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.
We wont say, because if we do, we'll look bad.
Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
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!
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...
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
again?
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
i would be shocked if NSA weren't involved.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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!
If I do it standing up, I am "safe", right?
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
The Mossad don't work for the US. It's the other way around.
You are welcome on my lawn.
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.
...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
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
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.
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
You have me completely surrounded with your infallable reasoning.... not.
nosig today
I don't see what shooting black people has to do with any of this.