Slashdot Mirror


Should Kaspersky Lab Show Its Source Code To The US Government? (gizmodo.com)

Today the CEO of Kaspersky Lab said he's willing to show the company's source code to the U.S. government, testify before Congress, and even move part of his research work to the U.S. to dispel suspicious about his company. The Associated Press reports: Kaspersky, a mathematical engineer who attended a KGB-sponsored school and once worked for Russia's Ministry of Defense, has long been eyed suspiciously by his competitors, particularly as his anti-virus products became popular in the U.S. market. Some speculate that Kaspersky, an engaging speaker and a fixture of the conference circuit, kept his Soviet-era intelligence connections. Others say it's unlikely that his company could operate independently in Russia, where the economy is dominated by state-owned companies and the power of spy agencies has expanded dramatically under President Vladimir Putin. No firm evidence has ever been produced to back up the claims...

Like many cybersecurity outfits in the U.S. and elsewhere, some Kaspersky employees are former spies. Kaspersky acknowledged having ex-Russian intelligence workers on his staff, mainly "in our sales department for their relationship with the government sector." But he added that his company's internal network was too segregated for a single rogue employee to abuse it. "It's almost not possible," he said. "Because to do that, you have to have not just one person in the company, but a group of people that have access to different parts of our technological processes. It's too complicated." And he insisted his company would never knowingly cooperate with any country's offensive cyber operations.

A key Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee has told ABC that "a consensus in Congress and among administration officials that Kaspersky Lab cannot be trusted to protect critical infrastructure." Meanwhile, Slashdot reader Kiralan shares this article from Gizmodo noting Kaspersky Lab "has worked with both Moscow and the FBI in the past, often serving as a go-between to help the two governments cooperate." But setting the precedent of gaining trust through source code access is dangerous, as is capitulating to those demands. Russia has been making the same requests of private companies recently. Major technology companies like Cisco, IBM, Hewlett Packard Enterprise, McAfee, and SAP have agreed to give the Russian government access to "code for security products such as firewalls, anti-virus applications and software containing encryption," according to Reuters. Security firm Symantec pointedly refused to cooperate with Russian demands last week. "It poses a risk to the integrity of our products that we are not willing to accept," a Symantec spokesperson said in a statement.

182 comments

  1. Buy American? by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 2

    Beyond the paranoia, shouldn't American strive to buy American if there is an available competing product? I'm not "flag waving", but it does seem like at least one way to contribute to the American economy in some way.

    --
    If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    1. Re:Buy American? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What happens when you buy American? The "American" company that has it's actual headquarters in Ireland or the Bahamas (on paper at least) shifts it's profits into a Swiss bank account and then funnels the money back via a subsidiary in the Netherlands, helping no-one but their C-level executives.

    2. Re:Buy American? by sit1963nz · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The same argument then applied to every country who buys anything FROM the USA.

      There is over US$2 Trillion in exports to be put at risk by other countries doing the same.

      Does the USA really want to be locked out of 80% of the worlds economy and 94% of the worlds customers ?

    3. Re:Buy American? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe if the american AV companies didn't make such a horrible bloated POS that kills half of your PCs performance. It's probably not written in america anyways. Probably from India

    4. Re:Buy American? by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 1

      The same argument then applied to every country who buys anything FROM the USA.

      I'm talking about sales to the Federal Government. Private entities can buy from whoever they like within the law.

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    5. Re:Buy American? by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 1

      Maybe if the american AV companies didn't make such a horrible bloated POS that kills half of your PCs performance. It's probably not written in america anyways. Probably from India

      Windows Defender works great and gets good reviews even from Windows haters. But you're right, it was probably written in India, or at least by H1B Indians in Redmond...

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    6. Re:Buy American? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >> The same argument then applied to every country who buys anything FROM the USA.

      > I'm talking about sales to the Federal Government. Private entities can buy from whoever they like within the law.

      If you suspect a foreign entity (from Russia in the present case), what should a buyer in another country think about foreign products from the USA? (specially given the recent revelations about spying e.g. on Germany -- among others).

      This is the critical thing to answer, because US exports depend on that; of course, depending on how we see things (and our level of paranoia), it follows you have to buy American (DISCLAIMER: I'm not from the USA).

      In my point of view only Open Source solves that conundrum.

    7. Re:Buy American? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've worked for both McAfee and Symantec, as well as a couple smaller security ISVs. Every one of them allows the US government, foreign governments, and even extremely large enterprises to review the source code. In fact it was recently news worthy when Symantec refused to allow Russia to review the latest or any foreseeable future code.

    8. Re:Buy American? by sit1963nz · · Score: 1

      Again, all other countries do the same.

      So that ends up including Health, Education, Military, Law and Order, etc etc. Worse is that governments end up dictating software to the private entities, for example if all government documents had to be in Latex or Open Office formats, private businesses would move over to that software accommodate the governments needs. Why do you think Microsoft works so hard to keep governments using their software ?

      So its not as simple as you make out.

    9. Re:Buy American? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Beyond the paranoia, shouldn't American strive to buy American if there is an available competing product?

      This would be the same America where the government's three-letter agencies are known to, at a minimum, influence and, at worst, completely back door security and general communication hardware and software? Fsck that noise. At this point, the smart move would be to actively avoid American-originating products.

    10. Re:Buy American? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It isn't just AV outfits. I don't know how much arm-twisting this originally may have involved; but Microsoft will let suitably qualified government customers look at the code. Given that the people who don't respect your copyrights have access to pirated versions anyway; and you don't really want "Security" to be an automatic winning argument against using your product, I imagine that it's not too hard a case to make.

      What I wonder more about is how much this access actually helps those who have it. Antivirus products in particular, and reasonably complex software in general, receive vendor updates that can, and sometimes do, substantially alter their behavior quite frequently(and often in response to serious security holes, so you can't just adopt a blanket policy of sitting on all updates for 18 months); so if you want to stick to the carefully hand-reviewed stuff, you'll be so far out of date that random botnets and commercially motivated attackers will be nibbling on you; but if you want timely signature updates and security patches you essentially end up trusting the vendor to not slip something nasty into some urgent auto-update.

