Slashdot Mirror


'US Intelligence Agencies Should Put Up Or Shut Up With Kaspersky Rumors' (csoonline.com)

itwbennett writes: As previously reported on Slashdot, U.S. intelligence agencies have warned against using Kaspersky software amid swirling rumors of ties between Kaspersky Lab executives and the Russian government. White House cybersecurity coordinator Rob Joyce this week advised against consumer use of Kaspersky software. This may be good politics, but CSOonline's Fahmida Rashid warns that it's bad infosec. 'If the government has any evidence -- or even compelling reasons for being suspicious -- it should be sharing that, because many companies and consumers rely on Kaspersky Lab products. The fact that the government hasn't done so makes it likely this is all just geo politics,' writes Rashid. 'There is enough FUD in the market without throwing in politics into decision-making. Organizations should focus on deploying the technology which best addresses their needs.'

115 comments

  1. I'm thinking its just like the FCC DDOS by Revek · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Not an outright lie, more like some ignorant interpretation of the facts. A straw man to distract people from the Illegal hacking that our own government does to 'protect' us.

    1. Re:I'm thinking its just like the FCC DDOS by Beerdood · · Score: 2

      Any sort of condemnation of a tech company by a U.S. Intelligence agency should be easily spun into a positive selling feature for said company. If the CIA / NSA / 3 letter agency is publicly denouncing your organization, then it's almost certain that they're unable to install their backdoors / rootkit / keyloggers on whatever that company has to sell.

      --
      Global warming and other natural disasters are a direct effect of the shrinking number of pirates - Gospel of the FSM
    2. Re: I'm thinking its just like the FCC DDOS by dougdonovan · · Score: 1

      rob. you are so in over your head.

    3. Re:I'm thinking its just like the FCC DDOS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's what they want you to think...

    4. Re:I'm thinking its just like the FCC DDOS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Good Lord, is RT now posting to /.?

      I mean sure, /. sold out a long time ago and when Dice sold them we all know it was going to an astro-turfing company...

      But is really got sold to RT? Well, at least that explains the ridiculous lies and support for fascism, trump and tin-foil hats in general

      what a cluster fuck

    5. Re:I'm thinking its just like the FCC DDOS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Pro-tip Ivan, use an American-English spell check before posting. It will go a long way to cover your Russian troll army roots.

    6. Re:I'm thinking its just like the FCC DDOS by chainsaw1 · · Score: 1

      The absence of counterclaims is because we don't attack very often. The command chain authority for a cyber offensive (OCO) is similar to that for a nuclear strike. Further, US legal definitions of cyber attacks require physical loss or human disability or death. This is a much higher bar than other countries.

      Look up:
      https://law.yale.edu/system/fi...

      If you have access to Joint Knowledge Online (DoD), find the class on Cyber legal framework (unclass) which will lay all this out in gory detail.

      --
      - Sig
    7. Re:I'm thinking its just like the FCC DDOS by chainsaw1 · · Score: 2

      Sorry to reply to self, but part of the reason why the command authority is so strict is is because USCYBERCOM is currently under USSTRATCOM (Strategic Combatant Command). The news articles stating that USCYBERCOM gets "elevated" means that USCYBERCOM basically take it out of this position and is elevated to a peer. This should allow USCYBERCOM to better alter its rules of engagement.

      --
      - Sig
    8. Re: I'm thinking its just like the FCC DDOS by Archvile7 · · Score: 0

      What fascism? Do you even know what fascism is? Or are you just regurgitating the MSM? Iâ(TM)ve yet to see anyone provide actual proof or fact that shows how Trump is âoefascistâ.

    9. Re:I'm thinking its just like the FCC DDOS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Absence of counter claims? Did you miss that whole Snowden thing? Wikileaks Vault 7 ring a bell? Merkel sure loved her shit being cracked by USA.

    10. Re: I'm thinking its just like the FCC DDOS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny
      Well, just in case you did not know, there are many definitions of Fascism.
      Let's draw one out of the hat and see if it applies to President Trump
      Oh goody, it's Umberto Eco's definition

      So, yeah, President Trump closely resembles all 14 items that Umberto identified... Maybe YOU have a different definition.

      Umberto Eco
      In his 1995 essay "Eternal Fascism", Umberto Eco lists fourteen general properties of fascist ideology.[11] He argues that it is not possible to organise these into a coherent system, but that "it is enough that one of them be present to allow fascism to coagulate around it". He uses the term "Ur-fascism" as a generic description of different historical forms of fascism. The fourteen properties are as follows:

