Israeli Spies 'Watched Russian Agents Breach Kaspersky Software' (bbc.com)

Israeli spies looked on as Russian hackers breached Kaspersky cyber-security software two years ago, according to reports. From a report: The Russians were allegedly attempting to gather data on US intelligence programs, according to the New York Times and Washington Post. Israeli agents made the discovery after breaching the software themselves. Kaspersky has said it was neither involved in nor aware of the situation and denies collusion with authorities. Last month, the US government decided to stop using the Russian firm's software on its computers. The Israelis are said to have notified the US, which led to the ban on Kaspersky programs. The New York Times said that the situation had been described by "multiple people who have been briefed on the matter."

Comments

Please drink verification can now

[Anonymous Coward]

yeah, just stood there im sure

Re:Please drink verification can now

[Swave An deBwoner]

Reportedly they had a clear view of what had been done to Kaspersky's software:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/israel-hacked-kaspersky-then-tipped-the-nsa-that-its-tools-had-been-breached/2017/10/10/d48ce774-aa95-11e7-850e-2bdd1236be5d_story.html

In 2015, Israeli government hackers saw something suspicious in the computers of a Moscow-based cybersecurity firm: hacking tools that could only have come from the National Security Agency.

Israel notified the NSA, where alarmed officials immediately began a hunt for the breach, according to people familiar with the matter, who said an investigation by the agency revealed that the tools were in the possession of the Russian government.

Israeli spies had found the hacking material on the network of Kaspersky Lab, the global anti-virus firm under a spotlight in the United States because of suspicions that its products facilitate Russian espionage.

NPR advertising Kapersky this am

[Anonymous Coward]

NPR had some significant advertising for Kapersky today

Re:NPR advertising Kapersky this am

[jellomizer]

NPR does admit that Kapersky is an underwriter in their stories... They were also early to bring up the connection between them and the Russian government. It seems NPR is respectable enough to not let Kapersky money get in the way of good reporting.

Re:NPR advertising Kapersky this am

[Billly Gates]

I disagree.

Only Briebart and Fox is unbiased if you ask any Trump supporter. If any news outlet talks about Russia it is a lie by the libtards and part of the fake news if it doesn't agree with their ideology.

Re:NPR advertising Kapersky this am

[Anonymous Coward]

Username checks out.

Billy Gates:

I disagree.

Only Briebart and Fox is unbiased if you ask any Trump supporter. If any news outlet talks about Russia it is a lie by the libtards and part of the fake news if it doesn't agree with their ideology.

https://politics.slashdot.org/story/17/10/11/1451215/despite-sanctions-russian-organisations-acquire-microsoft-software

Re:NPR advertising Kapersky this am

[penandpaper]

If you rely on one news source that conforms to your ideology then it doesn't matter if you watch; Fox, Brietbart, CNN, MSNBC, or NPR. You will be in an echo chamber and are susceptible to fake news and lies.

Re: NPR advertising Kapersky this am

[Anonymous Coward]

I disagree for offtopic reasons as well!

Re:NPR advertising Kapersky this am

[Anonymous Coward]

The right uses fake news; the left uses baked news.

Re:NPR advertising Kapersky this am

[TsuruchiBrian]

It's true that watching only news that conforms to your ideology makes you susceptible to being misinformed.

What is also plain as day to anyone who is not in an echo chamber is that not all news sources are equally ideological/fake.

It's not impossible for NPR to become a propaganda network in the future, and I would hope as many NPR consumers as possible would notice such a shift and repudiate it, a blind NPR consumer is probably going to be pretty well informed compared to a blind Fox News consumer at the moment.

This doesn't make the blind NPR consumer epistemologically superior to the blind Fox consumer, or any other blind consumer, but it does make them very lucky to have blindly consumed something that for the moment is good for them rather than toxic.

Fox news/Breitbart is fucking poison, and the people consuming it without knowing what it is are seriously harming themselves.

Maybe CNN / MSNBC are McDonalds, but NPR is vegetables.

Re:NPR advertising Kapersky this am

[penandpaper]

CNN == FOX == MSNBC == Brietbart == NYT. There is no difference to me. They all can and have reported facts as much as they mislead and conflate opinion or falsities with fact. You can tell lies by telling nothing but the truth.

NPR is only slightly better but not much. It's nauseating to listen to them. What they report on and how they report on it is very one sided. Too much emotional manipulation. Too many loaded questions. Too many attempts for "gotcha moments" instead of understanding any position. Too many one sided arguments and token opponents. Too many fallacious arguments; strawmen and appeals are the norm.

If you think they are fair and balanced then perhaps you are already in an echo chamber. When I listen to them I don't feel like I am becoming better informed but rather learning talking points from a emotionally manipulative propagandist with an agenda.

Re:NPR advertising Kapersky this am

[Jason Levine]

It's true that you should listen to multiple sources from multiple viewpoints, but you also need to keep in mind that not all subjects have a "both sides." If Media Outlet A had a report saying "Many scientific studies show evolution is real" and Media Outlet B had "Scientists Wrong; World Created 5,000 Years Ago", there wouldn't be a comparison. You couldn't simply say "well, that's a difference of opinion and both are equally valid." One has mounds of scientific evidence on their side and the other is based off of adding ages in a very old book that some claim was written by a deity.

So listen to multiple sources, but also weight the evidence on each side. And if a source constantly gives patently false information (not talking opinions you disagree with, but something provably false), cut it out and find another to read (keeping the balance as much as possible to prevent the echo chamber effect).

Re:NPR advertising Kapersky this am

[rbrander]

This issue is not immune to the scientific method. Much of the approbation for Fox, and kudos for NPR, comes from the Knowledge Networks study almost 15 years ago:
http://www.pipa.org/OnlineRepo...

It IS possible for everybody to agree on a few simple facts, no really. Then you can survey news consumers for whether they are right on those really simple facts, and find which consumers have the best score. In this 2003 poll, you actually had the amazing stat that people who watched a lot of Fox had lower scores than the Fox fans who watched a little - a lot of watching actually subtracted from your factual knowledge. And NPR listeners had the highest score.

This study should be repeated yearly, about multiple news stories, and the results should be common knowledge. News sources should be competing on whether their viewers get 80% of 90%, not whether they get 90% or 25%.

Re:NPR advertising Kapersky this am

[TsuruchiBrian]

You can tell lies by telling nothing but the truth.

I don't think Fox News can... If they can, they aren't. They seem to resort to normal lying quite regularly.

NPR is only slightly better but not much. It's nauseating to listen to them. What they report on and how they report on it is very one sided. Too much emotional manipulation. Too many loaded questions. Too many attempts for "gotcha moments" instead of understanding any position. Too many one sided arguments and token opponents. Too many fallacious arguments; strawmen and appeals are the norm.

It doesn't seem like you are defending Fox, so I won't bother pointing out all the BS on their side. But I honestly don't see any of what you are talking about with NPR. Can you cite any of the stuff you are describing from NPR?

If you think they are fair and balanced then perhaps you are already in an echo chamber. When I listen to them I don't feel like I am becoming better informed but rather learning talking points from a emotionally manipulative propagandist with an agenda.

It's possible. But I think I would have to only consume NPR and sources like it to be really be in an echo chamber. And honestly I think the term "fair and balanced" is basically meaningless after Fox News claiming this as their slogan for so long. It means different things to different people. To some people, being fair and balanced means being equally critical of "both" sides of an argument regardless of merit or how many sides there even are.

What I will say about NPR is that it is not often (I can't even remember the last time) when they reported something as fact that turned out to be false. Yes, the media can be deceptive with which facts they decide to report and which to omit. But omitting facts does not prevent those facts from being reported by other media outlets. What relevant facts did NPR omit? I haven't seen any.

Re:NPR advertising Kapersky this am

[Anonymous Coward]

Russia hacked the election. Ree. Trump orange Hilter. Reeee.
Hillary won the popular vote. Reeeeee. NATO and Lockheed Martin need more money. Reeeeeeeeee.

That's what you smart demonrats sound like to the rest of us.

Re:NPR advertising Kapersky this am

[penandpaper]

Yes, listen to multiple sources. There are always two sides if there wasn't it wouldn't be controversial, would it?

Sometimes it's a difference in narrative. "AGW is real and backed by science" vs. "The political solutions to combat any environmental impact of humans and the costs involved". There will always be loudmouth idiots on both sides and using only the idiots to represent a position is as much a strawman as lighting hay effigies on fire.

For your example, media outlet A reports "many scientific studies show evolution is real". That is not the issue because you wouldn't care if some idiot has a dumb opinion. Someone is taking the position that media B reports "scientists wrong, world 5000 years old" and trying to enact policy based on that opinion. Media outlet A is having an argument with B about person X using B's statement to justify policy. What policy, why and how is it being implemented is the issue. The issue is 1) creationism taught in schools because 2) religious belief of people 3) being forced into schools by the government 4) instead of using science to inform science curricula in schools 5) because religious people feel that evolution is being taught as "fact"** and also 6) parents should be able to decide what education their children receive. In your example, media outlet A and B are both disingenuous to the core issue and making the argument "science vs science deniers" or "the faithful vs the heathen" which makes the whole conversation more toxic because it becomes an Us vs Them. Now, in Us vs Them there is no way to compromise. There is no problem teaching creationism in school so long as it is not in the science classroom. People should be able to influence the education their children receive.

