Slashdot Mirror


FBI Warns US Private Sector To Cut Ties With Kaspersky (cyberscoop.com)

An anonymous reader quotes CyberScoop: The FBI has been briefing private sector companies on intelligence claiming to show that the Moscow-based cybersecurity company Kaspersky Lab is an unacceptable threat to national security, current and former senior U.S. officials familiar with the matter tell CyberScoop... The FBI's goal is to have U.S. firms push Kaspersky out of their systems as soon as possible or refrain from using them in new products or other efforts, the current and former officials say.

The FBI's counterintelligence section has been giving briefings since beginning of the year on a priority basis, prioritizing companies in the energy sector and those that use industrial control (ICS) and Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) systems. In light of successive cyberattacks against the electric grid in Ukraine, the FBI has focused on this sector due to the critical infrastructure designation assigned to it by the Department of Homeland Security... The U.S. government's actions come as Russia is engaged in its own push to stamp American tech giants like Microsoft out of that country's systems.

Meanwhile Bloomberg Businessweek claims to have seen emails which "show that Kaspersky Lab has maintained a much closer working relationship with Russia's main intelligence agency, the FSB, than it has publicly admitted" -- and that Kaspersky Lab "confirmed the emails are authentic."

Kaspersky Lab told ZDNet they have not confirmed the emails' authenticity. A representative for Kaspersky Lab says that the company does not have "inappropriate" ties with any government, adding that "the company does regularly work with governments and law enforcement agencies around the world with the sole purpose of fighting cybercrime."

22 of 173 comments (clear)

  1. Cum grano salis by sehlat · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Given that the FBI has repeatedly made it plain that they want unrestricted and owner-involuntary access to every piece of hardware on this planet, I'd take any cybersecurity recommendation they make with a grain of salt the size of the Benjamin Franklin.

    1. Re:Cum grano salis by fustakrakich · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Kaspersky can make a great advertising campaign out of this.

      *Banned in the US for refusing to whitelist government malware*

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    2. Re:Cum grano salis by Dracos · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Agreed. This sudden vendetta against Kaspersky suddenly feels less like they did something and more like they refused to do something the government wants.

    3. Re:Cum grano salis by Zemran · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I completely agree. I read this and think that I am now far more likely to use Kaspersky that I was before and I think many large businesses will think the same. The greatest cyber threats in recent years have come from the NSA, not Russia. There is a smear campaign under way and we are entering a new cold war that we may well lose. Europe have no intention of losing Russia as an ally because now they trade with them they see them as they are rather than as the propaganda paints them. This is not the 50s and the old style "Reds under the bed" propaganda does not work anymore. There is no evidence but of course they messed with our election just as we mess with their's. If they were better at it then learn from them and move on.

      --
      I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
    4. Re:Cum grano salis by green1 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If you're an average citizen, you're far safer with a foreign power watching you than a domestic one. The foreign one is unlikely to be able to do anything about things they don't like.

      Now if you're the one who runs the domestic spy agencies that's a different story, but for the rest of us, I always assume someone's watching, I always just hope it's nobody who has any power over me.

    5. Re:Cum grano salis by fustakrakich · · Score: 2

      I read this and think that I am now far more likely to use Kaspersky that I was before and I think many large businesses will think the same.

      And that's exactly what the government wants you to think. Kaspersky is really a triple agent, working for our side, along with Snowden. He's coming back with a treasure trove, real soon now...

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    6. Re:Cum grano salis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      At least of the three, the US is still democratic and answerable to Congress.

      ... which is answerable to lobbyists, which are answerable to multinational corporations, which are answerable to the private banking system (of which the Federal Reserve and similar institutions in most other 1st-world nations are members).

      Russia is among the few BRICS nations. Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa. They said "hell no" to the private bankers running everything. It's no coincidence there is a concerted propaganda effort against Russia. The truth is, Putin is a chess player. He's one of the most rational leaders ever seen in recent history. He's good at not sabotaging himself. Our corporations are good at controlling media and issuing propaganda.

  2. Re:Democrats have been on this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Out of all the text at the end of the article:

    The issue of a code audit was dismissed as a “publicity stunt” earlier this year by Jake Williams, an ex-NSA employee who has called the U.S. government’s efforts against Kaspersky “purely political.”

  3. Better idea. by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Cut all ties with Microsoft and you won't even need ties to Kaspersky Lab. We should all cut ties with Microsoft.

    --
    Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    1. Re:Better idea. by MoarSauce123 · · Score: 2

      And instead increase ties with Google and Apple?

    2. Re:Better idea. by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 3, Informative

      You will be shocked to learn, that there are OSes that aren't affiliated with any of those companies!

      --
      Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
  4. Guess which company hasn't given them access yey by guruevi · · Score: 4, Informative

    Symantec and the like have outright admitted cooperation with US spooks. At this point, if I were in charge of security I would be buying all computer hardware from outside sources like Huawei and Kaspersky, at least they've indicated unwillingness to cooperate with US stooges and Chinese/Russians infiltration would both be easy to detect and any positive evidence would seriously damage their reputation. Symantec and Microsoft have plainly given NSA and even BSA access to their information.

