Office Depot, Best Buy Pull Kaspersky Products From Shelves (bleepingcomputer.com)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Office Depot, Best Buy Pull Kaspersky Products From Shelves (bleepingcomputer.com)

Posted by msmash on Monday October 9, 2017 @05:25AM from the shape-of-things-to-come dept.

Catalin Cimpanu, reporting for BleepingComputer: Both Office Depot and Best Buy have removed Kaspersky Lab products from shelves. The ban has been in effect since mid-September, and the two chains are offering existing Kaspersky customers replacement security software. The first store to remove Kaspersky products from shelves was Best Buy, on around September 8. At the time, the FBI was pressuring the private sector to cut ties with the Russian antivirus maker, which was the subject of a Senate Intelligence Committee on the suspicion it may be collaborating with Russian intelligence agencies. Kaspersky vehemently denied all accusations. A week after Best Buy removed Kaspersky products from shelves, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued a Binding Operational Directive published ordering the removal of Kaspersky Lab products off government computers. A day later, Office Depot announced a similar decision to ban the sale of Kaspersky products in its stores. Additionally, Office Depot is letting customers exchange their Kaspersky copy with a one-year license for McAfee LiveSafe.

155 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Kaspersky may well be innocent by mi · 2017-10-09 05:31 · Score: 4, Insightful

I'm perfectly willing to believe, the authors of the Kaspersky software and the owners of the company want to have to provide a good anti-virus and do not want to cooperate with Russia's spies. But the decision may not be up to them — Russian government has many more instruments at their disposal to convince businesses and individuals to "cooperate", than do the governments of free(er) countries.
Yes, American government has some such instruments as well — just pick, who you trust more...

--
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
1. Re:Kaspersky may well be innocent by mysidia · 2017-10-09 06:01 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Russian government has many more instruments at their disposal to convince businesses and individuals to "cooperate"
  While that might be true; I doubt they would risk it.
  Probably you are at a MUCH higher risk if you replace Kaspersky software with McAfee LiveSafe, just because the McAfee offering is crap.
  Also, the risk of VULNERABILITIES in your AV product is at a much higher risk than an intentional backdoor existing (IMO).
  Personally; I use neither antivirus product favoring WebRoot instead, but I have some respect for Kaspersky, and nobody's shown any evidence specific to Kaspersky that they could not be trusted.
2. Re:Kaspersky may well be innocent by Rick+Schumann · 2017-10-09 06:15 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Do as we say or we'll confiscate your business, your assets, imprison your family, and beat you senseless
  That's about how I'd figure that conversation would go in Putin's Russia.
  
  The real question here is: In 2017, can we trust ANYTHING to run on our computers that we didn't compile ourselves, after personally vetting the sourcecode -- and then, can we trust the compiler to not be compromised, too? Really, honestly, seriously, I'm starting to feel like we're getting to that point -- and even if what we're running isn't compromised as soon as it's installed, there doesn't seem to be much of anything that can prevent the mahcine from being compromised externally, unless you're never connected to the Internet, ever -- and even then, security researchers keep exposing exploits that can compromise a computer that's completely air-gapped.
3. Re:Kaspersky may well be innocent by Gravis+Zero · 2017-10-09 06:19 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Yes, American government has some such instruments as well — just pick, who you trust more...
  I trust Linux more than either government. ;)
  
  --
  Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
4. Re:Kaspersky may well be innocent by rahvin112 · 2017-10-09 06:22 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  While that might be true; I doubt they would risk it.
  Why? What does the Russian Government have to lose?
  The fact that the ownership of Kapersky was shuffled around such that a guy with deep connections to the FSB (Former KGB) has significant control over the corp should scare anyone. This should be enhanced by the fact that the American government has apparently seen something so concerning that they are reacting to it with law enforcement assets and have bared it's use within the DOD.
  This isn't much different than ZTE's three top owners being top Army officials in the PRC along with deep connections to their spy apparatus. I'd be concerned about using any Tech where the top people and owners are all connected to and beholden to that states spy apparatus. For all the talk no one on the board of Microsoft or Cisco is a top retired general that's got deep connections with the NSA. From what we learned from Snowden the NSA does their backdoor stuff on the sly by diverting packages and installing compromised firmwares after it leaves the factory instead of writing the backdoor directly into the software.
  If Kapersky is truly using virus scanning to scan for files they want then they've created a tool with unparalleled power. Any computer with Kapersky software is having it's contents scanned and reported back to Russia and the Russian government is apparently able to review the database for targets. It would be trivial for them in such a situation to have the software grab the contents for them, after all it already has kernel Ring 0 access by virtue of it's status as a virus scanner. That's reason alone not to run windows.
5. Re:Kaspersky may well be innocent by mi · 2017-10-09 06:24 · Score: 1
  
  I trust Linux more than either government. ;)
  How very Libertarian of you... But is that even a dichotomy, though? Linux has quite a bit of NSA-developed code...
  
  --
  In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
6. Re:Kaspersky may well be innocent by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-09 06:27 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Pick the one that can hurt you the least. Who is the greater threat Russian secret police or American? Trust but verify. RR
7. Re:Kaspersky may well be innocent by Killall+-9+Bash · 2017-10-09 06:29 · Score: 2
  
  The problem is that open source projects can be contributed to by anyone, including state sponsored bad actors.
  
  Heartbleed. Tell me that the Heartbleed bug, the heartbeat function it fucked up the security on, and the RFC the heartbeat function was based on weren't all state sponsored.
  
  --
  "Prediction: within 10 years, Windows will be a Linux distribution." Me, 7-6-2016
8. Re:Kaspersky may well be innocent by JosKarith · 2017-10-09 06:38 · Score: 0
  
  "Russian government has many more instruments at their disposal to convince businesses and individuals to "cooperate", than do the governments of free(er) countries." - and if you think the US is free then I'm afraid you've swallowed the poison cool-aid.
  