      "The Cult of Tradition", characterized by cultural syncretism, even at the risk of internal contradiction. When all truth has already been revealed by Tradition, no new learning can occur, only further interpretation and refinement.
      "The Rejection of modernism", which views the rationalistic development of Western culture since the Enlightenment as a descent into depravity. Eco distinguishes this from a rejection of superficial technological advancement, as many fascist regimes cite their industrial potency as proof of the vitality of their system.
      "The Cult of Action for Action's Sake", which dictates that action is of value in itself, and should be taken without intellectual reflection. This, says Eco, is connected with anti-intellectualism and irrationalism, and often manifests in attacks on modern culture and science.
      "Disagreement Is Treason" – Fascism devalues intellectual discourse and critical reasoning as barriers to action, as well as out of fear that such analysis will expose the contradictions embodied in a syncretistic faith.
      "Fear of Difference", which fascism seeks to exploit and exacerbate, often in the form of racism or an appeal against foreigners and immigrants.
      "Appeal to a Frustrated Middle Class", fearing economic pressure from the demands and aspirations of lower social groups.
      "Obsession with a Plot" and the hyping-up of an enemy threat. This often combines an appeal to xenophobia with a fear of disloyalty and sabotage from marginalized groups living within the society (such as the German elite's 'fear' of the 1930s Jewish populace's businesses and well-doings; see also anti-Semitism). Eco also cites Pat Robertson's book The New World Order as a prominent example of a plot obsession.
      Fascist societies rhetorically cast their enemies as "at the same time too strong and too weak." On the one hand, fascists play up the power of certain disfavored elites to encourage in their followers a sense of grievance and humiliation. On the other hand, fascist leaders point to the decadence of those elites as proof of their ultimate feebleness in the face of an overwhelming popular will.
      "Pacifism is Trafficking with the Enemy" because "Life is Permanent Warfare" – there must always be an enemy to fight. Both fascist Germany under Hitler and Italy under Mussolini worked first to organize and clean up their respective countries and then build the war machines that they later intended to and did use, despite Germany being under restrictions of the Versailles treaty to NOT build a military force. This principle leads to a fundamental contradiction within fascism: the incompatibility of ultimate triumph with perpetual war.
      "Contempt for the Weak", which is uncomfortably married to a chauvinistic popular elitism, in which every member of society is superior to outsiders by virtue of belonging to the in-group. Eco sees in these attitudes the root of a deep tension in the fundamentally hierarchical structure of fascist polities, as they encourage leaders to despise their underlings, up to the ultimate Leader who holds the whole country in contempt for having allowed him to overtake it by force.
      "Everybody is Educated to Become a Hero", whi

  2. NBD by PopeRatzo · · Score: 0

    makes it likely this is all just geo politics

    "Just" geopolitics. I like that.

    It's merely two countries with vast nuclear arsenals and unstable leaders trying to destabilize each other. What could go wrong?

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  3. Story link not included in summary by daveschroeder · · Score: 1, Informative
    1. Re:Story link not included in summary by sexconker · · Score: 2

      Look to the right of the headline. They made this change a while back. Yes, it's stupid.

    2. Re:Story link not included in summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://www.csoonline.com/artic...

      What? The link is there and it works.

  4. The government will use a well known line... by bogaboga · · Score: 0

    'If the government has any evidence -- or even compelling reasons for being suspicious -- it should be sharing that, because many companies and consumers rely on Kaspersky Lab products.

    While I wholeheartedly agree with this statement, I will not be surprised if this administration uses the line, "Sharing more of what we already have divulged, will be tantamount to giving up our sources and methods.

    BTW, this line was used by Obama administration as well, when they were talking about Russian involvement in last year's elections.

    How it makes sense, I cannot figure out.

    1. Re:The government will use a well known line... by mark-t · · Score: 1

      It makes perfect sense if it was actually a complete fabrication

    2. Re:The government will use a well known line... by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      BTW, this line was used by Obama administration as well, when they were talking about Russian involvement in last year's elections.

      How it makes sense, I cannot figure out.

      I recall that. If one wants the gov to 'put up or shut up' regarding evidence for Kapersky, they should want the same regarding evidence regarding Trump and Russia, but the media seems to be fine with insinuations, a lot more to assume that way.

    3. Re:The government will use a well known line... by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      Suppose that the information was retrieved from the SSL connection to Kapersky's servers. If so, then they'd have admitted that they either have compromised Kapersky's certificates (unlikely) or they have a standard MITM attack vector for all SSL connections (a lot more likely, as it's based on trust)

      Either reveal is bad for national security, so they truly shouldn't say more. I personally haven't used Kapersky ever, as it was a 100% Russian product with root capabilities (well, on windows everything has root) that frequently called home to be at all useful.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    4. Re:The government will use a well known line... by bogaboga · · Score: 1

      Suppose that the information was retrieved from the SSL connection to Kapersky's servers.

      No one is asking them for info on how they may have got the stuff. All we want is *the* stuff. They will never divulge details [possibly] because this information is fake.

    5. Re:The government will use a well known line... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      I believe there is an investigation right now into whether there is evidence of collusion between Trump and Russia.

    6. Re:The government will use a well known line... by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      If the only way to get said information is to break SSL....

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    7. Re:The government will use a well known line... by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 2

      I believe there is an investigation right now into whether there is evidence of collusion between Trump and Russia.

      You are being entirely too sensible - knock it off.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    8. Re:The government will use a well known line... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe there is a witch hunt right now into whether there is evidence of collusion between Trump and Russia.

      Fixed that for you.

      There's been a lot of talk about speculation about collusion between Trump and Russia, but it's been almost a year now, and still absolutely no evidence of any actual connection between the two.

