Slashdot Mirror


Kaspersky To Close Washington Office But Expand Non-State Sales (bloomberg.com)

An anonymous reader shares a report: A Russian software-maker, whose products are banned for use in federal information systems by the U.S. government, is seeking to remain in the North American market and prove its products have no hidden capabilities. Kaspersky Lab Inc. will close its Washington D.C. office that was selling to the government and will keep working with non-federal customers in the U.S. via its remaining offices in the country, vice-president Anton Shingarev said in an interview in Moscow. The company also committed in October to open its product's source code to an independent third-party review and plans to open new offices in Chicago, Los Angeles and Toronto next year. "This allows independent experts to verify that our software has no hidden functionality, that it doesn't send your files to third parties, doesn't spy on you and fully complies with the end-user agreement," Shingarev said. The U.S. banned government use of Kaspersky software in September, citing founder Eugene Kaspersky's alleged ties to Russian intelligence and the possibility its products could function as "malicious actors" to compromise federal information systems. The move caused concern about the company's products in other markets, including the U.K.

65 comments

  1. First Subjeckt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    First Prostsky

  2. Why not? by Arzaboa · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I have yet to see a compelling argument as to why I wouldn't use their product as a regular citizen. They do nothing different than any other anti-virus product when it comes to handling files. The only thing different than most is that their home country is Russia. Its not like the U.S. government doesn't have the exact same powers to subpoena a U.S. companies data, that the Russian government doesn't have to do to their own companies.

    --
    "I didn't do it" - B. Simpson

    1. Re:Why not? by phayes · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Really? One supposes that you would also question whether Weinstein should be trusted with young actresses. After all, "there have yet to have been compelling" proven arguments that he isn't a predator, just like Putin's Russia is.

      You really want to trust someone who has explicitly declared himself an enemy of an open press and the west with auto-update privileges on your PC that he could use to perform attacks on the west? Ooops, sorry about that DDOS on critical infrastructure, it was just an innocent error not at all related to Russia deciding to liberate the poor, suffering ethnically Russian 30% of the Estonian population from their oppressors? Oh and by the way I, Vladimir the Great have decided to annex those parts of Estonia that please me (and rejoin the Kaliningrad enclave with Mother Russia!)...

      Not me. I don't trust men like Putin who kill off those that disagree with him.

      --
      Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
    2. Re:Why not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      I have yet to see a compelling argument as to why I wouldn't use their product as a regular citizen. They do nothing different than any other anti-virus product when it comes to handling files. The only thing different than most is that their home country is Russia. Its not like the U.S. government doesn't have the exact same powers to subpoena a U.S. companies data, that the Russian government doesn't have to do to their own companies.

      --
      "I didn't do it" - B. Simpson

      Compelling argument? Perhaps because if Kaspersky's and it's FSB masters can use virus signature technology to look for and collect US government documents and thus effectively turn Kaspersky virus software into a search engine for the FSB they can use that search engine to collect company trade secrets as well as US government documents?

    3. Re:Why not? by Arzaboa · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I had never seen or heard that Putin ran Kapersky Labs. Turn this around and why would the Chinese use a U.S. companies anti-virus? After all, the U.S. wants a free Tibet.

      And again, when it comes to my personal info, wouldn't it be better to have a foreign government see my dirty laundry than the one that could prosecute me? (For the lawyers.... this is all supposition)

      Thank you for your interesting point of view though, which is why I asked the question. Why not?

      --
      "I didn't do it" - B. Simpson

    4. Re: Why not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >muh terror.. ruskies!

    5. Re:Why not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

      Do you have evidence Putin killed anyone?

      The way I see it he doesn't really have motive. All his opposition is completely impotent, they've been "exposing him" for years to zero effect.

      It is no secret that his opposition is being funded by various western "democracy spreading" agencies. They keep pouring in money for years, to no effect whatsoever. It is those agencies that have much stronger motive to kill off Putin opposition - because the only way to make something out of their investment so that it is not a complete waste is to eliminate those failures, if just to spin a "they were Putin's opposition, Putin killed them" media BS.

      Now, unlike you I don't claim anything for certain. Because the truth is I don't know. I am just reasoning. It could be Putin, it could be his comrades unbeknownst to Putin, it could be average dimwitted patriots or it could be the CIA and co.

