Slashdot Mirror
Ask Slashdot: Should Users Uninstall Kaspersky's Antivirus Software? (slashdot.org)
First, here's the opinion of two former NSA cybersecurity analysts (via Consumer Reports):
"It's a big deal," says Blake Darche, a former NSA cybersecurity analyst and the founder of the cybersecurity firm Area 1. "For any consumers or small businesses that are concerned about privacy or have sensitive information, I wouldn't recommend running Kaspersky." By its very nature antivirus software is an appealing tool for hackers who want to access remote computers, security experts say. Such software is designed to scan a computer comprehensively as it searches for malware, then send regular reports back to a company server. "One of the things people don't realize, by installing that tool you give [the software manufacturer] the right to pull any information that might be interesting," says Chris O'Rourke, another former NSA cybersecurity expert who is the CEO of cybersecurity firm Soteria.
But for that reason, Bloomberg View columnist Leonid Bershidsky suggests any anti-virus software will be targetted by nation-state actors, and argues that for most users, "non-state criminal threats are worse. That's why Interpol this week signed a new information-sharing agreement with Kaspersky despite all the revelations in the U.S. media: The international police cooperation organization deals mainly with non-state actors, including profit-seeking hackers, rather than with the warring intelligence services."
And long-time Slashdot reader freddieb is a loyal Kaspersky user who is wondering what to do, calling the software "very effective and non-intrusive." And in addition, "Numerous recent hacks have gotten my data (Equifax, and others) so I expect I have nothing else to fear except ransomware."
Share your own informed opinions in the comments. Should users uninstall Kaspersky's antivirus software?
But for that reason, Bloomberg View columnist Leonid Bershidsky suggests any anti-virus software will be targetted by nation-state actors, and argues that for most users, "non-state criminal threats are worse. That's why Interpol this week signed a new information-sharing agreement with Kaspersky despite all the revelations in the U.S. media: The international police cooperation organization deals mainly with non-state actors, including profit-seeking hackers, rather than with the warring intelligence services."
And long-time Slashdot reader freddieb is a loyal Kaspersky user who is wondering what to do, calling the software "very effective and non-intrusive." And in addition, "Numerous recent hacks have gotten my data (Equifax, and others) so I expect I have nothing else to fear except ransomware."
Share your own informed opinions in the comments. Should users uninstall Kaspersky's antivirus software?
Of course Kaspersky should be removed from your system.
Or if you want to keep it, then don't complain when your files get reviewed by an invasive dictatorship. Of course, in 90% of cases they might not give a two shits about you, but if they do, then Kaspersky is one of their possible tools.
Also, there is absolutely no doubt that Kaspersky and similar Russian-made products should be removed from government networks or any computers handling sensitive information.
Your bullshit denial of reality in the face of mounting evidence only convinces fools and traitors.
Of course russian intelligence services are using Kaspersky for their own purpose.
Of course if I were in Russia I would have my doubts about running US software for the same reason. As a rule of thumb, don't trust code produced by your main adversary.
this is indeed pure propaganda by nsa.
kaspersky software detected(as it should) nsa's new malware in a negligent incompetent private contractor's private computer, alerted hq, russian gov may have heard about it, kaspersky is punished for doing its job. btw american made software did not detect such malware.
if, after knowing the facts(as opposed to nsa propaganda), you find kaspersky is a threat, uninstall it.
... you shouldn't use any operating system or computer work environment that needs to rely on anti-virus software to relyably function.
Glad I could help.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
Think about it for a minute.
Would truly malicious software actually allow itself to be uninstalled? If the Kaspersky people are competent at what they do, and if they are doing it for Putin, then you are in a world of hurt. The question of "Should you uninstall?" is relatively trivial compared to the big questions of "Are you able to uninstall the software?" and "How can you be sure you really got rid of it?"
The makers of the best anti-virus software (which might be Kaspersky for all I know) would know about every backdoor into your system and every way to hide bad code. If that company was evil or suborned for evil purposes, that same knowledge would make it impossible to remove their software unless they REALLY wanted to let you remove it.
All things considered, especially things like how good Putin is at manipulating people, at this point I'd have very little trust in any computer that ever ran any software that originated in Russia. Or even software that was exposed to Russians who have family members still living in Russia.
Technology remains morally neutral. Putin and his kleptocrats? Not so much.
Before commenting, I searched this discussion for prior statements of this obvious reality. Didn't find any, but maybe I just hadn't thought of the right keywords yet. So I'll try another search now...
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
If some reputable source would say it, I would certainly start rethinking my privacy strategy. But considering who's "recommending" this, I have to second guess whether the reason is that it keeps them from spying on me...