    --
    Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
  5. Welcome to the land of the Free by Dunbal · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Government is telling you which software to use. You wouldn't want people to think you were a terrorist, would you?

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  6. Re:Democrats have been on this by MoarSauce123 · · Score: 2

    Maybe...I would take the words of ex-employees with a grain of salt.

  7. What would be inappropriate? by LeftCoastThinker · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Maybe the question to ask Kaspersky is what exactly would an inappropriate relationship with the FSB look like according to them? It seems like there is some pretty damning evidence that a bad actor state (Russia) has been working closely with Kaspersky in a way that violates the expectation of most of the free world. If Kaspersky is serious about clearing it's name, it should clearly define and limit it's relationship with the FSB and the Russian government. Unfortunately for Kaspersky, being based in Russia, a country without a constitution or bill of rights limits what they can actually back up with action, unless they shift the bulk of their organization out of Russia, and I don't see that happening.

    --
    If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
    1. Re:What would be inappropriate? by dunkelfalke · · Score: 2

      Seriously, what are you smoking? First of all, most countries in the world have a constitution, Russia is no exception. Second, why would you even care about FSB unless you live or visit Russia and plan to commit federal crimes there? FSB is more or less like FBI, foreign intelligence is not on their task list.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
  8. Offers to see code by Tyrsal · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Considering Kaspersky has been distressed enough about this negative publicity to directly offer both the FBI and CIA access to it's source code and these offers have been rebuffed, I'm not exactly sold on anything the FBI has to say here as being anything more than a stunt

    1. Re:Offers to see code by chill · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Access to source code is meaningless. You need to be able to match it to the different binaries, otherwise how do you know what you're looking at is what is actually executed?

      With complex code that uses dynamic libraries, and is updated sometimes DAILY like anti-malware software is, there is no benefit from viewing source that you don't compile and maintain yourself.

      --
      Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
    2. Re:Offers to see code by Dan+East · · Score: 2

      Kaspersky has been distressed enough about this negative publicity to directly offer both the FBI and CIA access to it's source code

      What does AV software do? At the end of the day, what does it do? Essentially it deletes files. It recognizes something is malicious, and it has complex scripts that removes it. That's what the software does, and that's what the source code was written to do. So now lets say you want to take down the electric grid of some power company, and your AV software is running on their computers. You push a virus definition file that flags critical files on those computers as malicious and the AV software deletes them. Control computers can no longer run their intended software, and bad stuff happens.

      Tell me how showing anyone the source code prevents that from happening? Not to mention that AV software data files *are* executables, in that they contain scripts used for removing malware, and they are updated and pushed out almost daily.

      --
      Better known as 318230.
  9. Personally I am more worried... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    about ClamAV (Cisco), McAfee (or whatever it is called now.), Symantec (Garbage since the Norton buy and ruination.), and Defender (Microsoft, who according to the EULA for Windows, nevermind Defender, can scan all your files and report believed infringing files to whoever they want as well as remotely access any of your files for any reason including Law Enforcement usage.)

    Given all of these, and Kaspersky's overall good (but definitely not perfect) reputation as an AV company dating back 15+ years, they seem far more trustworthy than 90 percent of the field. And given that most of that 90 percent of the field is intentionally or unwillingly stooges of the US Intelligence apparatus, I would say trusting Kaspersky, as long as you have a backup a/v application/network monitoring tool, is probably far safer than most of the alternatives you can currently get free or paid for.

    As stated by pp and others: the FBI/NSA/CIA have all shown a lazy interest in compromising both domestic and foreign information security for their own purposes, while doing nothing to ensure even domestic services are sufficiently hardened to keep out foreign or domestic adversaries, of which there are thousands dedicated and with resources, and millions of 'fleas' who just need that one 'big score' to move up to the big leagues. Giving them those opportunities by compromising system integrity at the hardware, firmware, and os level is a crime against humanity. But it won't be until the digital equivalent of 9/11 happens that we will see even a half assed attempt to secure those backdoors, and no doubt it will only resort in less convenience to the owner of the device, while the hackers will still have the same level of fettered access that they did in the past.

  10. Whitelisting by detritus. · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It probably has more to do with AV definitions and white-listing than a willingness to hand over code. Not only does the US government probably feel Kaspersky could whitelist Russian malware/heuristics, they also can't strong arm a Russian company to white-list their own.

  11. Re:Ohh wait a moment... by Aighearach · · Score: 2

    That's completely idiotic. The CIA is one of many foreign intelligence agencies, and the FBI is the primary generic federal law enforcement agency. They don't divide any duties at all between foreign/domestic. The FBI is the agency that investigates violations of US law all around the world. If you hack a bank in New York from Germany, it is the FBI that is coming for you. They really don't care about where you are, they have access to travel. It has to do with if the job is a law enforcement job, or not.

    Get some fucking internet and you can learn shit.