    9. Re:The government will use a well known line... by h4ck7h3p14n37 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Back during the Cuban Missile Crisis President Kennedy put forward the U-2 photos showing the missile sites. He didn't hide behind the whole sources and methods thing.

      If someone's not willing to present their evidence, then you probably shouldn't trust them unless they have demonstrated they can be trusted. The three letter agencies have all demonstrated they cannot be trusted.

    10. Re:The government will use a well known line... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Back during the Cuban Missile Crisis President Kennedy put forward the U-2 photos showing the missile sites. He didn't hide behind the whole sources and methods thing.

      And a year later, he was dead. Not that compelling of an argument...

    11. Re:The government will use a well known line... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And the U2's weren't a secret, Russia knew their capabilities. They only flew high and fast enough not to be shot down, until one was.

  5. Rarely do we get all the info we need by danlor · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This time is no different. There is tons of smoke, and a despot with his hand near the wheel. Regardless of whether or not there is currently corruption, there is nothing stopping it from happening undetected in the future. We have been debating this situation here, at the executive level for over a year. I have been steadfastly against making a change (We use Kaspersky), but at a certain point it comes down to putting your name on the line certifying Kaspersky as safe. Are you comfortable with that? I'm not. So I had to give in. I'm not going to put my job on the line for a commodity security software.

    1. Re:Rarely do we get all the info we need by green1 · · Score: 2

      But what software are you comfortable putting your name on the line certifying as safe? and is it really any more likely to be safe than Kaspersky?

    2. Re:Rarely do we get all the info we need by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Runs at root, receives updates you have no control over, can retrieve and phone home ANY file on your systems... Smart move to remove it. That no one appreciates sources and methods when it comes to Govt warnings on things like this software, various hacking activities, and oh yeah the Russian involvement with this administration is amusing.

    3. Re:Rarely do we get all the info we need by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... but enough about systemd ...

    4. Re:Rarely do we get all the info we need by danlor · · Score: 1

      You are missing the point. To continue using Kaspersky REQUIRES I put my name on the line to certify it. This is not required of other solutions as they are not suspect or staffed with ex KGB agents. Before this bullshit I considered that a plus as it demonstrated skills needed.

    5. Re:Rarely do we get all the info we need by green1 · · Score: 1

      Yep, better to be completely ignorant of any risk, rather than properly weigh the consequences.

    6. Re:Rarely do we get all the info we need by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is that an authority (the US gov't.) has said that Kaspersky is not safe. Yes we cannot independently verify this assertion. Maybe we can do so in the future but for now, no.

      What happens if Kaspersky is later proven to be unsafe? "We told you so!"

      What happens if Kaspersky is later proven to be safe? "We made a small mistake, better safe than sorry!"

  6. It's about risk by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You don't have to prove that Kaspersky is in bed with Russian intelligence to not want to use it for government computers.

    Merely suspecting it might be is enough reason not to use it.

    --
    "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    1. Re:It's about risk by Archon · · Score: 0

      Companies like IBM have system boards photographed at the production facilities and then upon delivery, open them up and check them against the photographs because US spy agencies intercept deliveries and modify the hardware. Despite the 24/7 propaganda, Russia hasn't demonstrated itself to be an enemy of the US anymore than say... Israel (which the US has caught on multiple occasions spying on the US), yet Israeli tech is OK?

      Proof or GTFO.

    2. Re:It's about risk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about F-Secure and the rest, though? And this is silly, if they have evidence, it's relevant to everyone. If it's just fear-mongering, well, we should know that too.

      The DoD already seems to use McAfee quite heavily anyhow and it sucks pretty badly in so many ways.

    3. Re:It's about risk by houghi · · Score: 1

      They want you to use the software that they have infiltrated and not that Ruski stuff where they have no access to.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    4. Re:It's about risk by hierofalcon · · Score: 1

      As was said, it doesn't matter what virus product you are using. If any of them can be compromised in a critical moment or day in history to include critical system files in a virus database and have that virus definition update pushed out to your countries computers, then damage will be potentially be done if you are using their product to protect your systems. Perhaps you have policies to only check virus databases on test systems before pushing them to the live systems in your company thus introducing a delay between a random virus detection in the real world and protection in-house. That would contain the damage to a handful of systems if an actual virus definition based attack happens. But there are a lot of companies out there that either pull new definitions to a central server and push them out immediately or just pull them directly from the net. O/S protections for this may have been beefed up over the years, but I'll bet they still aren't foolproof.

      The history of the company really doesn't matter. Kaspersky has a good reputation thus far. But in a war situation Russia vs. (insert your non-Russian country here) or US based anti-virus protection company vs. (insert your non-US country here) is the risk of such a vector of attack acceptable to you? Every company has to answer this. Maybe they don't actually brick the computer. Maybe they just screw up Office so it doesn't function. Maybe it isn't a permanent kill of your business - just a long time for IT to get everybody up and running. Just because IT should know better doesn't mean that every IT organization is correctly implementing what they know.

      The US government is just trying to make the risks known. It's their job. When tensions either are increasing or have the potential to increase in the near future between two countries, to not do so would be nuts. Closed systems are great protection, but if you aren't closed with isolated networks and separate in-house/government and outside computers on everyone's desk, you have vectors of attack that have to be managed somehow. Most companies don't what to throw that kind of money at a low probability problem.

