Slashdot Mirror


Kaspersky Explains Why They Won't Say Who Hacked Them

New submitter ChannelGonzo writes: Larry Walsh at Channelnomics scores the scoop in a Q&A with Kaspersky's Chris Doggett who says it's not the Russian security company's job to figure out who is responsible for a sophisticated cyber attack on its corporate network over the past few months. "We believe that to go beyond our area of expertise and speculate on the possible sources of attacks is not in the best interest of our customers," Doggett said.

124 comments

  1. DUHHHHH by buckfeta2014 · · Score: 1

    Russians did it.

    --
    Buck Feta. You know what to do.
    1. Re:DUHHHHH by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      um, a much more likely suspect would be a small country in the middle east.

    2. Re:DUHHHHH by Opportunist · · Score: 5, Funny

      Why not us for a change? Dammit, the Russians and Chinese don't have the monopoly on being able to hack something, ya know?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    3. Re:DUHHHHH by elwinc · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Whoever hacked Kaspersky was probably hunting moles. From the outside, it looks as if Kaspersky has been positively brilliant, revealing state level actors, cracking stuxnet, duqu, & duqu2. But what if some other state level actor had been feeding Kaspersky? What if spies, not security researchers, told Kaspersky where to look? It would be worth a lot for the authors of stuxnet etc to be able to confirm or deny that Kaspersky worked without help. That's the best reason I can see for hacking into Kaspersky.

      --
      --- Often in error; never in doubt!
    4. Re:DUHHHHH by Buck+Feta · · Score: 0

      Nice name, dick.

      --
      I am Audience.
    5. Re:DUHHHHH by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Quiet, audience.

    6. Re:DUHHHHH by frovingslosh · · Score: 2

      I was thinking exactly the opposite. You don't want to say who did it when it was the N.S.A.

      --
      I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
    7. Re: DUHHHHH by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you mean vw did it ?

      impossible. they only hire cheap developers.

    8. Re: DUHHHHH by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      test

    9. Re:DUHHHHH by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wonder how could they allow themselves to be hacked.

    10. Re:DUHHHHH by BitZtream · · Score: 2, Funny

      No, they don't, they just have a monopoly on getting caught often. We get caught less because we're better at it. It generally takes a traitor for us to get caught.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    11. Re:DUHHHHH by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      nah your not your media just dont tell you and fed you bullshit - your mushrooms!

    12. Re:DUHHHHH by sshir · · Score: 1

      Or maybe they plan to do some poaching and want to know who's the major talent.

    13. Re:DUHHHHH by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Offshoring... ;-p But your large companies can always hire some H1Bs, of course.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    14. Re:DUHHHHH by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong, moron.

    15. Re:DUHHHHH by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unlikely. Kaspersky caught this APT by using a not yet released anti-APT system. If this tool is released publicly at some point, your thesis will be extremely unlikely to be true.

    16. Re:DUHHHHH by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Deliberately I suspect.

    17. Re:DUHHHHH by TheRealLifeboy · · Score: 1

      You're trolling, right? How about the biggest security complex in the world trying to take a Russian company down that's just too good at detecting threats, especially if the threats may be emminating from said security complex??

    18. Re:DUHHHHH by fuzzy2k · · Score: 1

      That's a hell of a lot of speculation on your part.

      How do *your* theories start? Mine begin by looking at known bits and pieces and looking for alternative explanations. That kind of requires speculation, and imagination.

      --
      --- Say something clever. Pretend it was me. Thanks.
  2. TL;DR by OverlordQ · · Score: 2, Insightful

    We wont say, because if we do, we'll look bad.

    --
    Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
    1. Re:TL;DR by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Notoriety may exacerbate the bad behavior.

    2. Re: TL;DR by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds to me like they have been warned not to.

    3. Re: TL;DR by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no, businesspeople dont want to interfere with gobbermints. bad for revenue. so simple.

    4. Re:TL;DR by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so ... script-kiddie in Burundi with his sub-laptop e-machine?
      Now that would be B.A.D. :)

  3. I say that they say... by antiperimetaparalogo · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Well, sometimes you can say somethings by saying "i won't say"... i think many of us can understand that they already said who they think those who hacked them were - i understand that as an international company they try to avoid any nationalistic references because it is really bad for business, especially when most of your clients will consider it as an attack to them personaly.

