Citation needed: Europe claims Kaspersky wares 'confirmed as malicious'

The Kaspersky bad news train just keeps rolling on with Strasbourg Eurocrats having adopted a motion today (A8-0189/2018, en français) that could ban its wares from European Union institutions. The wide-ranging non-binding motion is primarily concerned with cyber defence, stating that "the EU and the Member States face an …

[Voland's right hand]

You do not need evidence against Russians

The current modus operandi is that you do not need evidence against Russians. Hearsay and rumors are good enough. If that is not enough lie a bit. Then lie a lot. This is across the board. I can provide citations, but IMHO it is unnecessary - Boris and Co generate them on a weekly basis (or even higher frequency).

Dunno if whoever came up with it ran it past a person who is familiar with Russian mentality and Russian culture - out of all possible strategies the "uncorroborated hearsay sprinkled with lies" probably ranks as the one they find most alienating and hostile. This is a natural result of having to endure 70 odd years of society where a bit of hearsay took you down the green corridor in the basement of Lubianka towards the wall with a lot of pockmarks on it.

While I personally would like to see Eugene remove the hide of the idiot busybody who wrote that it is "proven" in the complete absence of any public evidence, but I would not hold my breath about it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: You do not need evidence against Russians

I could wish you had made a clearer, cleaner differentiation between Russians and the Russian government. After all, not all Russians fire missiles at civilian airliners. Here's an upvote assuming you were thinking of that.

And I too think Kaspersky is getting the "freedom fries" treatment. Hey, let's rename the bad stuff EUware (ewwware, yuckyuck)

[ecarlseen]

Re: You do not need evidence against Russians

Thank you. The more I travel and the more wonderful folks I meet all over the world, the one thing I've learned for certain is to never confuse the people of a country (who, on average, tend to be somewhere between OK and pretty cool) with the assholes in their respective governments.

[Voland's right hand]

Re: You do not need evidence against Russians

After all, not all Russians fire missiles at civilian airliners.

Correct. However, if it was the government directly it would have been Buk Mk2, from the AA base in Shakty 30km away accompanied by a TELAR, RADAR and a support truck which is the standard setup for an AA company in ex-Soviet block army. It would not be a transported 700km across 3 military zones of command in a state which would result in the crew cleaning latrines for 30 days if they were on active duty. It would not use a missile which is officially scrapped. It would not be wondering alone without its support train and it will not be photographed by 30 people on the motorway.

That does not mean it was the government indirectly. There are LOTS of questions to be answered by Putin and his crew on how Wagner and other Russian "armies for hire" operating in Ukraine, Caucasus, Kongo, Syria and elsewhere around the world got their T72 tanks, heavy artillery, AA and even attack helicopters and drones and how are they used and against whom.

However, we will not get them answered the way we are approaching this. Not now, not ever. Every bit of evidence is interpreted only one way: "Putin cooks children on neurotoxic gas" and "he gives command personally for everyone being murdered by a Russian worldwide".

Well, maybe he does.

However, he is teflonated and there is no way we will get to him via hearsay, Boris style lies or deliberately misinterpreting the evidence as in the MH17 case. I am saying deliberately because even if the Dutch do not know what is the way things are run in a Russian regiment, there are 10-odd ex-Soviet block countries in NATO and they got their comparison missile sample (which is ALSO a Buk Mk1 - something which is supposed to be 100% scrapped) from Georgia which is also ex-USSR. Asking any one of them would have given them an immediate "this missile is past its mandatory disposal date and you need to come up with a feasible explanation" recommendation.

If we asked the right questions there, we could have gotten somewhere by now. But we are not and we will not. We prefer to lie or hearsay. It's easier than asking the right question.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: You do not need evidence against Russians

"That does not mean it was the government indirectly."

Well given ukraine doesn't have those missiles in their arsenal perhaps you'd like to fill us in on who you think it might have been if not the russians or their proxies in eastern ukraine? Take your time.