    5. Re:It's about risk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      TFA: The burden of proof is on US intelligence agencies.
      New Slashdotters: No, the burden of proof falls on Kaspersky labs.
      Old Slashdotters: Anti-virus is a virus. Use Linux, not cloud services.
      Me: Maybe if I produce a pithy summary, I'll get modded up.
      Moderators: I would have, but then you revealed your true motives.
      You: Why am I still reading this comment?
      Your subconscious mind: Seriously, why are you still reading it?
      US intelligence agents: He's still reading stupid Slashdot comments. Can we please stop wasting tax-payer money monitoring this guy?
      US intelligence agency leadership: No, we must assume everyone is a terrorist. Note to self, increase scrutiny of agent 35422. God bless America.
      God: Why? What makes you so special?
      Richard Dawkins: Hey, you don't exist.
      Westboro Baptist Church: Nuh huh, and he hates you, and gays too.
      Liberals: Show some compassion people.
      Conservatives: I'll show you compassion. It's right here, in the barrel of my shotgun. Trump 2020!
      Donald Trump: This is all Obama's fault.
      CNN: Donalt Trump tweets another lie!
      ...okay, seriously, why are you still reading this?

    6. Re:It's about risk by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

      I didn't say Israel tech would be safe! (depends what it is).

      Something like firewall, malware or antivirus, should ideally be developed domestically from trusted vetted sources. If I were Russia I'd be doing the same (not using American products).

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    7. Re:It's about risk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But muh braindead "both sides" argument!!

      Yes, if both sides are engaging in this kind of behavior, or known to, I think it is best to choose the software which likely represents your own nation's security interests. Sorry edgy twats, but that's not Russia.

    8. Re:It's about risk by HiThere · · Score: 1

      For government computers, yes. For your own??? Which government is more likely to be a threat to you?

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  7. We already know why Kaspersky is untrustworthy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I have the info on why nobody should be using Kaspersky's software, and I don't have any classified intell. I'm about to tell you something that you've probably already known for 20 years:

    Virus scanners are bullshit. If your security relies on executing totally untrusted code but hoping to have checked it against a blacklist first, then you have already lost. Your solution is stupid and you're a stupid person for thinking it might have worked.

    The way to protect against viruses is to not run any code that you have no reason to trust. If you are having unprotected sex with a dozen strangers per day, you are going to get an STD even if you ask each stranger "hey, have you been checked out lately?" before each encounter.

    Stop downloading and running random code. If you keep picking up strangers in bars, you're eventually going to get an STD. Maybe you've been lucky so far, but it's still just a matter of when. At a minimum, use a condom (run random untrusted code in a sandbox/VM/disposable) and accept that even protection isn't perfect. I'm not saying you need to be monogamous (only run code from the Debian repo) but that is the way to minimize risk. But geez, asking the strangers "have you been checked out lately" is not a serious solution in any way.

    If you're using AV software, you are wasting your time. And if you're paying for AV software, you are wasting money.

    And you already knew that. There are no surprises here.

    1. Re:We already know why Kaspersky is untrustworthy by JohnFen · · Score: 1

      The way to protect against viruses is to not run any code that you have no reason to trust.

      The problem with that is that it means that you can't use any software that you didn't write yourself, wasn't written by a person you know and trust, or that you didn't carefully examine the source to.

    2. Re:We already know why Kaspersky is untrustworthy by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 2

      I got bad news for you, AC: YOU ARE VIOLENTLY STUPID AND UNINFORMED. Otherwise legit software and websites can be compromised into being malware. Even I once went to download drivers for a piece of hardware from the manufacturers own website and antivirus flagged the download as containing a trojan; or are you going to say that a well-known manufacturer of computer hardware was complicit? Antivirus/antimalware is like carrying a parachute with you on a small airplane; you're not planning on jumping out and letting the plane crash, but if things go terribly wrong it's good to know you're not going to DIE in a plane crash. Also, you're a smug bastard who needs his shit slapped. I'll bet if we pulled the HDD's out of your computers and scanned them, they'd probably be LOUSY with malware you aren't even aware of because you have no antivirus/antimalware to catch it.

    3. Re:We already know why Kaspersky is untrustworthy by quintus_horatius · · Score: 1

      The way to protect against viruses is to not run any code that you have no reason to trust. If you are having unprotected sex with a dozen strangers per day, you are going to get an STD even if you ask each stranger "hey, have you been checked out lately?" before each encounter.

      Hey look, another Linux user that thinks s/he's totally safe from viruses because he somehow knows better.*

      If we're going to talk about cybersecurity like we're really talking about sex, with terms like 'monogamy' and 'condoms', then the closest correct analogy I can give you is that your workplace is your home, every single co-worker is your wife, and the servers are your bed.

      Your wife is generally pretty honest but sometimes she hears the call of the void and sleeps around, just this one time because you weren't "getting it done". Now she's crawling back into to your shared bed with a wicked bad case of crabs, raging gonorrhoea, and (you don't know it yet, but you'll find out in a few weeks) bedbugs.

