Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Kaspersky Calls For Cyber Weapons Convention

Posted by Unknown on from the weapons-grade-software-strikes-back dept.

judgecorp writes with a synopsis of talk given by Kaspersky at CeBit "Cyber weapons are so dangerous, they should be limited by a treaty like those restricting chemical and nuclear arms, Russian security expert Eugene Kaspersky has told a conference. He also warned that online voting was essential or democracy will die out in 20 years."

16 of 166 comments (clear)

  1. I'd just like to say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Just because I buy Kaspersky's anti-virus doesn't mean I support what that man stands for.

    1. Re:I'd just like to say... by couchslug · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If you give people financial support it doesn't make a fuck what you think you do or do not support.

      Your ACTION is support.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
  2. Online voting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Online voting is a single biggest threat to democracy. If 20 years from now "manual" voting will become obsolete, and only online voting remains, no one will be able to tell, whether the results are authentic or not. The one who pays most to the guys administering the DB server is going to be the winner. And everything will look legit, without any proof and without anything that inspectors could do about it.

    1. Re:Online voting by Hatta · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And Kaspersky stands to earn a lot from security theatre should electronic voting be widely adopted.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    2. Re:Online voting by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I usually hold Eugene in some high esteem, but this time he is dangerously wrong. Considering just how insecure the average user is and how likely it is that his machine is infected, online voting is one of the biggest threats to real democracy that we face today, right after voting machines.

      So far, infecting machines has only been a threat due to criminals wanting to infect those machines. Now, this by itself, is already dangerous. But it's minimal considering the possibilities for crooked regimes that like to put a democracy show on.

      Governments are already creating "government trojans". For reference, search for the infamous "Bundestrojaner" the Germans tried to put into place. So far, AV makers "may" at least find criminal trojans, but can we assume they still may if the trojans are made by the government? Can we see a crooked government create a trojan and infect the machines of their subjects with the express intention to manipulate the way they vote? Can we even see them making those trojans mandatory in the name of "security" (of course, without the stated intention of manipulating votes, but just to have a government backdoor "for security reasons")?

      And even if all of that is nothing but a crazy conspiracy theory, how likely would it be that some populist oppositions try to spin it and destabilize governments based on this "theory" and create doubt in the legitimacy of governments?

      Please, Eugene, reconsider.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    3. Re:Online voting by slashmydots · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Exactly! Every manufacturer assures their customers that their protection software is 100% perfect and bulletproof in every way when in fact, it would probably heuristically detect my write in candidate as a virus and delete my social security number from the entire government.
      What exactly happened to literal electronic voting? You don't need a processor, memory, storage, an OS, code, and all that other crap to count freaking numbers. You ever try to hack into and change the results of a free calculator you got at the bank for opening a checking account? Spoiler, it's a machine that doesn't have the capability to allow that. How about they develop an electronic machine instead of a computer for voting? Number +1 is not that hard to do without an operating system.

    4. Re:Online voting by markkezner · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If you magically make the voting machines 100% secure, attackers will target the infrastructure that transmits, stores, and counts the votes.

      --
      Dangerous, sexy, turing complete: Femme Bots
  3. Die out in 20 years? by wjousts · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The guy must be an optimist. After Citizens United, most of us concluded that democracy was already dead.

    1. Re:Die out in 20 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Actually, that's what the US used to be. Now it's an oligarchic empire play-acting as a democratic republic.

  4. I hope they will be! by delphi125 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    "conventional modes of democracy could be extinct within two decades"

    At present "conventional democracy" has a vote every 4-5 years (perhaps with mid-term or local elections halfway) in which your bit of information (if that!) ends upo with a single bit of who leads for the next 4-5 years, during which politicians tend to drop their campaign promises.

    Internet technology allows for finer-tuned democracy, yes, but if anything "election day" should be an annual day on which everybody does physically go to the polls and cast a secret ballot. Because although technology does allow secrecy (not necessary for all votes, but essential for some), the risk of back doors will always be greater than when a simpler and less technological procedure is used.

    I'm in my forties now and want to be able to vote issues, not parties. I'd also like to be able to vote for individuals who have proven leadership qualities without them being beholden to a party. Not that I could vote Perot - being European - nor that I would want his finger on the button anymore than anybody else, and at least Obama comes across as somewhat statesmanlike even if his mantra of "Change" never really happened, but you should see the bunch of twits in Europe nowadays (on all sides of the political spectrum).

    Almost as if we are forgetting what populism brought in the 1930s.

  5. How does he propose regulating CODE? by Ellis+D.+Tripp · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Would he suggest regulating programming languages, compilers, etc. as "cyber weapons precursors"? After all, certain chemicals and nuclear materials are strictly watched because they can be used to create chemical or nuclear weapons, right?

    --
    Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
  6. I think they should adapt ATM machines for voting by Marrow · · Score: 4, Interesting

    1. You get a print-out of your vote.
    2. You can optionally get a print-out that says whatever you want in case you are under duress.
    3. There is a picture record of who voted for your ID in case of a question of voter fraud.
    4. The machines are already everywhere, wired and secure enough to handle money.
    5. You dont have to congregate at a place away from your work.
    6. Your vote is filed under a random number, so you can call your vote back up if you are concerned about tampering
    Im sure threre are other good reasons

  7. You fool, you'll destroy everything we love by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    No.

    NO NO NO NO NO NO NO.

    Mr. Kapersky obviously has no idea just how oppressive and invasive most governments are willing to be when enforcing WEAPONS laws. The American BATF is currently being investigated for a false-flag gun-smuggling conspiracy meant to justify a huge increase in their power and authority. Lots of European weapons regulatory agencies are even more ruthless.

    He does NOT want that camel's nose under the tent with anything having to do with programming or software development. There is nowhere for that to go but downwards.

  8. Re:Kaspersky on online voting by Fallingcow · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It is entirely absurd to expect a majority of the population to invest the time and effort required to understand enough about politics, economics, international relations, etc. to make anything approaching intelligent decisions on most legislation.

    Hell, people can't even be bothered to understand how existing legislation affects them, even when it's something as direct and quantifiable as how much money they pay on their taxes.

    Choosing representatives to do it for us is far simpler, and we're not even good at that. Direct voting on bills would be a disaster.

  9. Re:I think they should adapt ATM machines for voti by Ellis+D.+Tripp · · Score: 4, Insightful

    And of course, we can always trust the MANUFACTURERS of ATM machines to be free from any political influence, as well, right?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diebold
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premier_Election_Solutions
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walden_O'Dell

    --
    Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
  10. Voting on issues is not a panacea by perpenso · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ... want to be able to vote issues ...

    You intentions are good but I think the wisdom of the founding fathers wins on this point. Direct democracy voting on issues is not the panacea one might think. For example look at California and its propositions system, it is largely what you are asking for and some really bad/dumb stuff gets passed.

    The flaw in your plan, and a flaw the founding fathers presumably were expecting, is that direct democracy assumes a well informed electorate that seriously contemplates the issues and votes for the common good rather than self interest.