[DiViDeD]

Re: You do not need evidence against Russians

"not all Russians fire missiles at civilian airliners". From what I've seen, the official accusation against Russia on the shooting down of MH17 is that, in the words of the UK Prime Minister "Russia must bear sole responsibility" because the missile was manufactured in Russia.

By that token, when are we going to condemn America for every Palestinian child killed by a US manufactured bullet, or Japan for every rocket fired by IS out of the back of a Toyota Hilux?

[Bronek Kozicki]

Re: You do not need evidence against Russians

@DiViDeD - while you are correct that indeed, the initial accusation was based on little evidence, the investigation recently concluded by the Dutch government is more conclusive

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: You do not need evidence against Russians

"are we going to condemn America for every Palestinian child killed by a US manufactured bullet". Bearing in mind it is largely America that has blocked sanctions against Israel in relation to the occupied territories, then yes.

[jake]

Re: You do not need evidence against Russians

Actually, it's England's fault for stealing the land from the Palestinians in the first place, and then turning it over to Europe's displaced Jews. Guilt's an ugly thing.

[Tom 38]

Re: You do not need evidence against Russians

We didn't steal it from the Palestinians, we stole it from the Turks.

How's California?

[jake]

Re: You do not need evidence against Russians

Not the Turks, the Ottomans. Splitting hairs? Perhaps ... But please note that the land in question was, and still is, called Palestine. By everybody. For these last couple thousand years. Is it any wonder the Palestinians are a trifle pissed off at the homeless squatters on their territory?

California just is, as usual. We have our issues, too ... Nobody's perfect.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: You do not need evidence against Russians

I'm not disagreeing with the principle of your argument here, but I think the MH17 example strains credulity just a little bit. The Toyota Hilux is widely available for sale all over the world. Even small arms, like pistols, revolvers and semi-automatic weapons [even Kalshnikov fully automatic weapons] are widely available on black markets.

But the Buk SA-11, the type of missile believed to be responsible for the loss of MH17, is more than 5.5 metres long, weighs up to 715kg at launch and requires a purpose-built mobile launch platform to be used. Not the sort of thing you can pick up at Walmart.

This specific observation aside, your argument has merit: it's hard to put a bullet in someone when you don't have a gun. This is why the US, with the highest levels of private gun ownership worldwide, has the highest rates of gun woundings and killings, whilst Japan, which makes private gun ownership all but impossible, has one of the lowest. We can argue the politics until the cows come home, but the numbers speak for themselves.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: You do not need evidence against Russians

> the Buk SA-11, the type of missile believed to be responsible for the loss of MH17, is more than 5.5 metres long, weighs up to 715kg at launch and requires a purpose-built mobile launch platform to be used. Not the sort of thing you can pick up at Walmart.

No?

[59TG]

Re: You do not need evidence against Russians

Is this the place to mention all the folk in Yemen and elsewhere killed by aircraft sold by the UK?

[Stork]

Re: You do not need evidence against Russians

Regarding Boris in particular: why should the Russians be an exception? He seems to be lying all the time and have a long history of it; it got him sacked by the Times and employed by the Telegraph

[SAdams]

Re: They learned from the best!

“Whatever happened to that treaty which got signed after World War II which prevented both the USSR and the EU from expanding their borders? So, like, who's the aggressor here?”

The treaty was not for Stalin to do what he did and install puppet communist goverments in Poland etc etc., if you really want to go back there....

[Lars]

Re: They learned from the best!

"Whatever happened to that treaty which got signed after World War II which prevented both the USSR and the EU from expanding their borders? So, like, who's the aggressor here? I have my own ideas about that.".

Not so fast, trying to explain history in one sentence is indeed <sigh>.

There was no EU then and independent countries apply to join the EU. There is no treaty against that. The USSR fell from inside and so did the wall, remember Gorba. So far so good.

