But, despite an impressive contribution to the war effort, the Bletchley Park site, now a museum, faces a bleak future unless it can secure funding to keep its doors open and its numerous exhibits from rotting away.

The Bletchley Park Trust receives no external funding. It has been deemed ineligible for funding by the National Lottery, and turned down by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation because the Microsoft founder will only fund internet-based technology projects.

"We are just about surviving. Money -- or lack of it -- is our big problem here. I think we have two to three more years of survival, but we need this time to find a solution to this," said Simon Greenish, the Trust's director.

As a result of lack of funds, the Trust is unable to rebuild the site's rotting infrastructure and faces an uncertain future. "The Trust is the hardest-up museum I know," said Greenish. "We have this huge estate to run and it's one of the most important World War II stories there is."

Anybody out there want to help put together a major contribution?

This week has been an interesting week in the virtual security blog world!  Simon Crosby of Citrix/XenSource stated in his podcast that he felt the virtualization vendors like VMWare and Citrix didn't have the competence to address the security challenges of virtualization and Chris Hoff blogged about it saying that the statement is a cop-out and that they should do more in securing their platforms. Alan Shimel also blogged on the topic and agreed with Hoff and I blogged about it agreeing with both Simon and Hoff. 

To restate my position on it I think that Simon is correct in that virtualization vendors like VMWare and Citrix do not have the expertise today to address all of the security challenges.  I also agree with Hoff that they should address more of the security challenges.  So this leads me to my own opinion that some of the virtualization vendors will acquire security technologies to differentiate  themselves from others and acquire the expertise.  Many say that the virtualization market will become commoditized and  that security can help protect its value. 

Think about it.  Would you rather buy a Virtual Environment or a Secure Virtual Environment?!

So.. Onto the topic of this blog!  Is Virtual Security Technology A Prime Target For Acquisition?

I'd love your opinion so please comment!!

What triggered my blog on this topic was this rumor I heard today.  Some buzz started today that one of the virtual security startups just agreed behind closed doors to be acquired by one of the big guys.  But, who could it be?  Reflex Security, Catbird, Blue Lane, Altor Networks, VMSight, Embotics, etc.

I have an idea of who it could be but don't want to spread rumors that could be false.  The other question is whether or not there is an atmosphere of acquisition frenzy brewing in the virtualization market. 

Please comment on your thoughts - Just click the comments link bellow.

This week has been an interesting week in the virtual security blog world!  Simon Crosby of Citrix/XenSource stated in his podcast that he felt the virtualization vendors like VMWare and Citrix didn't have the competence to address the security challenges of virtualization and Chris Hoff blogged about it saying that the statement is a cop-out and that they should do more in securing their platforms. Alan Shimel also blogged on the topic and agreed with Hoff and I blogged about it agreeing with both Simon and Hoff. 

To restate my position on it; I think that Simon is correct in that virtualization vendors like VMWare and Citrix do not have the expertise today to address all of the security challenges.  I also agree with Hoff that they should address more of the security challenges.  So this leads me to my own opinion that some of the virtualization vendors will acquire security technologies to differentiate  themselves from others and acquire the expertise.  Many say that the virtualization market will become commoditized and  that security can help protect its value. 

Think about it.  Would you rather buy a Virtual Environment or a Secure Virtual Environment?!

So.. Onto the topic of this blog!  Is Virtual Security Technology A Prime Target For Acquisition?

I'd love your opinion so please comment!!

What triggered my blog on this topic was this rumor I heard today.  Some buzz started today that one of the virtual security startups just agreed behind closed doors to be acquired by one of the big guys.  But, who could it be?  Reflex Security, Catbird, Blue Lane, Altor Networks, VMSight, Embotics, etc.

I have an idea of who it could be but don't want to spread rumors that could be false.  The other question is whether or not there is an atmosphere of acquisition frenzy brewing in the virtualization market. 

Please comment on your thoughts - Just click the comments link bellow.

Simon Crosby, CTO of Citrix/XenSource made a pretty bold statement yesterday that has some people agreeing with his position and others disagreeing.  In an interview with searchsecurity.com he publicy stated that virtualization vendors are not competent to try and secure virtual environments and therefore looks to 3rd party security companies to solve these concerns. 

Listen to the podcast here

Who are these 3rd party security companies?  Well, there are a number of startup companies such as Montego Networks, Blue Lane, Catbird, Altor Networks as well as some of the big guys that are working on helping the virtualization vendors with these security concerns.

I tend to agree with Simon that the virtualization vendors don't currently have the expertise to deliver appropriate security controls for virtual environments BUT should they?