    --
    Antisthenes: "Wisdom begins by examining the words/names." - excuse my English, i am (slightly...) better with my Greek!
    1. Re:I say that they say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i understand that as an international company they try to avoid any nationalistic references because it is really bad for business, especially when most of your clients will consider it as an attack to them personaly.

      They've never avoided nationalistic references before, so why suddenly start now? They've been making quite a name for themselves lately by outing nations. So this sudden turn-about really has to make you wonder. Well, not you for some reason, but everyone else.

    2. Re:I say that they say... by antiperimetaparalogo · · Score: 1

      i understand that as an international company they try to avoid any nationalistic references because it is really bad for business, especially when most of your clients will consider it as an attack to them personaly.

      They've never avoided nationalistic references before, so why suddenly start now? They've been making quite a name for themselves lately by outing nations. So this sudden turn-about really has to make you wonder. Well, not you for some reason, but everyone else.

      Even with their latest successes, they did NOT named nations directly, but the did it in the same "we won't say" way, indirectly (ajew... sorry i had to sneeze, i was in Iran fighting hackers, and a have some kind of a virus!).

      --
      Antisthenes: "Wisdom begins by examining the words/names." - excuse my English, i am (slightly...) better with my Greek!
  4. Putin's cyber henchmen obviously by YouGotTobeKidding · · Score: 2, Interesting

    They wont say because if they do they will all have mysterious 'accidents'....just like happened to Putin's enemies in the past. http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/03/... http://www.theglobeandmail.com... http://www.businessinsider.com...

    1. Re:Putin's cyber henchmen obviously by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      They wont say because if they do they will all have mysterious 'accidents'....just like happened to Putin's enemies in the past.

      http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/03/...

      http://www.theglobeandmail.com...

      http://www.businessinsider.com...

      He graduated from a KGB school, if anything he probably still works for them. Also, Russia isn't the only country that has these "accidents".

    2. Re: Putin's cyber henchmen obviously by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      he was a military intelligence soldier and he is actually a nice guy. you are trying to smear him.

      also he is a patriot. whats wrong with that ? intereference with the nwo ?

    3. Re: Putin's cyber henchmen obviously by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i am german, btw. no biz or money relationship to russia.

      i just hate scumbags.

      all the russians i know are great people, including mr kaspersky by email.

      they are much closer to the average american than yout nastyboy allies from asia, my dear americans. those who dream of chopping off your heads for fun.

    4. Re:Putin's cyber henchmen obviously by guestapoo · · Score: 0

      Yeah, also Putin did this with:

      Dominique Strauss-Kahn, the former head of the International Monetary Fund
      And Lynne Stewart.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      Also, note that, with *all respect to a dead person*, I must said that Nemtsov suddenly became "greatest enemy" of Putin, or "the person Putin fear most", or something like that.
      Nemtsov is the typical "Eltsin's era" politicians, now turn-to-oppositions. His allies, like Mikhail Kasyanov, constantly has interviews in Western media, and also, is portrayed as corruption fighter, was known in Russia as: Misha 2 percent

      By killing the enemy with only >2% support of population, Putin achieved nothing but:
      1) The demonstration with thousands oppositions get more fuels, motives, and *STILL* happened.
      2) The report of so-call "Russians soldiers" in Ukraine was still released on Internet. (Putin's mistaken not to kill everyone)
      3) Created symbol of "greatest enemy".


      Eventually, the allies of Nemtsov do not believe that Putin kill him: http://www.washingtonsblog.com...

  5. Duh by penguinoid · · Score: 3, Funny

    Obviously it's for reasons which have nothing to do with the truth being embarrassing.

    --
    Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
    1. Re:Duh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And absolutely nothing to do with the American and Israeli governments being petulant children who start throwing around threats and bullying other nations when called out for their misdeeds.

