro deal, they finally reached it. This is actually a great outcome for Nitro, given that they were a couple of years behind Q1 on pretty much every enterprise front (revenue/bookings, channel, enterprise deployment), so getting taken out was a better option. McAfee was the likely candidate in light of their successful coordination as part of SIA (Security Innovation Alliance), as well as Nitro’s more reasonable price tag. McAfee has never really broken the bank for technology acquisitions since DeWalt came to power. Based on technology, sales model, and price, Nitro was a better fit for McAfee. Likewise, Q1 is the best fit for IBM. IBM is a huge company, and when they buy, they need to move the needle. Or at least have a chance to move the needle. Q1 was clearly on a path to go public, with speculation that the IPO would happen in early 2012. But every company goes into a deal with stars in their eyes, and Q1 is no different. IBM is giving Q1 CEO Brendan Hannigan the keys to a new combined security group. So they hope IBM will have a big group like HP does, which obviously dramatically increases the Q1’s impact on the market. Speaking of HP, we really cannot overstate the impact of the HP/ARST deal on this week’s events. From everything we’ve heard, after a little integration heartburn, HP is now driving ARST into deals that none of the other players are seeing. IBM gets a similar benefit with Q1. Clearly Q1 needs IBM’s reach to accelerate their growth path and impact. Will it happen? Who knows? But IBM gives the Q1 team their best chance. What about the customers? As with every deal, customers will suffer. The question is how much and for how long. All things considered, HP actually did a decent job with their ARST integration, so if IBM leaves Q1 alone, they have a chance. But there will be disruption – there always is. Q1 is now selling to IBM’s field sales force, and less directly to end users. It will take some time for IBM to figure out what they have, and the Q1 team needs to focus on teaching them – which means something will fall through the cracks. If you are a Q1 customer, and your implementation is working well, you should see little impact. If your implementation isn’t working well, start pushing for additional services to fix it. That will push Q1 to train IBM’s services teams, which is a good thing. McAfee historically has bought technology and just plugged it into their channel. SIEM is not AV, nor is it vulnerability management,

Share:
Read Post
dinosaur-sidebar

Research

view all

Sign Up for Our Newsletter

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.