    11. Re:Buy American? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since Defender has been on by default installing Norton has had either zero or positive impact on performance according to independent tests. Stop living in 2005.

    12. Re:Buy American? by chuckugly · · Score: 1

      Yeah security software in particular tends to also be pretty complex, with a lot of hooking, filtering, and other kernel shenanigans along with service level support and user mode hooking. I guess source would help in looking for obvious remote backdoors a lot, but actual full on analysis would be probably beyond most if not all enterprises and probably a lot of state agencies.

    13. Re: Buy American? by nick_davison · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So the federal government should only buy American where comparable American products exist?

      But you start playing the protectionist game and other countries' governments may return the favor you've shown to their economies by ordering non American whenever a comparable product exists.

      How well do you think Lockheed and Boeing will do when they're shut out of all European defense contracts because EADS, British Aerospace and SAAB all make comparable products?

      How much do you think the already massively cost overrunning F-35 will cost when you can only spread the development cost over US only sales? It's a project that only got off the ground because they figured in export sales to people like the U.K.

      It seems ironic that one faction within the US believes that a free market with minimal government involvement to skew that market is the key to success... except when it's politically expedient to add extra federal process to avoid a free market.

    14. Re:Buy American? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Economically we're in a globalized world but socially we're still stucked with a pseudo-monarchy so social order and economic order will clash themselves until one takes the other and ends killing most of the people.

    15. Re:Buy American? by gravewax · · Score: 1

      protectionism begets retaliatory protectionism. You want to be real sure you are going to be on the winning end of that before you start such a war.

    16. Re:Buy American? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A well designed backdoor would be impossible for anyone to detect as even if they managed to find it, it would just be marked down as a bug (sometimes not even a security bug as with knowledge and planning you could make the most seemingly innocuous bug provide everything you need, neither closed nor open source provides any protection from a truly insidious individual or group/state actor that wants to insert such a backdoor.)

    17. Re:Buy American? by someone1234 · · Score: 1

      Probably for the same reason (US government means CIA/NSA too), Kaspersky is rightfully anxious.
      Russian or US, these governments are all the same, i wouldn't even be surprised if some hackers are on both payrolls.

      --
      Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
    18. Re:Buy American? by davester666 · · Score: 1

      Not only that, but just seeing the source is no guarantee. The gov't would have to inspect the source AND compile it and then use that executable. As well as examine all the various virus definition files and only use the ones they have examined. And then somehow make sure Kaspersky isn't holding back some of them and isn't intentionally using an incorrect virus def file (say one that lets through a Russian gov't virus).

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    19. Re:Buy American? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean like PCMatic? Software made by the spyware site previously known as PC Pitstop? ...maybe in an alternate universe pal.

    20. Re: Buy American? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Take your latex fetish and go die in a fire, perv.

    21. Re:Buy American? by butzwonker · · Score: 1

      As far as I can see many Americans are worried about illegal NSA surveillance. I'll leave it open whether that's reasonable or unreasonable, but at least for those people it makes perfect sense not to run US antivirus software and instead use software from Russia, Romania, etc.

      By the same token, my answer to the headline question is No. The only effect of giving source code to the US government is that it will be handed over to the NSA who will then analyze it for weaknesses. (I'm fairly confident that they already have done that will all antivirus software, though, so in the end it won't matter much. But anticipatory obedience is generally not a good way to deal with government wishes.)

    22. Re: Buy American? by dougdonovan · · Score: 1

      obviously the us govt does not have the tech savvy balls to access kaspersky. if you have to ask, you are wrong. the courts...will support the evidence, they dont know any better.

    23. Re:Buy American? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      As a resident of the Netherlands I think you're completely wrong. We also benefit a bit along with the C-levels :-)

    24. Re:Buy American? by Errol+backfiring · · Score: 1

      You must be the one watering the plants.

      If you can read Dutch, this article explains you only need a chair and a plant to use the Dutch tax haven.

      --
      Nae king! Nae laird! Nae yurrupiean pressedent! We willna be fooled again!
    25. Re: Buy American? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Protectionism brought American freedom and economic prosperity for 200 years without total economic isolation. Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, and Obama destroyed a legacy that dated back literally to the founding of this country--a legacy that built the biggest economic engine in the history of the world and an increasing standard of living for every generation except of course the most recent two.

      The very first Congress adopted, quite purposefully, policies to ensure domestic production of essential goods. George Washington had the suit he was inaugurated in made by the then only shop in the new country capable of making fine formal wear, because previously the British had prohibited the manufacture of certain finished goods in the colonies because they too knew better than to allow the source of their economic power to move offshore.

      The US government for most of its existence got most of its revenue not from taxation on the public but from tariffs and import duties. Tariffs and import duties are how you deal with the fact that US wages are higher than those abroad. If you want to make televisions overseas, go for it--but when you import those TVs here you will not be allowed to do arbitrage of labor because we'll tax the TVs on the difference of what they cost to make overseas vs what they would cost to make here. That is how protectionism works. You want to compete on features, design, materials, whatever, have at it, but you will not compete on workers' wages because that lowers everyone's standard of living.

      Yet we now have people who are either unfortunately ignorant of all of this, or in the case of our "leaders", deliberately ignorant of it while they push a globalist "free trade" agenda that does nothing but enable third world environmental destruction and slavery abroad while destroying the economic opportunities of the entire population of our own country.

      That said, nobody should give the US government anything security related because they are not to be trusted any more than any other government is.

    26. Re:Buy American? by cstacy · · Score: 1

      >> The same argument then applied to every country who buys anything FROM the USA.

      > I'm talking about sales to the Federal Government. Private entities can buy from whoever they like within the law.

      If you suspect a foreign entity (from Russia in the present case), what should a buyer in another country think about foreign products from the USA?

      They should think it may contain backdoors/vulnerabilities and possibly even be deliberately compromised by the United States government. And I can assure you that they DO already think this. Why the United States government -- particularly the military -- is basing the security of its IT infrastructure on a product from a Russian company with close ties to the KGB is just incomprehensible.

      At least now they are going to audit the software. Unfortunately, they will miss things.
      (They would also miss things if it were USA-produced software, so the question there is whether
      the things they miss would become known to the cyber-enemies as quickly.)