    2. Re:Duh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's at least two countries it probably isn't.

    3. Re:Duh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since the US and Israel really have no allies worthy of the name why should they not aggressively defend their interests any way they can? Especially since the two countries get blamed for anything bad happening in the world. Why should the world expect anything other than a big FU from the US and Israel? And Kapersky and all the other "security" experts are always a step behind those creating the exploits. They perform post-mortems on exploits already in the wild so why would anyone hire them at great expense to provide security?

  6. Sorry what is their area of expertise by presidenteloco · · Score: 2, Funny

    again?

    --

    Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
    1. Re:Sorry what is their area of expertise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Antivirus, not investigation.

    2. Re:Sorry what is their area of expertise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      More specifically, security software.
      If they don't know how to perform an investigation when security has been breached, then I don't know how they can perform their roles as security experts.

    3. Re:Sorry what is their area of expertise by Tablizer · · Score: 5, Informative

      A: Not ticking off Putin.

    4. Re:Sorry what is their area of expertise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Remember Icebergs?
      "Kapersky" is the part of the Iceberg that is visible.
      But it's all the same Iceberg.

    5. Re:Sorry what is their area of expertise by redwraith94 · · Score: 1

      This way if some collusion is revealed with the Russian government in the future, they can just say 'oh we didn't give them your data, it was part of the hack!'

      --
      I art more snarky, and terse than thou. I art Slashdot!
    6. Re:Sorry what is their area of expertise by Trax3001BBS · · Score: 1

      again?

      FTA: "In general, the attribution of cyber attacks is difficult to do conclusively"

      Then the examples given didn't or wouldn't need malware to obtain access to a system.

    7. Re:Sorry what is their area of expertise by Trax3001BBS · · Score: 1

      again?

      FTA: "In general, the attribution of cyber attacks is difficult to do conclusively"

      Then the examples given didn't or wouldn't need malware to obtain access to a system.

      FTA "In the case of Duqu, the attackers intentionally introduced false information to confuse investigators"

      While this is unclear what they are saying is they can't point to a person specifically, it being outside their expertise.

    8. Re: Sorry what is their area of expertise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      indeed. the iceberg recently fucked up both iraq and syria out of pure maliciousness. not.

    9. Re: Sorry what is their area of expertise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      first rate symantec FUD.

    10. Re: Sorry what is their area of expertise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      oh boy, i sm considering myself a conservative. a real one. i had a hand in the creation of rust and swift.

      also i blast all sorts of criminals from bush to the commies of today. or the corrupto blair, also a materialist.

  7. Considering the Republicans bragged about it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    that it is obvious the Republicans did not do it. They lie constantly. Constantly. And, they hate technology and are incapable of comprehending it. That is proof it is not the Republicans despite what they claim.

  8. Ask the American Federation of Government Employee by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe Kaspersky should ask the American Federation of Government Employees. They seemed to have developed quite the expertise in cyberhacking.
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/katevinton/2015/06/11/federal-union-says-opm-data-breach-hit-every-single-federal-employee/

  9. NSA by jinchoung · · Score: 5, Insightful

    i would be shocked if NSA weren't involved.

    1. Re:NSA by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      What's to gain? The NSA ain't some Dr-Evil kinda organizations doing evil stuff for the sake of being evil, that's more a bonus value to them. First and foremost they aim for more power.

      What's in it for them if they pwn an antivirus corporation? And of all the targets, why Kaspersky? I don't know the inner workings of the companies, but if the quality of their product reflects in any way their competence, McAfee would not only be a far easier but, considering their corporate clients, far more interesting target.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:NSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Same as they hacked all the other networks, because General Alexander decided to grab data first and ask if it is relevant second. Plus it gives them a chance to add their malware as an exception to the scanning database.

      McAfee, well they forced companies to install boxes on their networks using NSLs, and get source code as a requirement for government contracts, so I doubt they need to hack McAfee, they probably just required a box on their network and a copy of the source code.
      Then a targets McAfee anti-virus will get different updates to the real product.

    3. Re:NSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I think it's India, they've been taking over IT work on the cheap for years now. It's a sneaky move to control all the networks. Nobody suspects them while they remotely administer your computers, but they're even planting thousands of spys.... oh, I mean "workers" in the US now. They work for less because they are also being paid by the homeland I'm sure.
      Anyways, that's my new theory.