      Lets get real: antivirus is backup protection for organizations that skew towards the average -- and every large organization skews toward the average by virtue of having a larger pool of people. You may follow best practices but your co-workers might not, and infections will spread despite your best efforts infections will break out. It's an inherent risk of collaborative environments.

      And since you brought it up, how do YOU know that the repo of your choice is trustworthy? You don't, you're trusting other professionals that are smarter than you to keep it safe. Do mistakes happen, can a maintainer release compiled code with a virus embedded in it? You better believe it can happen, and it probably already has happened at least once but nobody was told because that would be a PR disaster.

      * Disclaimer: I, too, am a linux user: I use it exclusively at home and about 90% of the time at work, and have done so for over a decade. I also used to be an IT professional and know the Windows side as well, I'm not a one-trick pony. I know what Linux is capable of, but I also know what users are capable of.

    4. Re:We already know why Kaspersky is untrustworthy by houghi · · Score: 4, Funny

      For me it is the software that I DID write myself that I don't trust.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    5. Re:We already know why Kaspersky is untrustworthy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rick Schumann, you are a KOOK.

    6. Re: We already know why Kaspersky is untrustworthy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But I don't want to have sex with the software.

    7. Re:We already know why Kaspersky is untrustworthy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even I once went to download drivers for a piece of hardware from the manufacturers own website and antivirus flagged the download as containing a trojan; or are you going to say that a well-known manufacturer of computer hardware was complicit?

      I'm just gonna say that you are paranoid, likely delusional, and the driver was almost certainly a false positive for your AV.

    8. Re:We already know why Kaspersky is untrustworthy by HiThere · · Score: 0

      Well, you've got two problems there...make that three.
      1) False positives. Just because something is flagged as a virus/trojan/etc. doesn't mean it really is, just that it has a high probability of being one. (And, of course, there are also false negatives.)
      2) The manufacturer's site could be infected.
      3) The manufacturer could be intentionally shipping spyware embedded in their product. (I've seen EULAs where they demanded the right to do so.)

      Then there's problem 4:
      4) The anti-virus could, itself, be some variety of malware.

      It is my expectation that if you're running MSWindows, you are infected with Malware. Their EULA demands the right for the company to install such...and they have in the past done so intentionally. (So has Sony. Probably also other companies that I didn't hear of or don't remember.) With Apple it's less clear. They certainly demand the right, but I don't recall that they've ever been caught using it. The Debian repository has been infected once that i've heard of, and IIRC it was cleaned up within hours of the infection, but it could have been as long as a couple of days. Ubuntu, OTOH, has built spyware into their system. I believe that they removed it after an outcry, and they didn't hide that they were doing it. (For that matter, Debian has optional spyware that sends usage information back to them, and probably some other information. But it's opt-in.)

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    9. Re:We already know why Kaspersky is untrustworthy by HiThere · · Score: 2

      Running Linux alone does not suffice. You also need to avoid the installation of Flash, to avoid javascript, and a few other choices...like not installing applications you don't need. Even that isn't 100% protection, but that's not available anywhere on the planet, probably anywhere in the universe.

      If you want to be even more secure (this thing is layered) run some version of BSD with the same restrictions. And then you run the applications that you need to run in a virtualized environment. And that's not the end. You could air-gap all your systems, and remove all wi-fi capabilities. You could run your systems inside a Faraday cage. You could run your power through an AC->DC->AC converter to keep signals from escaping through the power grid.

      For my purposes Linux appears safe enough...if I don't trust foreign software, and do reasonable backups. And don't enable known-dangerous extensions. I'm really dubious about HTML5. It looks like it comes with embedded vulnerabilities, as opposed to earlier HTML dialects where the vulnerabilities were part of common extensions that you could remove.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    10. Re:We already know why Kaspersky is untrustworthy by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      LOL no, it's AV on a machine provided by the major microprocessor manufacturer I work for, numbskull, and the company I was downloading from acknowledged they'd been breached.

    11. Re:We already know why Kaspersky is untrustworthy by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1
    12. Re:We already know why Kaspersky is untrustworthy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That you think AV simply checks software against a "blacklist" shows exactly how out of touch you are with current AV development. I stopped reading at that point as you truly have no idea what you're talking about.

    13. Re:We already know why Kaspersky is untrustworthy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A KOOKY kook!

  8. What about Chinese hardware? by gti_guy · · Score: 1

    They're worried about Made-in-Russia software running on Made-in-China hardware/firmware? HAHAHAHAHAHA.....

    1. Re:What about Chinese hardware? by green1 · · Score: 1

      For the average person, that's far better than trusting Made in USA hardware and software.

      Both are likely spying on you, but at least the Russians and Chinese are unlikely to drag you out of bed in the middle of the night if you say something they don't like.

  9. Why can't they sue for slander/libel? by mark-t · · Score: 0

    [nt]

    1. Re:Why can't they sue for slander/libel? by HiThere · · Score: 2

      You can only sue the US government (in a US court) if you first get their permission.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    2. Re:Why can't they sue for slander/libel? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then sue them for permission.