      I doubt they will maintain configuration control: random new un-audited unverified versions of the software
      will be routinely installed on the government computers; perhaps slightly less so on the military networks.
      Even though the military tries to lock things down, people still connect unauthorized things.
      Most of the government doesn't even pretend to lock anything down and cybersecurity is a bad joke.

      What is needed is a clean-room secure build by the government for the government.
      It should be secret source, because StO is in fact a valid part of the security profile in this context.
      (And anyone else, private or foreigners, ought to be able to use it, too.
      If they feel like trusting the USA intelligence agencies more than Kaspersky.)

    27. Re: Buy American? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When there is a real war how will you get parts?

    28. Re:Buy American? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Can you caution paywall that next time to save me the hassle? But yes, that's kind of how the Belastingdienst works.

    29. Re:Buy American? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      Unless you grovelled quite carefully over every new batch of virus signatures and heuristics(not necessarily a good idea if it delays protection against viruses that could already be hitting your gullible users; and not necessarily an easy task, if the number of occasions when an AV vendor has accidentally broken the OS or some common program by misidentifying it as a virus is anything to go by); even a fully 'non-malicious' antivirus program could turn very unpleasant very fast with the wrong update.

      Be a real pity if some parts of your PKCS 11 stuff generated some false positives and the 'sample submissions' happened to include key material, no?

    30. Re: Buy American? by easyTree · · Score: 1

      Never buy American. More CO2 is used per unit work. Think of the environment!

    31. Re: Buy American? by easyTree · · Score: 1

      Agreed. One only needs to look at the way unconscious xenophobia (arguably a bug in our psyche) may be exploited and escalated to gain additional permissions by unscrupulous government.

    32. Re:Buy American? by chuckugly · · Score: 1

      Modern AV is not even primarily based on old fashioned signatures; this is a common misconception. Top tier AV vendors still include and devote significant resources to signature based protection but it's just one facet of the overall defense. Reviewers that concentrate on testing against the sort of threats signature based portions of AV protection excel against probably don't help with killing this misconception. Other means of determining the validity of a process image or data include crowd sourced reputation, behavior analysis, on demand local sandboxing, IDS, and a host of other techniques.

      However I believe your basic points stand; modern anti-malware packages are difficult to analyse due to being complex, multifaceted, and subject to rapid innovation and other change. They are also constantly treading a very fine line between protection and facility. For instance one very popular AV product will reliably block online games and other such rapidly mutating applications if the application vendor in question fails to digitally sign even a single module. Personally I'm OK with this but I know many gamers who have had strong negative reactions to it after the game vendor (Trion in the cases I've seen) has failed in this way.

    33. Re: Buy American? by aliquis · · Score: 1

      If you believe in competition and competitiveness then no.

  2. When he says he'l show it to the 'government' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    he means 'President Trump'

    1. Re: When he says he'l show it to the 'government' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      His huge smartness will parse the source in five minutes and in the days following he will tweet a 3am patch for the backdoors put there by Democrat losers. No one understands The Cyber in quite the same way as The Donald. He writes the best code.

  3. You must answer, "Yes"... by Captain+Ramage · · Score: 1

    Well, come on now, you really must answer, "Yes" if you are for open source and the ability of the user(s) to review the code. After all, isn't the U.S. Government right now saying that they don't trust the code? Or, they've got concerns, at least?

    1. Re:You must answer, "Yes"... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Open source means open to everybody. Opening your source only to your adversary means that adversary is in a privileged position to exploit and circumvent it. I hope I needn't explain why the Russian or US government is a security company's adversary. That said, I do believe Kaspersky works for Putin.

  4. How about ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... no?

    If the government wants to see the source code of a product, they can choose an open source one like the rest of us.

  5. Re:Trump is cool by gweihir · · Score: 2, Interesting

    No moderation option "-1 Moron", so posting it instead.

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  6. Closed source security software by fred6666 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why should anyone trust closed source security software in the first place?

    1. Re:Closed source security software by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 1

      Nobody should have to trust any closed source software. Trusting Microsoft is a huge mistake because they have a horrible track record when it comes to writing secure software. Kaspersky Lab on the other hand actually has a good record for being an excellent anti-virus program. I would trust Kaspersky Lab over Microsoft but I don't have to trust either of them, so I don't.

      --
      Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    2. Re:Closed source security software by Xenographic · · Score: 1

      I honestly agree with this. I think they should be demanding the source to all security relevant products, if for no other reason than that they can control and analyze them. When software is feature complete, business types love to shove it into maintenance mode, leave a skeleton crew to do security updates and in general lower the quality with each new release by trying to milk it.

    3. Re:Closed source security software by AHuxley · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Security software helps find nation state efforts
      Longhorn: Tools used by cyberespionage group linked to Vault 7
      https://www.symantec.com/conne...
      Equation Group https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
      Stuxnet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
      Operation Socialist https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    4. Re:Closed source security software by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      There is a real catch for closed source proprietary code security software, everyone knows exactly what the NSA/CIA will do, look for bugs and keep the results secret, so they can hack in any time they want, not matter the consequences in the interim, pack of morons. For Kaspersky there is nothing to win, they will never buy the software and when the lobbyists instruct the political appointees to lie, they will. They will discover a direct link in Kaspersky software to the KGB, Soviet Union and Stalin, talk about it for months on end, back doors, keyloggers, all insiders leaks, to destroy Kaspersky's reputation and then months and months latter pretend nothing happened. There is definitely nothing for Kaspersky to win here.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    5. Re:Closed source security software by sad_ · · Score: 1

      and who's to say they will show the actual source? maybe they'll clean it up before handing over.

      --
      On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.
    6. Re:Closed source security software by swb · · Score: 1

      I'm sure there's some requirement to not just *see* the source, but to build it independently with the same toolchain and make sure you get the same executables.

      The problem with Kaspersky is that like all AV it's self-updating with definitions and program updates, it's not a static executable.

    7. Re:Closed source security software by cstacy · · Score: 1

      Nobody should have to trust any closed source software. Trusting Microsoft is a huge mistake

      The government doesn't trust Microsoft ; they have access to the source and audit it.
      Well, they sort-of trust them. And they sort-of audit it. Sometimes.

