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.

Vulnerabilities / Threats

1/24/2007
07:35 AM
Connect Directly
Google+
Twitter
RSS
E-Mail
50%
50%

Intrusic Shuttered

Internal threat detection firm undone by complicated technology, competition

Intrusic -- an insider threat detection vendor -- has closed its doors, a company executive confirmed today.

CEO James Mobley, who joined Intrusic a few months ago, says the decision to cease operations was made early last week, and its remaining 20 employees "have begun looking for other opportunities."

Rumors had been circulating that Intrusic was winding down its operations after failing to gain a foothold in the crowded market for insider threat detection software. Mobley acknowledges the market is crowded, but adds there's plenty of room for competitors if they are positioned properly.

"The decision was made based on a combination of things," Mobley says. Intrusic looked at market opportunity, and the investment required to take advantage of it, he says, and then decided to end its operations. He says the company is still working out customer support issues and is approaching several companies about the sale of its intellectual property.

He says the insider threat space is a healthy market, and that "no one vendor is solving it in an end-to-end fashion."

After Mobley joined Intrusic, the company raised $8 million in Series B funding from existing investors North Bridge Venture Partners, Draper Fisher Jurvetson, and DFJ New England, bringing the total venture capital funding to $19 million, says Nick Selby, senior analyst with The 451 Group, which estimates the privately held Intrusic's revenues at less than $800,000 for 2005.

"It was one of those situations where you have to look at it and gauge the situation and make the best decision based on where you are," Mobley says of Intrusic's demise.

One analyst who requested anonymity says the insider threat detection market is problematic. "Nobody has a product in this space that doesn't require multiple full-time staff," the analyst says. "And nobody budgets even a single full-time person to a new, unproven security product."

The 451 Group's Selby says the insider threat market itself wasn't the problem. "We don't think Intrusic's decision is necessarily indicative of a lack of interest in these kinds of technologies, but rather of some unfortunate decisions at the company over the past couple of years," says 451 Group's Selby. Among its woes were "conflicting statements" about how its product worked and its features, he says.

Other vendors in the sector have also had difficulties. Seattle-based GraniteEdge announced layoffs and a revamp last summer, and New York City-based CounterStorm restructured in 2004, he says. Other vendors in this market include Securify, PacketMotion, and network behavior anomaly detection players like Arbor Networks, Lancope, and Mazu Networks, Selby adds.

He lauded Mobley's no-nonsense approach to communicating the company's strengths and openness about its weaknesses, and credited him with the introduction of Intrusic's consulting services.

— Kelly Jackson Higgins, Senior Editor, Dark Reading

  • The 451 Group
  • Arbor Networks Inc.
  • CounterStorm Inc.
  • GraniteEdge Networks Inc.
  • Intrusic Inc.
  • Lancope Inc.
  • Mazu Networks
  • PacketMotion Inc.
  • Securify Inc. 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
  • Comments
    Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
    Navigating Security in the Cloud
    Diya Jolly, Chief Product Officer, Okta,  12/4/2019
    Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
    White Papers
    Video
    Cartoon Contest
    Write a Caption, Win a Starbucks Card! Click Here
    Latest Comment: "The security team seem to be taking SiegeWare seriously" 
    Current Issue
    Navigating the Deluge of Security Data
    In this Tech Digest, Dark Reading shares the experiences of some top security practitioners as they navigate volumes of security data. We examine some examples of how enterprises can cull this data to find the clues they need.
    Flash Poll
    Rethinking Enterprise Data Defense
    Rethinking Enterprise Data Defense
    Frustrated with recurring intrusions and breaches, cybersecurity professionals are questioning some of the industrys conventional wisdom. Heres a look at what theyre thinking about.
    Twitter Feed
    Dark Reading - Bug Report
    Bug Report
    Enterprise Vulnerabilities
    From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
    CVE-2012-1114
    PUBLISHED: 2019-12-05
    A Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) vulnerability exists in LDAP Account Manager (LAM) Pro 3.6 in the filter parameter to cmd.php in an export and exporter_id action. and the filteruid parameter to list.php.
    CVE-2012-1115
    PUBLISHED: 2019-12-05
    A Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) vulnerability exists in LDAP Account Manager (LAM) Pro 3.6 in the export, add_value_form, and dn parameters to cmd.php.
    CVE-2012-1592
    PUBLISHED: 2019-12-05
    A local code execution issue exists in Apache Struts2 when processing malformed XSLT files, which could let a malicious user upload and execute arbitrary files.
    CVE-2019-16770
    PUBLISHED: 2019-12-05
    A poorly-behaved client could use keepalive requests to monopolize Puma's reactor and create a denial of service attack. If more keepalive connections to Puma are opened than there are threads available, additional connections will wait permanently if the attacker sends requests frequently enough.
    CVE-2019-19609
    PUBLISHED: 2019-12-05
    The Strapi framework before 3.0.0-beta.17.8 is vulnerable to Remote Code Execution in the Install and Uninstall Plugin components of the Admin panel, because it does not sanitize the plugin name, and attackers can inject arbitrary shell commands to be executed by the execa function.