Kaspersky: The Russian Company That Is a Danger to Our Security • Hacker News Board

Re: Kaspersky: The Russian Company That Is a Danger to Our Security

#21

Post by UnoriginalGuy » Tue, Sep 05, 2017, 3:30 AM UTC

mc32 wrote: post #12

wyldfire wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have no idea one way or the other (regarding either the NYT or Kaspersky). But it does strike me that your theory is credible. However it also seems credible that Microsoft, Intel and other critical hardware and software vendors based in the US may have moles and/or agreements in place with CIA/NSA.

That's possible as well but if you are US based at least the damage is contained --the NSA isn't going to give your data to a foreign competitor (or local for you have recourse in the legal system), whereas I'm not so sure the FSB would not "share" information with their preferred firms and if you become aware of it, you would have very little recourse.

Unless you aren't in the US or Russia, then you have Russia potentially spying for Russian companies/government, and the US/NSA potentially spying for US companies/government. The NSA has been caught with their hand in the cookie jar when it comes to corporate espionage[0][1].

[0] https://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/06/29/wikileaks_docs_show... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_espionage#Concerns_...

Re: Kaspersky: The Russian Company That Is a Danger to Our Security

#22

Post by bayesian_horse » Tue, Sep 05, 2017, 3:32 AM UTC

duncan_bayne wrote: post #16

bayesian_horse wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reason you "know" the NSA is a threat is because of the increased "transparency" of western democracies. There is no transparency in Russia. In a system of kleptocracy, bribery and a questionable judicial system, there is no boundary between state actors and any "private" corporation. If the FSB asks Kasperski for help, they can't say no, and they won't tell. If given the choice, I'd still rather trust American i…

> If the FSB asks Kasperski for help, they can't say no, and they won't tell. Isn't that _exactly_ how it works in the USA, with National Security Letters?

The difference is that there is a process in place with court oversight, and a judicial system which isn't completely beholden to the government.

Even with the most egregious abuses of these National Security Letters, their scope is still limited and they have to have justification for whatever they demand. There is a record of such letters, which can be examined, for example by politicians in congress or the next administration. Companies can even challenge these letters. And they are still leaked all the time.

I doubt it works that way in Russia.

Re: Kaspersky: The Russian Company That Is a Danger to Our Security

#23

Post by dkural » Tue, Sep 05, 2017, 3:32 AM UTC

downandout wrote: post #9

Despite its statement of fact in the title, this is in the opinion section and is riddled with innuendo, inaccuracies, and fearmongering, starting with the oft-repeated and incorrect idea that Russia "hacked our election". This is of course not the case - some email was hacked and it exposed some of the illegal/unethical dealings of a candidate. Had the leaked emails all been about how hard that candidate was going t…

The NSA disagrees with you. Voting software suppliers and local election officials were targeted, not just DNC emails.

https://theintercept.com/2017/06/05/top-secret-nsa-report-de...

I do agree with you that without firm evidence & legal framework, the government should not victimize private business interests.

Re: Kaspersky: The Russian Company That Is a Danger to Our Security

#24

Post by i_dont_know_ » Tue, Sep 05, 2017, 3:32 AM UTC

So, Kaspersky also did lots of detailed work uncovering malware from "the equation group" which was basically the NSA (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equation_Group).

I'm honestly wondering if the reason they say not to use them is because they detect NSA things.

Re: Kaspersky: The Russian Company That Is a Danger to Our Security

#25

Post by mc32 » Tue, Sep 05, 2017, 3:33 AM UTC

UnoriginalGuy wrote: post #21

mc32 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's possible as well but if you are US based at least the damage is contained --the NSA isn't going to give your data to a foreign competitor (or local for you have recourse in the legal system), whereas I'm not so sure the FSB would not "share" information with their preferred firms and if you become aware of it, you would have very little recourse.

Unless you aren't in the US or Russia, then you have Russia potentially spying for Russian companies/government, and the US/NSA potentially spying for US companies/government. The NSA has been caught with their hand in the cookie jar when it comes to corporate espionage[0][1]. [0] https://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/06/29/wikileaks_docs_show... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_espionage#Concerns_...

I think it's common knowledge industrial espionage is practiced from time to time by all major powers. The question is a calculus. Who'd put you in a smaller/bigger ditch, relatively speaking.