** Fact in science is different than a fact for a laymen. The terms being used to argue the positions are even different.

If you can't adequately explain both sides of any controversial issue then you have probably been in an echo chamber.

Re:NPR advertising Kapersky this am

[penandpaper]

Do you have a more recent study?

Forgive me, but getting a few simple facts right or wrong does not address the issue of fake news and susceptibility of lies to both viewers and organizations. Again, you can tell lies by telling nothing but the truth.

I think you are trying to have a different conversation.

Re:NPR advertising Kapersky this am

[penandpaper]

They seem to resort to normal lying quite regularly.

A lot of media orgs do but normal lying isn't as effective these days.

Can you cite any of the stuff you are describing from NPR?

I listen to them most days to and from work. NPR does a better job than some and they don't always do a bad job. TBH, I am too lazy to find you specifics for something I don't care enough about to try and convince someone on /.. You can disregard my opinion if you like.

What relevant facts did NPR omit?

You can tell lies with the truth. Propaganda, manipulation, and deception are more effective with the truth. It reminds me of conspiracy theories; there is always a grain of truth to them which makes them powerful and long lasting. Knowing the fact that "jet fuel can't melt steel beams" doesn't help you understand why that fact is irrelevant or why the towers fell. Someone doesn't have to be malicious to spread that lie built entirely of facts.

Re:NPR advertising Kapersky this am

[TsuruchiBrian]

A lot of media orgs do but normal lying isn't as effective these days.

It seems to be much more effective than what I would have imagined looking at polling data. When I saw the data of percentages of Fox News viewers that actually believe various false claims they make (many of which are already widely debunked and quietly redacted on Fox News e.g. pizza gate, etc), my takeaway is that most of those viewers just believe whatever they are told by Fox News.

I listen to them most days to and from work. NPR does a better job than some and they don't always do a bad job. TBH, I am too lazy to find you specifics for something I don't care enough about to try and convince someone on /.. You can disregard my opinion if you like.

I'm open to being convinced. I don't need a comprehensive list or anything. How about just the most egregious example of propaganda you can recall?

You can tell lies with the truth. Propaganda, manipulation, and deception are more effective with the truth.

I'm not disagreeing with this.

It reminds me of conspiracy theories; there is always a grain of truth to them which makes them powerful and long lasting.

I'm not disagreeing with this either. But with most conspiracy theories, you can point to a grain of truth and an avalanche of unsubstantiated or provable false claims. I can't even recall a single bit of misinformation disseminated by NPR (intentional or otherwise), though I'm sure they must make mistakes occasionally.

Knowing the fact that "jet fuel can't melt steel beams" doesn't help you understand why that fact is irrelevant or why the towers fell. Someone doesn't have to be malicious to spread that lie built entirely of facts.

Sure, but when someone repeats this, it's easy to point out that the omitted fact that steal beams don't have to melt to become structurally unstable.

To me this is like saying "Many people don't realize, but the Beatles have some really bad songs too. Musicians are all the same, they all have bad songs. I can't remember any of their bad songs, but trust me they are there. I remember not liking some of their songs, but I can't remember which ones." Even if this is all true, the fact that you can't even remember *any* of the bad examples would imply that the quality of beatles music (albeit imperfect) is much better than Nickleback, where I would struggle to even name a single song I could maybe argue is not so bad. I realize music is subjective, but this is just an analogy.

This seems like a textbook case of false equivalence. Even if it were true that NPR was intentionally trying to shape its consumers views to a particular ideology through selective truth reporting and truth omission, at least what they are saying is true. I don't recommend anybody to treat any news source as unbiased (even NPR). But at minimum we should expect and demand that any news source reliably present facts correctly to even be worthy of consideration, and *then* have the conversation of what their bias might be. Presenting falsehoods more than occasionally should disqualify any news source from being trusted by anyone.

Re:NPR advertising Kapersky this am

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, listen to multiple sources. There are always two sides if there wasn't it wouldn't be controversial, would it?

Sometimes it's a difference in narrative. "AGW is real and backed by science" vs. "The political solutions to combat any environmental impact of humans and the costs involved". There will always be loudmouth idiots on both sides and using only the idiots to represent a position is as much a strawman as lighting hay effigies on fire.

For your example, media outlet A reports "many scientific studies show evolution is real". That is not the issue because you wouldn't care if some idiot has a dumb opinion. Someone is taking the position that media B reports "scientists wrong, world 5000 years old" and trying to enact policy based on that opinion. Media outlet A is having an argument with B about person X using B's statement to justify policy. What policy, why and how is it being implemented is the issue. The issue is 1) creationism taught in schools because 2) religious belief of people 3) being forced into schools by the government 4) instead of using science to inform science curricula in schools 5) because religious people feel that evolution is being taught as "fact"** and also 6) parents should be able to decide what education their children receive. In your example, media outlet A and B are both disingenuous to the core issue and making the argument "science vs science deniers" or "the faithful vs the heathen" which makes the whole conversation more toxic because it becomes an Us vs Them. Now, in Us vs Them there is no way to compromise. There is no problem teaching creationism in school so long as it is not in the science classroom. People should be able to influence the education their children receive.

** Fact in science is different than a fact for a laymen. The terms being used to argue the positions are even different.

If you can't adequately explain both sides of any controversial issue then you have probably been in an echo chamber.

Problem is these idiot laymen you mention VOTE.

Re:NPR advertising Kapersky this am

[Rutulian]

Not the OP, but it's probably Tom Ashbrook's On Point, or the Diane Rehm Show that he is thinking of. Don't listen much to the latter, but Tom Ashbrook has a clear bias for most of the stories he covers. That doesn't (usually) stop him from trying to challenge his guest(s), but it does often set the frame of the discussion. So if you are sensitive to that, you might come away thinking it was fairly one-sided. For example, listen to this one,
http://www.wbur.org/onpoint/20...

His guest is attempting a thoughtful argument, which is definitely one of the strengths of the show (it's never a Sean Hannity yell fest), but it is fairly one-sided coverage of the issue. And he doesn't have another guest presenting a counterview in this case, either.

That said, the "actual news" to quote Chris Wallace, which is "All Things Considered", is a pretty dry run-down of the facts 99% of the time. And there are a lot of other shows, like Planet Money and Marketplace, that don't have any discernible bias (to me at least). So I agree with your main point, which is that NPR is miles above the likes of CNN or MSNBC.

Re:NPR advertising Kapersky this am

[Rutulian]

Sometimes it's a difference in narrative. "AGW is real and backed by science" vs. "The political solutions to combat any environmental impact of humans and the costs involved". There will always be loudmouth idiots on both sides and using only the idiots to represent a position is as much a strawman as lighting hay effigies on fire.

Agreed. Some (or a lot) of this has to do with the headline-grabbing nature needed to advertise a news story. But I think the real issue is that every policy decision, at least in the short-term, creates winners and losers, even if the winners become less so over time and the losers eventually recover. Nobody wants to be the loser. Everybody wants to be the winner. So those that stand to "lose" by the establishment of some kind of energy policy will argue either that AGW is not a significant problem, or if it is, there is nothing we can really do about it. Those that "lose" by letting things be will argue that the costs to individual companies might hurt in the short-term, but the costs to society will be devastating in the long-term. These two viewpoints are destined to be stonewalled, because nobody wants to be the loser. Compromise is not possible if you are not willing to take a hit some of the time.

There is no problem teaching creationism in school so long as it is not in the science classroom.

Agreed. However, in the cases where this has been brought up (like a challenge in court, for example), it is usually the opposite situation. It is the Creationists that don't want evolution taught "as a fact" in biology classes, not the Evolutionists opposing Creationism being taught in a religion or philosophy class.

People should be able to influence the education their children receive.

And they do. They usually send them to a private religious school.

Re:NPR advertising Kapersky this am

[pnutjam]

NPR reporters are very impartial and go to pains to maintain that, sometimes it's irritating to see how they don't call people out. There are also entertainment shows on NPR that do some of what you mention, these shows are often coming from a particular viewpoing, however it should be obvious to the informed listener. Many of their entertainment shows maintain an impartial perspective, but sometimes the interviewers are fooled, I listened to this interview, and was really disgusted at how the interviewer allowed herself to be led and assume certain fallacies.

Re:NPR advertising Kapersky this am

[pnutjam]

A good 75% of any given news day is given over to propaganda and press releases. There was a story about how they candy you like identifies the type of person you are, on my local station. It was all vague astrology type answers. I told my wife that someone from some candy lobby got paid; and she said I ruined her whimsy.

I'm trying to teach my kids to notice things like this, think about why something is being talked about, not just what they are saying.

Re:NPR advertising Kapersky this am

[I75BJC]

LOL!!! The Left does state theirs is the "True" Fake News. How funny! Great/Wonderful comment -- Bravo!

Re:NPR advertising Kapersky this am

[rbrander]

A more recent story? Not being tasked as your research assistant, no, I've only got the story I came in with. Google is your friend.

And, by the way, did you have some reason for anybody to imagine that the editorial direction or fact-checking standards of Fox news have changed since 2003? I don't recall any major changes of senior staff in that time until Ailes was forced out in disgrace - he set ALL the standards around there, nobody crossed him. WHY would he have changed any standards in his late 60s while the old ones were making money hand-over-fist?