  --
  'Don't worry' said the trees when they saw the axe coming, 'The handle is one of us.'
9. Re:Kaspersky may well be innocent by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-09 06:42 · Score: 0
  
  so it's turtles all the way down..
10. Re:Kaspersky may well be innocent by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-09 06:43 · Score: 1
  
  > Russian government has many more instruments at their disposal to convince businesses and individuals to "cooperate", than do the governments of free(er) countries.
  Pshaw! Russia doesn't have anything on the US in that regard.
  http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-security-rsa/exclusive-secret-contract-tied-nsa-and-security-industry-pioneer-idUSBRE9BJ1C220131220
  
  As a key part of a campaign to embed encryption software that it could crack into widely used computer products, the U.S. National Security Agency arranged a secret $10 million contract with RSA, one of the most influential firms in the computer security industry, Reuters has learned.
  And don't forget all those US anti-virus firms that reluctantly updated their products to scan and remove the Sony rootkit DRM shit only after there was a public pressure and class action suits filed.
  And then there the security firm of HBGary that on the one hand provided a installable module to the Mcafee security suite to detect rooktkits, and on the other worked on a project called Magenta: a windows rootkit that was designed to be undetectable and impossible to remove that would be marketed and sold to government intel agencies.
  And then there is allegations about OpenBSD having some network code that contained exploitable weaknesses to backdoor those systems. Purportedly a company that provided routinely contributed networking code to the BSD kernel was paid by the FBI. Theo confirmed that the exploitable code had been part of the kernel at one time,but was no longer. He didn't comment on possible FBI connection since there was only allegations from one developer and no other evidence. But it not hard to believe that companies would be paid by the government to inject backdoors into opensource projects. Red Hat, IBM, HP, etc., etc,. all have large military contracts with the US government. And the Snowden files had shown that Red Hat is the OS of choice for the NSA.
  I seriously doubt the Russians have anywhere near the means to get Russian companies to cooperate like the US does on US companies
11. Re:Kaspersky may well be innocent by Archon · 2017-10-09 06:45 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  "This should be enhanced by the fact that the American government has apparently seen something so concerning that they are reacting to it with law enforcement assets and have bared it's use within the DOD."
  Is this the same government that deliberately start wars and invade other countries based on their own propaganda (aluminum tubes and babies being pulled from incubators, anyone)? Yeah, I thought so. So now it's show your proof or GFY.
12. Re:Kaspersky may well be innocent by Jeremiah+Cornelius · 2017-10-09 06:49 · Score: 2
  
  I'm perfectly willing to believe, the authors of the Symantec software and the owners of the company want to have to provide a good anti-virus and do not want to cooperate with United States' spies. But the decision may not be up to them — US government has many more instruments at their disposal to convince businesses and individuals to "cooperate", than do the governments of free(er) countries.
  Yes, Russian government has some such instruments as well — just pick, who you trust more...
  https://www.reuters.com/articl...
  https://www.muckrock.com/news/...
  https://www.dailykos.com/stori...
  
  --
  "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
  Never been known to fail..."
13. Re:Kaspersky may well be innocent by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-09 06:49 · Score: 0
  
  Another thing is that the product is likely in broad use in Russia, giving hackers and criminals of the country the incentive to go after the methods of bypassing and exploiting it for fun and profit. Similarly the local authorities would seek to bypass it for their reasons. The problem of attribution is problematic.
14. Re:Kaspersky may well be innocent by Presence+Eternal · 2017-10-09 06:57 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  You're forgetting about TPM. You may be fully compromised even when the machine isn't booted.
15. Re:Kaspersky may well be innocent by Gravis+Zero · 2017-10-09 07:03 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  The problem is that open source projects can be contributed to by anyone, including state sponsored bad actors.
  You're not even wrong! However, it requires someone accept the contribution and never have someone notice the flaw. In the closed source model, nobody will ever have the chance to notice the flaw. Also, with a bit of pressure, a business will insert whatever blatantly evil code a state-sponsored actor insists on.
  
  Heartbleed. Tell me that the Heartbleed bug, the heartbeat function it fucked up the security on, and the RFC the heartbeat function was based on weren't all state sponsored.
  I can tell you for a certainty that shitty code occurs in the wild without the help of any state-sponsorship. OpenSSL was neglected but hey, thanks for the conspiracy theory!
  
  --
  Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
16. Re:Kaspersky may well be innocent by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-09 07:09 · Score: 0
  
  Thats not poison, that's just good old government subsidized high fructose corn syrup!
17. Re:Kaspersky may well be innocent by Hentes · 2017-10-09 07:14 · Score: 2
  
  Yes, American government has some such instruments as well
  Yep, like spreading FUD about AV that doesn't cooperate and coercing businesses to stop using/selling it.
18. Re:Kaspersky may well be innocent by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-09 07:18 · Score: 0
  
  > guy with deep connections to the FSB (Former KGB)
  Oh, please.There's a lot of former US three letter agency employees that left to go join or start their own security related companies, particularly in the 90's. It's nothing unusual.
19. Re:Kaspersky may well be innocent by cheesybagel · 2017-10-09 07:30 · Score: 1
  
  Here are some quotes for you:
  Larry Ellison co-founded Oracle Corporation in 1977 with Bob Miner and Ed Oates under the name Software Development Laboratories (SDL). ...
  Ed Oates graduated with a BA in mathematics from San Jose State University in 1968, and worked at Singer, the US Army Personnel Information Systems Command (PERSINSCOM) (drafted), Ampex, and Memorex before co-founding Oracle. ...
  In-Q-Tel: A Glimpse Inside the CIA’s Venture-Capital Arm ...
  In-Q-Tel has been an early backer of start-ups later acquired by Google (GOOG), Oracle (ORCL), IBM (IBM) and Lockheed Martin (LMT).
20. Re:Kaspersky may well be innocent by cheesybagel · 2017-10-09 07:38 · Score: 1
  
  In-Q-Tel has also invested in FireEye for example.
21. Re:Kaspersky may well be innocent by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-09 07:41 · Score: 0
  
  Yep - That sounds about right.
  And nothing they can do about it. Reading the comments above, I guess it's effective, because lots of people fall for it without even giving it even a second thought. The sheep's are herded well...
22. Re:Kaspersky may well be innocent by Xylantiel · 2017-10-09 07:46 · Score: 1
  
  Um, that doesn't make them innocent, that makes them guilty but coerced. Innocent would be if the Russian spies were sniffing through their telemetry without them knowing, but that still means they are just as much of a security hole. I will admit that I didn't know that anti-virus software sent the user's files off-site for "inspection" if they were "suspicious". That is ridiculously insecure for the user's private data.
23. Re: Kaspersky may well be innocent by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-09 07:58 · Score: 0
  
  Plural of sheep is sheep. Back to your English language studies comrade.
24. Re:Kaspersky may well be innocent by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-09 08:00 · Score: 1
  
  Consider this... The US has equal "instruments" in McAfee as Russia has in Kaspersky. Which is more likely to cause you a run in with a government body?
25. Re:Kaspersky may well be innocent by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-09 08:07 · Score: 0
  