There are indeed those who claim that the NATO expansion was against a not written promise but again there is no such treaty.

What has happened in Ukraine and the Crimea is clearly against a treaty however.

You could try Stephen Kotkin on that, among many others.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RnWp_kr4tfc

PS. Try to base your ideas on facts.

PPS. Regarding Karspersky I have no facts, consequently no idea to share.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: They learned from the best!

Who built the Berlin Wall, and why? Who attempted to blockade Berlin, and why?

It's no surprise that after years of being under the hard Russian boots, those countries - democratically - moved towards the West and the "wall" moved East - a wall that Russia keeps on building itself because it can't accept full democratic values and people like Putin need a strong nationalism to keep power despite being unable to create a well working economy.

The WWII treaties required free elections in all liberated countries - not USSR invading East Europe and setting up communist governments, and ensuring in 1956 (Hungary) and 1968 (Czechoslovakia) nobody changed idea sending tanks in - and it got back to those behaviour in Crimea and Donbass.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: They learned from the best!

My god, where to start?

The wall that was in Berlin, in the middle of East Germany? That was built by Russia to stop East Germans fleeing to the West?

The satellite states weren't voluntarily under USSR domination, and after the collapse of the Soviet Union, once again became sovereign nations. If they decide to join Nato (possibly because of their proximity to Russia!), that's up to them.

I'm no supporter of the evil Russians meme, but Putin and co can go fuck themselves.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: They learned from the best!

"once again became sovereign nations. If they decide to join Nato (possibly because of their proximity to Russia!), that's up to them."

Tell that to Georgia.

[strum]

Re: They learned from the best!

>Whatever happened to that treaty which got signed after World War II which prevented both the USSR and the EU from expanding their borders?

You are letting your imagination run away with you. The EU didn't sign anything with the USSR. Yalta was a 'gentleman's agreement' (with few gentlemen present). No treaties have been broken.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: You do not need evidence against Russians

You only have to look at the Android clickbait spew from Kaspersky to see they have literally no credibility anymore. Checkpoint just as bad...

[59TG]

Re: You do not need evidence against Russians

Thought experiment:

Mistrust Kaspersky AV because of the likelihood of ties to the Russian govt. and assume that its effectiveness against (possibly Russian state-sponsored) malware, certainly no worse than any of the other AV vendors, is a price that said govt. is prepared to pay for whatever it gains from the deal.

Mistrust CheckPoint because they just may help Mossad to be as good as it is at what it does.

Mistrust Symantec because they probably feed stuff to the NSA, CIA and whoever else, and the govt. only let them continue researching Stuxnet because the only other major AV vendor doing so back then happened to be Russian.

Add further mistrust here to suit your taste/nationality.

So - for a level of breach tolerance up to and including huge embarrassment/massive nuisance, pay your money and take your chance. For the stuff on which lives really depend, get physical, use the air gap, and take a lesson from the poor b*stard who broke the rules and carted a USB key into an Iranian nuclear plant.

[Anonymous Coward]

Is this a form of sanctions against Russia?

Or are they really targeting Kaspersky and believe Eugene is Putin's cyber-bitch? And what about data-center relocation to Switzerland? Can't trust hackers.. Can't trust AV. (Avast / AVG has Win10 / Facebook slurp WTF?)...

[Aitor 1]

Re: Is this a form of sanctions against Russia?

Err, they detected and stopped plenty of cyberwarfare from the uk and the us.

I would say that is the problem for them.. they dont want their stuff being detected, and cannot force them to not detect their malware.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Is this a form of sanctions against Russia?

I don’t think it’s sanctions, after all the sanctions have overall been a blowback boon to Russian industry and problematic for EU farmers, at least. (Some countries alleged seem to bypass this particular type of BDS action)

I think it’s just page one of spook protocol “control the communications channel(s)” and AV is a particular channel that is annoying when a rogue product(s) is/are available that sometimes find OUR malware! STIX is great, but what about our threats?

