Talk:Endace

Untitled

This is an update on the company for possible review
Endace currently claims to accelerate standard Snort IDS up to 16X (using traffic load balancing techniques) and beyond (using comprehensive filtering) The solution also leverages the recent Applied Watch acquisition

The company has also recently announced the completion of its InfiniBand interface for monitoring high performance computing clusters. The offering includes a wireshark plug in for decoding InfiniBand datagrams

67.153.105.98 (talk) 22:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

This is just an old press release from the company and should probably be deleted from this discussion page (unles someone wants to discuss it)

Endace Limited (the “Company” or “Endace”) (AIM : EDA), a world leader in the acceleration of network security and analysis applications, today announced the release of its new Ninjabox platform for beta trials. Endace has developed the Ninjabox to make the next generation of advanced network monitoring and security solutions accessible to a broader range of customers.

The Ninjabox platform combines four components; Endace’s data capture cards, its Application Software Accelerator coprocessor, a high-performance server, and Endace’s access and management software. These components are integrated to make the platform user-friendly, so less-technical users can now also increase the overall performance of their network software.

Network performance is enhanced for Ninjabox users by accessing the additional processing power, beyond standard products, of Endace’s advanced coprocessor technology. The data handling power of Endace’s coprocessor acts in a similar way to a network processor, in that it performs network specific tasks much faster than can be performed by standard software. This additional processing capability reduces common overload problems such as data bottlenecks.

Commenting on the Ninjabox launch, Endace CEO Selwyn Pellett said, “This is a significant advance for both Endace and the network security industry. By enabling customers to accelerate their security applications we are confident our Ninjabox will be adopted as the platform of choice by serious network security vendors and customers alike. The Ninjabox is expected to be an attractive product for independent software vendors, as they will now be able to take their software to market faster with significantly higher performance. The launch of the Ninjabox for beta trials with initial roll-out to customers in early 2006, strengthens our offering considerably and we look forward to it contributing to group revenues shortly.”

Notes to Editors:

The launch of the Ninjabox expands Endace’s specialist hardware and software offering which enables customers to capture 100% of their data on any monitored network link, while freeing the system’s central processing unit (CPU) to better analyze the data it receives. In particular, the Ninjabox builds upon Endace’s industry-leading network data capture cards and server platforms to create network application acceleration. This increase in data processing speed is enabled by pre-processing information, avoiding the need to analyze non-critical data by security or monitoring software applications.

With additional hardware offload functions regularly being added to Endace’s Field Programmable Gate Array (FPGA) coprocessor, in future the Company will offer Ninjabox customers optional functionality upgrades at modular pricing. A coprocessor development kit is also available for customers who want to develop their own coprocessor applications.

Ninjabox Exhibition:

Endace is demonstrating the Ninjabox platform this week at the InterOp conference in New York. The exhibition can be viewed from December 13-15 at:

Booth 139, InterOp New York 2005 Javits Convention Centre New York, New York

For further information, please contact:

Endace Limited Tel: 00 64 9 262 7260 Selwyn Pellett, Chief Executive Officer

Buchanan Communications Tel: 020 7466 5000 Lisa Baderoon, Tim Anderson, James Strong Mobile: 07721 413 496

About Endace:

Endace (www.endace.com) is a network security company with a market-leading technology. It is focused on the design and sale of specialised network interface devices and related computer systems for network security and measurement applications. The technology uses proprietary software, firmware and hardware, which has been developed over the last nine years. Endace’s global customers operate high speed, critical networks with exacting security requirements and include western government security agencies, international telecommunication companies, some of the world’s largest Internet service providers and major corporations. Founded in late 2001 in Hamilton, New Zealand, Endace has been profitable with positive operating cashflows since 2002.

Is it me or does this read like marking fluff? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.68.109.96 (talk) 23:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

References

Surveillance

"The Little-Known Company That Enables Worldwide Mass Surveillance" https://theintercept.com/2016/10/23/endace-mass-surveillance-gchq-governments/ http://archive.is/cF6Wf

Worth mentioning in article? --Nanite (talk) 22:23, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Elaboration on history offered; + one small criticism

NB: I worked for this company about a decade ago and thus have inside information about it but have maintained no links with it nor have any sort of interest in it; even so, it might be regarded that I have a CoI in this case.

There is little in either this article or the linked Intercept article that I know to be wrong, so good job on those who put these articles together. It highly amuses me that my former employer qualifies as notable (especially when others don't, and especially those that are politically charged) but I'm not complaining about this case.

Small criticism: sensationalism

I think implicating complicity by Endace with surveillance and human rights abuses is a mite sensationalist. Neither has been done explicitly and everything expressly written in connection with those clients is true in the black letter (as far as I know), but mentioning allegations of human rights abuses by DGST as a client of the article's subject could be read to imply knowledge of one by the other. (Test: in what way are DGST's alleged human rights abuses relevant to Endace? Controversy over connection with SIGINT agencies is relevant, but controversy about unrelated actions by said SIGINT organisations is probably a step removed too far, for this article at least.)

It's probably a fair assumption that every country indulges in surveillance of its citizens (and others, it has to be said) to the extent of their capabilities. Indeed, the Intercept article hinted pretty much at exactly that.