  >nobody's shown any evidence specific to Kaspersky that they could not be trusted.
  Personally, like most of the Russian narratives coming from the media and US gov, I think the Kaspersky smear is bullshit. That said, I recently tried out the free anti-virus product from Kaspersky because, well, who wouldn't want an anti-virus product that could detect NSA/CIA/FBI/FAA/USDA/etc. malware on their systems? Though it was pretty well-behaved, and wasn't as big a resource hog like other antivirus products, it was rather chatty. After turning off all network/update related settings where I could find them and using Tcpview from systinternals to look at tcp connections, I found Kaspersky still connecting to its servers (mostly in Toronto) at various times even though I wasn't using any network apps at the time. So that right there led me to uninstall it. There's probably nothing nefarious going on, but any program that accesses the network for a reason not immediately obvious (like downloading virus signatures once daily), I get of it.
26. Re: Kaspersky may well be innocent by mSparks43 · 2017-10-09 08:09 · Score: 2
  
  i wouldnt give either absolute permission over all files on my computer. lets be honest, after windows, the anti virus that runs on it is the biggest security hole a computer can have.
  Personally i think you are an idiot if you donâ(TM)t believe every single av vender is a key foothold for its respective governments intelligence service.
27. Re:Kaspersky may well be innocent by F.Ultra · 2017-10-09 08:15 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Yes but #1 that is code from the part of NSA whose job it is to increase security and #2 that code has been verified and vetted from top to bottom, it's not like they supplied a binary blob. Not to mention that the code itself have been heavily altered by the community over the years.
28. Re:Kaspersky may well be innocent by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-09 08:22 · Score: 0
  
  No one has shown anyone the evidence that didn't possess the right clearance levels. Those with the right clearance levels have seen the evidence and are convinced.
  Some that are very anti-Trump saw this as an "America first" motivated ploy. The University of California, especially the Berkeley campus, balked at removing Kaspersky.
  Their UC President, Janet Napolitano, a Democrat, was the former Secretary of DHS, a position which requires security clearance. She is most likely not a Trump fan (the UC President is suing the Trump Administration over DACA). However, she could potentially be shown the Kaspersky evidence so long as she still had a valid clearance. Fast forward to now and the UC schools aren't allowed to use Kaspersky. Draw your own conclusions.
29. Re:Kaspersky may well be innocent by F.Ultra · 2017-10-09 08:25 · Score: 2
  
  If so then you have to somehow connect Robin Seggelmann with some state since he was one of the authors of the RFC and the one that introduced the bug in OpenSSL (the bug is however only in this particular implementation and not in the RFC itself).
30. Re: Kaspersky may well be innocent by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-09 08:31 · Score: 0
  
  Different government, same country. Some of us have been wary of government lies since Vietnam so we have good experience sniffing them out, and this Russian interference stinks like month old caviar.
  Google for the first time has uncovered evidence that Russian operatives exploited the company's platforms in an attempt to interfere in the 2016 election, according to people familiar with the company's investigation.
31. Re: Kaspersky may well be innocent by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-09 08:32 · Score: 0
  
  > the anti virus that runs on it is the biggest security hole a computer can have.
  Psst, I hate to tell you this, but if you own a device using an Intel cpu that's around a decade or younger, then you might want to read up on Active Management Technology. Then you should consider that Intel designs its chips in Israel, which is because its primarily an Israeli company. Then maybe you should revise your statement.
32. Re:Kaspersky may well be innocent by Enigma2175 · 2017-10-09 08:43 · Score: 2
  
  Um, that doesn't make them innocent, that makes them guilty but coerced. Innocent would be if the Russian spies were sniffing through their telemetry without them knowing, but that still means they are just as much of a security hole. I will admit that I didn't know that anti-virus software sent the user's files off-site for "inspection" if they were "suspicious". That is ridiculously insecure for the user's private data.
  Your "innocent" scenario is exactly what Kaspersky says (may have) happened in the case with the case where an NSA contractor's files were scanned by Kaspersky and then immediately hacked by the Russians. From Eugene Kaspersky:
  
  Even though we have an internal security team and run bug bounty programs, we can’t give a 100% guarantee that there are no security issues in our products ... Now, if we assume that what is reported is true: that Russian hackers exploited a weakness in our products installed on the PC of one of our users
  
  --
  Enigma
33. Re:Kaspersky may well be innocent by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-09 08:59 · Score: 0
  
  That's like voting for lesser evil of presidential candidate
  At least with antivirus you have a 3rd route. Don't install any antivirus
34. Re:Kaspersky may well be innocent by AmiMoJo · 2017-10-09 09:04 · Score: 1
  
  Why would they throw away such a useful tool on such a relatively trivial thing?
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
35. Re:Kaspersky may well be innocent by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-09 09:10 · Score: 0
  
  "verified and vetted"
  Heh. Yeah, vetted. An evil developer from one company submits an evil patch which is then reviewed by another evil developer from the same company. Tada! Vetted. Or, in an example more hard to detect: an evil developer submits a patch that fixes a problem but has a subtle bug built in. Then another evil developer submits a patch that fixes another problem, or is just an optimization (perhaps in an completely unrelated part of the tree) but that subtly can be combined with the bug from the first patch to produce a backdoor accessible using a specialized network protocol known only to the evil developers cohorts. Like the CIA stuff. None of that is detectable under the current review process which allows developers from the same company to review and commit each others patches.
36. Re: Kaspersky may well be innocent by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-09 09:16 · Score: 0
  
  "Trust only that which you can verify.
  If we apply this common sense to Trump, he's impeached already."
  Okay, I'll play. Where's your verified proof?
37. Re:Kaspersky may well be innocent by Rick+Schumann · 2017-10-09 09:42 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah no kidding.
  The CDP1802 with a 2kB integer BASIC interpreter and 8kB of static RAM I built back in the early 80's on perfboard is starting to look pretty good right now.
38. Re:Kaspersky may well be innocent by Hognoxious · 2017-10-09 10:06 · Score: 1
  
  I'm perfectly willing to believe, based on, plenty of evidence, that you, write like, a retard.
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
39. Re:Kaspersky may well be innocent by dcooper_db9 · 2017-10-09 10:18 · Score: 1
  
  The operational directive (linked below) lists ten Kaspersky branded products that are banned. It explicitly excludes Kaspersky code embedded in the products of other companies. If DHS had real concerns why would they allow any of those products on government networks?
  https://www.federalregister.go...
  
  --
  I do not block ads. I do block third party scripts.
40. Re:Kaspersky may well be innocent by mspohr · 2017-10-09 10:28 · Score: 1
  
  I don't run any anti-virus software on Linux. I trust the user community to discover and patch any problems much more than I trust any anti-virus vendor. So far, no problems.
  
  --
  I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
41. Re:Kaspersky may well be innocent by mi · 2017-10-09 11:53 · Score: 1
  
  Yes but #1 that is code from the part of NSA whose job it is to increase security
  So sure you are... Besides, they may as well be increasing security by planting things with certain backdoors. The actual readable code may just be arcane and hard to read — but innocent. Innocent, until a specially-crafted USB-stick is plugged-in. Or a specially crafted ICMP-packet arrives — its content containing a proper key to open things up for the NSA (but not to anyone actually hostile)... Or until a binary driver for some cool gadget is loaded into kernel...
  
  it's not like they supplied a binary blob
  How do you know, when you download the latest nVidia-driver, for example, that it contains no NSA-provided code?
  