    4. Re:NSA by KGIII · · Score: 1

      I like that theory. You need to flesh it out a bit more - throw in some real names and links to things that can be misinterpreted and you should be all set for an independent documentary.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    5. Re:NSA by evilrip · · Score: 3, Informative

      Plenty to gain; Kaspersky is installed all over parts of the world that in high interest and these did find stuxnet out. Probably they decided it was better to use them as access vector instead of a worm that could spin out of control.

      --
      "To err is human, to forgive, beyond the scope of the Operating System"
    6. Re:NSA by DescX · · Score: 1

      Extra bonus points if s/he fleshes it out with silly sounding acronyms.

      "We discovered a plain text file payload with a random set of characters that just didn't make sense -- IDSIRA. Our first tip off was the file encoding, set to ASCII instead of UTF-8. After investigating this matter and cross referencing against thesaurus.com, it's clear that the Indian Demonology Squad for Interdiction and Reactive Attrition is alive and well."

    7. Re:NSA by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      which india are they spying for?

      the thing with india is that it's like 2000 states that barely get along long enough to put a killer in a prison.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    8. Re: NSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As others have pointed out. Kaspersky is likely to have moles feeding them info. The NSA would like to know who they are and make contact if non-US or prosecute if in the US.

    9. Re:NSA by sound+vision · · Score: 1

      Maybe they were doing it to earn brownie points with other US gov parties - military guys, other intel agencies, politicians. I can think of reasons they would all want to get to Kaspersky, so the only reason the NSA needs is that they want to stay on all those parties' good side. Internal cooperation is needed to keep the whole US gov system working. The NSA can't put troops on the ground and the Army doesn't have some of the NSA's spying capabilities - they need eachother to keep the whole thing afloat. (How's that for "checks and balances"?)

  10. Our customers will be pissed if we call them out by andydread · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Clearly they do a lot of business in Israel. Plus the fear being called antisemetic.

  11. *sigh* Idiots! The net is so damn full of em...... by TiggertheMad · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You analysis of the article seems flawed. They say pretty clearly that they don't reveal information that might hamper criminal investigations, and that they are talking to authorities in the appropriate jurisdictions.

    tl,dr? THEY CANT SAY BECAUSE, COPS ARE DOING COP STUFF.

    --

    HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
  12. Losing faith by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What was once a rising star, burned too fast, now fades into the ether with Nortons.
    A security company that doesn't investigate the ins and outs of cyber crime is no security company worth supporting.
    Kaspersky has been seeing a steady decline over the last year or two and this just adds to the slippery slope they are most assuredly traversing.

    1. Re:Losing faith by Opportunist · · Score: 5, Funny

      Now, now. They fucked up, but that's no reason to start name calling. It's not ok to call a security company Norton. NO matter how much they fucked up.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:Losing faith by supremebob · · Score: 1

      Have you had the misfortune of using the latest version of Kaspersky's security suite? The runtime scanner slows down your PC so much that even Symantec and McAfee's products look better by comparison.

    3. Re:Losing faith by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now, now. They fucked up, but that's no reason to start name calling. It's not ok to call a security company Norton. NO matter how much they fucked up.

      It's ok, he didn't call them Mcafee.

    4. Re: Losing faith by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      a true american shitlobber. salute to the devil !

  13. Someone with money by Iamthecheese · · Score: 5, Insightful

    People were poopooing the virus, but I think that's because they didn't read the report.

    This is a highly sophisticated polymorphic virus using multiple forms of encryption in multiple layers against multiple attack vectors. It's really a piece of work. I don't know why someone would write it and then use it directly against Kaspersky but whoever did it had the cash to hire some very clever people, or was a team of programmers with a genius at the helm and amazing opsec.

    Considering the sophistication of the virus I think it would be silly to speculate about who wrote it: whoever it is had to spend a good deal of effort covering their tracks and could easily have compromised multiple third parties just to create red herrings.