In my case a malware was deployed to my 9-yr old son, the obfuscated JavaScript was only discovered 7 years later when Bitdefender (Romanian) picked up the traces. I suppose they’ve now been given more accurate ‘whitelists’ for the sigs.

It’s not as though shouting FUD has ever worked, Microsoft is still the worlds premier computer corp, and still the most innovative? No?

[jake]

Whatever.

Eugene and his ilk sell nothing but snake-oil anyway. The only thing that can protect you from so-called "cyber crime" is wetware. You know, that lump of pinkish-grey fat between your ears.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Whatever. (Speaking of bodily wisdom)

唇亡齿寒 lit. without the lips, the teeth feel the cold (idiom); fig. intimately interdependent

Layered defense?

[jake]

Re: Whatever. (Speaking of bodily wisdom)

The trouble is, the malware du jour has to make it past the teeth & gums and make it down into the guts of the machine before the snake-oil can deal with it. Anti-malware is a placebo that brings about nothing but a false sense of security, leading directly to defensive laxness on the part of the user.

[Alister]

Re: Whatever.

Eugene and his ilk sell nothing but snake-oil anyway.

So Jake, you totally discount all the useful work that Kaspersky Labs do in identifying and warning about malicious software?

Or perhaps you think it's all misdirection and a Commie plot?

[jake]

Re: Whatever.

Alister, perhaps I'm hard of reading, but could you please point out where I discounted any research done by anybody, anywhere? I must have missed it.

[Paul Crawford]

And remove USA software?

Given the revealed spying of USA / 5-eyes on various EU nations, can we also expect a directive to eliminate any USA software that has built-in telemetry or remote access built in?

[seven of five]

Re: And remove USA software?

Of course not: These are THE GOOD GUYS!

Don´t be silly.

[jake]

Re: And remove USA software?

Yes, of course. That's snake-oil too.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: And remove USA software?

Actually EU should not trust US software - it was already bad before Trump, now it can only get worse.

The problem Kaspersky has is his government can't be trusted at all - and that has become true for US as well, one you could think as an EU ally you may have got a different treatment, Trump make sure nobody could think it anymore.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: And remove USA software?

Actually EU should not trust US software - it was already bad before Trump, now it can only get worse.

Great idea. The EU could use its own software. Oh, hold on, they tried that in Munich* and then gave up. As you were.

* That's assuming Linux counts as European. I would expect nobody actually knows the national provenance. And regarding security, if you're a state actor, and can't hide a backdoor in 15m lines of supposedly open source code you aren't trying very hard.

[Yet Another Anonymous coward]

Re: And remove USA software?

Actually EU should not trust US software - it was already bad before Trump, now it can only get worse.

At the moment would you rather have the Russians reading your tariff response discussions or the Americans?

[caradoc]

Re: And remove USA software?

"it was already bad before Trump, now it can only get worse."

Is he writing software now?

There are few options left to blame for troubles in the world these days:

It's Putin

or

It's Trump,

or

It's Global Warming.

[AndrueC]

Lawyers are doubtless oiling up the sueball catapult as this very moment

Why do I keep reading that as 'oiling up the seagull catapult'?

[jake]

Probably because ...

... you've been watching old footage on YouTube? (Am I the only one somewhat surprised that someone didn't paste in the rather distinctive Geneva Drive sound on that clip?)

[John Brown (no body)]

Re: Probably because ...

"... you've been watching old footage on YouTube? "

Nice! That looked like a significantly shorter take off than an F3fB can manage. I wonder what it would cost to retrofit the QE and PoW with cats like that?

[GIRZiM]

Re: 'oiling up the seagull catapult

Because you are a very lucky person, who lives in a much more interesting and fun world than I do - thanks for sharing it with us!

[Anonymous Coward]

I get it... massive amounts of cybercrime is coming from Russia, and it’s State sponsored.