  --
  In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
42. Re:Kaspersky may well be innocent by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-09 11:54 · Score: 0
  
  No we can not trust ANYTHING. ALL chip manufacturers are able to run remote tools on your pc's.
43. Re: Kaspersky may well be innocent by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-09 13:36 · Score: 0
  
  How can you overlook the most obvious threat: Windows. Based in Seattle, Washington.
44. Re: Kaspersky may well be innocent by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-09 13:38 · Score: 0
  
  To say nothing of (US-based) Intel's IME, which provides full access to the computer even when it's switched-off !!!
45. Re:Kaspersky may well be innocent by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-09 13:41 · Score: 0
  
  And don't forget all those US anti-virus firms that reluctantly updated their products to scan and remove the Sony rootkit DRM shit only after there was a public pressure and class action suits filed.
  Look no further than this:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_Lantern_%28software%29#Antivirus_vendor_cooperation
46. Re:Kaspersky may well be innocent by rtb61 · 2017-10-09 15:01 · Score: 1
  
  Pfft, most likely reason for ban, no US CIA/NSA back doors, maybe FSB ones but definately no US ones. Who is most likely to hack, the US government, they have an insane spy on everyone and control everyone policy. So paying for one, I would go with the Russian Kaspersky because they spend their time fending off the CIA/NSA rather than cooperating with them. Are Kaspersky innocent, not in US government eyes, they are guilty as hell for in all likelihood being unwilling to install CIA/NSA back doors, not that they would be asked with security letters to hide that criminal activity because that would be major news on https://www.rt.com/.
  Reality is, any security product I see approved by the US government I will likely avoid and any they attack I will take a second look at. The US government are by far the biggest most untrustworthy liars on the planet. They think it is a laugh that they found no WMDs in Iraq, killed a million Iraqis and thousands of their own allied nations soldiers all for a for profit giggle, tee hee.
  
  --
  Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
47. Re: Kaspersky may well be innocent by mSparks43 · 2017-10-09 16:16 · Score: 1
  
  because the management engines are not âlegitimatelyâ(TM) sending your files to a remote server, - you can mitigate it with network based threat detection. yes they are a hole, but well down the list compared to windows and av communications with the outside world.
48. Re:Kaspersky may well be innocent by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-09 18:45 · Score: 0
  
  We may not be able to trust everything but blablabla machinegun,
  https://mega.nz/#!hPhQULhJ!upgCjT1m5oWRBk4PPGTaX9pyjbtn6KXHacYCQPStxv4
49. Re:Kaspersky may well be innocent by johanw · 2017-10-10 00:10 · Score: 0
  
  I would treat the The Russians more of course. They don't care if I download movies or music from American studios or protest against some western policy. Perhaps they might be interested in the later and even want to pay me for it, so all the better.
50. Re: Kaspersky may well be innocent by Archon · 2017-10-10 02:22 · Score: 1
  
  Google is an international advertising company, one of the (if not the) largest in the world. Russians purchase millions of ads per year from them. Will some be politically motivated? Sure. Is this legal? Yes.
  Non-story in a desperate attempt to paint Russia as both a military boogyman and a Democrat scapegoat.
51. Re:Kaspersky may well be innocent by F.Ultra · 2017-10-10 05:48 · Score: 1
  
  So sure you are... Besides, they may as well be increasing security by planting things with certain backdoors. The actual readable code may just be arcane and hard to read — but innocent. Innocent, until a specially-crafted USB-stick is plugged-in. Or a specially crafted ICMP-packet arrives — its content containing a proper key to open things up for the NSA (but not to anyone actually hostile)... Or until a binary driver for some cool gadget is loaded into kernel...
  I'm sure because in contrast with you I am an actual developer and have looked at the very code that I am talking about (would be a hypocrite otherwise). So first it was SELinux that was the problem and now there are hidden backdoors everywhere that you can unlock with ICMP packages, I do think that you should stop looking at shows like The Blacklist.
  
  it's not like they supplied a binary blob
  How do you know, when you download the latest nVidia-driver, for example, that it contains no NSA-provided code?
  That one is easy because I don't download the latest nVidia driver since I'm using the open AMD drivers at home and the open Intel drivers at work.
52. Re:Kaspersky may well be innocent by F.Ultra · 2017-10-10 05:50 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah you are 100% correct which is why we saw how CIA/NSA used all those hidden back doors in Linux in i.e the Value 7 and NSA dumps. Oh wait there where no such thing!
They probably refused to ignore NSA malware by gweihir · 2017-10-09 05:35 · Score: 4, Insightful

And now they are killed via a classical attack on their reputation, which may or may not be completely without merit. Of course, this only concerns the US market.

--
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
1. Re:They probably refused to ignore NSA malware by Narcocide · 2017-10-09 05:44 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  It's also possible that the software is fine as delivered by Kaspersky as far as they know, but altered/backdoored covertly while in transit, somehow. The U.S. government has done as much to Cisco hardware that has been shipped worldwide, so it's not like there wouldn't be precedent.
2. Re:They probably refused to ignore NSA malware by quantaman · 2017-10-09 05:45 · Score: 1
  
  You think the NSA told a Russian Security company with possible ties to the Russian government about its walware?
  
  --
  I stole this Sig
3. Re:They probably refused to ignore NSA malware by rmsilva123 · 2017-10-09 06:07 · Score: 2
  
  Yes. Just like other malware creators are required by law to submit samples to AV companies.
4. Re: They probably refused to ignore NSA malware by endoflife · 2017-10-09 06:08 · Score: 2
  
  Do you really think that US Intel isn't upset that the Kaspersky crew busted them for stuxnet?
5. Re:They probably refused to ignore NSA malware by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-09 06:12 · Score: 0
  
  Maybe it was someone who worked, or did work, for the NSA at one time. Maybe someone like a contractor.
6. Re:They probably refused to ignore NSA malware by tinkerton · 2017-10-09 06:52 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  That's the best explanation. Now everyone has received the warning. If you don't cooperate with the US three letter organisations we'll get you. They've got nothing on Kaspersky except that the software performed as expected and that is by detecting malware. Give it some time and every AV that is left on the market is forcibly unreliable.
7. Re:They probably refused to ignore NSA malware by gweihir · 2017-10-09 10:38 · Score: 1
  
  Definitely a possibility.
  
  --
  Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
8. Re:They probably refused to ignore NSA malware by gweihir · 2017-10-09 10:40 · Score: 1
  
  This is not how this goes. Kaspersky is a pretty good AV company. They have sensors and are probably finding NSA malware all on their own without being told about it. They may then get a request to remove certain signatures, though.
  