    --
    If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
    1. Re:Someone with money by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Let's see. What do we know so far:

      Kaspersky is an anti-virus company.
      Kaspersky is the only (relevant) anti-virus company that does not have its HQ in the US or Europe but from a country that has a rather strained relationship with those countries.
      Kaspersky is hence the only (relevant) anti-virus company that can't be browbeat into not finding something that certain entities do not want found.

      If you excuse me, I go shop for more tinfoil before it's too late...

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:Someone with money by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2

      I'm with you. I expect a company to be completely transparent about the products they sell, and their business practices. When they are the victim of a crime I expect them to protect themselves.

      I'm pretty sure there's more to this story than we're getting at the moment. I'll stay tuned and defer judgement.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    3. Re:Someone with money by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      If you excuse me, I go shop for more tinfoil before it's too late...

      You have plenty of perspective, but forgot to look in both directions.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re:Someone with money by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      I don't know why someone would write it and then use it directly against Kaspersky

      Probably they wrote it themselves to get publicity. You haven't seen the source to the exploit, have you?

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    5. Re:Someone with money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is that poop ooing or poo poo ing?

    6. Re:Someone with money by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      What other direction is there? Who else, what other "power", has the means and skills to do something like that?

      ISIS/terror groups? Please. Yes, they have a handful of skilled computer people but they are not only few and far between, they are also FAR from having the necessary organization. Plus, it's not their style, they're for shock and awe, not cloak and dagger.

      Russia? Half of the staff of K formerly worked for the KGB or other groups, and as Putin once said, there ain't such a thing as a former KGB. If the Russian government wanted something from K, I am fairly sure it would not have required a letter, a simple informal meeting over some tea would have sufficed.

      China? Maybe the only power with the means and capability, but what's in it for them? Russia is no market, Russian companies are no competitors. Plus they want Russian oil, certainly not a good time to piss them off.

      What else is there but the "western world" with the means, organizational structure, capability and motivation to do something like that?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    7. Re:Someone with money by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      If the Russian government wanted something from K, I am fairly sure it would not have required a letter,

      What letter are you talking about? No letter was mentioned in either FA.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  14. Please ignore this post. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Deadmanswitch #46df952185c72ba721acec12875672c4b91634fb

  15. they won't say because.... by turkeydance · · Score: 1, Funny

    1. they don't know. 2 they don't care. 3. they like it.

    1. Re:they won't say because.... by PRMan · · Score: 1

      They don't want to be killed by US agents.

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    2. Re:they won't say because.... by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      They don't want to be killed by US agents.

      The Mossad don't work for the US. It's the other way around.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
  16. Well, that escalated quickly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Given that Kaspersky plays a major role in Russia's cyber security, attacking them brings some very nasty players to the table. And those guys probably already know who (meaning people, not just country) did that. I mean, common. We, software folk, we think of honey pots, owned c&c servers, connection tracing etc. But really... There are only so many places where this can come from - it's easier to monitor the usual suspects (e.g. Rafael Advanced Defence Systems) then to try to untangle all those encrypted multi-hop connections. (And by "monitor" I don't mean just their network.) Because it does not matter how smart those developers are, there is always an idiot in their chain of command. Additionally, Duqu’s people another major problem is that they are waaay too active. And M.O. is too predictable...

  17. Re:Our customers will be pissed if we call them ou by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

    Clearly they do a lot of business in Israel. Plus the fear being called antisemetic.

    MY GOODNESS are you implying that Israel might be behind this? What? Are you ANTISEMITIC?????

    --
    In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
  18. Re:Considering the Democrats bragged about it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    that it is obvious the Democrats did not do it. They lie constantly. Constantly. And, they hate true liberty and are incapable of comprehending it. That is proof it is not the Democrats despite what they claim.

  19. Internet security is hard... by NotQuiteReal · · Score: 3, Funny

    If I do it standing up, I am "safe", right?

    --
    This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
    1. Re:Internet security is hard... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On the Internet, always use protection.

  20. Of course it's in the best interests of customers by ZeroWaiteState · · Score: 1

    There a firms who are paid millions to do that for a single customer. Kaspersky is probably just afraid, and I don't blame him. If encryption is made illegal, I'm sure antivirus won't be far behind.