      You are aware that SE Linux is originally a product of the US military (DARPA) I assume?

      Of course, they're not auditing any software perfectly. I don't know how much the different
      parts of the government look at any of these systems. Probably not as thorough and ongoing as one would wish.

    8. Re:Closed source security software by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      I honestly agree with this. I think they should be demanding the source to all security relevant products

      The word "security" is superfluous in this sentence. Where does "security" start? Or stop?

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  7. Doesn't matter by mhkohne · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Even if Kaspersky shows the source today and intends to be completely upright in their dealings, they are still susceptible to govt interference. The govt could nully them into doing it's bidding, or could plant it's own people on the team.

    Just as I understand China not wanting to take MS at it's word, we should probably not rely on these guys.

    --
    A thousand pounds of wood moving at 300 feet per minute. Don't get in the way.
    1. Re:Doesn't matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So we shouldn't trust a Russian company because they may or may not have ties to the Russian government to do "bad things"

      But we have plenty of evidence the NSA has actually done real bad things and forced US companies to help and enable them to do it.
      So clearly we can't use any American software either.

      Where should we get our software from now?

    2. Re:Doesn't matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Write it yourself.

    3. Re:Doesn't matter by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 2

      Just as I understand China not wanting to take MS at it's word ...

      Hah! I get it, MS Word!

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    4. Re:Doesn't matter by Darkling-MHCN · · Score: 1

      Correct.

      Every virus program is measured by its ability to quickly and effortlessly release updates to combat new threats, so who knows what new threats Kapersky might counter in a time of war.

      The major difference between the NSA and Russia is NSA will want every computer in the USA to keep functioning whereas in a time of war Russia would want every computer in the USA to stop functioning.

    5. Re:Doesn't matter by BlueStrat · · Score: 2

      The major difference between the NSA and Russia is NSA will want every computer in the USA to keep functioning whereas in a time of war Russia would want every computer in the USA to stop functioning.

      Not sure that's been true for some time, if ever regarding the USA (government) wanting every computer in the USA to keep working. I believe just the opposite, that the US government views the US population as at least as much, if not more, of a threat than any foreign state, and wants the ability to hack into and/or shut down any civilian/private/individual network or computer in the US, and is so afraid of the population that it's willing to sacrifice security vs foreign states to obtain it.

      So far they've demonstrated a willingness...nay, a blatantly-cavalier attitude towards allowing back-door-able bugs to remain or be deliberately inserted into software to compromise & weaken security sold to and used by the general public.

      They keep telling us through their actions that they consider the US population enemies and potential enemies. If they persist, many in the population will begin to believe it themselves, and act accordingly.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    6. Re:Doesn't matter by cstacy · · Score: 1

      So we shouldn't trust a Russian company because they may or may not have ties to the Russian government to do "bad things"

      But we have plenty of evidence the NSA has actually done real bad things and forced US companies to help and enable them to do it.
      So clearly we can't use any American software either.

      Where should we get our software from now?

      If you are a government / military, you should write it yourself.
      Or only use specific versions that you have audited and trust.

    7. Re:Doesn't matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So clearly we can't use any American software either.

      Where should we get our software from now?

      I don't know. The only thing I can be sure of though, is that you should never go in against a Sicilian when death is on the line.

    8. Re:Doesn't matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what about starting a land war in Asia?

    9. Re:Doesn't matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      GNU

  8. Re:Who would install Putin's "anti-virus" ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You might as well email all your files directly to Vladimir Putin.

    I e-mailed all my gay clown porn to vlad247@aol.com. He wrote me back a nice thank you letter. I now run Kaspersky on all my devices without fear!

  9. Not just the government! by Tony+Isaac · · Score: 1, Insightful

    The real value of anti-virus software is not the source code, it's the data--the signatures it looks for to spot malware. I'm fine with them keeping their database proprietary. But why not make the source code freely available...unless they have something to hide!

    1. Re:Not just the government! by Zemran · · Score: 1

      Something to hide? You mean like normal business practice? I am far more worried about the way they are rolling over.

      --
      I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
    2. Re:Not just the government! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The real value of anti-virus software is not the source code, it's the data--the signatures it looks for to spot malware. I'm fine with them keeping their database proprietary. But why not make the source code freely available...unless they have something to hide!

      It is vey easy to write code that effectively morphs every time it is run. All that is needed is for the code to randomly modify a portion of its binary/script that will not affect what it's designed to do and catching it with signature matching is a nightmare. You only need the initial morphing code to be run once and it can be propagated under a myriad of signatures.

    3. Re:Not just the government! by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      It's easy to write code that morphs, but hard (in my opinion impossible) to write it in such a fashion that it cannot be identified.

      Back when morphing code was still en vogue (back when malware writers put in some effort into their work, today it's mostly the same shoddy hacks that any other commercial software is), part of my job was to develop routines that could identify morphing malware. With some it was easy, with some it was hard (and I distinctly remember one particularly nasty bugger that we could only implement in such a way that we had to whitelist quite a few game copy protection mechanisms that curiously had similar routines...) but it was far from impossible to design detection routines for them.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  10. What difference does it make? by Tony+Isaac · · Score: 1

    Let's say they release some source code. Who could prove that the executable that customers use, was compiled from that source code, without modification?

    1. Re:What difference does it make? by Kjella · · Score: 1

      Let's say they release some source code. Who could prove that the executable that customers use, was compiled from that source code, without modification?

      Reproducible builds is a pretty big thing for open source too, for example Debian. As long as you have information about the build environment (compiler name and version, build flags, source path), the vast majority of packages will now give the exact same binary. If not there are typically small differences due to various system parameters that can be diff'ed and deciphered. How easy it would be for Kaspersky's code only they know, but with the US government's resources it should be no problem to verify the result.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    2. Re: What difference does it make? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't build your own to "verify" theirs... you use your own build of the source. And that's the buils you run all your tests against, and that's the build you deploy.

  11. What to learn from this article by guruevi · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    a) Don't trust Symantec, they've got stuff to hide in their source code whether it's NSA-stuff or sloppy code.
    b) You can probably trust Kaspersky for most things except NSA-stuff.