  --
  Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
9. Re:They probably refused to ignore NSA malware by gweihir · 2017-10-09 10:46 · Score: 2
  
  It may be a good idea to run Kaspersky in addition to your regular scanner on everything suspicious. It may also be an excellent idea to buy their product to make sure they stay on the market. At least against US government malware, it seems they are currently getting the highest endorsement possible.
  
  --
  Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
10. Re:They probably refused to ignore NSA malware by quantaman · 2017-10-09 12:58 · Score: 1
  
  This is not how this goes. Kaspersky is a pretty good AV company. They have sensors and are probably finding NSA malware all on their own without being told about it. They may then get a request to remove certain signatures, though.
  Which tells Kaspersky that a certain piece of malware come from the NSA, which then potentially tells Russian Intelligence what systems the NSA is targeting and what information they may have collected.
  I still don't see the NSA telling Kaspersky about it's malware.
  
  --
  I stole this Sig
11. Re:They probably refused to ignore NSA malware by gweihir · 2017-10-09 14:50 · Score: 1
  
  I still don't see the NSA telling Kaspersky about it's malware.
  That is an issue on your side, not on mine...
  
  --
  Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Re:What we can learn from this by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-09 05:38 · Score: 1

So how is the the weather in Russia, comrade?
Seriously? McAfee? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-09 05:38 · Score: 0

Even assuming Kaspersky was spying on you for the russian gov, it's still worlds better than McAfee.
Russia removing Windows in 3...2..1... by Shompol · 2017-10-09 05:39 · Score: 1

Oh wait, they can't -- MS Office will not run.
Well... by burtosis · 2017-10-09 05:42 · Score: 2

Are they at least going to update my NSA backdoors that kaspersky removed?
Re:What we can learn from this by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-09 05:43 · Score: 1

I hardly think that Putin's regime can be honestly called "Red".
trumpistan by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-09 05:44 · Score: 3, Interesting

we take in products from hundreds of different countries, including digital products that are in the heart of infrastructure. we allow outsourcing of sensitive data processing all over the planet.
but this one company is being singled out by the federal government and destroyed without a trial.
lets look at companies who actually took money from Russian operatives to place political advertisements on their networks. Facebook, Google, Twitter, directly profited from Russian interference in the election, and will never face any consequences.
this has nothing to do with protecting security, it is all about nationalism and isolation, Trump thinks that by cutting out foreign competition it will somehow provide an economic boost to domestic companies.
what he doesnt seem to realize is that every isolationist country, from Japan to Russia, has a stagnating population and a stagnating economy. Interacting with the world is how China lifted itself out of poverty - us cutting ourselves off from the world is how we are going to sink into it.
1. Re:trumpistan by Archangel+Michael · 2017-10-09 07:22 · Score: 1
  
  That would be a great theory, except that the MSM and all the big players in DC have been telling us for the last 1.5 years that Russia has Trump in their pocket.
  It makes way more sense if you said this was the Three Letter Agencies involved and their deep state overlords ordered this a payback for "Russia Hacking The Election".
  Further, if it is what you say it is, it defeats the whole "Russia Hacked The Election" at several levels, namely it backfiring on the Russians. They probably have more dirt on Clintons due to Bill's sexcapades and Hillary's power hungry greed.
  My real view is that this is just normal everyday slimy nationalistic rah-rah saber rattling. Yawn.
  
  --
  Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
2. Re:trumpistan by Howitzer86 · 2017-10-09 07:35 · Score: 1
  
  singled out by the federal government and destroyed without a trial.
  Stores need not be forced to carry your product, customers need not be forced to buy it - government, corporate, or otherwise. There's no place for a trial here.
3. Re: trumpistan by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-09 08:01 · Score: 0
  
  "Trump thinks"
  Ah, I see the flaw in your argument.
4. Re: trumpistan by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-09 08:09 · Score: 0
  
  Nice city, Archangel. Cold though. Do you get back there much?
5. Re:trumpistan by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-09 09:38 · Score: 0
  
  I guess that's what we get now instead of the free market: a bunch of Feds showing up and intimidating companies into removing your product from their stores. And you have no right to sue.
  To me the real question is how the Russians will respond. Best case, they bend over and take it. Worst case, since their economy is shit, their only option is an all-out military response.
  Part of me thinks that the Deep State generals want precisely this: a desperate, angry nuclear-capable Russian state with nothing to lose. This deep state logic is so fucking priceless!
6. Re:trumpistan by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-09 10:00 · Score: 0
  
  >Facebook, Google, Twitter, directly profited from Russian interference in the election
  Not a single "Russian" source of these ad buys has been publicly identified. Not one. Not a single vote has been attributed to being cast on the basis of these so-called interfering ads. Not one. There has been no Russian interference in our election any more significant than Saudi Arabia's 21 million dollar contribution to Hillary Clinton's charitable foundation, or the other 1.2 billion dollars spent.
"off the shelves" = zero impact by xxxJonBoyxxx · 2017-10-09 05:44 · Score: 4, Insightful

Remember when you'd buy software? With a disc in a cardboard package? From a retail store you'd have to enter?

No? Me either.
1. Re:"off the shelves" = zero impact by DontBeAMoran · 2017-10-09 05:56 · Score: 1
  
  Remember when you'd buy software with a disc in a cardboard package?
  
  I 'member! /Memberberries
  
  --
  #DeleteFacebook
2. Re:"off the shelves" = zero impact by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-09 06:02 · Score: 0
  
  Ohhh yeeeaah... 'Member AOL? 'Member floppies?
3. Re:"off the shelves" = zero impact by Kaenneth · 2017-10-09 06:10 · Score: 2
  
  'Member meticulously transcribing source code from paper magazines, then leaving the computer on 24/7, because you couldn't afford the tape drive for a few more months?
4. Re:"off the shelves" = zero impact by Nkwe · 2017-10-09 06:11 · Score: 1
  
  Remember when you'd buy software? With a disc in a cardboard package? From a retail store you'd have to enter? No? Me either.
  Pepperidge Farms remembers
5. Re:"off the shelves" = zero impact by Rick+Schumann · 2017-10-09 06:17 · Score: 1
  
  So you're not old enough to legally drink?
6. Re:"off the shelves" = zero impact by Megol · 2017-10-09 06:20 · Score: 1
  
  Dementia.
7. Re:"off the shelves" = zero impact by xxxJonBoyxxx · 2017-10-09 06:29 · Score: 1
  
  Now that I DO remember. However, as soon as I got a modem...
8. Re:"off the shelves" = zero impact by Rick+Schumann · 2017-10-09 06:30 · Score: 1
  
  I agree, " xxxJonBoyxxx" has brain problems. ;-)
9. Re:"off the shelves" = zero impact by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-09 06:41 · Score: 0
  
  'Member meticulously transcribing source code from paper magazines, then leaving the computer on 24/7, because you couldn't afford the tape drive for a few more months?
  Pepperidge Farm 'members.
  
