Live data from Hacker News

Kaspersky OS

eugene.kaspersky.com

131–140 of 290 posts

Re: Kaspersky OS

#131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Linux is very insecure. Maybe you have not been following the news lately.

But comparatively speaking is still more secure than Windows or OS X?

The biggest issue with Windows isn't its inherent security, it's the way it's used. Most users run everything with super admin rights. Most developers require that for installs.

OSX is right behind it, with a culture of laxness that undoes most of the benefits the designers tried to give them.

Re: Kaspersky OS

#132

Only use it if you want to send all of your information to FSB (modern KGB). Evgeniy Kasperskiy has friends in government, police and FSB. He also is apologet of state surveillance.

I prefer the FSB to have access to my files than NSA. What FSB can do to me? Send to Guantanamo?

May I present you with exhibit a) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_of_Alexander_Litvine...

Re: Kaspersky OS

#133
post #47
post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have the impression that ever since Snowden happened, yes. Any mention of a non open source OS gets accompanied by remarks about NSA, FBI and co.

Open source projects are not shielded from this either. Plenty of paranoia, justified or not, going around these days. https://igurublog.wordpress.com/2014/04/08/julian-assange-de... http://www.theverge.com/2013/12/20/5231006/nsa-paid-10-milli... https://www.quora.com/Is-there-any-backdoor-left-in-Unix-or-... https://blog.cloudflare.com/how-the-nsa-may-have-put-a-backd... On one hand, we've been privy to some of NSA'…

Let's not forget the great OpenBSD code audit caused when someone from the FBI claimed to have planted a backdoor. http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2010/12/openbs...

Re: Kaspersky OS

#134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OpenBSD is pretty popular in the security community , and is as FLOSS as it gets.

Yet it's not widely used as embedded OS. I never saw any router with OpenBSD or web camera. The underlying problem, IMO, is people. They just don't care about security, they want to deliver working device. Also it's not clear how many vulnerabilities, used in real life attacks (like DDOS from IoT devices) are in latest Linux kernel? May be problem not with Linux, but with custom software or lack of updates.

But OSX, Windows, and full-blown Linux aren't used as embedded OSes either. Linux is a bit, but there are a lot of other choices.

Re: Kaspersky OS

#135

Only use it if you want to send all of your information to FSB (modern KGB). Evgeniy Kasperskiy has friends in government, police and FSB. He also is apologet of state surveillance.

We should look at this as it really is: Russia is super paranoid, and increasingly isolationist. Putin is also realizing that all of his technology comes from western companies, and they are trying to build their own, so that they aren't so reliant on Cisco routers, Intel CPUs, and Apple smartphones. This will be a russian OS, designed to allow russian companies to buy routers, switches, and firewalls that are not ma…

> Russia is super paranoid, and increasingly isolationist

And they have good reason to be. The US has really shot itself in the foot by intentionally compromising the systems we create. Hopefully we can use this (and similar actions by other countries) to turn that around.

Re: Kaspersky OS

#136

"In order to hack this platform a cyber-baddie would need to break the digital signature, which – any time before the introduction of quantum computers – would be exorbitantly expensive." I loled

Very "Secrets from the future" of him :D

Re: Kaspersky OS

#137
post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Although I thought the same when I saw it, I think that's unfair. You could just as easily say Symantec/Norton/Microsoft Defender/Windows/Google is CIA/NSA. Since everything's being watched, Kaspersky might be just as much FSB as it is NSA, or any other country that could get its mitts on it. Cisco was definitely completely NSA there for a while, because of the backdoor. China's got Lenovo and every smart appliance,…

You could just as easily say Symantec/Norton/Microsoft Defender/Windows/Google is CIA/NSA. Isn't it, though? Apple seems to be the only company that has stood up to the three letter agencies. (I'm a US citizen.)

Actually MS was the one to first challenge National Security Letters. Moreover if it was found out that they had left a back door in it would result in the loss of billions of dollars in business, from Europe alone. Whereas Kaspersky very clearly will always have a Russian government/corporate client.

Re: Kaspersky OS

#138
post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you make the same remarks when Google, Microsoft, Apple or Palantir releases software?

They don't have this kind of history with security agencies though.

um... except they do. That's what the snowden documents showed us

Re: Kaspersky OS

#139
post #123

Only use it if you want to send all of your information to FSB (modern KGB). Evgeniy Kasperskiy has friends in government, police and FSB. He also is apologet of state surveillance.

You could say the same for Cisco, Juniper, and Microsoft. Even your anti-virus companies has worked with the govt to allow some govt sponsored malware through. Would be great if Kaspersky OS will be free and open source.

Come on... it's not like Oracle started as a project Larry Ellison worked on for the CIA...

Re: Kaspersky OS

#140
post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Intel ME and and AMD PSP are still executing proprietary code on an independent processor in your CPU package all the time, with full system access. Linux cannot do anything about it.

Yeah you only FTrace your entire networking stack at watch if it ever sends/receives packets without your knowledge. Or use libpcap and accomplish the same task. Or use a user space packet stack stack and disable your default network interface. I get not everything on the system is pure FOSS. But every binary ball isn't NSA spyware. If you assume that is true, you literally cannot use ANY computer. FOSS OS's make it…

If you can't trust your processor you can't trust any of your verification chain that runs on said processor.
Post reply on HN