Implication by juxtaposition is one of the oldest tricks in the journalism book, and I think it's worth making the point even if nothing is done about it. If I were to fix it, I would keep the references to specific SIGINT organisations (and I know of others with dirty laundry who are not mentioned, but I can't originate a leak about who they are especially in light (according to Intercept) of Endace staff being bound by the UK Official Secrets Act — which, BTW, I certainly was never told) but remove references to controversy about those organisations. Instead, I'd just link their relevant wiki pages and add the controversy pertaining to them there, if it's not already.

Besides, if you're going to call out one agency, then to retain neutrality one ought to call out other agencies, possibly those closer to Wikipedia's home. And perhaps find out as many other manufacturers who supplied SIGINT agencies with equipment also used alongside with Endace's. But none of that dirty laundry is relevant to the subject of the article, which implies that DGST's alleged misbehaviour is not relevant either.

Missing timestamping stuff and other minor details

I can elaborate on some details, eg why Endace chose to float on the AIM rather than NZX, the origin of the backronym "DAG" and I can elaborate on the early history of the product and company — but experience tells me that I should get the go-ahead before I make those edits, especially as that one might constitute OR.

In particular, the article really could do with a subsection that describes the original motivation for their primary technology, the raison d'etre for pretty much everything — precision packet timestamping using GPS. There is an abundance of academic papers to support this contribution.

I'll write it, but only if somebody confirms that it won't be a waste of my time by way of a CoI argument or revert spat.

— Strix ^t 10:26, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Strix, I think your openness should count for something. Also you've not worked for the company for a long time, so I doubt it even is a CoI.

It's understandable how frustrating it is to have a sensationalized article used as a source, even when your personal experience tells you that it's misleading, but still you of course can't include your own original research without sources.

You're right though that the journalist seems to be making an implication by association. Should we also implicate Dell because they sell computers to various intelligence organizations? There doesn't appear to be any awareness on the part of Endace that their technology was used for human rights abuses.

I say, go ahead. --Nanite (talk) 03:16, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Nanite, thanks for replying. Re CoI, good and I agree; OTOH being open and honest has worked against me elsewhere on WP and I've seen Wikipedia editors come to some very strange and counter-intuitive conclusions before, especially about political matters, so I assume nothing. In such matters, it's best to check before wasting time.

Gell-Mann Amnesia Effect! I remember reading that story and a while back wanted to refer to it, but couldn't for the life of me remember what it was called. Thanks for that. Yes it is frustrating, but that doesn't apply a great deal here. Anyway, I'm not at all bothered by the sensationalism of the Intercept's story. Their site, their policy. It happens that it contained little about which I have direct knowledge that I could contradict, anyway.

NB: that does not mean I'm saying that it's wholly factual because it contains a lot I simply don't know enough to comment on, for example DGST. Naturally, I can't comment on whether they are or were a client and, even if they were, I don't know that they used any information so collected in contravention of human rights.

All I'm saying is that there's no call to import such sensationalism into WP.

What's more frustrating is that I can't include historical background knowledge and anecdote that I possess that, by its nature, would be unlikely to be published anywhere, especially when WP:OR is either selectively or not particularly uniformly enforced. How the Dag came to be known as a that is an amusing anecdote of little real significance, so perhaps lack of citation won't matter. I could cite the verbal conversation, but I obviously can't link it. I guess I can add it and let somebody revert it if they feel it's really necessary. Given Endace copped flack for floating on AIM rather than NZX, I probably shouldn't try to add to that without citation.

Re. consistency about alleged human rights abuses, the Dell example is a good one and is precisely what I meant. In any case, I certainly never had any awareness that human rights abuses occurred as a direct result of use of Endace's products, and would have objected internally had I any reason to suspect it. Alas, I can't comment on what I do know in respect to SIGINT organisations because a) that would be OR and, more to the point, b) it would involve publicly disclosing the identities of those agencies.

But I'll write something about the timestamping stuff, which is really what matters most (IMV). As I said, there's a multitude of academic papers to cite for that. — Strix ^t 10:39, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Okay, pretty much done making my amendments. I'll review tomorrow just to double-check. I note that User:K.e.coffman removed a lot of what looked like marketing guff maybe 6 months ago, so I invite them to review my modifications.

Hopefully my contributions will be of some value. I could have gone into considerably more detail, but I tried to keep the tech stuff out of it as much as possible and provide the link between Endace's academic origins and the company as it is today (and, more or less, as it was when I left it). Consider this a first draft: if more references or elaboration is required, let me know. — Strix ^t 19:38, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Are CoI and Advert templates still warranted?

There are Advert and CoI tags on this article dating from 2009 and 2011 respectively — some six and 8 years old.

The above noted potential CoI notwithstanding (I worked for this company but left a decade ago and have had no connection with them since) and given the considerable cleanup since (thanks to User:K.e.coffman and others), are these tags still necessary? — Strix ^t 22:41, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Endace. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110130190052/http://www.endace.com/100percent.html to http://www.endace.com/100percent.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:55, 1 January 2018 (UTC)