But, I’ve yet to see evidence of Kaspersky‘s involvement...

Give me evidence, and I’ll be hater. But, give the F’n evidence already.

All I hear is bureaucratic BS.

[Mark 85]

All I hear is bureaucratic BS.

That's about all you'll ever hear from a bureaucrat or politician. They haven't a clue what they get on about and write into laws.

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually they do have a clue about their BS - it's called 'keep the plebs afraid so they will turn to us to save them'. It is a way for politicians and bureaucrats to keep their snouts in the public (tax) money trough.

[John Brown (no body)]

"Give me evidence, and I’ll be hater. But, give the F’n evidence already."

If there was any evidence, the products would be banned from sale completely and any EU based Kaspersky presence would be in court sharpish. As others have said, this smells distinctly political.

[jake]

Of course, Mr. (no body).

It's purely political. And pointless. Bloody waste of time, even.

[Anonymous Coward]

> As others have said, this smells distinctly political.

Of course it is political. Having had my fair share of dealings with the EU, I cannot begin to tell you what A BUNCH OF WANKERS the current commission are. Calling them incompetent, corrupt and dishonest would be too good a compliment. At the same time, the European civil service has turned into nothing short of an old boys club where it is all about how you know not how good you are at something.

It *is* despairing.

[Stuart Halliday]

Can't they just take their Source code, compile it in front of a team after they've went through it and hash it against a released version.

Or am I being too naivé? :)

[jake]

Depends.

Can I use my own compiler? Linker?

[Mark 85]

I thought they already offered to do that and there were no takers.

[Anonymous Coward]

Try asking this of other anti-malware makers and see the response.

Bugger - try asking Microsoft to source code to the OS and you will be shown the door.

[jake]

Redmond does allow access to their source code. See: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/sharedsource/default.aspx

[aks]

They have offered to show the source code.

[Alistair]

Oh look

The 1950's called, they would like some of that Cold War Ignition Fuel back.

(And Korea will be ....wait .. this is really really starting to look like a rewind, except that DJT keeps lauding Putin....)

[Anonymous Coward]

It would appear Senator McCarthy is alive and well

[TonyJ]

Thanks El Reg...

...I tip you off to a story you haven't covered and two hours later you write about it without even a nod.

Cheers.

[jake]

Re: Thanks El Reg...

I rather suspect it's because they hate you, TonyJ. It couldn't possibly be that the story was in the works several hours before your tip finally filtered in through the email system ...

[TonyJ]

Re: Thanks El Reg...

I agree Jake, given I've an email response having me for letting them know add hasn't been seen. Oh well :)

[Anonymous Coward]

Did they foolishly detect something from the NSA?

That would get them banned for sure.

[Anonymous Coward]

And all the others

You just need to remember the behavior of Scandisk on hard drives.

if there was a tiny timing problem Scandisk would repeatedly go over it again and again, until the area failed then grow the problem by attacking the adjacent areas. All to Microsofts' advantage causing your OEM partition to fail and needing to acquire their latest operating system in a new computer, from one of their pals the Computer companies getting free MS Windows O/S.

Then there are the RUMOURS of Antivirus companies actually creating or transforming viruses into new ones to claim they have found a new one and a can fix it. They occurred all too often but not all were anti-competitive banter from competition.

A generic check-summing application:

And why doesn't The operating have it's own check-summing MD5 & SHA1 for eg could still be used to ensure there was no file substitution. MSAV's Virsafe did it with a basic checksum and Tiny personal Firewall (Kerio) used MD5. That way you could map your own files at installation of O/S and not have to report the contents of your hard drive to anyone.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: And all the others

First, MD5 is vulnerable to collision attacks and can probably be preimage-attacked at this point. SHA1 is showing chinks and can't be far behind. As for building it into the system, credits to milos that will be the FIRST point of attack; after all, what checks the checker?