Getting a few simple facts right or wrong absolutely addresses the issue. If a school cannot successfully teach that, say, the British Queen is Head of State but not Head of Government and thus has only ceremonial power*, then it's pointless to discuss whether it has accurate stories about Theresa May having low-polling with professional women in the Midland Counties.

Perhaps you did not read the study, but those simple facts that heavy Fox viewers got wrong were 1) whether the rest of the world was generally in support of the American invasion of Iraq, 2) Were there links between AQ and Saddam (Bush explicitly denied it on TV) and 3) Had WMDs been found in 2003 [Infamously not]. 80% of Fox viewers had more than one misperception out of the three. And really, "The rest of the world supports the invasion", "WMDs have been found" and "Saddam is working with AQ" are the very genesis of what we are currently calling "Fake News".

(*Example chosen because Sarah Palin did not know that.)

Re:NPR advertising Kapersky this am

[TsuruchiBrian]

I've actually never heard this show. I don't actually get this show on my local NPR affiliate station (KPBS in San Diego). I'm honestly not sure if NPR affiliates are (or should be) considered "official NPR media" or not. I know I considered some of the "local" shows to be representative of NPR (e.g. "To the point" (KCRW), "Here and Now" (WBUR)), but I honestly don't know how widespread these shows are on other NPR affiliates across the country. We may be judging the merits of "NPR" based on completely different subject matter.

I was also unconsciously lumping in PBS programming (Frontline, Newshour, etc) without realizing I did not make this explicit, because these are aired on my local KPBS television station, which I associate with NPR. But I think those shows are really good too.

But, in any case, I will certainly listen to this, and see if I notice any bias or not. Thanks for the link.

Re:NPR advertising Kapersky this am

[TsuruchiBrian]

Alright I listened to the show.

A little background for me: I have been arguing the point that the guest was making for years (especially about the mortgage interest deduction and school districts being unfair and keeping people poor), and I did read an article about this book already and found myself basically agreeing with it.

I think both forms of presentation (i.e. a debate between "equal" sides, vs. a host interviewing a proponent of something, and offering some challenges) have their merits. I feel like debates often get bogged down in tangents, and in these sorts of interviews sometimes dubious claims can go unchallenged. So I think it's important to have both.

I do like this format better than shows where guests are just given a platform to speak with no push-back at all. I feel like even when a guest is completely right about everything, having some challenges helps to strengthen their case, and it also weeds out some guests with very poor arguments.

I didn't really notice a bias. It sounds like you are describing a pattern of bias which may not be easy to see by listening to only one interview.

But I'm kind of curious if there are any notable people with specific thoughtful counterarguments to this authors claims (e.g. an author that has challenged him). If there is, I'm not aware of them.

Also I think this claim is sort of unique in that it doesn't really seem like a typical left or right wing position. It's advocating for social justice which seems sort of lefty, but it is also kind of undermining the whole 99% vs. 1% paradigm pushed by the left. I personally find these sorts of claims that aren't clearly partisan to be more interesting, but I think it makes it harder to determine what *the* counterpoint is.

Re:NPR advertising Kapersky this am

[Rutulian]

I didn't really notice a bias. It sounds like you are describing a pattern of bias which may not be easy to see by listening to only one interview.

It's hard to pick out a single representative show. Like I say, overall Tom Ashbrook tries to do a thoughtful show, so in that way he is very good. He doesn't just yell into the mic the way Rush Limbaugh does, but there is a bias there. I think I noticed it more over the last year because he was having more political shows for a while. The bias is subtle, because it is more in the ways he asks questions and directs the conversation, or in how he responds to comments by viewers than it is in the subject matter itself. Sometimes it is a show like this one,
http://www.wbur.org/onpoint/20...

where he is not saying anything explicit to indicate bias, but you can tell the subject was picked to pull on liberal heart strings and draw listeners to the show. But I guess most shows that cover politics are that way. When he stays away from politics, he is generally quite good.

But I'm kind of curious if there are any notable people with specific thoughtful counterarguments to this authors claims (e.g. an author that has challenged him). If there is, I'm not aware of them.

Yes, this is true. Tom Ashbrook, usually, only invites guests to debate a subject if they have written about it in some thoughtful way. In this case there isn't another guest because there isn't an opponent, which is fine. My objection is mostly that he doesn't really challenge his guest. He just kind of accepts what his guest is saying.

A little background for me: I have been arguing the point that the guest was making for years (especially about the mortgage interest deduction and school districts being unfair and keeping people poor), and I did read an article about this book already and found myself basically agreeing with it.

Also I think this claim is sort of unique in that it doesn't really seem like a typical left or right wing position. It's advocating for social justice which seems sort of lefty, but it is also kind of undermining the whole 99% vs. 1% paradigm pushed by the left. I personally find these sorts of claims that aren't clearly partisan to be more interesting, but I think it makes it harder to determine what *the* counterpoint is.

Well, I do agree that it is not a typical partisan talking point, which is good. But I disagree with the characterization of people seeking good communities for their families as being "hoarders". It's easy to bin people into groups like "the 20%" without recognizing that they have their own struggles. I live in a community with very good schools. I know quite a few families who are only just able to afford to live here. They (and we) do it for the schools. Making housing even more unaffordable for us, just because we happen to be in the top 20% income bracket nationally, is not social justice.

I certainly welcome people from other less well-off communities sending their kids to school here, even if it means I have to pay more in property taxes for that. But the more broad-reaching and sustainable solution is to work toward improving all schools, so you don't have to live in a top 5% or 10% neighborhood to be able to send your kids to good schools. Unfortunately, while the pattern is that good schools correlate with property values, the underlying causes are more systemic. The easy policy decision is to just infuse cash, but real social justice requires much more than that.

Re:NPR advertising Kapersky this am

[TsuruchiBrian]

Well, I do agree that it is not a typical partisan talking point, which is good. But I disagree with the characterization of people seeking good communities for their families as being "hoarders".

This is getting into a different debate, which I am happy to get into. I don't think people in the 20% are hoarders for trying to be more successful for themselves and their families, and I don't think the Richard Reeves is saying that either. I think what makes them "hoarders" is supporting policies which disproportionately benefit them. People in the top 20% are reliable voters. They have a lot of power to decide tax laws, etc.

It's easy to bin people into groups like "the 20%" without recognizing that they have their own struggles.

It is easy to do that, but I think he actually did specifically recognize that they have their own struggles. I think everyone has struggles. But the struggles you experience are different depending on your wealth.

I live in a community with very good schools. I know quite a few families who are only just able to afford to live here.

I do as well, and the price of my house is largely a result of the schools in this neighborhood.

They (and we) do it for the schools.

Yep. I didn't do it for the schools, but my parents bought a house in an affluent neighborhood just to be able to get my siblings and I into a very good school district with 1 high school in it, rather than going to the L.A. unified school system. I am very fortunate.

Making housing even more unaffordable for us, just because we happen to be in the top 20% income bracket nationally, is not social justice.

I don't think he wants housing to be more expensive. I know I certainly don't. The policy of having a mortgage interest deduction is actually artificially raising housing prices.

Here is the real solution as far as I can see it. Eliminate the mortgage interest deduction. Either eliminate the restrictions that force kids to only be able to attend their local public schools, or ensure that every public school has equal resources. This will severely reduce house values, so I think the people who scrimped and saved to get those houses should be reimbursed for that loss of value. But once this happens, it will hopefully be possible to send your kids to a good school without being required to purchase a very expensive house.

I really don't see a good reason to support a policy that only benefits the top 20%. I think many people in the top 20% do this because they worked so hard to get there, that they want to protect what they've worked so hard to get. But this is not fair to everyone. Top 0.1%ers managed to get a tax break on private jets. This is not in the interest of anyone but the ultra wealthy. They used their power (i.e. campaign contributions) to buy political power to get this law passed. The mortgage interest deduction is the top 20% version of this exact same thing.

Many wealthy people do not even care about politics. Those people still benefit. That's fine. That doesn't make you a hoarder. If you are actively working to keep the system the way it is rather than being open to making it more fair, simply because it benefits you, then you are a hoarder.

I certainly welcome people from other less well-off communities sending their kids to school here, even if it means I have to pay more in property taxes for that. But the more broad-reaching and sustainable solution is to work toward improving all schools, so you don't have to live in a top 5% or 10% neighborhood to be able to send your kids to good schools. Unfortunately, while the pattern is that good schools correlate with property values, the underlying causes are more systemic. The easy policy decision is to just infuse cash, but real social justice requires much more than that.

I don't think the Richard

Re:NPR advertising Kapersky this am

[Rutulian]

I don't think he wants housing to be more expensive. I know I certainly don't. The policy of having a mortgage interest deduction is actually artificially raising housing prices.

That is very debatable.

Either eliminate the restrictions that force kids to only be able to attend their local public schools, or ensure that every public school has equal resources.

Two points:
1) Busing kids around is expensive, and impractical on a large scale. Schools need to be local for a lot of other reasons too, such as integration into the community and to facilitate interactions with parents.
2) If you had said "ensure every public school is of comparable caliber", I would agree, but you are assuming money is the only issue. It isn't.

I really don't see a good reason to support a policy that only benefits the top 20%.

Every policy benefits only a fraction of people. You need to consider each policy individually, not just the fraction of people it benefits. The progressive income tax benefits the bottom tax brackets who definitely need that extra income, so I don't have a problem with that.