      What I know is out of that list, it is the latter that have the most motive and most benefit. Putin's political position is rock solid, and the west is furious about it, they pour money into anyone who claims to be able to weaken it, and they are furious when such investments end up achieving nothing. And Putin is on the opposite side of the spectrum, "his victims" were no actual threat to him, he had no interest in killing them, which would only incriminate him". Furthermore, as a former intelligence operative, I am sure Putin could have come up with far more inconspicuous ways to deal with inconvenient individuals rather than simply assassinating them.

    6. Re:Why not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Compelling argument? Perhaps because if Kaspersky's and it's FSB masters can use virus signature technology to look for and collect US government documents and thus effectively turn Kaspersky virus software into a search engine for the FSB they can use that search engine to collect company trade secrets as well as US government documents?

      Are you suggesting you keep US government documents and company trade secrets on your personal computer? I believe there's a word for people like you.

    7. Re:Why not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really? One supposes that you would also question whether Weinstein should be trusted with young actresses.

      Really? One supposes that you would also question whether apples are any different than oranges.

      I don't trust men like you who disagree by throwing up meaningless comparisons.

    8. Re:Why not? by Freischutz · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Do you have any evidence that anything even remotely close this has ever happened? Or is this just paranoia talking?

      Since we seem to be incapable of differentiating between a company and a government these days, I'm curious why the same level of fear does not govern the rest of your purchases? I mean: That fancy phone you have? The Chinese are after you! Your Nintendo? The Japanese are watching. Your BMW/Mercedes? The Germans are coming! The Germans are coming! That cheese you bought? It could have been poisoned by french spies!

      Can't trust anyone! Food must be grown everyone, and aluminium hats must be smelted personally or they too cannot be trusted.

      There has been a claim to this effect by Israeli intelligence, i.e. that Kaspersky is a front for the FSB and they use it as a search engine to look for documents containing certain code words. They even claim to have hacked Russian systems and watched their Russian colleagues use Kaspersky's systems to run search jobs in real time:

      https://www.extremetech.com/in...

      I don't know if this is true but it sounds plausible. If you wanted to search millions of documents on millions of computers world wide for certain code words can you imagine a better way to do that than modifying an existing anti-virus program already widely installed on many computers world wide that scans every file on your hard disk searching for viruses with your explicit permission? Modifying a virus program to do this would be about as hard as bolting a trailer hook to the back of your car. Also the Defense Intelligence Agency has been flagging Kaspersky as a potential security threat for a few years now.

    9. Re:Why not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about...

    10. Re:Why not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I think you misunderstood the article a little.
      In the case in question, an NSA employee took NSA created malware home with him and put it on his home computer. He ran Kaspersky anti-virus software at home. The AV software ran, and did what any good AV software should* - i.e. detect possible malware (i.e. the new NSA malware). The standard procedure for an AV is then to upload possible new threats to the AV company for analysis. This is normal behavior.

      Now, if the story you link is true, the communication or the Kaspersky server had been compromised by both the Israelis and the FSB. The FSB then searched the uploaded file against certain keywords (e..g "possible variant of NSAMalwareX"), and found the IP of person uploading a new variant of NSA malware, and hacked him.

      Keep in mind:
      - even with a hacked server, any search the FSB can do can only happen on files that were uploaded to the server.
      - only suspicious files are uploaded to the server
      - there is no evidence virus definition files were tampered with to detect (and hence upload) files with any sort of keywords.

      Certainly Kaspersky should not have let themselves be hacked, but Advanced Persistent Threats are tricky beasts, and ANY company is susceptible.
      The lesson from all this is that if you're an NSA employee developing new strains of classified malware to infest the internet with, you should probably take extra special care not to upload it external companies.

      * PS - the NSA pressures US AV companies to whitelist their malware so their crap is never detected. I argue this is worse behavior than getting hacked.

    11. Re:Why not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Americans have little to fear from Russian Security Services. Americans have much to fear from American Security Services. I'll take my chances with Russian backdoors while in America than American backdoors while in America.

    12. Re:Why not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have been using Kaspersky's "Internet Security" software for a little over a year and have seen no problems with it. It works reasonably well and isn't any better or worse than other products on the market. The concern's are vastly overblown and just part of the weird Russians Russians Everywhere mania that's currently going on.

      At least that's what I'm told by this guy named Yuri who hangs around outside my house.