  They also 'member how often you used to touch yourself.
10. Re:"off the shelves" = zero impact by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-09 06:51 · Score: 0
  
  Pepperidge farms remembers
11. Re:"off the shelves" = zero impact by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-09 07:05 · Score: 0
  
  Now we have The Cloud.
  About ten years ago Trend Micro was starting to work on "software as a service" in-the-cloud products. There was one integrating spam-filtering service, called InterScan Messaging Hosted Security. What they didn't tell you was that they couldn't get Trend's contentl-filtering products to work in it with the desired performance, so they used...Kaspersky's! Very hush hush.
  Direction for this project was from one John Maddison. No longer at Trend, moved to Qualys and to Fortinet. And now IMHS is called HES, Hosted Email Security.
  dig mx yum.com shows Yum Brands is still a customer (mx in.hes.trendmicro.com).
12. Re:"off the shelves" = zero impact by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-09 07:29 · Score: 0
  
  "Off the shelves" is anachronistic. Removed from inventory is more accurate. On officedepot.com, search for Kaspersky returns results for fuckin' Mcafee. BestBuy.com returns no results. Staples.com, Walmart.com, and Amazon.com still has Kaspersky products listed, though who knows for how long. Obviously there's some pressure coming from somewhere on retail outlets to remove Kaspersky products. Given Amazon is owned b, er, has a $600 million dollar contract with the CIA, I expect them to remove Kaspersky stuff any day now.
13. Re:"off the shelves" = zero impact by anegg · 2017-10-09 08:17 · Score: 1
  
  Speaking of the cloud and trustworthiness, how do you know that what you get back from your cloud storage is exactly what you put into your cloud storage (nothing more, nothing less)? We need good file checksum tools that use local/off-line storage of checksums for comparison purposes.
  How do you know that any piece of software on your computer is doing just what it says, and nothing more, especially when it makes "phone home" connections? We need automatic containment of all software execution with the ability to vet/approve all external data access.
  Since even operating system vendors are suspect (e.g. Microsoft's Windows 10 forced upgrades/privacy stealing communications) we need hardware that creates/enforces the owner's trust model, not the operating system's...
  We need a very different future computing environment than what we have now.
14. Re:"off the shelves" = zero impact by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-09 08:45 · Score: 0
  
  What? You don't remember that?!
15. Re:"off the shelves" = zero impact by geirlk · 2017-10-10 00:20 · Score: 1
  
  I 'member getting my member stuck in it when I didn't receive proper instructions.
they want us installing American solutions by strstr · 2017-10-09 05:47 · Score: 0

1. boosts American profit and control and power. 2. enables them to have American produced spyware everywhere in the chain to control us. 3. Russian government probably is using Kaspersky to do this but so is our government against us. 4. we have no freedom as a public unless we design our own products and get rid of the military/ law enforcement / deep state/spying behaviors each government has over us all.
https://www.trumpsweapon.com/
Re: What we can learn from this by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-09 05:49 · Score: 2, Funny

Agreed. Maybe a kinda chartreuse color?
Re:What we can learn from this by DontBeAMoran · 2017-10-09 05:54 · Score: 3, Funny

We have nice weather while Americans have tornados! The Cold War is over but The Warm War is working!

--
#DeleteFacebook
Also possible this is all to whitewash... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-09 05:58 · Score: 2, Interesting

The fact that anti-virus is so last generation and the dangers now are general purpose programmable management engine processors available in ARM, Intel, and AMD cpus/socs with no way for the physical owner (rather than the manufacturer) to disable, reprogram, audit, or otherwise ensure control of their computer systems is actually under their control.
Much like other psy-ops intended to direct attention away from the real social or technological threats, this may be another one of them. If they can backdoor your system at what amounts to the firmware level, then getting in through the operating system is just an infection vector rather than the operating environment, and since anti-virus cannot protect/easily audit against these sorts of attacks, it is already irrelevant to the most concerning vector of persistent infection already available.
I wish more people thought about/paid attention to this. And that more work was put into both taping out new chips to run our secure information systems on (even at a considerable loss in energy efficiency and performance) as well as new designs that provided the actual benefits these 'management processors' are meant to while leaving the control of them in the end user/hardware owners possession, instead of in questionable third party hands. Like Intel, AMD, (pick an ARM vendor), the NSA, or EquiFax's possession and data security..
1. Re:Also possible this is all to whitewash... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-09 07:50 · Score: 0
  
  Well - there is still a long way to go, but there is open source ARM hardware in development at this very moment. Couple that with Linux, and there is at least a chance we can get out of that suffocating system. Better a small chance than no chance at all.
Old news by dysmal · 2017-10-09 06:04 · Score: 1

Best Buy pulled Kaspersky on 9/8, then 8 days (1 week + 1 day) later Office Depot announced the same.
I know /. is slow in posting stuff but why is this even posted on 10/9?
1. Re:Old news by Fly+Swatter · 2017-10-09 06:17 · Score: 1
  
  Except for an Office Depot addition, It's basically a dupe.
2. Re: Old news by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-09 09:08 · Score: 0
  
  "basically a dupe"
  By a strange coincidence that's how they describe Donald Trump.
Install KGB Rootkit today, American retard. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-09 06:04 · Score: 0

Yes, stupid American. Continue using Russian KGB software or you are pussy.
Do not be pussy like that bitch Obama who is loyal to his country.
Grab pussy, like that traitor Donald Trump who sold America out to Russia for blood soaked rubles.
Suddenly nationalism is cool by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-09 06:12 · Score: 0

Use American made software, right? Keep all our stuff at home.
1. Re: Suddenly nationalism is cool by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-09 10:21 · Score: 0
  
  MAGA!
Finally people are wising up by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-09 06:15 · Score: 0

Anyone with a brain could see that the viruses Kapsersky would "discover" were created by their own people. Worthless shakedown. If anything good comes out of the Democrat's witch hunt in DC it's that Kaspersky finally gets thrown the fuck out of the country like it should have years ago.
They should've... by nwaack · 2017-10-09 06:18 · Score: 5, Insightful

They should've just let themselves get hacked and had all their customer's information stolen. Then the IRS would've probably given them a multi-million dollar contract!
Re:What we can learn from this by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-09 06:25 · Score: 0

This.
Who is the worst? by William+Baric · 2017-10-09 06:29 · Score: 2

1. Considering the fact that American companies are forced to "cooperate" with the American government
2. Considering the spying habit of the NSA
3. Considering that I live in Canada, where Russia has no influence (the chance that I would be extradited to Russia for wrong think are nil)
I'd much rather use a Russian antivirus than an American one! (That is, I'd much prefer that Russia spies on me than the US.)
1. Re:Who is the worst? by PPH · 2017-10-09 08:19 · Score: 1
  
  Just wait until your Toronto to Vancouver Air Canada flight is diverted over Montana, you are detained and your laptop is confiscated for flying through US airspace with Kaspersky software.
  