I think many people in the top 20% do this because they worked so hard to get there, that they want to protect what they've worked so hard to get. But this is not fair to everyone.

The problem is correlation, but not causation. The mortgage interest deduction benefits everybody who owns a house, who are more than just the top 20%. The disparity is not because it is a benefit for only the top 20%, but because the top 20% own more expensive houses and therefore get a higher deduction than those who own less expensive houses. The problem with aggregated national averages is that the majority of our everyday living is enabled by transactions within local markets, and different local markets often present very different real world circumstances. A $100k/yr gross income puts you in the top 20% nationally. In Houston, housing prices are low enough that you can buy a very nice house in a very nice neighborhood with good schools for $300k, which is just above the median house price for the area. The top 20% can afford that easily, and probably don't need the mortgage interest deduction. The top 40% can probably still afford it, but those lower in the income bracket will struggle a bit and the mortgage interest deduction helps them out a lot. In Boston, a much smaller house in a good neighborhood will cost you at least $800k, which is much less than the median house price in many of those neighborhoods. For these the top 20% can barely afford the house, if at all, and those who can definitely need the mortgage interest deduction.

Top 0.1%ers managed to get a tax break on private jets. This is not in the interest of anyone but the ultra wealthy.

A private jet is a very different thing from a house, unless it is an investment property. I agree that the mortgage interest deduction should not go to somebody who already owns a primary residence.

If you are actively working to keep the system the way it is rather than being open to making it more fair, simply because it benefits you, then you are a hoarder.

Fairness is tricky to define objectively. Disparities exist and probably always will. I think it is hazardous to judge fairness on the basis of oversimplified metrics, such as income tax brackets. Affordable healthcare and good schools in affordable neighborhoods should be accessible to everyone and they ultimately benefit everyone regardless of income status. How do we get there? Maybe we do have to increase the tax base in some cases, but these are complex problems that require careful thought.

but all I'm talking about is not having a bunch of loopholes for the people who do attain some level of wealth whether it's 20%, 1%, 0.1%, etc.

One person calls

Re:NPR advertising Kapersky this am

[TsuruchiBrian]

That is very debatable.

The ability to pay lower taxes by owning a home is something that's valuable. Adding this value to every house makes them more desirable. If we took away the mortgage interest deduction, it makes less financial sense to own a home (at current prices), which will lower demand and cause house prices to fall to a new equilibrium point.

I'm open to debate on this topic. I don't have an economics degree or anything.

Two points: 1) Busing kids around is expensive, and impractical on a large scale. Schools need to be local for a lot of other reasons too, such as integration into the community and to facilitate interactions with parents.

I'm not saying we should bus kids around. All I am claiming is that the current system of only allowing students to go to their local schools *AND* having the resources of every school be based on local property taxes is causing unequal access to quality education based on income level.

I would prefer everyone to be able to go to their closest school and have every school be of adequate quality. In the past busing was an attempt at a limited solution as improving the quality of all schools was not seen as a realistic possibility.

2) If you had said "ensure every public school is of comparable caliber", I would agree, but you are assuming money is the only issue. It isn't.

I didn't actually assume or say money is the only issue, but I do think it *is* by far the most important factor at this point. Schools with more money to spend on teacher salaries get to have the best teachers, in addition to teachers generally preferring to work in more affluent areas already. You might even need to pay teachers working in low income areas more to get the same quality of teachers everywhere.

We may one day come to the point where the biggest issue is not money, but that seems to be the case right now. I think we could certainly eliminate some waste, and maybe a low income school if they were very efficient with their money could afford to pay teachers as much or more than affluent schools do, but placing this burden on lower income schools to be much more efficient to be equally successful is not fair or realistic.

Every policy benefits only a fraction of people. You need to consider each policy individually, not just the fraction of people it benefits. The progressive income tax benefits the bottom tax brackets who definitely need that extra income, so I don't have a problem with that.

That's my point. In general, we shouldn't have policies that benefit tiny fractions of people. And if we do, it should be for people that really need it (i.e. poor people). And yes the progressive income tax does benefit those at the bottom at the expense of those higher up. If we imagine a graph showing how much people benefit from the tax code based on income, what I am saying is that there shouldn't be a bunch of bumps in this curve that reward and protecting people for achieving specific levels of wealth and hindering/punishing people just below those thresholds.

The problem is correlation, but not causation. The mortgage interest deduction benefits everybody who owns a house, who are more than just the top 20%.....

I did nto mean to specifically endorse the 20% figure. I think there is probably a large variation in what this number would be, and how stark the actual disparity is in different parts of the country. I just used this number, because that's what the author cites as being the average in his research. I don't think the actual number matters as much as the concept of these glass floors/ceilings at whatever levels they happen at (20% 40% 1% or 0.1%).

Having more wealth is already a huge benefit in achieving more wealth even without having extra laws that reinforce it.

A private jet is a very different thing from a house, un

I don't know who's spying who

[Anonymous Coward]

So Israel was spying on the US and saw that Russia was spying on the US.
Great. Wish they'd both die in a fire.

Re:I don't know who's spying who

[jedidiah]

It's kind of like that time that particularly famous traitor aired our own dirty laundry and it turned out that we spy on all of our allies.

Re:I don't know who's spying who

[Anonymous Coward]

So Israel was spying on the US and saw that Russia was spying on the US.
Great. Wish they'd both die in a fire.

Yeah, what a fuckin' joke this all is.

Re:I don't know who's spying who

[VocationalZero]

The Israelis notified the US that they were able to breach Kaspersky on their systems. The Russians did not. Speaks a lot about the intent. Not sure how you missed that.

Re: I don't know who's spying who

[Anonymous Coward]

Uhh did you read the fucking summary, you fucking imbecile?

They were spying on Russia. They notified the US. The only reason you might be upset is if you are a Russian...

Re:I don't know who's spying who

[Anonymous Coward]

But they didn't report the security flaw to Kaspersky??

Re: I don't know who's spying who

[Anonymous Coward]

Russians, on Slashdot? I'm shocked, shocked I tell you. Please say it ain't so. Next you'll be saying they pretend to be American or Canadian or Polish or British. No this is impossible, my mind cannot accept it.

Re:I don't know who's spying who

[Anonymous Coward]

The Israelis notified the US that they were able to breach Kaspersky on their systems. The Russians did not. Speaks a lot about the intent. Not sure how you missed that.

Yeah, like that time I told my friend that I fucked his wife when he wasn't around.
He was super upset and then I'm all like, "Well, at least I told you, unlike your brother."
See, it's all about intent with these things.

Re:I don't know who's spying who

[Anonymous Coward]

The Israelis notified the US that they were able to breach Kaspersky on their systems. The Russians did not. Speaks a lot about the intent. Not sure how you missed that.

Except we don't have a timeline at all. How long had Israelis spies been breaching Kaspersky "protected" systems? How long until they noticed the Russian spies could do it too? How long until they actually notified the US? It sounds like, if anything, Israel only told the US because they wanted an avenue of spying the Russians did not. It's also possible they waited until they had the second avenue.

Re:I don't know who's spying who

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean Trump?

Re:I don't know who's spying who

[cb88]

"The Israelis are said to have notified the US"

No, they had our back...

Re: I don't know who's spying who

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm angry Russian you insensitive clod!

Re:I don't know who's spying who

[dreamchaser]

It's kind of like that time that particularly famous traitor aired our own dirty laundry and it turned out that we spy on all of our allies.

That is exactly when he became a traitor and not a patriot. I hope someone managed to nail him one day.

Re:I don't know who's spying who

[Anonymous Coward]

To me it seems that the intent is that the Israelis don't want that the US uses Kaspersky. Not sure what intent you read.

Re:I don't know who's spying who

[nagora]

We need more traitors like him to protect us from assholes like you who would sell us all down the river for any bastard wrapped in a flag.

Re: I don't know who's spying who

[Boutzev]

How about this - there was a security flaw in Kaspersky software. The Israely exploited it, then kept it for themselves and also gave it to the US. Then the Russians also found it and started exploiting it. How does that proove any collusion between Kaspersky and the Russian government ?

Then even if there is collusion - there is really nothing shocking. You see, the entire world uses backdoored US operating systems. Let the Russians have their own little backdoors in their own little applications. Not quite the same scale as the US, not that shocking either.

Re:I don't know who's spying who

[iserlohn]

I thought he was brave and principled, and then he promptly fled to Russia and proved beyond doubt that he's a massive hypocrite.

Re:I don't know who's spying who

[VocationalZero]

If this was an attempt to gain an advantage over the Russians, they would have notified Kaspersky of the nature of the flaw as soon as they had a new intrusion method, not the US.

Notifying the US to the end of them banning the software you are trying to use to spy on them would be shooting yourself in the foot, especially if you've spent resources finding a brand new method to break in. Your theory doesn't make sense.

Re:I don't know who's spying who

[Anonymous Coward]

Nothing more amusing than the terms "traitor" and "patriot" being tossed around by a pussy who was too chickenshit to join the military.

Re: I don't know who's spying who

[F.Ultra]

Which of course is not what happened. He was in Russia only to transit further when the US revoced his passport which effectively stranded him in Russia. So he is only in Russia due to the US government.

Re:I don't know who's spying who

[alexo]

And since the US spies on all of it's allies, should they die in a fire as well?

Re: I don't know who's spying who

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you dis'specting the Big Satsuma, Generalissimo Bonespurs?