    I've personally never trusted Symantec and I always thought Kaspersky was good enough for the home, I never considered them to be a serious contender in the enterprise-market. I have serious reservations about most US-based closed source (security) software and closed system hardware manufacturers. The NSA persuaded a relatively small (10k employees) employer of mine to install taps with full cooperation of Cisco and IBM, so any of these larger companies must have ties if not outright taps in the software.

    What we really need is for these companies to open-source their stuff.

    --
    Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    1. Re:What to learn from this article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You might as well email your files to Vladimir Putin...

      In case you are too blinded by our treasonous president to notice, Russia is not our ally. Russia has done us harm via hacking and continues to harm us with continuous hacking attacks on our elections, infrastructure, and businesses.

      Do not join Trump / Putin's anti-American bot-net.

    2. Re:What to learn from this article by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 1

      What we really need is to only use open-source stuff.

      FTFY.

      --
      Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    3. Re:What to learn from this article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck off, you globalist piece of filth.

    4. Re:What to learn from this article by hduff · · Score: 1

      Yes. The CIA has developed its Open Source OS. Feel free to use it.

      --
      "I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
    5. Re:What to learn from this article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck off, traitor.

    6. Re:What to learn from this article by king+neckbeard · · Score: 0

      Most people have more to fear from their own government than from Russia. Thus, a Russian backdoor is less of a concern than an American backdoor.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    7. Re:What to learn from this article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess some people are retarded or treasonous enough to trust Russia while Russia is actively attacking their country... You'd have to be a conniving traitor or a hopeless idiot to recommend installing a Russian backdoor on someone's computer.

    8. Re:What to learn from this article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the question is who is more likely to fuck you over, the honest answer is the NSA/US government. It isn't about trusting Russia, it is about knowing Russia really doesn't give a shit about you whereas the US government is in bed with so many corporate entities and corrupt pollies that you could be done from anything from piracy to J walking. I would take software with a Russian backdoor anyday over one that might have an NSA one.

    9. Re:What to learn from this article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      many already use it. Or do you think NSA/CIA etc have no input in Linux?

    10. Re:What to learn from this article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are one of those "Nuke for Hillary" dudes, aren't ya?

    11. Re:What to learn from this article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's because you are a traitor and/or retard.

    12. Re:What to learn from this article by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

      No, it's because an enemy of my enemy is slightly less of an enemy to me. That's why Snowden was safe in Russia. He is an enemy of the US government, and so is the Russian government.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
  12. No... and yes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In general, no. No way should any government be able to just demand access to the code that makes your product unique from your competitors.

    However, if you are up for a government contract to supply said product for government use -then allowing code review sounds reasonable.

  13. More Hysteria over Russia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Will it ever end?

    1. Re:More Hysteria over Russia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only when they stop being a cancer on our Internet.

  14. Re:Trump is cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, well a real moderator showed up and modded him +1 Insightful, so fuck you.

  15. But Apple Iphones Made in China Are ok? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wish all this idiot democrats would drown in a sea of their own bullshit

  16. Re:Trump is cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Agreed.. Trump has been the bets thing to happen to the USA in 8 years. Watching these Democrats try to create Russia hysteria is better than watching house of cards. It's also outed a lot of these fake journalists.

  17. What About... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What about Veeam?

    What about Acronis?

  18. Re:Trump is cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    there aren't "real" moderators here. they're just random selections from the logged-in user base.

    not really much different than grabbing joe schmoo off the street. the odds are fair that the person you grab is going to be a idiotic trump supporter, too.

  19. waste of time could be talking about TRUMP instead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Quick joke: Donald J. Trump

  20. Re: Trump is cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's kinda F'ed up to take glee in the demise of a nation for the giggles.

    Any US citizen who isn't worried about what Russia pulled off in the last election either has their head up their own ass or has their head up Trump's ignorant and xenophobic ass.
    Forget Democrat or Republican, the Russia debacle is about the sovereignty of the nation.

    The fact Trump won't even acknowledge Russia's actions should make EVERYONE suspicious of him, but there clearly hasn't been any real evidence of his involvement. Frankly, I'm not sure the Russians would have wanted him involved seeing as he can't seem to keep is freaking mouth shut for more than a day.

  21. Re: Trump is cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Trump won't be in office in three years, much less for 8.

    That grifter is neither physically not mentally fit enough to survive the self induced outbursts of rage he subjects himself to.

    Now, the US will still be suffering from his nonAdministration eight years from now, but that's a different point.

    Back on topic, showing the source is BS, because you can keep two sets of code just like you keep two sets of books. Use a weaker algorithm like sha1 and you can even force the collision to verify the output matches.

  22. Hell No!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wanna Cry proved why Apple was smart not to create a tool for the federal government that could be used to break encryption on iOS based devices. If such a tool exists it will inevitably be leaked. Kaspersky should tell the federal government where they can stick it if they ask for the source code and they most certainly shouldnâ(TM)t offer it up.

  23. No fucking way by Dunbal · · Score: 2

    The government is free to write its own anti-virus software.

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  24. Re: Trump is cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...what Russia pulled off in the last election...

    So, what exactly did they "pull off", how did they do it, and what evidence do you have?
    Provide specific intelligence from impartial sources (not biased media such as the NY Times or the WaPo) to back up your claims. I strongly suspect you can't answer.

  25. Would a US company do the same? by Zemran · · Score: 2

    How many US companies would want to show their source code to the Russian government? The Russia government has a far more trustworthy record in this area. Most malware now is based on code from the NSA. I think Kaspersky should not trust the US government and by doing so they become less trustworthy. If they rolled over on this how can we trust them not to allow changes to their code?

    --
    I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
    1. Re:Would a US company do the same? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Never mind the Russians, how many US companies have offered to show their source code to the US government?

  26. Re: Trump is cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Trump thinks his daughter is a hot piece of ass.

  27. Re:Who would install Putin's "anti-virus" ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just stop it. The whole "muh Russia" BS is exactly that, BS. Even the DNC propaganda channel admitted it.