    13. Re:Why not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Are you suggesting you keep US government documents and company trade secrets on your personal computer? I believe there's a word for people like you.

      The word is idiot.

    14. Re:Why not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Putin's political position is rock solid, and the west is furious about it"
      The exact same could be said about the leader of NK. And Sadaam Hussein was on a rock solid position when he was elected President by an overwhelming 99% of voters. And anyone who has publically opposed Putin is dead, in prison, or running for their lives in foreign countries. There is no opposition domestic news outlets that report anything other than the party line. Putin is an ex-KGB officer reliving the glory days of mother Russia behind the iron curtain. And Russian society has been systematically indoctrinated over the past 100 years to never speak out against the government. If you do you can expect bad things to happen too you. Putin is fighting to ensure Russia is viewed as a world power deserving of respect. Global influence is driven by economic and military power with the economic power being the most important. The state of California has a higher GDP than Russia. And realistically the Russian military is of no great concern to the US.

    15. Re:Why not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Compelling" is a subjective - very subjective - judgement. Why should anyone else care whether or not you, with some, none, or a lot of expertise in the area, and with some, none or a lot of knowledge of the relationship between Eugene Kaspersky, his company, and Russian dictatorship and its many state-sponsored hackers, with your own biases and without any track record of leadership or responsible and correct decisions don't find what is known "compelling"?? Here's some evidence (and I am a Kaspersky custome, and I have not decided yet whether I will or won't subscribe next year):
      1. There has been a clear claim that the information taken from the computer and which was obtained by the Russian government could NOT have been obtained without Kaspersky's knowledge and either passive or active involvement. Kaspersky has NOT explained why this is wrong, they have just made vague general denials.
      2. Some time in January Kaspersky will make some of its software available to someone somewhere. They have made no commitment to providing the source code for the software that was ON the hacked computer. We're talking almost half a year after the fact, and at this point is simply without any practical use. It seems to be nothing more than a delaying tactic. Giving them plenty of time to rewrite their software and remove the back doors before they provide it to 3rd parties. Why would they do that unless they have something to hide? The software they provide next year may or may not have ANY similarity to the software they sold this year. For those who aren't programmers, source code is simply text. They could have provided that (although anything proprietary would be exposed as well as anything sub-rosa) easily within a couple of days of the reports surfacing (which was months ago). If this isn't suspicious to you, then your thinking is certainly not credible or unbiased.

    16. Re:Why not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you misunderstood the article a little. In the case in question, an NSA employee took NSA created malware home with him and put it on his home computer. He ran Kaspersky anti-virus software at home. The AV software ran, and did what any good AV software should* - i.e. detect possible malware (i.e. the new NSA malware). The standard procedure for an AV is then to upload possible new threats to the AV company for analysis. This is normal behavior.

      Now, if the story you link is true, the communication or the Kaspersky server had been compromised by both the Israelis and the FSB. The FSB then searched the uploaded file against certain keywords (e..g "possible variant of NSAMalwareX"), and found the IP of person uploading a new variant of NSA malware, and hacked him.

      Keep in mind: - even with a hacked server, any search the FSB can do can only happen on files that were uploaded to the server. - only suspicious files are uploaded to the server - there is no evidence virus definition files were tampered with to detect (and hence upload) files with any sort of keywords.

      Certainly Kaspersky should not have let themselves be hacked, but Advanced Persistent Threats are tricky beasts, and ANY company is susceptible. The lesson from all this is that if you're an NSA employee developing new strains of classified malware to infest the internet with, you should probably take extra special care not to upload it external companies.

      * PS - the NSA pressures US AV companies to whitelist their malware so their crap is never detected. I argue this is worse behavior than getting hacked.

      Misunderstood the article? Do you mean this part?

      "Russian black hats were able to use Kaspersky antivirus software as a sort-of Google search engine, scanning computers across the country for keywords and phrases"

    17. Re:Why not? by phayes · · Score: 1

      When you live beneath a bridge it does tend to limit whet everyone else (besides the putin-bots) can see clearly.

      Putin controls anything and everything that he desires in Russia, either overtly or covertly. The day Putin decides that it is better to use this covert weapon of his (privileged access to all the files and data of those who use Kaspersky) _your_ bank accounts will mysteriously transferred elsewhere. Yeah, that's soooo much better...