    3. Re:Why can't they sue for slander/libel? by mark-t · · Score: 1

      Fine. Don't not sue, charge them criminally. Their only out is to then admit that is an opinion only.

  10. Decision in the Face of Uncertainty by Artagel · · Score: 1

    The problem that officials face is what to do with imperfect information. In the current environment, Russians messing with the U.S. election, an America-First President, and recent overseas terrorist attacks, who is going to decide not to act on even thin information? I doubt that the actual decision makers are most corporations are in a position to second-guess the U.S. government. The whole thing could just be thin information steamrolling because nobody wants to be the one to put a stop to things.

    1. Re:Decision in the Face of Uncertainty by HiThere · · Score: 1

      The evidence, IIUC, was not "Russians messing with the U.S. election", it was "someone using a Russian IP address messing with the U.S. election". So it *could* have been Russians, and it *could* have been the Russian government. But the IP address could have been spoofed. It could have been a hacker working under contract. Etc.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    2. Re:Decision in the Face of Uncertainty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      You forgot to mention the guy's weight and that he's sitting on his bed:

      http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2016/09/26/trump-400-pound-guy-twitter

      Trump: hackers could be Russia, China, or a "guy sitting on their bed who weighs 400 pounds."

  11. No need to worry by JohnFen · · Score: 2

    White House cybersecurity coordinator Rob Joyce this week advised against consumer use of Kaspersky software. This may be good politics, but CSOonline's Fahmida Rashid warns that it's bad infosec.

    No need to worry. Most Americans don't take anything the White House has to say seriously, anyway.

  12. Russian Collusion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So I looked but I can't find any places where Rashid has asked for similar disclosure of evidence of the so-called collusion with the Trump campaign.

  13. Re:Kaspersky = KGB by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 2

    if you install Kaspersky you are a sucker, like Moscow Donald's supporters

    The correct term is 'useful idiot', get it right next time.

    IN ALL SERIOUSNESS: I agree with TFA; if there is actual, independently verifiable PROOF that it's compromised by design, then the Feds should release that information. Alternately there are plenty of 'IT security researchers', and 'white hats' and plain old 'hackers' in this country (U.S.) that are more than capable of verifying whether it's spyware or not, with or without government help; where the hell are they with their reports on this?

  14. They already did.... by bobbied · · Score: 1

    They put up. They said that they don't trust them, and that's all they need do. They'd do the same for any other anti-virus product that they didn't trust.

    End of Report, end of discussion.

    --
    "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    1. Re:They already did.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is that their trustworthiness is lower than Kaspersky's.

  15. Worry about competing with Russian - NOT by FeelGood314 · · Score: 1

    I never worry that a Russian company is going to steal my ideas and compete against me for actual paying customers. Chinese or American companies I worry about. Getting fucked by a stupid American patent is something I definitely worry about and thanks to the NSA and now CIA I'm very concerned about made in the USA or even passed reasonably close to the USA. If Kaspersky was (and I doubt it) completely compromised by the Russian secret service then they seem to be doing a good job keeping it a secret. Maybe they are even more motivated to keep my information secret than a regular private company. I don't even see a down side here.

    1. Re:Worry about competing with Russian - NOT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. Russian companies are only force for good left in world. President Putin has made sure of that through strong leadership and a dedication to christian values. It is the USA and deep state and globalists that is the true threat to the world, and should be opposed and defeated in all ways.

  16. Keeping Exploits Secret by FeelGood314 · · Score: 1

    What if the NSA wants to make an exploit but needs help of anti-virus and network security vendors to keep the exploit secret. It is one thing to build something that works today and is undetectable it is quite another to make it undetectable 10 years from now when someone reboots a compromised VMware image and a traffic monitoring equipment starts inspecting the traffic out of the virtual machine. Does this mean Kaspersky is the only vendor not tainted by the NSA?

    1. Re:Keeping Exploits Secret by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pot calling kettle black.

      Kaspersky needs to get lawyered up and sue for libel and defamation
      If negotiation fails, they should enhance their engine to include Intel Management chip statistics

      Kaspersky is certainly fast and agile on new exploits, and proactively may well piss off law enforcement and government actors, ruining left unreported exploits. And if you think about it, it would be a doddle to insert malicious code for any AV product. The AV company does not need a backdoor, Knowledge of unpatched exploits is all anyone needs .

      Who is reviewing AV software going back in time, or adding stuff making use of dark web tools? That would expose vendors that co-operate to keep holes open. Maybe Kaspersky can run some regression reports on its competitors, Nobody screams at Google when they openly report root CA forged certificates.

  17. Just because they didn't give you evidence... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just because they didn't give some random guy on the internet evidence, they must therefore have no evidence. Come on, man. I trust Kaspersky with my security about as much as I would trust John Wayne Gacy with my children. As programmers, you all should have seen this coming from 100 miles away. It would be trivially easy for the Russian government to use Kaspersky for all sorts of purposes, and they probably already do.

    1. Re:Just because they didn't give you evidence... by HiThere · · Score: 2

      You misunderstand.

      If they don't give *ME* evidence, why should *I* trust them. They don't have a very good track record for trustworthiness.