If I had told you 40 years ago that you can't trust one of your TLAs when they warn about Russians...
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
That assumes you can. If your apps are hosted remotely (aka "The Cloud") do YOU know what they are using? What about their subcontractors and sub-subcontractors? What about your bank? Let's keep going and ask about your health care provider. And so on. Do you know?
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
This is all just propaganda.
Thank you for your insightful response and continued support comrade.
I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
From what I understand ANY anti-virus or anti-malware tool is susceptible to being targeted by powerful nation-state actors for use is accessing user's computers... not just those from the US or Russia. That means that F-Secure, or any other such tool from any other country could still be hacked by the China, Iran, North Korea, Russia, the US or any other nation-state with an active cyber intelligence programme and used to violate the user's privacy and confidentiality.
I do not know what the real answer is... but I believe that the recent cyber intrusions are going to strengthen the advocacy for sandboxed application models and strict or explicit permissioned based access to computer hardware, software, network and data resources that have become prevalent on modern mobile platforms. Powerful nation-state actors will still try to hack and find vulnerabilities in the underlying operating system host or hypervisor layer, but at least it would give security practitioners a single concerted layer to focus their intrusion detection efforts on.
Protecting the cloud and the various systems, protocols, etc that make up the disparate components of cloud based systems is a whole other kettle of fish, which i think is beyond the scope of the question posed by the original poster.
The only real answer is fully MAC (Mandatory Access Control) model that is very fined grained. The result of that unfortunately is a computer system nobody really wants to use.
The more immediate reality with A/V software is that its probably something that requires the highest level of trust. This is software that literally hooks into the I/O layers on your system and is allowed to bypass essentially every other kind of access control check. At the same time its hard to put a lot of instrumentation around it because so much of what it does isn't thru the usual OS channels. So you can't know if its misbehaving or doing things it ought not to easily. External network hardware should be able to tell you if its phoning home but that might even be complicated. We are talking about software that after all could stash whatever it wants to send some unused place on the disk and wait three weeks until your not at home but connected to the wifi in some airport and phone home at that time.
Frankly after this and a few past issues, I am not sure any third party A/V solution is advisable. In the Windows world Microsoft should probably just stop even allowing third party kernel modules they have not fully audited. Which would basically kill the A/V industry.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
They're less "snake oil" than "yesterday's solution."
At this point, for Windows users, I'd simply recommend using the built-in AV and some common-sense precautions...
I'm not sure what is the larger risk here; assuming that removing software is going to properly cover your ass in the event of an outbreak, or actually believing that the user community is fluent in "common-sense precautions".
Remember there are times when software is solely used to prevent you from getting fired, particularly when the CxO doesn't see A/V as mere "snake oil".
For the most part today we don't really deal with individual software but for good or bad we deal with mostly a service Infrastructure.
So if you have an Apple Infrastructure, you may have an iPhone, a Mac and use airdrop to share files and use the iCloud.
If you use the Google Infrastructure, you will have an Android Phone, a PC, using Google Drive
If you are using a Microsoft infrastructure, You are more or less out of the phone, but you have Windows 10, Office 365 and OneDrive
While you can mix these services around, but you are normally better off sticking to the brand you like as it offers better support and extra cool features.
3rd party tools on your infrastructure in general will detract from your experience and your ability to get things, done... (You may not be able to get away from this, due to cost concerns, or just needing a tool that isn't available) However these tools installed are nearly always at risk of being not supported, or breaking something else.
I am not saying this is good thing, being locked to a vendor for bulk of your use cases is overall bad, however this is the world that we currently live in. And you are better off using the Windows AV for windows because in general it is better built and it isn't trying to hack the system to do what it needs to do.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Sorry to break it to you but a big chunk of the rust belt didn't NEED any sort of "nudge" to hate Hillary
Try actually reading this phrase this time:
the utterly incompetent Clinton campaign
If you'd take a moment to stroll out of your echo chamber, you'd realize that the vast majority did not like either candidate.
Again, the margin in MI was 11,000 votes. That's easily flipped if Clinton had run a competent campaign. Or had Clinton not been so stupid about emails. Or if Russia wasn't running a large social media campaign. Or if the Obama administration had a better response to Flint. Or if the Obama administration had put bankers in jail in 2009. Or if the economy was 1% better. Or if the Obama, W, Clinton or Bush administrations had any idea what to do with the Rust Belt in their free trade idolatry.
Margins that small mean if you take away one small effect, the margin goes away. That is true no matter which candidate you supported.