  21. No one wins by ShaunC · · Score: 1, Troll

    Announcing to the world that you've been infiltrated by Mossad is a decision that must be weighed by some enormous number of calculated steps.

    If you're correct, you will be accused of being anti-Semitic.

    If you're wrong, you will be accused of being anti-Semitic.

    The only winning move is not to play.

    --
    Thanks to the War on Drugs, it's easier to buy meth than it is to buy cold medicine!
    1. Re: No one wins by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      His name was robert paulsen.

      No, wait.

      Advice bear?

        Theres got to be a fucking meme somewhere here.

    2. Re:No one wins by CBravo · · Score: 2

      I rewrote that for you:

      Announcing to the world that you've been infiltrated by [major unknown party] is a decision that must be weighed by some enormous number of calculated steps.

      If you're correct, you have risk

      If you're wrong, you have risk

      The only winning move is not to play.

      --
      nosig today
    3. Re:No one wins by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This reasoning is invalid unless you state the specific risks and show that they are equally unacceptable.

    4. Re:No one wins by CBravo · · Score: 2

      You have me completely surrounded with your infallable reasoning.... not.

      --
      nosig today
  22. They Did Say Indirectly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I read the report and they were clear without saying directly.

    1. From compile dates the office work week was Sunday to Friday.
    2. There was much less activity on Friday and no activity on Saturday.
    3. The time zone was UTC+2 hours

    That is code for Israel. They could not be any clearer withut saying it directly.

    1. Re: They Did Say Indirectly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yes, but someone could have set up those timestamps to try and frame Israel.

    2. Re:They Did Say Indirectly by tgv · · Score: 2

      Turkey and Egypt would fit the bill too, I believe. The whole region doesn't work on Saturday.

    3. Re:They Did Say Indirectly by Slayer · · Score: 1

      4. Their report states on page 5, that instead of "PROP" the exploit code used the word "HASHVA" on multiple occasions. While this could be a short form of "hash value", it just by pure coincidence means "thought" in Hebrew ...

    4. Re: They Did Say Indirectly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I am israeli, the hebrew word for thought is "macshava".

      Hashva means " she thought", but hey, dont let the facts confuse you.

    5. Re: They Did Say Indirectly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You didnt have to say " but hey, dont let the facts confuse you."
      Without it, your post would be very informative and valuable. It's just a statement of fact, and very useful and unbiased.

      With it, your post suggests you are very defensive of anyone that criticises Israel. That is biased and subjective. It can lead to flame wars and emotionally charged posts.

    6. Re:They Did Say Indirectly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Turkey and Egypt would fit the bill too, I believe. The whole region doesn't work on Saturday.

      You are wrong. For muslims, Friday is the ritual resting day of the week. There are some candid videos on YT, where groups of orthodox jews stand at street corners and scream Sabbath! endlessly at palestinian men, who are resupplying food shops on Saturday in Jerusalem.

      I think the best solution would be to combine all the three religions, so that workday lasts from Monday to Thursday but Friday, Staurday and Sunday are all days of rest. Who'd complain? (BTW, I think this has been already realized in France.)

    7. Re: They Did Say Indirectly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hate to say it, but you are right. Thanks for the advice, i will take it into account.

    8. Re:They Did Say Indirectly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's code for "Israel" indeed. Which means it's made by Israel, or somebody who wants to blame Israel and knows how to change the system clock. Great, that really narrows down the list of suspects.

  23. FTFS: "We are not cops." by ihtoit · · Score: 2

    ...is basically what they're saying. And they're right, they're not cops, they're not investigators. They're a software company.