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft windows spied on your computer directly

Microsoft Windows 95 spied on your computer and habits, that's why they did not put in a full firewall to spy on you and PUSH shit at you while you worked - It was Mr Bill's Idea.

And Then:~

You good ol' boys should just publicise what you've have been speaking about for years and years on the back channels.

How easy it was to access and trawl and Microsoft Computer for whatever you wanted.

[Charles 9]

Re: Microsoft windows spied on your computer directly

You got proof of that? And how did the data get out, given not a lot of computers were online then?

[vtcodger]

Re: Microsoft windows spied on your computer directly

"Microsoft Windows 95 spied on your computer and habits"

Probably not. IIRC Win95 didn't even have TCP/IP support turned on in the default configuration. And people still used modems on 1200 to maybe 32K phone lines back then and not everyone had an ISP. I don't think Microsoft OSes started calling home until sometime in the 21st Century. I don't recall when. Vista maybe? Perhaps someone else with a better memory can fill in details.

[jake]

Re: Microsoft windows spied on your computer directly

No, Win95 did not "report home". At all.

Source: Packet sniffer between my LAN and my BSD-based Internet facing firewall of the era. Windows was running either Trumpet or Hummingbird for TCP/IP, depending on what I was doing. I detected no traffic sent back to Redmond, nefarious or otherwise.

Note that I'm not a fan of Redmond. I'm even less of a fan of bullshit.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Microsoft windows spied on your computer directly

> No, Win95 did not "report home". At all.

I never used a Microsoft O/S, but I do recall that at the time the internet basically did not exist for them. First they dismissed it as a geek's thing, then they tried to ignore it (hence why for a long time Windows did not even have its own TCP/IP stack), then they actively fought it (hello IE6).

Aside that phoning home wasn't really a thing back then (and you would know straight away, many of us could get a pretty good idea of what was being transferred just by listening to the chirps coming from the modem), Microsoft would have found it beneath its dignity to use the internet in any sort of practical way.

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

"oiling up the sueball catapult"

Isn't that rather a recipe for hitting yourself in the face with said catapult?

(I know... slippery things, these analogies)

[DeKrow]

Kaspersky off the leash

This is the problem:

"Kaspersky Lab has only ever tried to rid the world of cybercrime. We have showed time and again that we disclose cyber threats regardless of origin and author, even to our own detriment."

Kaspersky weren't controllable by US interests, so the US started banning them and cranking the rumour mill into action. The UK, Australia, and now the EU singing from the same hymn sheet.

I think it was initially started when Kaspersky detected a piece of US-authored malware as a result of someone taking their work home, and their home computer sent the sample file to Kaspersky's servers for deeper scanning of a new potential threat (which, I believe, is standard practice for most modern anti-virus software).

Refer:

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/03/12/nsas_on_drugs_infosec_bods_unveil_space_grade_malware/

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/11/16/kaspersky_nsa_staffers_pc_was_riddled_with_malware_from_pirated_code/

[theunregistered]

Re: Kaspersky off the leash

All too often we humans seem to conveniently Alzheimer ourselves of the origins and then go off on one, escalating everything into a frenzy , until at last we have everyone else on board and can activate sheep mode for the masses to follow in line like good little goblins

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, let's see some PROOF then

Last time I checked, the EU was still pretending to be a democracy (the US has at least come clean that it isn't with Trump), so let's have the evidence in plain sight. Prove to me what Kaspersky has been accused of.

Show me that this is not simply collusion to ensure government spyware can once again make its way into citizen's systems.

Show. us. the. facts.

I don't think that's too much to ask - not if you want to keep up the democratic and transparency pretence.