Re: Kaspersky: The Russian Company That Is a Danger to Our Security

#26

Post by UnoriginalGuy » Tue, Sep 05, 2017, 3:33 AM UTC

dkural wrote: post #20

monochromatic wrote: post #5

> The Kremlin hacked our presidential election Stopped reading there.

They did hack the voting machines. It doesn't say the hack successfully changed the outcome. What do you disagree with?

> They did hack the voting machines.

Can you provide an article, or source for this specific claim? There was definitely illicit accesses to voter registration databases during the 2016 election, but you specifically said voting machines.

Re: Kaspersky: The Russian Company That Is a Danger to Our Security

#27

Post by UnoriginalGuy » Tue, Sep 05, 2017, 3:38 AM UTC

bayesian_horse wrote: post #22

duncan_bayne wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If the FSB asks Kasperski for help, they can't say no, and they won't tell. Isn't that _exactly_ how it works in the USA, with National Security Letters?

The difference is that there is a process in place with court oversight, and a judicial system which isn't completely beholden to the government. Even with the most egregious abuses of these National Security Letters, their scope is still limited and they have to have justification for whatever they demand. There is a record of such letters, which can be examined, for example by politicians in congress or the next ad…

> The difference is that there is a process in place with court oversight

You mean the FISA Court that Russ Tice once described as a "kangaroo court with a rubber stamp" and that approves over 99% of applications? Is that 1% rejection rate in a closed door court where due process lives?

Re: Kaspersky: The Russian Company That Is a Danger to Our Security

#28

Post by ucaetano » Tue, Sep 05, 2017, 3:39 AM UTC

mc32 wrote: post #3

agarden wrote: post #2

One can easily imagine reading an article like this published on a Russian site, with 'Kaspersky' replaced with 'Symantec' and 'FSB' with 'NSA'.

TBH, regardless of the NYT and their recent "red-scare", I'd be concerned with using them on sensitive systems -because either knowingly or unwittingly they could have FSB moles working for them.

This is an opinion piece by a Democratic Senator, not a news piece or editorial from the NYT.

Why people here continuously fail to understand the concept of an opinion piece? The NYT even hosted Putin in the op-ed column.

Re: Kaspersky: The Russian Company That Is a Danger to Our Security

#29

Post by 1024core » Tue, Sep 05, 2017, 3:40 AM UTC

Let's say I believe the good Senator from NH, that Kaspersky is evil.

What she has failed to show is how are Kaspersky's actions worse than those of Cisco, Juniper, Microsoft, Intel, etc.? Can she state, with conviction, that the NSA does not have backdoors in US products? That the NSA is not exploiting holes (which they could get fixed by the vendors, but aren't) ?

BTW: the US has been "hacking" elections one way or the other all across the globe for decades. I find this uproar in the US about being hacked laughable, as we've been doing it for so many years! Sure, we may not use the exact same techniques are the Russians, but we do meddle in other countries' elections all the time.

Re: Kaspersky: The Russian Company That Is a Danger to Our Security

#30

Post by nxc18 » Tue, Sep 05, 2017, 3:42 AM UTC

bayesian_horse wrote: post #13

nxc18 wrote: post #8

While its certainly true that we need to worry about these Russian products, the damage that the NSA has done is enormous. Can I trust Cisco VPNs? Can I trust Windows? Can I trust my router? The NSA opens boxes in shipment to break their security, and they have the resources to do a lot more. Unfortunately for us in the U.S., the NSA threat is a real one, not a hypothetical. And a question for the people who know mor…

The reason you "know" the NSA is a threat is because of the increased "transparency" of western democracies. There is no transparency in Russia. In a system of kleptocracy, bribery and a questionable judicial system, there is no boundary between state actors and any "private" corporation. If the FSB asks Kasperski for help, they can't say no, and they won't tell. If given the choice, I'd still rather trust American i…

Whether or not there is transparency (that the NSA works very hard to suppress), that doesn't change the issue. Sure, I absolutely trust the NSA - to break stuff, to snoop, to spy, to eavesdrop. In that regard, I have possibly the most trust in the NSA out of all the organizations I trust.

What I don't trust is the NSA to not break things. Its core to their mission. Is the anyone who is capable of and willing to make products with an assurance of security and privacy? Is there any webcam that I can trust to never spy on me? Any device that isn't leaving my precise location - even when Wi-Fi is off? Is there any firewall I can trust to keep snoops out? Any software that isn't vulnerable to NSA interference? They're ac advanced persistent threat for a reason and we shouldn't forget that.