      When a liar tells you something, it might be true. But since you know he's a liar you shouldn't readily believe him without evidence.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    2. Re:Just because they didn't give you evidence... by green1 · · Score: 1

      As opposed to all the American companies that couldn't possibly be used by American government agencies for "all sorts of purposes"?

      Let's be real here. Assume all software and hardware is likely spying on you. Now chose which country is least likely to have jurisdiction to make your life miserable if you say something they don't like. I don't live in Russia, and I'm unlikely to visit there, so I'd rather their government were spying on me than the American one, because the USA seems to think it has jurisdiction everywhere, and I am likely to end up visiting there.

    3. Re:Just because they didn't give you evidence... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sexist pig! Why should men get to have all the fun lying?

  18. The transparency isn't there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We in the US know that any government will exert as much pressure as possible on big well connected businesses (Microsoft, Google, etc) to provide as much information and intelligence work as they can get away with. However, these businesses happily push transparency reports and we can see the frequency at which our government tries and succeeds.

    Knowing that any government will do this, we can assume the Russian intelligence agencies are doing the same things at roughly the same order of magnitude.

    With this in mind, it is disingenuous of Kaspersky to say that they have never cooperates with the Russian government, and that they will never cooperate. In the US, Putin is portrayed as someone you don't say no to. Your life will be on the line otherwise, and you've now committed yourself to a sudden heart attack and death from "natural causes".

    So the US is right to suspect that Russian can at any moment take control of the Kaspersky software. Maybe Mr Kaspersky won't be involved, but the government will exert force on the key underlings needed to do so. They will choose life or death, and a job isn't worth dying over.

  19. Consequences by pat.ferrel2551 · · Score: 1

    There are consequences to being based in a country that, as a matter of normal practice, considers its companies to be an extension of the state. The question isn't so much; "do you trust Kaspersky" as "do you trust Putin's Russia" For me the answer is no! Does anyone believe that Kaspersky could resist a full out press from Putin for nefarious use of Kaspersky's huge power? He could only use it once and Kaspersky would be destroyed so there would never be evidence of it until a one-time use of the silver bullet was required. But the damage could be devastating like going cyber-nuke. For that matter do you trust Trump re: American anti-virus companies? For me the answer is the same, no! The only answer long term is to aggressively fund OSS efforts so they can openly produce competitive products. This is up to each of us to do in order to maintain some distance from those who would abuse the system.

    1. Re:Consequences by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're mistaken. You think that this could only be used once and that's not true. Suppose for a moment I wrote a virus "signature" that instead of popping on an honest to gosh virus popped on an internal memo laying out your acquisition plans for a new company? Supposed that because I knew who your company was your company was the only one to get that "signature"? Suppose that instead of popping up a warning I told my software to bring all of those documents back to the mothership for "examination" quietly? Suppose you looked up and understood what the term "silent signature" meant....

      https://www.google.com/patents/US20110126286

      AV companies have learned a hard lesson over the years. If you create an AV signature and it accidentally pops on things you didn't realize and you take down a company reputation is lost bigtime and you get bad press. So, most AV companies deploy signatures in a silent form, often to only parts of their userbase, in order to first see how widespread the hits will be. They then refine these signatures until the data that comes back lets them know they're only hitting the files they intend to and then they go "live" and clean up the bug. This is often what AV companies do when they don't have examples of specific malware or want to go after new classes of malware. As you may be beginning to understand it can also be used to retrieve ANY file on your OS if it matches a signature that the company creates. ALL of the AV companies phone home and send back "suspicious" files and you have pretty much zero insight into what data is being retrieved.

      Now, imagine this in the hands of an adversary. Someone who wishes to compete with you politically or economically, someone who's Govt isn't exactly warm and fuzzy and is run by a sociopath (no not Trump but close!). Understanding the threat now? Reads the EULA for your AV software carefully and realize it phones home in encrypted channels regularly. If you didn't know better you might even think of it as a RootKit right?

      This is NOT something that could only be used "once", this is something that backdoors your company completely and allows for data to be siphoned off 24x7 and the US Govt is telling you not to use it because they have apparently seen it doing something "bad". That's good enough for me!

  20. I don't trust any AV company that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    ...has its corporate base in a country with a government. That is because it 1) can be manipulated by the government, or 2) IS the government.

    Because if that I only use free, open source AV.

  21. U.S. companies knew Kaspersky issues for years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    U.S. companies knew Kaspersky issues for years. This didn't come out of the blue.

  22. Re:Kaspersky = KGB by Entropius · · Score: 4, Insightful

    How are you going to verify if it's spyware or not?

    Most likely the software is programmed to download automatic updates. This means that it could go from being benign to being a trojan overnight -- for whichever subset of IP addresses the people running the update servers want.

    It's impossible to audit the security of autoupdating code; you're at the mercy of whoever controls the updates.

  23. Time to mix it up. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I keep hearing that the people responsible for stuff such as WMD in Iraq and the overthrow of the democratically elected governments of several countries in this last century are telling me not to use a certain product. I feel more and more inclined to install it. Just keep my antivirus of choice (Avira) and add on Kaspersky for the added security.

