Dark Reading is part of the Informa Tech Division of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them.Informa PLC's registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.


12:35 PM
Connect Directly

HP To Buy Fortify

Deal seals already tight relationship between the two vendors, sets the stage for an HP-IBM showdown

HP plans to acquire secure software vendor Fortify Software, the two companies announced today.

The acquisition didn't come as much of a surprise to the security community given the close relationship between the two vendors during the past two years. HP, which has dynamic security analysis tools, and Fortify, which sells static application security analysis tools, have been integrating their products and technologies, with plans to release the fruits of those efforts, the Hybrid 2.0 line, this year. Hybrid 2.0 basically correlates testing data from penetration tests and static code analysis.

Financial details of HP's deal to buy the privately held Fortify weren't disclosed.

Mark Sarbiewski, vice president of products for HP software and solutions, says both companies see secure software efforts covering all applications in the enterprise. "It's a life-cycle problem," Sarbiewski says. That means working with developers, quality assurance, and production teams, he says.

"Fortify has great mindshare with the CIO and development community. We have great mindshare with the QA and head of applications. It's a match made in heaven," Sarbiewski says.

Fortify will initially operate as a separate unit, but eventually become part of the HP Software and Solutions business; its products will fall under the Business Technology Optimization application line, according to HP.

"Now we get to bring to bear the channels and expertise [of HP] and other areas that were harder for us to reach" as a smaller company, says Mike Armistead, co-founder and vice president of corporate development at Fortify. "We've had a good line on the security side and developer side ... It's been a struggle to reach the head of apps and the operations side. HP clearly has those relationships and this helps us complete our mission."

Meanwhile, the security community was abuzz with what this consolidation means for application security and with a more intensified match-up in the space between HP and IBM, which recently purchased Fortify competitor Ounce Labs.

"HP's acquisition of Fortify Software can be viewed as further validation for the software security space. But for most customers and prospects, it's just another move in the chess game between the two gorillas in the software testing/QA space -- IBM and HP," said Matt Moynahan, CEO at Veracode, in a statement. "We'd argue that acquisitions in this market haven't made organizations safer, and we don't expect this one to be any different. Consider that in the past year since the IBM Rational/Ounce Labs acquisition, Google, Microsoft, Siemens, and the U.S. DoD have all fallen prey to zero-day vulnerabilities in third-party software and components and while using static source tools in the software development life cycle."

Moynahan, whose company offers an application security service in the cloud, argued that giving developers the tools to test source code doesn't necessarily result in secure apps. "In reality, to properly verify the security posture of any application, the final product must be tested in the state that it will be rolled out in the enterprise, which includes third-party software to which no source code is available. The only way for organizations to truly scale is to do this verification in the cloud," he said.

Mandeep Khera, CMO for Cenzic, said HP's purchase of Fortify is in response to IBM's acquisition of static-analysis tool vendor Ounce Labs. "The big question is if HP will integrate this product smoothly and invest in it further, unlike what they did with WebInspect," Khera said in a statement.

Have a comment on this story? Please click "Discuss" below. If you'd like to contact Dark Reading's editors directly, send us a message.

Kelly Jackson Higgins is the Executive Editor of Dark Reading. She is an award-winning veteran technology and business journalist with more than two decades of experience in reporting and editing for various publications, including Network Computing, Secure Enterprise ... View Full Bio

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
COVID-19: Latest Security News & Commentary
Dark Reading Staff 9/21/2020
Hacking Yourself: Marie Moe and Pacemaker Security
Gary McGraw Ph.D., Co-founder Berryville Institute of Machine Learning,  9/21/2020
Startup Aims to Map and Track All the IT and Security Things
Kelly Jackson Higgins, Executive Editor at Dark Reading,  9/22/2020
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Current Issue
Special Report: Computing's New Normal
This special report examines how IT security organizations have adapted to the "new normal" of computing and what the long-term effects will be. Read it and get a unique set of perspectives on issues ranging from new threats & vulnerabilities as a result of remote working to how enterprise security strategy will be affected long term.
Flash Poll
How IT Security Organizations are Attacking the Cybersecurity Problem
How IT Security Organizations are Attacking the Cybersecurity Problem
The COVID-19 pandemic turned the world -- and enterprise computing -- on end. Here's a look at how cybersecurity teams are retrenching their defense strategies, rebuilding their teams, and selecting new technologies to stop the oncoming rise of online attacks.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
PUBLISHED: 2020-09-23
An issue was discovered in Xen through 4.14.x. x86 PV guest kernels can experience denial of service via SYSENTER. The SYSENTER instruction leaves various state sanitization activities to software. One of Xen's sanitization paths injects a #GP fault, and incorrectly delivers it twice to the guest. T...
PUBLISHED: 2020-09-23
An issue was discovered in Xen through 4.14.x. There is mishandling of the constraint that once-valid event channels may not turn invalid. Logic in the handling of event channel operations in Xen assumes that an event channel, once valid, will not become invalid over the life time of a guest. Howeve...
PUBLISHED: 2020-09-23
An issue was discovered in Xen 4.14.x. There is a missing unlock in the XENMEM_acquire_resource error path. The RCU (Read, Copy, Update) mechanism is a synchronisation primitive. A buggy error path in the XENMEM_acquire_resource exits without releasing an RCU reference, which is conceptually similar...
PUBLISHED: 2020-09-23
An issue was discovered in Xen through 4.14.x. There are evtchn_reset() race conditions. Uses of EVTCHNOP_reset (potentially by a guest on itself) or XEN_DOMCTL_soft_reset (by itself covered by XSA-77) can lead to the violation of various internal assumptions. This may lead to out of bounds memory a...
PUBLISHED: 2020-09-23
An issue was discovered in Xen through 4.14.x. Out of bounds event channels are available to 32-bit x86 domains. The so called 2-level event channel model imposes different limits on the number of usable event channels for 32-bit x86 domains vs 64-bit or Arm (either bitness) ones. 32-bit x86 domains...