Re: I don't know who's spying who

[bestweasel]

From the NYT:

"Israelâ(TM)s 2014 intrusion into Kasperskyâ(TM)s corporate systems."

"Kaspersky Lab did not discover the Israeli intrusion into its systems until mid-2015"

Re:I don't know who's spying who

[Anonymous Coward]

Ahem. Too patriotic to join the military.

The military does whatever its commander in chief tells it to. That is rarely going to be in the interests of the country, and sometimes in direct opposition.

Until we learn how to successfully demand that presidents use the military responsibly, it's borderline-traitorous to join the military. You're just aiding America's enemies when you join them, because they answer to America's enemies.

Vote out the Republicans and Democrats so that none of them ever get to be president again. Then maybe joining the military will start to lose its current un-American, treasonous image.

Re:I don't know who's spying who

[Anonymous Coward]

It's kind of like that time that particularly famous traitor aired our own dirty laundry and it turned out that we spy on all of our allies.

Well, that was a minor point. The major point was that "we" spy on ourselves, lie to our congress, overstep the given authorities and are turning our Constitution into a mockery, nullifying the Bill of Rights and assuming unregulated dictatorial power to do whatever without oversight.

Snowden may have been a traitor, but certainly not to the U.S. people as defined and constituted in the U.S. Constitution. The traitors to the people are others.

Re:I don't know who's spying who

[eaglesrule]

Snowden is a hero. He proved without a doubt we were being lied to.

There is plenty documenting the events leading up to his residing in Russia, including the timing of his passport being revoked, so perhaps you should rethink that. Do you really believe that bravery means waiving your right to a fair trial and letting yourself be shipped off to a CIA blacksite to be tortured?

Re:I don't know who's spying who

[Anonymous Coward]

If this was an attempt to gain an advantage over the Russians, they would have notified Kaspersky of the nature of the flaw as soon as they had a new intrusion method, not the US.

No, because they would still be interested in spying on other countries through Kaspersky. The whole point is the didn't care if Russians spied on others through Kaspersky. The point is they wanted to be the only ones spying on the US. Hence, they tell their "ally" about one entry point into their system.

Notifying the US to the end of them banning the software you are trying to use to spy on them would be shooting yourself in the foot, especially if you've spent resources finding a brand new method to break in. Your theory doesn't make sense.

You presume that Kaspersky is the only software on US Defense systems that's exploitable? When I said a second avenue, I specifically meant a non-Kaspersky avenue. For all I know, they specific told the US so they'd switch to another AV software which Israelis spies knew was vulnerable. Or they've chosen a whole different track of exploit. In any case, the fact is that the US only switched quite recently away from Kaspersky even though Israel intruded over two years ago. So, either Israel only told them quite recently or the US was slow to respond. It could easily go either way.

Re:I don't know who's spying who

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do you guys keep pushing this "Snowden ran to Russia!" lie when you KNOW it's a lie?

Re:I don't know who's spying who

[gtall]

Whatever. Spying performs a perfectly fine function, preventing surprises and believing your biases. Think of it as data collection for a theory about the "other side". Would you rather Russia have no information about U.S. military programs? Those well-adjusted, non-paranoiac KBG retreads?

Re: I don't know who's spying who

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, it was your mom.

Re:I don't know who's spying who

[Anonymous Coward]

He's both. He is a hero for showing us the illegal behavior of the government conducted on US citizens. He is a traitor for showing the world what the US government does legally to foreign governments.

If he had principles he wouldn't have fled to HK and he would have limited his leaks to only illegal actions taken against US citizens.

Re:I don't know who's spying who

[orgelspieler]

Wait... Are we still talking about Trump?

Re: I don't know who's spying who

[penandpaper]

Didn't you know? Since November of 2016 everyone in the US is Russian.

Re:I don't know who's spying who

[Anonymous Coward]

The only people not spying can't.

Re:I don't know who's spying who

[Anonymous Coward]

Kinda like that time US told Russia backdoors in several OSes, or the time GCHQ did the same.
OH WAIT, THEIR SPIES, they all backstab and work with each other whenever it is beneficial to them.

Re:I don't know who's spying who

[VocationalZero]

You presume that Kaspersky is the only software on US Defense systems that's exploitable?

I presume that there are hundreds, if not thousands of ways to breech US Defense systems. I also presume that it is extremely unlikely that the Israelis only had that one, single way in, the entire time before they notified the US of the security vulnerability. If your point is that Israel is not our ally because they spy on us, I've got news for you. Everyone spies on everyone. The fact that they notified the US at all is a pretty good indicator of who's "side" they are on.

For all I know, they specific told the US so they'd switch to another AV software which Israelis spies knew was vulnerable.

Why the hell would the US switch to AV software recommended by a foreign intelligence service? In what world does that make sense? Then again, why the heck did they go with Kaspersky in the first place?

Re:I don't know who's spying who

[higuita]

s/traitor/hero/

That should fix it

Re: I don't know who's spying who

[Brockmire]

I don't think you know what fucking is. Try again, virgin.

Re: I don't know who's spying who

[Brockmire]

You killed English, you bastard!

Re:I don't know who's spying who

[tinkerton]

Agreed. Snowden is a fairly stereotypical hero. And that's a compliment.

Re:I don't know who's spying who

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, he totally dodged because of his strong ideals. Such a patriot. He's a fucking dodger whose daddy pulled strings to keep his little hands safe.

Re: I don't know who's spying who

[Anonymous Coward]

When the new McCarthy commission is formed, you'll be able to sort the traitors from the patriots in a single day!

Do they agree with you and/or do you like what they have to say? Patriot!

Do they disagree with you and/or do you dislike what they have to say? Russian/Nazi/Third imaginary but similar Boogeyman.

Re:I don't know who's spying who

[DivineKnight]

On a side note, I'm curious what your opinion of Quakers might be.

Re:I don't know who's spying who

[Anonymous Coward]

... someone managed to nail him ...

I hope you reserve some of that vitriol for criminals like Bush Junior: Let's remember Snowden became a traitor because he wanted American people to know the US government was spying on them without judicial oversight.

... not a patriot.

Should the American people do what Bush Junior did: Commit a crime (via Snowden), then enact a law proclaiming it legal?

Re:I don't know who's spying who

[Anonymous Coward]

Everyone spies on everyone. The fact that they notified the US at all is a pretty good indicator of who's "side" they are on.

Their own. With a little bit of "don't let the foreign power that givens them all the nice weapons be totally hacked by the Russians if you know about it because if they ever find out, they might cut off that sweet, sweet military machinery".

Why the hell would the US switch to AV software recommended by a foreign intelligence service?

Uh, yea, I'm pretty sure all the big commercial AV software is vulnerable. So, no need for Israel to recommend anything.

In what world does that make sense?

In what world does it make sense that US Defense is using Windows?

Then again, why the heck did they go with Kaspersky in the first place?

Wild guess? They were probably deemed the most secure, even WITH the risk of Russian meddling. And odds are good, they were the most secure of the major players. But "most secure" and "totally secure" are different things. And obviously US Defense is a big target, worth pushing a lot of effort into.

PS - It really does sound like US Defense (and others) have decent enough firewalls for most things which is precisely why AV software is a vector was chosen precisely because lots of AV software require regular updates from their vendor and it's mostly just auto-sanctioned stuff. Hence you attack the other side of the "tunnel".

PPS - I wonder how much the NSA knew about any of this. I mean, this is literally their specific area and what their "crack" team is for. You'd think they'd also have cracked Kaspersky as well given how juicy of a target it was. Or, they're incompetent.

Re: I don't know who's spying who

[iserlohn]

Out of the 100s of destination that he could have reached from Hong Kong, he chose to fly to Russia. He had state help to reach Russia, and if his final destination was really that South American country, he made a calculated decision that it was OK to be stuck in Russia and to apply for 'asylum'. The 40 days in the airport was just for show.

Re: I don't know who's spying who

[F.Ultra]

So now WikiLeaks is "state help"? The reason that he went by Russia was that this was the only route from Hong Kong to Ecuador that avoided countries witch would extradite him to the US _AND_ US controlled airlines. And since even Cuba(!) caved in to the US and stated that they would not allow any plane from Russia to land in Cuba if Snowden was aboard I can hardly blame him from avoiding US controlled airlines etc.

Re:I don't know who's spying who

[dreamchaser]

Snowden would have been a patriot had he limited his disclosure to the illegal spying on US citizens. He crossed a line and should pay for it. Don't even get me started on Bush.

Re:I don't know who's spying who

[RockDoctor]

It tells me that the Israelis had some other route into US secret areas and weren't concerned about losing the loophole they were looking for in Kaspersky. So they could harm the country most of their immigrants (around 1 in 8 of the population) come from while helping the country that most of their arms come from (if you believe both sides' propaganda). I bet that decision had to go up to quite senior levels.

Re:I don't know who's spying who

[Sun]

You're begging the question.

Re:I don't know who's spying who

[Anonymous Coward]

since when is 1/8 most?

Good Grief

[Anonymous Coward]

Bullshit

Hard to say

[SlashDread]

If Kaspersky did not know. Its not like Russia has a free press to investigate those things. Oh crap.