  28. Re:Trump is cool by gweihir · · Score: 0, Troll

    I am not an AC hiding behind anonymity like the scum you are. And who says moderators cannot be morons as well? Incidentally, he is now at "0, Insightful" meaning he got modded down again, because a smart moderator undid the mistake the other one made.

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  29. Re:Who would install Putin's "anti-virus" ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nice, we're starting to see them here too. It's not just reddit getting the vatnik trolls anymore!

  30. Wow people are triggered easily. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Its like mkultra lite. Someone posts something to do with russia and those comfortable little neural pathways fire all the way to their pre-programmed destination. And we end up with a thread about Trump.

  31. Re: Trump is cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are you Putinâ(TM)s bitch like Trump?

  32. of course they shouldn't by Yurka · · Score: 1

    They are (to the extent it is applicable to anything that's Russian) a private company, at least on the US market, and they can hide or disclose whatever parts of the code they want, unless there's a subpoena or a search warrant. But by the same token, of course no agency in their right mind, much less a government agency, can possibly contemplate using anything developed by a KGB man.

    --
    I can assure you, the best way to get rid of dragons is to have one of your own.
  33. Offered in 2006 by AHuxley · · Score: 3, Informative

    "Russian anti-virus CEO offers up code for US govt scrutiny"
    http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/s...
    "... ready to have his company's source code examined by U.S. government officials"

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    1. Re:Offered in 2006 by AHuxley · · Score: 3, Informative

      Cyber spying risks the future of the internet (Nov 7 2013)
      http://www.smh.com.au/it-pro/s...
      We are opening an office in [Washington] DC for this reason. We will send our source code, you can check our source code. You're welcome."

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  34. "Crystal Box" security is best by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's an old security concept that people seem to forget.

    Design your system so that as long as your credentials are not compromised (passwords/certs/authentication keys), attackers should be able to get everything else about your system and still be kept out.

    Now, this is NOT saying that secrecy has no value. I readily admit that I'm not perfect, so I keep details of my systems secret as a second layer of protection (make the attacker work harder, which gives me more of a chance to detect that they are there)

    But when you are looking to implement security software produced by someone else, being able to inspect it is good, because you cannot have confidence that your attackers haven't had a chance to inspect it, so you want to be on equal footing.

    This is one of the reasons why Open Source is so important for such sysems

  35. solution: Eset NOD32 by elcor · · Score: 1

    Catches a lot, low footprint, Czechoslovakia is just awesome.

    1. Re: solution: Eset NOD32 by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      Can I borrow your time machine?

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    2. Re: solution: Eset NOD32 by elcor · · Score: 1

      oh god - does it suck now? (I admit I've been on mac since 2009)

    3. Re: solution: Eset NOD32 by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      It is not that good anymore, but that was not my point. Czechoslovakia has ceased to exist 25 years ago.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    4. Re: solution: Eset NOD32 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      awww... don't be mean about his geography skills, he's probably American.

  36. It seems . . . by hduff · · Score: 1

    TFA: "A key Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee has told ABC that "a consensus in Congress and among administration officials that Kaspersky Lab cannot be trusted to protect critical infrastructure.""

    The same could be said by any foreign government or individual about Microsoft or Apple operating systems.

    --
    "I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
  37. Re: Trump is cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm waiting for Mueller's report to pass judgement. Opposition senators' "there's smoke" (but no evidence) comments and "a little bird told me" fake news hold no value.

  38. Re:Who would install Putin's "anti-virus" ? by hduff · · Score: 1

    I e-mailed all my gay clown porn to vlad247@aol.com. He wrote me back a nice thank you letter. I now run Kaspersky on all my devices without fear!

    Links or STFU.

    --
    "I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
  39. Like someone still don't get this is a war by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Invest in software and hackers, corrupt politicans and useful idiots, smear propaganda on TV
    and you don't need to conquer more economicaly and advanced countries
    you own them
    you can "elect" anybody, sabotage anything

    Their most prominent software companies give you all their codes , plus espionage..

    something like "the capitalists sell to us rope that we use to hang them "

    So Obama was fooled by thinking Russia is weak and was defeated with shame as dumb looser

  40. Re: Trump is cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe you should spend some time reading. If you don't like the NYT or WaPo, there are plenty of other credible places to get your news. Hell, if your in the US, you could even watch the House and Senate intellegence committee hearings and hear it straight from the US intelligence officials.

    The only people who don't seem to want to admit what Russia did are Trump's administration and the 30 some % of Americans still blindly following him.

    Don't be so ignorant, it's a disservice to yourself and everyone around you.

  41. Re: Trump is cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    With regard to whether there was any actual collaboration between Trump's team and Russia, your absolutely right. I am fairly skeptical that Trump was actually involved, because, frankly I don't see why Russia would WANT to involve him.

    Too many people on the left are screaming 'COLLUSION' and too many people on the right have their fingers in their ears, dancing around yelling 'LALALA... I CAN'T HEAR YOU... LALALA'

  42. It's win / win by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The CIA saves explosives and Kaspersky's software is rendered useless.

  43. Totally they should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...because Trust The Government https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wofs8ZpcXlM

  44. Why should they? by Snotnose · · Score: 1

    Seriously, let them decide "fuck the USA, we still have the rest of the world". Downside? Sales in the US fall. Upside? As the great lady sings "Are EE Ess Pee Ee See Tee".

    Give em the source. Downside? NSA says "damn, never thought of that.". Or "damn, they just found $NSA_Hack_Tool". Upside? Nothing I can think of, outside of sales in the US.

  45. Re:Trump is cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    typical trump supporter, can't even spell a four letter word

    BEST motherfucker not BETS

  46. Evidence? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't think the us public should blame Russian companies for what Putin does, without evidence.

    Does kapersky send data back to kapersky hq? Are there 0 day malware/virus signatures missing from the database?

    that said, the us gov shouldn't trust domestic code any more then foreign. Sleeper cells could be asleep anywhere.

  47. Re: Trump is cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Looking at all gweihir's posts would reveal a lot more about him or her than would a single a/c's post. All we can tell from your post is that you're not too good at thinking.

  48. Re: Trump is cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He's right!

  49. Re:When he says he'l show it to the 'government' by sycodon · · Score: 1

    "sure, here's mode code right here. I promise it's the real thing"

    Regardless of the other arguments, who really thinks he will provide the real code?