  --
  Have gnu, will travel.
2. Re:Who is the worst? by AHuxley · 2017-10-09 14:52 · Score: 2
  
  Recall the US "Magic Lantern" keystroke logger and demands for antivirus vendor cooperation.
  Magic Lantern (software) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
  
  --
  Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
At least it's not Norton... by Pezbian · 2017-10-09 06:33 · Score: 1

Pretty bad when your AV software is worse than the shit it's supposed to stop.

--
In a world of the blind, the one-eyed man is king--and the two-eyed man is a heretic.
McCarthy era is now! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-09 06:40 · Score: 0

Someone hasn't been paying attention, we just elected another McCarthyist to POTUS.
Is there any actual proof of anything? by fredrated · 2017-10-09 06:42 · Score: 4, Insightful

Or do we just trash businesses based on opinion?
1. Re:Is there any actual proof of anything? by bill_mcgonigle · 2017-10-10 12:46 · Score: 1
  
  It's not just opinion ... Hillary lost so Trump is illegitimate so Russian Hackers so Kaspersky conspiracy.
  QED
  Maybe you disagree because you're a fascist.
  'Murca.
  
  --
  My God, it's Full of Source!
  OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Re: What we can learn from this by tinkerton · 2017-10-09 06:44 · Score: 1

Well that's a nice color. 40 or 55?
https://media2.caskers.com/med...
Re:What we can learn from this by chill · 2017-10-09 06:45 · Score: 1

Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the Communist Party?

--
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
Forget that by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-09 06:53 · Score: 0

I'd rather risk the Russians have access to my computer than give McAfee a single user license.
Re:The Definition of Racism? by HiThere · 2017-10-09 06:54 · Score: 2

No. This isn't racism, this is nationalism, or possibly jingoism.
OTOH, it's also a very real recognition that the Russian govt. can coerce any backdoor it wants into Kapersky software. So it makes perfect sense for US govt. machines to avoid it. (I'm not saying they should trust McAfee,)
That said, the Russians would probably be reluctant to share their info with the US spooks, so Kapersky's software is likely a better choice for those living under a US regime than many alternatives. But perhaps avoiding it should be required for those holding a security clearance.
OTOH, for other reasons I prefer Linux, so this is, on my part, moot. I really dislike the last MS EULA I read, and that was the reason I switched to Linux. Reports since then have consistently been that the EULA has gotten worse and more restrictive. For awhile I switched to Apple, but then *they* tried to smuggle an abusive EULA change in as a "required security upgrade". I've still got a few Apples, but they never touch the internet in either direction. That was over a decade ago now.
If I were mainly concerned about security, then I'd switch to one of the BSDs. (OpenBSD?) My concerns were more about legal agreements, as I *try* to be law abiding...though not because I feel the laws always deserve to be honored. (If I thought pirating CDs or videos would damage the RIAA or MPAA, I'd be doing it right and left.)

--

I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Re:What we can learn from this by benjfowler · 2017-10-09 07:13 · Score: 2

There are still quite a few unanswered questions about Joe McCarthy and his motivations and affiliations.
It's telling that the Russian trolls are still bashing us over the head with the 'McCarthyism' trope...
Re:What we can learn from this by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-09 07:26 · Score: 0

maybe the red fever will subside when everyone who remembers the McCarthy era is dead and you can sweep their delusional rantings under the rug of history,
LOLwut!?
It ain't the old farts screaming 'OMGRussia!!!1!' it's millenials, gen-X & -Y'ers, college students/professors...basically the young Progressives.
The old farts still alive from around the McCarthy era are all looking at you as if you've lost your minds when you scream that 'RussiaRussiaRussiaEEEEERussia!!!' shit because you sound a lot like McCarthy, except with 'Russians' behind every bush, tree, and blog replacing the old '50s 'commies'.
Joe's affiliations: by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-09 07:29 · Score: 1

Roy Cohn was Joe McCarthy's chief counsel during the army hearings.
.
Roy Cohn was also Donald Trump's lawyer.
1. Re:Joe's affiliations: by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-09 07:40 · Score: 1
  
  Uh-huh. Why are you half-assing this, AC?
  Roy Cohn also was the US DOJ prosecutor in the Rosenberg espionage trial, and he also represented Rupert Murdoch He was a registered Democrat who often supported Republican administration on the federal, state, and local levels. He was disbarred, a homosexual, and died of AIDS in 1986. He was also a Jew.
  There, this smear is much more informative. Do better next time, AC.
2. Re:Joe's affiliations: by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-09 08:34 · Score: 0
  
  Uh-huh. Why are you half-assing this, AC?
  Roy Cohn also was the US DOJ prosecutor in the Rosenberg espionage trial, and he also represented Rupert Murdoch He was a registered Democrat who often supported Republican administration on the federal, state, and local levels. He was disbarred, a homosexual, and died of AIDS in 1986. He was also a Jew.
  There, this smear is much more informative. Do better next time, AC.
  With the exception Rupert Murdoch & disbarred, are completely irrelevant. Talk about half-assing it: try mobsters: Tony Salerno, Carmine Galante, and John Gotti; and the pedophiles at the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of New York.
  But those are all still irrelevant to Cohn being a McCarthyist, and Trump being his protege.
3. Re:Joe's affiliations: by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-09 09:43 · Score: 0
  
