311–320 of 435 posts
I'm surprised that everyone here thinks that Kaspersky makes only antivirus products. They have a ton of security products, including their own microkernel-based OS: https://os.kaspersky.com/technologies/microkernel/
I guess NginX is hoping no one looks their way.
Ok, let's cut the crap. Is Kaspersky a dirtbag or not? I suspect not, but it is an unfortunate accident he was born in and runs his company from Russia, the government of which is a dirtbag, so, correct me if I am wrong, Kaspersky must be a dirtbag by association, but especially for discovering Stuxnet. Believable, but I think the real reasons Kaspersky is persona non grata is due to having discovered Stuxnet, and Ka…
Plenty of legit potential concerns.. Russian govt could "nationalize" Kaspersky at any moment and push rogue updates.
All these people whining about "they're both the same", they are not. "Bay of Pigs" argument does not apply, last time I checked Cuba was still standing where on the other hand Ukraine is burning and getting demolished.
It seems that those complaining really really do not understand the horror of living under an "official" or "unofficial" (i.e. government sanctioned vs. government tolerated) mafia rule: either you do what they tell you, or you cease to be, along with your spouse, children, parents, siblings, etc. There is absolutely no negotiation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I doubt that will happen because everyone would stop using them and they would go bankrupt. The Russian state might not care a lot about that possible consequence and still coerce them to include malware in the next update.
EU, US and their allies can kick Kaspersky off the market. It would be a game over for Kaspersky meaning zero installs(licenses) and zero revenue. It is not worth to do it not even in the short term. Trust would be forever lost.
> EU, US and their allies can kick Kaspersky off the market. It would be a game over for Kaspersky meaning zero installs(licenses) and zero revenue. It is not worth to do it not even in the short term. Trust would be forever lost.
Do you think Putin would shed even a single tear over Kaspersky, if what you describe was the consequence of him getting something he wanted?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It doesn't matter. The fact is Kaspersky (the company) can be coerced by the Russian government to exploit their highly privileged systems access to millions of computers around the globe. I don't expect Kaspersky (the person) to play hero under these circumstances.
So can microsoft, adobe, google, etc. Even without them, NSA can intercept the hardware and put their software on those boxes... wikileaks showed a bunch of stuff NSA did. If you're a valuable target, it's basically choosing if you want to be spied on by the russians or the americans. (or installing linux, and hoping for the best).
Its interesting to note that not many people remember (maybe a generational thing?) Kevin Poulsen found multiple government listening devices installed on Pac Bell networks that were listening to foreign embassy phone traffic which was highly illegal at the time.
It doesn't surprise me the extent the NSA and other three letter agencies have gone to get at information they deem valuable or important.
Ok, let's cut the crap. Is Kaspersky a dirtbag or not? I suspect not, but it is an unfortunate accident he was born in and runs his company from Russia, the government of which is a dirtbag, so, correct me if I am wrong, Kaspersky must be a dirtbag by association, but especially for discovering Stuxnet. Believable, but I think the real reasons Kaspersky is persona non grata is due to having discovered Stuxnet, and Ka…
If that something is owned by your enemy in a hot war it's game over.
The minute a vendor can be leaned on by a hostile government (even they are not in the country like the founder of Telegram) and the interest is strong enough to lean on them (hot war) the trust assumption becomes problematic. How problematic? I think it doesn't get more urgent then in a hot war.
Kaspersky needs to pack up in all NATO countries. Not just because they pay taxes in RU (also this is a good enough reason for me). But also because if you share data with a non-NATO country it immediately becomes problematic too if your business partner is using their products.
The options under which they should be allowed to continue to operate is purely academic because it involves not only shifting all operations out of RU but also getting rid of any executive who moves to the new location that can be leaned on back home (e.g. family and friends etc).
There is no middle ground because the minute these steps are initiated Kaspersky has good reason to feel mistreated by the West. So even they kept their hands clean until now they might start doing what they've been accused of anyway.
Also if Positive Tech and others have been sanctions already some months ago there is no reason to give this much bigger potential threat a pass.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s a thing in big orgs, where macros are enabled in excel and employees can be tricked into opening mail attachments. Windows defender should suffice, but like you said, from a compliance/insurance perspective it may me valuable to say “look, we scanned for signatures according to the latest knowledge of [insert vendor]”. Personally I think that it’s ridiculous that these huge orgs fail to address the actual underl…
I have personally watched Windows Defender fail to notice a real virus infection from a USB flash drive. The USB flash drive was plugged in and instantly Windows was infected - Windows Defender did nothing. You could then manually run a Windows Defender scan and it would find the infection but it would not prevent the infection. I think one's need for a security product should match one's exposure to issues - it depe…
Ok, let's cut the crap. Is Kaspersky a dirtbag or not? I suspect not, but it is an unfortunate accident he was born in and runs his company from Russia, the government of which is a dirtbag, so, correct me if I am wrong, Kaspersky must be a dirtbag by association, but especially for discovering Stuxnet. Believable, but I think the real reasons Kaspersky is persona non grata is due to having discovered Stuxnet, and Ka…
Clearly you were joking?
The crap is your assertion that this has anything to something other than what's happening in Ukraine.
Kaspersky is collateral damage and fallout from Russia s actions and nothing more.
Please let's cut the crap.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So can microsoft, adobe, google, etc. Even without them, NSA can intercept the hardware and put their software on those boxes... wikileaks showed a bunch of stuff NSA did. If you're a valuable target, it's basically choosing if you want to be spied on by the russians or the americans. (or installing linux, and hoping for the best).
> So can microsoft, adobe, google, etc. Even without them, NSA can intercept the hardware and put their software on those boxes... Those companies often actually have people scan the hardware they receive to check for alterations. There was a whole thing about this a decade ago where a reporter (wrongly, IIRC) accused Facebook and Google of having compromised motherboards, and people from those companies were comment…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Snowden's leaks showed that the NSA was simply ignoring the 4th Amendment, and that the secret FISA court was letting the NSA do so. Theoretically, the Constitution protects you. In reality, the intelligence community acts largely in secret, and there's very little preventing them from violating the Bill of Rights. Citizens don't even know what rights they've given up until someone like Snowden spills the beans.
No. You need to understand what you are comparing to. The question is comparing US and Russia. No. It’s not the same. But you turned this question into comparing US to perfection. Yes, you are right. US is not perfection. But there is a big difference between 70 to 10, even both are not 100. What Snowden revealed does not make 70 to 10. If you think that way, you don’t understand how bad an authoritarian regime is.
Even if a company does not want to participate or is not compelled to do so, the US government has very significant capacity to break into and co-opt systems (all the way from targeted surveillance of individuals by intercepting and bugging hardware to tapping undersea cables to indiscriminately hoover up communications).
So when people say that Kaspersky might be forced to go along with Russian intelligence, the same goes for American tech companies and US intelligence. There is indeed a 4th Amendment that is supposed to protect Americans, but the last two decades have shown that the government is perfectly willing to ignore that legal restriction.
The US has the most extensive global surveillance system in the world. US intelligence services receive about as much funding as the entire Russian military. I have no doubt that Russia tries very hard to engage in extensive foreign surveillance, but its not in the same league as the US.