Well, Chris Hoff who blogs on the topic of virtualization security a lot seems to think that they should deliver security tools and and by not delivering solutions to secure the environment they are doing their customers a disservice.

"Further, I don't expect that the hypervisor should be the place in which all security functionality is delivered, but simply transferring the lack of design and architecture forethought from the hypervisor provider to the consumer by expecting someone else to clean up the mess is just, well, typical."  Said Chris Hoff in his blog on this topic

I've spoken with a number of research analysts, venture capitalists and customers on this topic over the last several months and whenever I tell them what Montego Networks is off building they ALL seem to ask the same questions.  One of those questions is:  Why isn't VMWare or Citrix/Xensource doing this?  My response has always been that "they have publicly stated they do not want to and plan on leveraging an eco-system of security vendors to provide this". 

Well, Simon's public statement is right in line with what I've been saying all along.  The other question I get when I describe how Montego has security built into a virtual switch we've created is; shouldn't this technology be in the VMWare Virtual Switch?  And my response is "absolutely!  But it isn't!  so, someones got to do it."

So, I agree with Chris Hoff and I also agree with Simon Crosby.  The virtualization vendors don't have the expertise BUT I feel they should provide SOME security tools to ensure the environment is safe. 

There are some virtualization vendors that I have spoken with that are planning on using security as a differentiator and its my prediction that one of them will acquire security technology to do this.   Its often easier to acquire vs. try and built it yourself given you don't currently have the expertise.

So who's problem is it to solve??  Virtualization Vendors or Security Vendors??

I see the finger pointing game starting!

-John Peterson

CTO / Montego Networks

Simon Crosby, CTO of Citrix/XenSource made a pretty bold statement yesterday that has some people agreeing with his position and others disagreeing.  In an interview with searchsecurity.com he publicy stated that virtualization vendors are not competent to try and secure virtual environments and therefore looks to 3rd party security companies to solve these concerns. 

Listen to the podcast here

Who are these 3rd party security companies?  Well, there are a number of startup companies such as Montego Networks, Blue Lane, Catbird, Altor Networks as well as some of the big guys that are working on helping the virtualization vendors with these security concerns.

I tend to agree with Simon that the virtualization vendors don't currently have the expertise to deliver appropriate security controls for virtual environments BUT should they?

Well, Chris Hoff who blogs on the topic of virtualization security a lot seems to think that they should deliver security tools and and by not delivering solutions to secure the environment they are doing their customers a disservice.

"Further, I don't expect that the hypervisor should be the place in which all security functionality is delivered, but simply transferring the lack of design and architecture forethought from the hypervisor provider to the consumer by expecting someone else to clean up the mess is just, well, typical."  Said Chris Hoff in his blog on this topic

I've spoken with a number of research analysts, venture capitalists and customers on this topic over the last several months and whenever I tell them what Montego Networks is off building they ALL seem to ask the same questions.  One of those questions is:  Why isn't VMWare or Citrix/Xensource doing this?  My response has always been that "they have publicly stated they do not want to and plan on leveraging an eco-system of security vendors to provide this". 

Well, Simon's public statement is right in line with what I've been saying all along.  The other question I get when I describe how Montego has security built into a virtual switch we've created is; shouldn't this technology be in the VMWare Virtual Switch?  And my response is "absolutely!  But it isn't!  so, someones got to do it."

So, I agree with Chris Hoff and I also agree with Simon Crosby.  The virtualization vendors don't have the expertise BUT I feel they should provide SOME security tools to ensure the environment is safe. 

There are some virtualization vendors that I have spoken with that are planning on using security as a differentiator and its my prediction that one of them will acquire security technology to do this.   Its often easier to acquire vs. try and built it yourself given you don't currently have the expertise.

So who's problem is it to solve??  Virtualization Vendors or Security Vendors??

I see the finger pointing game starting!

-John Peterson

CTO / Montego Networks

. . . and unto security vendors things that deal with security.  So it seems to be what Citrix CTO, Simon Crosby is saying in this audio interview on Search Security with Rob Westervelt.  I was all set to write an article on the operationalization of security and all when I noticed that virtuoso of virtual security, Hoff beat me to the punch with his call of BS on Simon.

Hoff is right on.  We can't afford the same old, same old of letting the OS or network vendor or in this case the virtual machine vendor build the product and have a separate security industry bolted on and clean up the mess.  People want secure virtualization, they don't want to think about what they have to buy and install to make their virtual machines secure, they want security designed in from the beginning.  I am surprised that Simon Crosby would even suggest this, it is frankly so 2001.  Lets hope someone over at Citrix takes a que from the VMsafe program and does a little more thinking about security before hand.  We can't afford any other option.