    THAT SAID:

    From what I can gather, the "hack" was in the form of a highly complex payload which used multiple vectors. This isn't script kiddy stuff, this is planned and executed with a LOT of money behind it. Less likely to be a disgruntled employee or a pissed off customer, more likely to be a state player or rival with knowledge of the network. They might start by discussing with the police, the identities of those outside the company that the employees from the Directors to the janitors talk to about work, then run backgrounds on those people. I would not be too surprised (though the evidence is currently lacking to back up my position) if this were the work of British or American foreign intelligence - DoD, CIA or MI6. I don't think the FSB would be up for this since it's a Russian company with clear access to computers all over the world by simple virtue of the ubiquitous nature of its software. It wouldn't make the GRU very happy to suddenly find a potential backdoor to millions of computers suddenly slammed shut by a sister agency. Who else? Israel? I doubt it, what motive would they have? Besides, they're too busy killing Palestinians. Though looking at the Wired article, it would appear that suspicion is heavily on Israel with the toolkit being identified - and sharing a lot of common code - as a Duqu derivative with some Stuxnet code in there as well, which they're calling Duqu 2.0. This article does not agree with the one referenced in TFS, in that Kaspersky is reported to not actually know how much data has been stolen but they do know it's a significant amount and specific in nature.

    --
    Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
  24. Kaspersky is in Moscow, so its fear of the FSB by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    they won't say because.... They don't want to be killed by US agents.

    Kaspersky Lab headquarters is in Moscow, so its the Russian FSB (the KGB successor) that they fear.

    I'm waiting for the day when Kaspersky turns into a false flag operation, when their anti-malware software update includes FSB or Russian military malware. Hmmm, actually I'm not waiting for that day, the Russian gov't wouldn't take such a drastic step short of a WW3 is imminent scenario. But the point is Kaspersky is in Moscow, when the gov't knocks on their door and issues orders they will most likely *not* do a TrueCrypt style canary followed by a shut down. They will most likely quietly comply.

    1. Re:Kaspersky is in Moscow, so its fear of the FSB by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't know who started the company?

    2. Re: Kaspersky is in Moscow, so its fear of the FSB by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you are describing how the rsha would have handled. russia is way more sophisticated....

  25. hmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We all know who it was. You're getting owned.

  26. I.E. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sucks.

    But in other words, it doesn't know. It's all smoke and mirrors, with a placebo effect. If it can't keep the bad guys out of its systems, do you REALLY think it can keep them out of yours?

    VOTE NO!

    Join the darkside. Be one of us.

    1. Re: I.E. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      who is us ? bankster intelligence ?

    2. Re: I.E. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Deaf? Dumb? Blind?

      We need more room
      Build an extension
      A colorful palace
      Spare no expense, now
      Come to this house
      Be one of us
      Make this your house
      Be one of us
      Come to me now
      Come to me now
      Welcome
      Welcome

  27. de 3p3rt5 gotten haxx0r3d by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    all butthurt nao

  28. mory safe language would have stopped it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    if the windows kernel had been developed in a memory safe language, the exploit usef here would not have worked.

    rust, swift and sappeur to the rescue !

  29. In other words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They don't know.

  30. Who? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    NSA

  31. It doesn't matter all that much by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They already look stupid and clueless anyway.

  32. a little farther down the road by CmdrTamale · · Score: 1

    Were the update servers compromised?
    The target could have been one or more customers.

    Given the advanced nature of what has been found,
    customer clean-up might be very difficult.
    --
    When you think the trick is happening, it's already been done.

  33. Re:*sigh* Idiots! The net is so damn full of em... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    tl,dr? THEY CANT SAY BECAUSE, COPS ARE DOING COP STUFF.

    I don't see what shooting black people has to do with any of this.

  34. They know who by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It was probably the Russian government, and thy don't want to say that, and end up tortured for the rest of their lives.

  35. obvious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Omerta

  36. It depends... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... how quick are you at pulling out an ethernet cord?

  37. Wow, just WOW by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

    How to marginalize themselves as a company in just one small statement. I think they take the prize. Yea, we don't care. As if.

  38. Re:*sigh* Idiots! The net is so damn full of em... by TiggertheMad · · Score: 1

    ZING! well played, sir!

    --

    HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
  39. Self preservation by PPH · · Score: 1

    They are dealing with an extra-legal entity who doesn't have to answer to courts or legislators. FSB, NSA. Who cares what three letters they go by. They have guns and assasins on staff. And no need to answer to anyone else.

    I don't expect any corporate officers at Kaspersky (or any other company) to die for the security of my PC.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.