      --
      Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
    18. Re:Why not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Putin's war against Georgia.
      Putin's war against the Ukraine.
      Putin's assistance of the Syrian regime that used chlorine & nerve gases on civilians.

      Putin has assumed dictatorial control over Russia and thus is responsible for all these deaths.

    19. Re:Why not? by phayes · · Score: 1

      But then you don't even have the courage to sign in so nobody cares what you think.

      --
      Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
  3. See? Here's some source code to review. by ScentCone · · Score: 1

    See? Here's some source code to review. And, here's a compiled binary that we promise, really, only contains that code. And all of our recurring updates will only be the same code you reviewed. Promise.

    --
    Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    1. Re:See? Here's some source code to review. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      See? Here's some source code to review. And, here's a compiled binary that we promise, really, only contains that code. And all of our recurring updates will only be the same code you reviewed. Promise.

      Said every company undergoing code review ever.

    2. Re: See? Here's some source code to review. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People with some security smarts know this. The third party source code review is to fool everyone else. Probably it will work. Hillary might even be a customer - need to protect those private email servers from Russian hackers, and what better way to do that than... Russian anti virus!!

  4. like the fox calling the hen a slut by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    what is that smell? cease fire stand down.. there's moms & babys in all of our towns... software is not the problem,, it's psychopathic obsolete megasloths...

  5. Fopreign or Domestic by r_naked · · Score: 1, Informative

    I can understand the government not wanting another government spying on them, but as an individual, if I am going to have a government spying on me, I would rather that it be a foreign one.

    --
    -- http://anonet.org -- The internet the way it was meant to be. Check it out, you may be surprised.
    1. Re:Fopreign or Domestic by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      It is known the United States Government spies on its citizens illegally; the fact that our government is trying to paint Kaspersky as bad is laughable. Ditto for the UK government that is such a lackey and bitch of the U.S. one.

    2. Re:Fopreign or Domestic by Baron_Yam · · Score: 1

      > if I am going to have a government spying on me, I would rather that it be a foreign one.

      Not only that, but one that is currently considered at least somewhat 'hostile'. The UK's foreign, but they share data with the USA faster than Trump leaks it.

    3. Re: Fopreign or Domestic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Edward Snowden.

      I bet you already knew that and were just being a jerk. We don't need any more evidence we just need our Constitution back.

    4. Re:Fopreign or Domestic by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Yes given the past thinking around Magic Lantern (software) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... and the US government wanting once trusted AV not to detect a FBI keystroke logger.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    5. Re:Fopreign or Domestic by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      The Church Committee https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... showed the US domestic spying to the US public.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    6. Re:Fopreign or Domestic by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Re 'I have yet to see a compelling argument as to why I wouldn't use their product as a regular citizen."
      As a regular citizen help detect efforts like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
      Stuxnet
      Flame
      Equation Group https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
      Help find real spying found in the wild and help network security research around the world.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    7. Re:Fopreign or Domestic by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Seriously? A committee of congress that last met in 1974 is your best evidence? Before the Internet ran faster than 300 baud? Before the invention of the smart phone? Before the first release of Linux? Before even DOS or the PC?

      I would content that since then, due to congressional oversight, this issue has been largely dealt with for decades.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    8. Re:Fopreign or Domestic by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Re "best evidence?"

      That was the only time the US public got an understanding of what the NSA and CIA was doing domestically.
      The result was to be congressional oversight.
      The congressional oversight never worked and the CIA and NSA just kept collecting globally.
      They never stopped. The domestic spying never got dealt with as they never had to stop.
      NSA mass phone surveillance revealed by Edward Snowden ruled illegal (8 May 2015)
      https://www.theguardian.com/us...

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  6. Re:Impersonating me? Nice try fool ...APK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    God if I only had a mod point

  7. You're just sore you lost the election. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    You're just sore you lost the election.

    1. Re:You're just sore you lost the election. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only losers did. So far the value of my holdings have nicely increased and we have a tax cut on the horizon.

    2. Re:You're just sore you lost the election. by bobbied · · Score: 0

      The truth is we lost during the primaries.... Both parties put the worst candidate possible on their tickets... One by votes, the other by hook and crook...

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    3. Re:You're just sore you lost the election. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The truth is we lost during the primaries.... Both parties put the worst candidate possible on their tickets... One by votes, the other by hook and crook...