Any AV vendor

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

Part of the reason I've always felt nervous installing AV or anything else that wanted to run at or near kernel is exactly this: at least one third party is "in" my system...and if that third party goes sideways then the rest of my defenses aren't worth much. (e.g. is your IDS really going to flag a 10% traffic increase to your AV vendor from your AV software?)

Re:Any AV vendor

[Opportunist]

Once you realize you install it on Windows 10, you start to relax again. It's like having a ticking bomb in a plane that lost its tail and is plummeting towards the ground with a few 100 mph. Does it matter that there's a ticking bomb next to you?

Re:Any AV vendor

[houghi]

The chances of there being two ticketing bombs on a plane are astronomical small, so I always take one with me, so we are all more secure.

Re:Any AV vendor

[anegg]

Given the seemingly substantial increase in the risk that computer users cannot trust software that they have acquired regardless of source, what needs to change about the architecture and/or operation of computer systems (hardware and/or software) to reduce this risk? The risk has always been present, but the threat appears to have increased significantly (by which I mean that there is a greater probability that someone is trying to attack through this attack vector), which increases the risk accordingly.

For example, part of the fuel for the threat is the "always on" Internet communications that make the software that we use much more exploitable. In the "old days" (pre-Internet) there wasn't much value to be gained by a vendor (or a spy agency) embedding malicious code in an application; there was no practical way to get information back out or send control signals in. Now there is a significant value to be gained by getting malicious code into "trusted" software because of the persistent two-way communications made available by always-on Internet. Perhaps we need a sea change in the behavior we are willing to accept from software on our systems - no external communications of any kind unless the communications are plainly visible (to the user) and completely under the control of the user.

What other risk mitigation approaches might there be?

Re: Any AV vendor

[Bing Tsher E]

When the bomb issues you a ticket, does it explode, too?

Re:Any AV vendor

[Opportunist]

I know, I know, but try to argue that with the TSA idiots. No clue about statistics but think they're king of the airport.

Re:Any AV vendor

[Boutzev]

May I suggest switching to MS-DOS or any other not-connected OS ?

You still may get viruses, but you can fend those safely with an AV without worrying about the backdoors being used for data exfiltration.

Re: Any AV vendor

[Monster_user]

No Windows Updates, no Antivirus, means no web browsing.

For such systems I make sure there is no unmonitored and unrestricted access to the internet, IF I allow internet access at all.

Otherwise I would have to implement an option to revert the system to a state prior to exposure to the internet. Such as a wipe and reload from a pre-built image.

Re:Any AV vendor

[siamesevodka]

People are forgetting how many people are acquiring knowledge of you on your everyday surf of the internet. They are tracking your every move developing profiles about you and storing them in databases they sell to others so then more people may know about your habits, gender, politics, how many times you have been divorced, the number of children you have, your bank accounts, and even who you vote for. Nobody ever says a word about this. This is all fairly gained by the act of "commerce". Yet if you as an individual were to do this to another individual yourself, you would be found to be a hacker. You could be fined or sent to prison. How did we ever get down this rabbit hole where one set of people could spy on you all they wanted to but an individual would not have the same rights? And people are worried about Kapersky? Where is the laws in this country stating that you cannot track people this way or that a citizen has a right to expect some sort of equal playing field to respect and privacy.

Re: Any AV vendor

[Anonymous Coward]

What's wrong with a wipe every shut down?

I use Avast! That's pretty much like having no AV.

Re: Any AV vendor

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean, with a cloth?

Re: Any AV vendor

[Brockmire]

Ticketing bombshells, maybe. I remember when all flight attendants were gay or super hot.

Re:Any AV vendor

[freax]

The plane crash probably kills me, the bomb exploding definitely kills me. Yes it matters: there is a small difference between probably and definitely.

However, with Win10 it's the other way around: there is a bomb exploding while your plane lost its tail and is plummeting down. Given that the explosion of the bomb already killed you, do you still care that the remainder of the plane is crashing?

Re: Any AV vendor

[Anonymous Coward]

They donâ(TM)t get to count how many children I have. I keep the kids locked in a basement with no net access. They may know the kids were born, but I might not have them anymore. Take that, advertisers!!!

Re: Any AV vendor

[Opportunist]

Last time I flew with Delta I felt like I stepped into a time machine. The seats looked like out of a 70s airplane catastrophe movie and the beehive hairdo of the attendants didn't really comfort me either.

When that tech looked at the engine shook his head and went away I wanted to get off.

Inb4 Russian apologists

[Sarcasmooo!]

Here's an old story you might find apolitically interesting. We knew way before the election that Kaspersky was KGB trained and a Putin loyalist. You can read my comment history of you're an actual skeptic rather than a Russian botnik. But I also recommend anyone who doubts Putin's viciousness to hear the story of how he murdered his way into office from this PBS Documentary.

As a sidenote, I'm a slashdot reader from more than a decade ago, and I've been really disappointed to see the amount of denialism present on this issue. I remember this as a place for pragmatic, intelligent, realistic people. And here's the reality: Putin is at war with you, he doesn't give a shit about you or your family or even his own citizens' families, and he actively hopes that you are confused about what he is doing, or denying it entirely.

Re:Inb4 Russian apologists

[Anonymous Coward]

Inb4 8 year inactive account suddenly starts posting this year about nothing but US-Russia relations.

Whoops too late.

Re:Inb4 Russian apologists

[Anonymous Coward]

Brace yourself for the hysterics, e tu quoque, and false equivalences. Get ready for more demands of absolute proof, and probably some ad hom attacks while they're at it.

Re:Inb4 Russian apologists

[houghi]

FoxNews tells me that is not true.

Re:Inb4 Russian apologists

[Anonymous Coward]

no worse than the Clintons and Bushes that did the exact same thing.

Ridiculous false equivalence.

If that is the case, then make the same objective analysis for Microsoft and Cisco.

More e tu quoque fallacy.

Re:Inb4 Russian apologists

[Anonymous Coward]

As a sidenote, I'm a slashdot reader from more than a decade ago, and I've been really disappointed to see the amount of denialism present on this issue. I remember this as a place for pragmatic, intelligent, realistic people.

Clearly a troll. Thanks comrade mods! /sarcasm

Re:Inb4 Russian apologists

[Anonymous Coward]

Not many people in Russia confused or in denial because it is so damn blatant. People are either in quiet despair or kind of rooting for the murder of journalists and political opponents of Putin because they'd rather feel like they are a member of the winning team.

Re:Inb4 Russian apologists

[Anonymous Coward]

There was never a cold war. The US and Russia are actually Allies.

Stupid humans like yourself are easy to fool with things like operation mockingbird.

Re:Inb4 Russian apologists

[Sarcasmooo!]

Yes, in fact, on all social media (almost) the only thing I talk about is the Putin-Trump bromance. But I also like puppies, Mediterranean cuisine, late-night talks, long walks on the beach, and visiting Saint Petersburg to make new friends.

Re:Inb4 Russian apologists

[Anonymous Coward]

He doesn't remember it as anything. His account was registered 8 years ago and made one post. Then an account registered on another website associated with the same email address was compromised, and some US lobbying company like Media Matters bought the log in information as part of a list off the dark web. Hence the 8 year gap between the accounts first post (and only one not about Russia) and all of the ones from the last 6 months.

Re:Inb4 Russian apologists

[Anonymous Coward]

The reality is that Russia was well on the way to get along fine with everyone despite its democratic deficits until they annexed the Crimean Peninsula. The rest of the world was forced to sanction Russia, and they did so very reluctantly. As for the rest of what you say, yes, Russia, China, and the US are essentially global bullies who should shut up. It's the 21st Century, behave modest and reasonable like other nations and get some real democracy or fuck off.

Re:Inb4 Russian apologists

[Anonymous Coward]

He doesn't remember it as anything. His account was registered 8 years ago and made one post.

Jesus Christ you are right. Look at the account! https://slashdot.org/~Sarcasmooo!

One post in 2009 about using an adblocker.

Then nothing until May of this year. 11 political posts nearly all of which talk about Russia.

What data breaches happened in May or had leaked information up for sale in May? Spotify, Instagram, Verizon, Yahoo of course, there are so many.

We should be talking about this.

Re:Inb4 Russian apologists

[Anonymous Coward]

The US is at war with the West. They can make my life harder and poorer, and they seem not to give a crap about anything except enriching a few people at the expense of everyone else in the world. Russians can’t take my freedoms, but the US government is constantly lobbying to have my and billions of other people’s freedoms removed. Russia hasn’t spied on me for a decade, but the US has.

So is Russia really the biggest threat to me? I doubt it’s even the biggest threat to the US.

Re: Inb4 Russian apologists

[Anonymous Coward]

Obviously his parents made him a Slashdot account when he was born and heâ(TM)s just now old enough to use it.

Re:Inb4 Russian apologists

[Sarcasmooo!]

Hey wow, look at these well-upvoted anonymous cowards who don't know that Slashdot comment history doesn't go back that far, but Google does. Here I am all young and shiny, in a thread from 2004.

Re:Inb4 Russian apologists

[Anonymous Coward]

Guys like you think that every person who says anything contrary to your personal position is conspirator of The Evil Other Side.

A simple search query will show you that Sarcasmooo! has been posting throughout the existence of his account.

But hey, don't let facts get in the way of a good narrative!

8/10 troll, made me post.

Re:Inb4 Russian apologists

[Anonymous Coward]

The history goes down to 2005, it seems:

https://slashdot.org/~Sarcasmooo!/comments

Not quite 2004 but good enough.