[ken jay]

anything that has the ability to upload suspicious files to anywhere from your own computer should never be allowed as there is nothing stopping an unscrupulous host from stealing everything on that computer, if it has malware then clean it locally and repair the computer then the problem is probably over with.

i would always reinstall any computer that has been infected due to my own paranoia and the fact that i know there are a lot of hackers that are better than i am at installing software hidden in some random unknown user area hidden to the users.

i think the problem with kasperski is that it uploaded copies of any malware it found to its own servers and who wouldn't check data from anywhere with an email address of @gov. @security. @hmrc. or anywhere that looks fun to trifle through.

here is the reason why they are being demonised

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/oct/26/kaspersky-russia-nsa-contractor-leaked-us-hacking-tools-by-mistake-pirating-microsoft-office

[Anonymous Coward]

And if they start going nuke-proof and infecting firmware?

[RobertLongshaft]

Another siren from the globalist elites who seek the destablise Russia so they can add to their empire.

The EU is poison, pure and simple.

[Kris Sweeney]

Damn...

In comparison to other 'mainstream' commercial AV products I've found Kaspersky to be relatively unobtrusive, easy to use, configure and monitor and despite going down the fancy UI route made popular by certain US resource hogs, I've found KNS has has a minimal impact on system resources and performance.

Yet another blow to their business in EU and i suppose GB.

Suggestions for a good alternative?

[tiggity]

Re: Damn...

@ Kris Sweeney

Why an alternative.

If you are happy with Kapersky, keep using it

[Dodgy Geezer]

There is no point commenting here...

We know that Kapersky is not an arm of Russian State. So do the EU funcionaris and politicians.

But our rulers have determined that we need an enemy. An enemy will justify more taxes, more government spend and provide a useful excuse to shut any opposition up.

I don't know what our rulers are planning. But this recent toning down on the Middle East and rise of concern about Russia sugests to me that we are about to swap Bogeymen, now that the Syrian war seems settled...

..."At this moment, for example, in 1984 (if it was 1984), Oceania was at war with Eurasia and in alliance with Eastasia. In no public or private utterance was it ever admitted that the three powers had at any time been grouped along different lines. Actually, as Winston well knew, it was only four years since Oceania had been at war with Eastasia and in alliance with Eurasia. But that was merely a piece of furtive knowledge, which he happened to possess because his memory was not satisfactorily under control. Officially the change of partners had never happened. Oceania was at war with Eurasia: therefore Oceania had always been at war with Eurasia. The enemy of the moment always represented absolute evil, and it followed that any past or future agreement with him was impossible."....

1984, Orwell

[wolfetone]

I Broke My Leg Today

The Russians did it. They hacked my iPhone and caused my leg to break in my sleep.

[spold]

Fresh Tweet...

@DonovitchTrumpski

Lowest virus rates in decades.The Russians are our friends! These are lies that the media are Putin out! Fake news! Not good! No collusion!

[Winkypop]

Call it crazy but...

I'm more inclined to "trust" the Russians than the 5 Eyes and Euros these days.

None are really trustworthy but you do need to use some protection online.

Besides, the REAL threat to people's IDs are the various social media platforms where users literally give away their info.

[theunregistered]

i will continue to use Kaspersky on many machines

Seems to me that ,to be among the pigeons while wearing a cat suit , is a far better place. Targeting Kaspersky for source code reasons could also mean all others, Norton, Eset and AVG to name a few are also guilty of spying, and not just on institutions, but us. I would rather have Kaspersky spying on me than my countries own brand security software, at least for now. I feel, to have 100% success at keeping all the machines i service clear of meddling malware and running smoothly for near on five years is a miracle in itself, and until concrete proof arrives of their shortfalls, or they lose their top spot, nothing is going to make me switch. Russia is bad, the US is bad, but hey...the UK also is a mass surveillance country, maybe, just maybe paranoia has gotten into our leaders HQ's and maybe some other security vendors will be next, watch this space

[Aodhhan]

Ahh the ignorance.

It's amazing how many people don't understand how Russia works.

If you're a citizen or a company in Russia, and the government asks you to do something; don't consider it 'asking'. Consider it as an order; or find yourself out of business.