    --
    When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
  50. What's the issue? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Isn't the American government a wholly owned subsidiary of the Russian government at this point?

  51. Re: Trump is cool by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

    No, I want Trump shot into the sun, but at worst, Russia used journalism against America, which is GOOD for the people, albeit bad for the government.

    --
    This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
  52. Spy-agencies power by manu0601 · · Score: 1

    It's unlikely that his company could operate independently in Russia, where the economy is dominated by state-owned companies and the power of spy agencies has expanded dramatically under President

    The funny part is that you can take this sentence, replace Russia by US, and state-owned by privately-owned, and it is still true.

  53. Re:Who would install Putin's "anti-virus" ? by king+neckbeard · · Score: 2

    Because Putin's anti-virus would be the one most likely to not have NSA backdoors, which is what an American citizen should be concerned about.

    --
    This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
  54. Re:Trump is cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    don't cry now. your mummy can't help you.

  55. Re: Trump is cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you sir have drunk the Koolaid... first of all, the USA has interfered with more elections than Putin has had breakfasts. To think that modern governments do not use their intelligence services for subversion is to be completely ignorant and childish.

    But.. to think that these subversions can sway mutlitudes the size of the USA more so than CNN/FOX/MSNBC etc is supremely stupid.

    Hillary lost because she was a bad candidate.

    Trump won because the USA is sick of lying politicians and news anchors.

    Get used to this... because idiots like yourself are going to be marginalised.

  56. Re: Trump is cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't be too harsh, he's more likely a Russian with English as a second or third language.

  57. DIFFERENT argument. entirely. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    DIFFERENT argument. entirely.

    This is being compelled to show source code.

    You're talking about which one is more trustworthy. Completely different discussion.

  58. Show of hands by DivineKnight · · Score: 1

    Who believes the US government doesn't have a full copy of the source already?

  59. Bigger question is do you trust them with it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If only a government has access to the source then the government could find flaws in it easier to exploit it and keep it secret from the other governments and everyone else. Either make the source available to everyone or leave it secret to everyone outside the company.

  60. For once... by MSG · · Score: 1

    For once, the answer to the headline is "yes."

    Yes, Kaspersky should show its source code to the US Government. They should show their source code to all of their users. All software should come with its source code. If you weren't convinced of that before, you should have been by the audit of Toyota's source code.

    http://www.safetyresearch.net/...

  61. Re: Trump is cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah Trump was a habitual liar even before he got elected so... now that he's a politician it's official

  62. They probably should by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    it's the kind of positive make-work project that does good things for the local economy. The guys I know in the defense industry make 2-3x the going rate for the equivalent work (unless they're high-end math guys, Wallstreet gobbles those guys up for HFT).

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  63. Beware Of Backdoors by nick_davison · · Score: 2

    It's important that the US government, the primary creator of forced backdoors and exploits, can make sure code doesn't have... oh.

    Now, if you'll excuse me, I've got to go and patch everything in my home due the the huge cache of zero day exploits the NSA were hoarding, rather than reporting, until they got leaked.

    1. Re:Beware Of Backdoors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You should be a little more critical of those who are trying to weaponize media against the institutions which protect your country from brain-damaged vatnik dictators like Trump.

  64. Paranoia by allo · · Score: 1

    Who to trust? American Software? Ask the NSA, they will recommend it.
    If the russians want to spy, they at least want to spy on the government not on the people.

  65. Re: Trump is cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes I would agree, she is hot!

  66. Re: Trump is cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Moron? Traitor? You be the judge...

  67. I'd like to see it happen by GeekWithAKnife · · Score: 1

    Today the CEO of Kaspersky Lab said he's willing to show the company's source code to the U.S. government, testify before Congress, and even move part of his research work to the U.S. to dispel suspicious about his company. The Associated Press reports:

    From real life to gaming VR I've never heard of anyone being able to dispel suspicious.

    --
    A 'singular oddity' is an event that cannot be explained and only happens when you are alone.
  68. Trustworthy? by bradley13 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "Kaspersky Lab cannot be trusted to protect critical infrastructure"

    Whereas the US government is totally trustworthy. /sarc

    --
    Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
    1. Re:Trustworthy? by ushere · · Score: 0

      well said!

  69. are they not already? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    why ask? are they not already sharing everything? I really really don't buy all the we are innocent BS from every american company... Apple is a good example... I bet the whole thing with the phone unlocking was a big publicity stunt for both Apple, NSA and the company that "opened" the phone... Geez... give us a break... the rest of the world is not that stupid!

  70. Re: Trump is cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All the butt hurt Hillary supporters need to explain how killing the TPP makes Trump the devil... coz I sure can't see it that way

  71. connections by Tom · · Score: 2

    Some speculate that Kaspersky, [...] kept his Soviet-era intelligence connections.

    No shit. Of course he did, you have to be a total idiot not to have connections to the intelligence sphere of the country you are operating in if you own a company in the security industry.

    The question should not be if he has connections. That's a given. You think McAfee has no such connections? The question is if they affect the product he is selling in a technically meaningful way. That he keeps such connections for the purpose of sales is clear.

    But hey, digging deeper than a sensationalist quote has fallen out of fashion, hasn't it?

    --
    Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    1. Re:connections by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You think McAfee has no such connections?

      Isn't McAfee the guy the CIA uses to test the heroin they help smuggle?

  72. Dear Leader Putin Does What He Likes by Maritz · · Score: 1

    Russia is a kleptocracy, and it's absurd to think they could not put the screw on Kaspersky. While they are based in or have assets in Russia, I certainly wouldn't use them. End of story.

    If Kaspersky resisted, it'd be bullets and polonium tea all around. Simple as that.

    --
    I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    1. Re:Dear Leader Putin Does What He Likes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Careful, bunch of Putinbots are gonna mod you down and post brilliant analyses like "muh Russian BS"!

  73. Why the Democrats mistrust Kaspersky is obvious. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is obvious to anyone who isn't an idiot that the Democrats in American Government have listened far too much to people like Dmitri Alperovitch.