Is this a joke?

[Opportunist]

Seriously, if something like this came up in a cheesy 80s action show I'd switch channel.

Re: Is this a joke?

[Bing Tsher E]

I would, too, unless the TV was clear across the room and the fine tuning dial was screwed up and/or the rabbit ear antenna was being particularly flaky. Also if the TV was already on the only channel that came in clear without a lot of snow. Then it might not be worth the hassle. Sometimes it's just not worth going all the way to the hardware store for a can of tuner bath.

Ah, 80s nostalgia.

Re: Is this a joke?

[Opportunist]

Your rant reminded me in a strange way of the first 20 seconds of this show's intro.

Occam's Razor

[chill]

Kaspersky's AV solutions scan files, and transmit data back to their servers if found to be malware. If nothing else, they can send back lists of files on machines that are scanned, etc.

The transmission is done thru TLS-encrypted channels.

The Russian Government, like most major governments, do their best to monitor all of the traffic they can. See the recent Wikileaks documents on "Peter-Service" for some details.

If the Russian gov't has obtained, one way or another, copies of Kaspersky's TLS keys, then they really don't need cooperation to see everything that's coming down the pipe. They can also probably MITM the connection and take control of the AV application, without Kaspersky's knowledge.

It is called "plausible deniability" for Kaspersky and fairly trivial in a country where the use of strong encryption requires a license from the gov't.

There are numerous current news articles about our (American) Justice Department is salivating over the possibility of that being possible in the U.S.

Re:Occam's Razor

[Anonymous Coward]

Applying Occam's Razor the other side is even more simple, thus more plausible:

Symantec's AV solutions scan files, and transmit data back to their servers if found to be malware. If nothing else, they can send back lists of files on machines that are scanned, etc.

Who cares how the transmission was done, NSA have direct access to Symantec's servers and can get the data any time they want.

It is called "NSL" and "gag order" for Symantec to deny they are giving any data to the US government.

NSL has no effect on Kaspersky, that's why the US is so keen on making sure no one is using Kaspersky's AV.

Re:Occam's Razor

[Anonymous Coward]

An NSL that is certain to destroy your business if caught is obviously opposable in court.

Re: Occam's Razor

[Anonymous Coward]

Tell that to LavaBit!

Re:Occam's Razor

[nuckfuts]

If the Russian gov't has obtained, one way or another, copies of Kaspersky's TLS keys, then they really don't need cooperation to see everything that's coming down the pipe. They can also probably MITM the connection and take control of the AV application, without Kaspersky's knowledge.

That's a very interesting thought, considering that Kaspersky has offered to make their source code available for scrutiny. In the scenario your describe, the vulnerability would arise outside of the code itself.

Re:Occam's Razor

[Anonymous Coward]

Remember when Google was blocked from everything when the NSA were mass-scanning their shit, along with a bunch of other companies too?
If only it was.

The fact the same thing happened here but it was being spread as "OMG COLLUSION!" shows you exactly what they were planning.
They are just mad ME got cracked open.

Re:Occam's Razor

[chill]

Don't be fooled by offers to make source code available for closed-source products. If they don't deliver the product EVERY TIME with source, that you then compile and use -- instead of the other binary they provide -- it is fairly useless.

Updated code is/was a popular way to get malware into Google's Play Store for Android. The benign app was vetted by Google, allowing it in. Once installed, it phoned home and installed "updates" that change the function to something more malicious.

Properly executed MITMs are very effective. It's why we still use deep water submarines to splice into telecommunication cables. :-)

P.S. - Before anyone responds with Ken Thompson's 1984 talk "Reflections on Trusting Trust", please read Wheeler's paper on countering this threat and Double Diverse Compiling.

Well, then...

[lhowaf]

I trust(ed) Kaspersky more than the Senators bad-mouthing them. They look pretty bad in this light, though. Not because of collusion with the KGB but because their software can't, apparently, protect their own systems. So who can we trust, then? Symantec? McAfee? Windows Defender? Please. It looks like we either have to swallow the fact we're going to be entertaining uninvited guests or we'll have to try to live without our security blankets. It isn't so bad for /. readers but what about those friends and family who are more-and-more at risk? What a stinkhole we've made of the Internet.

Re:Well, then...

[Hal_Porter]

Kaspersky? Sounds kinda Russian to me!

They're probably part of RINNT - the Russia Israel Neo Nazi Trump conspiracy!

Re:Well, then...

[Anonymous Coward]

because their software can't, apparently, protect their own systems

If you think any commercial company can defend itself against state actors, I have a nice bridge to sell you.

Re:Well, then...

[Anonymous Coward]

So who can we trust, then?

Kaspersky may perhaps be the worst, but all AVs are more like sophisticated viruses which spread via a social-exploit, and place their tentacles over your entire system...

If you can, Run Linux/FreeBSD. If you can't and must run Windows, your choice is between open-source AVs and Microsoft's Windows Defender - the open source ones won't cheat you, and Microsoft's offering probably doesn't spy on you more than their OS already can (also, MS has an interest in not bricking Windows systems). Either way use a firewall and be sure to update your browser regularly.

Re:Well, then...

[Anonymous Coward]

What we need is a return to the dial-up method of operation. When you use something that YOU KNOW has to connect to the internet, you authorize a connection at that time. When you're finished/close the program, the PHYSICAL connection is broken. Your computer simply disconnects from the internet, or even your local network (I get attacks from the LAN all the time, just not as many as the gateway/router does). You actually don't need to be connected all the time, despite what MS and others say and design software to require. Windows XP and earlier worked just fine without constant network traffic; why is it necessary now? Oh yes, Konstant Vigilance on the part of data collectors and advertisers ... ShutUp10!

Re:Well, then...

[Gravis Zero]

So who can we trust, then? Symantec? McAfee? Windows Defender? Please. It looks like we either have to swallow the fact we're going to be entertaining uninvited guests or we'll have to try to live without our security blankets.

You can't trust Microsoft to start with, so stop using their products. Linux or one of the BSDs are far more trustworthy.

Windows is your "security blanket", not the AV product.

Re:Well, then...

[helga the viking]

This is the kicker... They install Norton and get pwned by ordinary malware now! There is a reason Kaspersky is the best AV scanner its made by ex-criminals who know the trade ;-)

Re:Well, then...

[Hentes]

Yep, if true this sounds really bad. I've got to say though that the agencies should've at least tried to notify Kaspersky of the breach without giving away too much just to see how they react. That would've made things clearer. But in the end it doesn't matter whether through malice or incompetence, if this is true this means Kaspersky isn't just sending your data to the Russians but also the Israelis, making it even worse. I wonder who else managed to hack them. Personally I use Clam on a liveCD to scan my windows box from time to time, but it has its limits. But the real defence is that I'm migrating more and more to Linux, which I originally only used for coding. In the last couple years though MS have neglected Win7 causing a bunch of security issues and Win10 is itself a virus, so I'm moving anything not gaming related over.

Re:Well, then...

[Anonymous Coward]

When you're finished/close the program, the PHYSICAL connection is broken.

Knock yourself out. Who's going to stop you from unplugging your ethernet cable or coax each time you finish "authorizing" a connection?

Re:Well, then...

[Anonymous Coward]

Linux or one of the BSDs is your "security blanket"

ftfy

Wait a minute....!

[Anonymous Coward]

Is there anyone in this break-in who's NOT a spy?

Re: Wait a minute....!

[F.Ultra]

Are you seriously asking if any of the spies are not a spy?

No silver lining for Kaspersky

[lbmouse]

No matter how you spin this there is no way for Kapersky to come out of this whole mess OK.

Re:No silver lining for Kaspersky

[Anonymous Coward]

Leak the details showing all the other AV companies equally compromised.

Ignorance is bliss

[theendlessnow]

The best way to be protected is to ignore the problems... so says the Symantec CEO https://yro.slashdot.org/story...

So it is safer than the others

[houghi]

If it is breached, that means that they are not working together with them. It means it NEEDS to be breached to be available to them.

Why are they not caught breaching the others? My guess is because they found the loophole the NSA put in there. and everybody is using that already.

It also shows that the Israelis where looking to breach it (most likely while working with/for the NSA) and that means they where not yet able to breach it either.

Of all of them, the safest bet is still them. Worst case is that only the Russians read your things. Best case is that a new version makes it that nobody has hacked them.

âRussian Agentsâ(TM)

[bonedonut]

Are you sure it wasnâ(TM)t Israeli agents? Easy to watch them if youâ(TM)re standing in the same room.

What an odd, backwards comment

[Zontar_Thing_From_Ve]

It isn't so bad for /. readers but what about those friends and family who are more-and-more at risk?

This comment is just bizarre and completely backwards. The only people who care about this stuff are people on places like Slashdot. Friends and family who don't work in IT are not losing any sleep over this at all. I can give you my complete guarantee on that. The people who actually do care are few in number.

Re:What an odd, backwards comment

[lhowaf]

The lack of concern by people I care about doesn't mean they are risk-free. The fact they don't care just compounds the problem. What can we recommend? Proxies or VMs? Industrial-strength firewalls? It just isn't going to happen. The best we can do is decide (for them) which is better - the state-sponsored spying or the thieving horde. Some choice. Probably no choice at all.