  24. Re:Kaspersky = KGB by HiThere · · Score: 1

    So the question is, "Who is more dangerous to you, personally, the KGB or the CIA/FBI/NSA?".

    And that's assuming that I accept your assertion which, I admit, is plausible.

    --

    I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  25. You miss the point of Intelligence by MakersDirector · · Score: 0

    Sometimes, in intelligence, you act without explaining your motivations and reasons.

    Think what you want to. Believe what you want to. The absolute right of any modern intelligence agency is to believe something is true without explanation.

  26. tired of ppl wanting intel world to out self. by WindBourne · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The last thing that the intelligence world wants to do is tell every tom, dick, and harry out here how it spies on other nations and how it catches ppl/organizations.
    I am amazed at all of the idiots calling for NSA to out themselves for what they do LEGALLY.
    Even now, look at what is going on with trump investiation. Trump/family/admin continue to make a statement that is a lie. So, NSA will release a peice of evidence that refutes those lies, along with offers up another clue. Now, why do they not simply dump all of their data on ppl like Trump, Pence, Bannon, etc for their treason? Because to do so, would allow Russia and China to figure out how we spy on their spies and then get around us. That would be a disaster. The best thing that happens is when these top nations have inside information about POLICY/WHY, but not about the HOW. This has prevented a number of wars. But, once a nation like China get the HOW, then it will lead from this China's cold war with the west, to a full blown hot war, which could lead to nukes.
    REAL BAD IDEA.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    1. Re:tired of ppl wanting intel world to out self. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice to see at least one person with a clue - wish I could upvote you!

    2. Re:tired of ppl wanting intel world to out self. by sl3xd · · Score: 1

      It's almost like we have people who are shocked - SHOCKED - that intelligence agencies keep secrets, and have good reasons to continue to do so.

      --
      -- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
  27. Re:Kaspersky = KGB by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you're part of the US Government, then the answer is sure as hell Russia.
    If you're a corporation in the United States or Europe, the answer is sure as hell Russia.
    If you're a private citizen in the United States or Europe, then no one on either side gives a crap about you, so you can use what you want. Isn't it great being the insignificant bug beneath the heels of nations?

  28. Heartbleed by ArchieBunker · · Score: 1

    End of discussion. How many people compiled that SSL code? Millions. How many people actually read it. Apparently not too goddamn many.

    --
    Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
  29. LOL Baby's first introduction to spy craft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Keep demanding what the intelligence agencies do and take their ignoring you as intentionally denying your wishes. Stay in school kids. Maybe read some history books.

  30. Col by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Probably the Russians getting their Trump allies to put pressure on Kaspersky to bow to Putin.

  31. s/isn't/wasn't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    His "personal enemy" had those words put in his mouth, but even if that was true then, it is unlikely to be true now.

  32. It's all very simple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    any accusations that come out of the mouth of the American government should by default be considered lies and propaganda, with political motivation, simple as that.

  33. It's about risk by aepervius · · Score: 1

    You dont have to prove that ALL softwate developper in the U.S. is in bed with the cia/nsa to not want to use it, it is about risk. And thus you condemned all country to reinvent the wheel as no software whatsoever is trustable.

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org
  34. Reject Kaspersky for the right reasons: nonfree SW by jbn-o · · Score: 1

    While Rashid is right to challenge the Russophobic line inherent in this story (which draws from and is a repeat of the 'Russiagate' lies meant to distract the public from Hillary Clinton's 2nd presidential campaign loss and unwillingness to take sole credit for her choices which led to and explain that loss and stoke fear which could lead to war with Russia), Rashid misses the point that there is a great reason to reject Kaspersky's software: it's nonfree (user-subjugating, proprietary) software. This is the reason to reject any other nonfree software regardless of that software's purpose, certainly when said software purports to keep one safe from security threats such as malware.

    Handing over Kaspersky source code to the US Government is no solution: regardless of whether Kaspersky is malicious this does nothing for the users of the program outside the US Government who deserve software freedom to be respected.

    Malware is certainly worth looking out for and worth taking steps to avoid, but trusting one black box to keep one safe from the threats of another is no way to do this job. We should hire programmers to improve free software anti-malware solutions so computer users aren't put in a position of having to blindly trust one proprietor instead of another. Switching masters is not the course to freedom, liberating oneself from masters is.

  35. MUH SYRIA! MUH UKRAINE! NO KASPERSKY FOR YOU! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    US government is a child. They tried to steal Ukraine so they could use Crimea to launch attacks on Russia and control the Black Sea and Russia wouldn't have it. US government also tried to steal Syria by sponsoring terrorists like FSA, Al Nusra, and ISIS to oust Assad and Russia wouldn't have it. Now butthurt children of US government are doing everything they can to punish Russia such with sanctions, McCarthyism, and fake news.

    US = shithole

  36. You asking covert agency to come clean? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You must not understand the nature of a covert agency. This like asking the President to always tell the truth,

  37. Does one need WH? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is no such thing are former checkist.

  38. Meanwhile... by endoflife · · Score: 1

    Meanwhile .... major US communication network management systems are written by Ukrainian and Russian developers and not a peep. My cynical thoughts on Kaspersky: I'd rather another government have access to my data than my own.