    I, for one, wouldn't let the likes of "Crowdstrike" anywhere near my network for any reason whatsoever.

  74. This is Retaliation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For suing microsoft over av.

  75. Re: Trump is cool by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

    I suppose traitor would be the closer answer. I'm opposed to my government because I give a shit about my country. I think we should release anything bad on Putin, Russian hackers should release anything bad on us, and rinse and repeat for every other country in the world. Then, we get plenty of sunshine, and the cockroaches scatter.

    --
    This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
  76. Re: Trump is cool by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

    Yeah, but he's a different kind of liar, which was slightly less disgusting to a portion of the population. Particularly, he told the truth on some issues, such as TPP. Had the Dems nominated Sanders, a lot of that appeal would have been gone.

    --
    This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
  77. No surprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I use Kaspersky as my primary AV. I went through the same thought process (although without the enormous resources of the US gov't) and found no reason to believe that on balance their products are inferior to the equivalent (major) US products. Kaspersky has to operate in Russia, so some collaboration with Russian military, intelligence, and politicos is a necessity. The questions can be divided into several categories. First rule: follow the money. What are their Russian sales as a % of their total? (I am aware (why wasn't this brought up, IDK, it seems relevant) that Kaspersky and Putin have been "seen together" on numerous occassions, they're not strangers). The second question is: is there a meaningful difference between the carrots and sticks that the Russkies can put onto the company, the executives/decision/policy makers of Kaspersky compared to those office holders in other AV companies? I'd guess marginally, there is. So the follow up question is what sort of structure, formal structure, has Kaspersky instituted to prevent direct Russian government intervention? (eg., 3rd party review and subsidiary (US) independence). The other category of questions are in the WTF? category: WTF is the US govt DOING using commercial products when it OBVIOUSLY should be able to provide it own for its own?? There's something seriously wrong with a government that spends as much on Defense as the US does, but is unable (or unwilling) to provide for the common defense. Makes me wonder which commercial products they use to encrypt their communications.
    What's wrong with this picture? I chose Kaspersky because it is better than the alternatives. I can envision that certain users would come to a different conclusion, but its hard for me to credit the US Govt as being competent enough to reach any valid conclusion. I suspect its just more political as usual.

    1. Re:No surprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      more politics as usual. D'Oh!

  78. USA has form: Leveno, Huawai, ZTE trade protection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Pressuring Australia and UK not to buy their products.
    So now software as well? Not the first time an Israeli company had to show and tell as well.
    Remember when Norton released bloatware, and McAfee false positives - they gave it all to Kaspersky who are the only company to break ransomware with a public commentary.

    USA companies should buy the best, as objectivity independently rated. In any case soon AV companies will have to expand their base offerings to prevent ransomware - rather than sell it as an extra.

  79. covfefe ! by DrYak · · Score: 1

    he will tweet a 3am patch for the backdoors

    Oh, then that's what Covfefe was !
    That's why "The president and a small group of people know exactly what he meant [by covfefe]" !
    It was a super secret code word to fix a vulnerability in Microsoft Windows before the Petya ransomware spreads ?

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
  80. Re: Who would install Putin's "anti-virus" ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Different gay bro here but I got a thank you letter from President Putin for sending him my Hot 100 Topless Men in the Forest compilation video.

  81. SONY ROOTKIT how soon you all forget by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the only av software that detected the rootkit was .....ya and you want them to expose themselves to the nsa

  82. Re: Trump is cool by gweihir · · Score: 1

    Indeed. But Trump followers often resemble Trump, so that is not much of a surprise.

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  83. It means nothing; two sets of books by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm not sure what looking at the source gains.

    Just like keeping two sets of books. They could easily have clean source freely available to anyone to look at and a slightly modified version that they actually use. You could not tell the difference unless you compile the source yourself. Is Kaspersky offering to allow them to compile it themselves and distribute to Americans that way?

  84. Cannot trust American products and software by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    because, as we've learned time and again, they are susceptible to government interference. Accusations from the U.S. gov are completely baseless and without merit, in particular since we've learned how they use CIA and NSA for sabotage themselves, against countries they call allies.

  85. Which US government? by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

    The Russian apparatchiks in the White House?

    Or the freedom fighters in Deep State?

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  86. Pointless by Stan92057 · · Score: 1

    What would be the point? they can upload security updates at any time to upload nefarious programs/functions. I get almost 6 Mb a day security updates from Norton how do i know they are not acting hand in hand what their government ? Or they are acting with someone else?

    --
    Jack of all trades,master of none
  87. It should show its source code to EVERYONE by hackel · · Score: 1

    Kaspersky Lab should show it's source code to *everyone*, not just the U.S. government. It's absurd to even contemplate relying on a security product for which the source code is not publicly available. This case should highlight how incredibly absurd it is that proprietary software still exists in our society.

  88. Complete non-sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sure, I will show you my code, minus any back doors or special features. You'll never know...two sets of code one for me and one for you.

  89. Re: Trump is cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    same could be said about you

  90. Re:Who would install Putin's "anti-virus" ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    NSA Backdoor or Russian Backdoor it's a choice between Scylla and Charybdis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

  91. Re: Trump is cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Typical libtard, complaining about a spelling mistake but can't even use proper capitalization or punctuation themselves.

  92. Re: Trump is cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    they cannot be saved

  93. Re: Trump is cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    so weird, the TPP was the most biased pro us trade treaty my stupid country has ever signed, the tpp was pretty much the entire pacific rim bending over and spreading cheek for the us for some minor trade concessions

  94. Re:Who would install Putin's "anti-virus" ? by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

    But even in your metaphor, proximity matters. If I have two shields, one strong against the Scylla and weak against the Charybdis, one strong against the Charybdis and weak against the Scylla, and I'm sailing pasting the Scylla, I would be a fool to not choose the shield strong against the Scylla, even though it is weak against the Charybdis, because the Charybdis is too far away to be a real concern.

    Ultimately, I'd advise against using Windows altogether, but that's an entirely different conversation.

    --
    This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
  95. Oceania by easyTree · · Score: 1

    Don't look at the NSA, look at the Russians!

  96. Re: Trump is cool by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

    It was good for US corporations, but bad for US workers.

    --
    This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.