Re:What an odd, backwards comment

[Boutzev]

Yes, all those friends they are really worried about the Russians getting into their Facebook profiles, exfiltrating their comments and rigging their likes. They are obsessively sorting through their friends lists, trying to figure out who is using Kaspersky.

Hypocritical Governments

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems rather disingenuous that the U.S. would complain about a proprietary piece of Russian software with a backdoor installed in a proprietary OS which also has backdoors that the U.S. intentionally installed.

In fact, one article down from this headline reads: "Justice Department To Be More Aggressive In Seeking Encrypted Data From Tech Companies". I seem to remember an Israeli firm cracking the encryption on the San Bernadino shooter's iPhone.

So the lesson to be learned is, you can't trust governments not to spy and you can't trust proprietary software. The only option left is free/libre open source software that is able to be audited and patched by anyone.

Re:Hypocritical Governments

[Anonymous Coward]

You probably missed the news regarding the dumped tools from Vault7, where a dozen utilities and spying tools for all types of open source OS and softwares were released and shown to the public, from FreeBSD to OpenBSD and all Linux distro. Yes, even Solaris. If you think softwares with open source codes are secure, then think again.

Re: Hypocritical Governments

[F.Ultra]

And you just missed the fact that all of the Vault7 tools for Linux and BSD required exploits to work and that they where not exploits themselves?

Re: Hypocritical Governments

[Brockmire]

Meaning they're so easy to come by they didn't need to repackage the exploit as well?

Re: Hypocritical Governments

[F.Ultra]

So easy to come by that CIA didn't have any while there where dozens for Windows, macOS, IOS, Android, IoT devices and SmartTVs? Now you are just painting yourself into a smaller and smaller corner.

Re: Bunch of BS

[Anonymous Coward]

Quite right, I for one will continue to trust Kaspersky. I've just installed FSB (think it stands for File Safe Backup) on my
laptop for extra security.

Oh noes!!

[benjfowler]

What will you guys do, now that this shoots holes in your "AMERIKKKA IS EBIL" schtick?

because russians were under israeli orders

[Anonymous Coward]

seriously, the more someone have an imaginary friend, the more troll the person becomes. and like the sun having too much mass becomes a black hole, if you get too much idiotic being a troll, you become a religious bastard, and people like that using security tools is dangerous. in Brazil, they use that as lobby to gather information and sell to marketing companies, support prostitution and keep your country in the third world manipulating elections.

Safer if you are an idiot or a traitor

[Anonymous Coward]

What kind of traitor thinks its safe to join a Russian botnet under the false premise of antivirus protection?

Re:Safer if you are an idiot or a traitor

[Anonymous Coward]

Using russian products now makes you a traitor? How about Chinese and israeli products? Those A-OK in your book? Clearly they have the US's best interests at heart.

Who thought the Russians were sneaky Petes! No one

[Anonymous Coward]

This might be a wake up call to Mr Orangeturf to the real intentions of the Russians.
We are probably into their nests too. so.... no one is really "better" but just sneakier.

Lets just ditch windows and reduce our attack surface.

A dumb one?

[Anonymous Coward]

A botnet has no interest or ability to protect any single member. Since most infections don't use an host 24/7, sharing an host is doable and much cheaper than trying to be a part-time AV.

Because criminal hackers are trustworthy sources

[gweihir]

That they are in government employee makes little difference, these people are criminal hackers. And not only do they lie routinely, they are trained to do so. And they are subject to politics, because they must follow orders. Hence the only thing we know is that this story rings true (because the Israelis are very good at lying), but that is it. This may well just be a favor to the US and helping in getting rid of an AV company that refuses to bow to the NSA. This story does not add any credibility to the theory that Kaspersky is under Russian control. If anything, it makes it more plausible that they are not.

With friends like this, who needs enemies

[Comboman]

Hi Neighbor. As I was breaking into your house to "borrow" a few beers, I noticed someone had already broken in. You might wanna get that lock fixed. You're welcome.

Re:With friends like this, who needs enemies

[VocationalZero]

I can't say I'm a fan of arguments using heavy-handed, over-simplified analogies, this one included. Seems more like a false equivalence.

Your timeline is wrong, and you are basically stating that the Israelis were only there to steal information from the US. Do you actually know this, or is this just pessimistic conjecture?

Even if they were only there initially to steal data (big if), we live in a world where everyone spies on everyone. It is what spy agencies do, it is their entire purpose. It makes no sense to expect not to be spied on, but it does make sense that allied agencies would inform you if non-allied agencies are successfully intruding into your systems.

Re:With friends like this, who needs enemies

[smallfries]

Hi neighbour. You should really get your money out of First National. We didn’t rate their security at all when we cleaned them out.

Re:With friends like this, who needs enemies

[VocationalZero]

A more apt analogy would be:

Hi neighbor. You should really stop using Equifax. We were able to break in easily, and noticed other people were as well. By the way, your Equifax data has (obviously) been compromised. Might want to look into that.

Re:With friends like this, who needs enemies

[smallfries]

Well yeah, if you prefer data as an analogy for data. Sheesh, just make it really obvious....

Surely we can trust our (((greatest ally)))

[Anonymous Coward]

No way they would benefit from more tensions and defense spending in the region.

So much Latin, so I'll have a go as well

[nospam007]

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

In related news ...

[PPH]

... an Israeli company announces it's new anti-virus product.

Re:In related news ...

[Anonymous Coward]

But we can trust (((them)))

Re:In related news ...

[Anonymous Coward]

And the Israelis are more trustworthy than Kaspersky?

It is just stupid to buy certain

[Anonymous Coward]

Things from people who still consider you an enemy like Russia and China.

How could you forget the racism?

[Anonymous Coward]

You forgot the unsubstantiated claims that everyone who disagrees with you is a Russian.

Israeli spies

[Anonymous Coward]

"By way of deception shalt thou make war."

That is Mousad's creedo.

Taking the word of a spy that doesn't even work for you is the dumbest fucking thing you can do. Followed shortly after by taking the word of a spy who DOES work for you.

Remember AMT?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why all the angst about Kaspersky? Every Intel based computer has the AMT hole. What does it matter what software you are running? Those with the knowledge can crack your system any time they want and you will never know.

Re:Remember AMT?

[jbengt]

Why all the angst about Kaspersky? Every Intel based computer has the AMT hole.

My laptop is AMD based, you insensitive clod.

Re: Who knew...

[Anonymous Coward]

This creimer fixation is terrible. So many butthurt ACs. Sad.

Re:Because criminal hackers are trustworthy source

[Anonymous Coward]

The week is not over yet, but I am fairly sure you are going to win the pretzel logic of the week award.

Congratulations, the competition is strong!

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

I've reported this creimer sockpuppet

[Anonymous Coward]

I've reported this creimer sockpuppet

Kaspersky and every other antivirus...

[Anonymous Coward]

and security scanner can, and probably was at some point subverted to transmit data, so what is the big news?

Size != Power ... on the Net

[rbrander]

Man, if you`re a nation of 350 million people who invented the Internet and have a larger security budget than the rest of the world put together, it must totally burn you to be hacked by a half-starved, half-drunk nation of 150 million.

But not as much as being told about it by a nation of 8 million.

Guys, we don`t agree with all your foreign adventurism and neo-colonialism, but if you`re going to run around the planet just making enemies hand-over-mailed-fist, you really need to up your cybersecurity game. You have WAY too many of your human IT resources trying to figure out how to out-snapchat SnapChat.

And hire Snowden back. That guy could run a computer.

Why don't they like Kaspersy

[Anonymous Coward]

Seems like a campaign to get rid of Kaspersky. Any idea's why?

Another BS Story from a BS source - the BBC

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't let yourself be manipulated by these BS stories about Kaspersky software. The BBC works for the City of London and the companion story posted by @msmash are intended to place an economic hit on Russia and the collateral damage is your online security. It's an F'd up world, and the spooks are everywhere. Don't play into their hands. Ignore this noise, it will make them crazy.

Re: Who knew...

[Anonymous Coward]

Where are your certs, Chris? How's the video business in your "home office" coming along?

At least you can sexually harass your employee as much as you want...

Re:Who knew...

[Anonymous Coward]

There you are spamming amazon affiliate links with yet another fake account, you revenue stream hogging disgusting fat sexist tube of lard, Christopher Dale Reimer!

You can be sure I will be watching this fake account too. I know this is you because you told me you were working on your freepass 11 file server and you are so dumb that you can't even masquerade yourself properly.

Now, I told you I was out of meds last week and you didn't even care to contact me you lazy fucker.

How many times do I have to express the emergency of the situation??????

The python click script you wrote for my pheromone revenue stream web site suddenly stopped to work!!!!!!

You fucking incompetent python script writer!!!

When it works, I get 4000+ clicks a day on my pheromone revenue stream web site but only 5 or 6 without it!!!!

Now, it seems like you dont care and that you have abandoned me you heartless fucking pig!

Bonus:
Here is a story that creimer told me when convincing me what a hard life he had:

The tree was him and the tree knot was his butt hole!

So, his uncle packed his fat ass with lard and with his cock! Not that it makes much of a difference but anyway, there it is!

Signed:
The girl that used to love you and now hates you, burn in hell where you belong you sexist pig!

Hello token troll

[Rujiel]

Thank you for reiterating that snowden "fled to russia" even though everyone here knows that's a lie. It's good to know that this place is still considered worth trolling by the lying powers that be.