Russia is also known for imbedding agents in companies to conduct covert acts. This has been proven.

Finally, we also know, Kaspersky products were copying files and sending them home. This is unacceptable. yes, I heard their excuse on this... and of course I don't believe it.

Sure, Kaspersky labs has done a lot of good things for cyber security, but we all understand what a wolf in sheep's clothing is. Even the Mob built schools, parks, etc. for the local communities.

Let your heart bleed all it wants, but it's now at least 5 different independent reviews of the application which determined this is a dangerous product.

Kaspersky would be wise to let this go. Although Russian's don't fully understand the concept of 'free choice', they should understand... the more people hear about this, the less likely the general public will purchase their product.

[onebignerd]

Re: Ahh the ignorance.

The U.S has become the same operation, with the secret national security letters and the black bag NSA, FBI and CIA hacking and heavy handed tactics against companies and persons since 9/11. The Patriot Act allows a judge to sign a warrant to spy on the computer/Internet activity of hundreds or millions of people nation wide based on a suspicion w/o proof against any one person. The push to back door encryption has little to do with crime solving. Do you realize that even using encryption puts you on the NSA watch list permanently?

The NSA has hacked and backdoored into equipment, routers, switches and PCs that make up U.S critical infrastructure. The same infrastructure that can be hacked by nation states or a high school kid that discovers these backdoors. The FBI and CIA are building their own massive databases, consolidating data from the NSA, license plate readers, facial recognition, finger prints, dna, drivers licenses, consumer databases...etc. Yet in the same breath they claim to value the rights and freedoms the Constitution provides. Suspension of habeas corpus since 9/11 and now permanent law in the Patriot Act, which endangers law abiding citizens. Read what China in doing in this article and compare to where the U.S is heading.

https://www.businessinsider.com/how-china-is-watching-its-citizens-in-a-modern-surveillance-state-2018-4#9-tracking-peoples-social-media-posts-which-can-be-linked-to-the-users-family-and-location-10

The NSA has cracked all a/v suites to enable spying on Internet activity, probably even Kaspersky which was one of a very few they couldn't crack as of the Snowden leaks. And since the U.S shares intelligence information with the other five eyes nations and other intelligence sharing countries, so can other nation states. It is hard claim the U.S is less corrupt or allows more free choice than Russia when when they are entrenched in the same tactics.

[Deimos]

Kaspersky got the shermans annoyed

By correctly detecting official USGOV naughty products as “spyware”, apparently due to a mistake by a USGOV human. What annoyed them most was that it sent the signature of the naughty ware back to mother Russia, as this is where Kaspersky is based.

Now (shock horror) Kaspersky products not only block this state sponsored naughty ware but also appear to be able to stop newer versions with different signatures. I doubt that they block Mr Putins patented naughty ware but neither d any other AV products.

So do you prefer Mr Putins favourite AV or Dear Donalds red, white and blue solutions?

Pity there isn’t a neutral solution? Or is there ?

[Tchou]

Huhuhu...

... And let's have more and more US sponsored wares, because you know, they are the good guys out there. Obvious icon.

[Mahhn]

Criminals are in charge

and they are clearing out anyone that won't put a back door in for them.

Which means MacAfee, Cisco, RSA, Redowl (Raytheon), Microsoft, and Google, are approved for government contractors to use.

[onebignerd]

Kaspersky can thank the U.S Government for starting this paranoid panic. Do a Google search and find that the U.S Government is having a difficult time removing Kaspersky from their systems as it is integrated into routers, switches and third party software (e.g: Check Point, Bluecoat, Juniper Networks, Microsoft Forefront,[54] Netintelligence, Clearswift, FrontBridge, Netasq, Wedge Networks and others as more than 120 companies are licensing technology from Kaspersky). But since most of these Government agencies can't or won't apply security patches to their systems regularly, Kaspersky should hardly be their biggest concern. Most recently is the Department of Homeland Security passport fraud division.