  His clients include Newhouse newspapers and Conde Nast magazines; the Catholic Archdiocese of New York; the Ford Model Agency; Studio 54; Potamkin Cadillac, Baron di Portanova; the biggest names in New York real estate, including Lefrak, Helmsley, Trump; Louis Wolfson, owner of Affirmed; Warren Avis, as in rent a car; Peter Widener and his sister Tootie, a Main Line Pennsylvania family with coal, rail, and racetrack interests; Jerry Finkelstein, a New York businessman; John Schlesinger, a British investor in South Africa; Carmine "Lilo" Galante, the reputed boss of bosses; "Fat Tony" Salerno; Nicholas "Cockeyed Nick" Rattenni; Thomas and Joseph Gambino, sons of the late Carlo; and a string of hoods; Nathan's Famous; Luca Buccellati, the jeweler; Congressman Mario Biaggi; Mrs. Charles Allen Jr., wife of the chairman of Allen & Company, He has counseled his friend George Steinbrenner, owner of the Yankees. As a favor to his friend Halston, Roy advised Bianca how to handle Mick. He was to be Onassis' divorce attorney against Jackie.
  "Roy symbolizes viciousness in protecting a client or going after someone who needs viciousness to right a wrong," says Bill Fugazy. He fights his cases as if they were his own. It is war. If he feels his adversary has been unfair, it is war to the death. No white flags. No Mr. Nice Guy. Prospective clients who want to kill their husband, torture a business partner, break the government's legs, hire Roy Cohn. He is a legal executioner—the toughest, meanest, loyalest, vilest, and one of the most brilliant lawyers in America. He is not a very nice man.
  To his clients, Roy is like a faith healer. "He's almost a mother's helper," says builder Sam Lefrak. "He doesn't tell you he's going to lose, like most lawyers." When the federal government was suing the Trump organization for discriminating against minorities in their housing projects, Don Trump searched for a lawyer. "They all said. 'You have a good case, but it's a sticky thing,'" remembers Trump. Then he met Cohn for the first time at a party, explained his predicament, and was thrilled when Roy instantly declared, "Oh, you'll win hands down!" Sitting beside him at "21," Republican socialite Sheila Mosier, whose divorce he is handling, exclaims, "To me, he's like a brother."
  For twenty years, Roy exchanged Christmas gifts with FBI director J. Edgar Hoover.
  Trump wasn't a protege, he was a client like a lot of other rich and powerful people.
4. Re:Joe's affiliations: by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-09 13:28 · Score: 0
  
  At the top of the article you plagiarized from Esquire: "But his most enduring legacy is Donald Trump, whom he took under his wing in the 1970s."
  A little hint, maga, don't plagiarize an article then add a summary that contradicts what's written in introduction--pretty fucking obvious.
5. Re:Joe's affiliations: by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-09 23:56 · Score: 0
  
  In other words, all of his clients are crooks.
6. Re:Joe's affiliations: by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-10 02:07 · Score: 0
  
  In other words, all of his clients are crooks.
  Spot on. And the MAGA attempting to defend him is a plagiarist.
Re:The Definition of Racism? by benjfowler · 2017-10-09 07:50 · Score: 1

Nope. It's just a recognition that the Russian government as it stands today, is not our friend.
Need anti-virus software,then your doing it wrong by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-09 08:48 · Score: 0

The idea that anti-virus software will magically protect you is fool hearty. It doesn't work. The way you secure and protect against malicious software is by not installing random proprietary crap and keeping up to date with security updates. Which is relatively easy to do on most GNU/Linux distributions provided you stick to stuff from the OS's main software repository. If you go outside of that sphere a bit you can often still get updates automatically and securely. It's only when you start doing stuff like installing proprietary applications such as Skype that you introduce a real security hole.
Trust the brand that helped find by AHuxley · 2017-10-09 09:37 · Score: 2

Stuxnet
Flame
Equation Group
Duqu
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Highly sophisticated malware gets found and the internet is safer.

--
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
1. Re:Trust the brand that helped find by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-09 12:15 · Score: 1
  
  mod parent up!
Re:What we can learn from this by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-09 10:07 · Score: 0

Nice. How are you enjoying your hurricanes?
Re:What we can learn from this by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-09 10:13 · Score: 0

Well, one time I stuck my member in a co-ed who claimed to be a Communist. Does that count?
How long before we have to push KAV through Tor? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-09 11:12 · Score: 0

With Kaspersky's products being banned more and more in the West, how long will it be before we have to push all Kaspersky product updates/installs via Tor? (if possible)
How long before running a Kaspersky product in the West as a consumer is considered a crime?
Rootkit Revealer - the old pump and dump by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-09 11:21 · Score: 0

RR was a useful tool for me prior to M$ pwning it. It's still included in the SysInternals Suite but it's been dead for a long time. I wonder if it was castrated, too, you never know.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Last release - 1.7 / November 1, 2006; 10 years ago
"It is the same tool that triggered the Sony BMG copy protection rootkit scandal."
At first, not a single AV detected the Sony BMG rootkit. RR was the first to detect it. Does it surprise anyone that this useful freeware program was thrown in the virtual shitter?
https://docs.microsoft.com/en-...
Russian Mob first by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-09 13:52 · Score: 0

I figured Kaspersky had ties to the Russian mob long before the FSB, but there probably isn't much difference.
Additionally, Office Depot is letting customers by n329619 · 2017-10-09 14:47 · Score: 1

exchange their Kaspersky copy with a one-year license for McAfee LiveSafe.

for McAfee LiveSafe.

McAfee

Worst trade ever.
Ken Thompson by lindseyp · 2017-10-09 15:39 · Score: 1

That reminds me of the Ken Thompson hack.
http://wiki.c2.com/?TheKenThom...
Deviously brilliant

--
j'ai découvert une démonstration vraiment admirable (de ce théorème général) que cette si
If you start patching nsa windows code by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-09 18:01 · Score: 0

expect this.
I want my Russian antivirus. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-09 18:42 · Score: 0

Here's a manual on how to make a full-auto sub machinegun.
https://mega.nz/#!hPhQULhJ!upgCjT1m5oWRBk4PPGTaX9pyjbtn6KXHacYCQPStxv4
Re:What we can learn from this by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-09 18:43 · Score: 0

we can learn on how to make a full-auto sub machinegun.
https://mega.nz/#!hPhQULhJ!upgCjT1m5oWRBk4PPGTaX9pyjbtn6KXHacYCQPStxv4
Kaspersky endorsement by rl117 · 2017-10-09 19:06 · Score: 1

As much as I loathe antivirus software, it does seem like the government pressure to ban Kaspersky is actually a huge endorsement for its effectiveness in rooting out malware. Too bad its malware the government doesn't want found, he he. Is it just me, or is the whole concept of "cyber warfare" with "cyber weapons" just plain stupid in both concept and execution?
Sigh... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-09 22:07 · Score: 0

Well that's it! I've had it with all these AV vendors! I'm gonna finally make the switch to Clamwin that I've been putting off.
Snake oil by stooo · 2017-10-09 22:57 · Score: 1

Antivirus are snake oil.

--
aaaaaaa
Kaspersky too good, keeps NSA/CIA malware out by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-10 00:27 · Score: 0

the American AV vendors do not however, and Big Gov wants in, and they want you to blow your money into the American economy instead. You just lost an AV product that was better than anything you can get from American vendors.
Re:What we can learn from this by schleimkeim · 2017-10-10 00:30 · Score: 1

the rest of the world is laughing at you
And we'll keep laughing for lots of other reasons.
Pick your poison by fred133 · 2017-10-10 05:14 · Score: 1

If you live in the US, who do you want spying on you? the Russians? or the NSA?
Pick your poison...personally, as a non-combatant, I think I'd prefer the Russians as they have no legal reach to me....
but since I run a 'nix variant, I don't run any AV anyway, a non-issue for me.