      On the Republican side a look at approval voting or some other way of eliminating "vote splitting" where similar candidates can cause each other to lose because they split the vote would be a good move. And on the Democratic Party side... well maybe actually run free and fair elections and don't let candidates purchase the DNC before the election.

  8. Re:Here's the reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The feds have a lot of credibility at stake. By calling Kaspersky down on this, there has to be a lot of verifiable evidence, or else crying wolf would severely damage the clout of a lot of US interests.

    My take: I don't use any of them. AV is notoriously unreliable, and the only thing that is useful are combined tools like VirusTotal to scan packages. In fact a good ad blocker can stop 99.9% of the crap coming in. For everything else, there are backups and the ability to rebuild a machine quickly.

  9. WE ARE APK WE ARE LEGION by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject!

    APK

    P.S.=> You too can be APK!!!!

    P.S.=> captcha schweetbruno

  10. Same for nearly all "commercial" software. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Everyone here probably already knows this but... Most software today is delivered AUTOMATICALLY in binary form. Most programs automatically download new binaries as soon as the developers make them available and happily installs and runs them, often without notifying you. Most people get all exited they are getting the "latest version" and generally consider this to be a good thing. The gigantic trust problem with automated binary software delivery is... even if you certify the software is A-OK today, they can push a new version to you tomorrow. that is NOT OK. This brings into question not what the software is, but what the developers might make of it some day in the future.

  11. Re: Room 641a by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Enjoy your freedumbs! Maybe take your babby to the mall later for a new handgun?

  12. They got a bad shake for US Gov by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Personally I think Kaspersky got a bad deal and was the scapegoat for something more internal going south in the government. Heck we have HP and others installing spyware on our PCâ(TM)s these days. Pretty sure I got nothing the Russianâ(TM)s want in the form of information. But there is no doubt this whole thing has cast Kaspersky in a bad light.

  13. Exact opposite feels for me by GrBear · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I went out of my way yesterday to buy Kaspersky AV since the US and EU decided to vilify them. Because screw 3 letter agencies.

    1. Re:Exact opposite feels for me by ScentCone · · Score: 0

      I went out of my way yesterday to buy Kaspersky AV since the US and EU decided to vilify them. Because screw 3 letter agencies.

      So if a CIA or NSA tip led the FBI to your neighbor's house where the guy and his four roomates were running a bomb-making factory, and you saw them surrounding the house ... you'd do your best to help out your terrorist neighbor because, you know, screw those three letter agencies?

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    2. Re:Exact opposite feels for me by pezezin · · Score: 1

      The EU too? I didn't heard anything about it, if it's true, as an European citizen I'm very interested about it. Anyway, I have been using Kaspersky for years, and I just installed it on my uncle's computer...

    3. Re:Exact opposite feels for me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How stupid.

    4. Re:Exact opposite feels for me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good luck for you being Vova's brainwashed bitch then.

    5. Re:Exact opposite feels for me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The KGB thanks you. ;p

  14. Because it's a false dilemma by Immerial · · Score: 3, Interesting

    You make it sound like there are only two choices: compromise your machine for the Americans or the Russians. Um, how about neither! Plus it's the "it's okay to have my machine compromised" attitude that seems so shilly (if that's a thing).

  15. what he meant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    What he meant is if the TLA demonize Kaspersky, that is because it throws a wrench in the gears of their evil works.

    And if you attempt to imply that TLAs are there to save the day for Average Joe, you watch way too many BS movies. They are actually likely to let a bombing plot that they know of be executed to capitalize on the tragedy and expand their illegal spying program.

  16. Personally, by Junior+Samples · · Score: 2

    I'm more concerned over the US government sanctioned Intel ME Backdoors contained in many of Intel's X86 processors.

  17. nope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "The exact same could be said about the leader of NK"

    No it could not. There are no parallels between NK and Russia. There is no media blackout in Russia, there are scores of west funded political parties and media outlets. Russian people aren't dummies, not any more than any other people. Putin's opposition is strong in numbers, and the fact that they make zero progress has to do with people not being dumb enough to fall for their BS. They know that those work for the enemy that wants to ruin Russia and pillage its resources. Only idiots believe that the US will somehow magically bring prosperity, it is perfectly clear that they need to expand their influence in order to mooch on the rest of the world and maintain their own illusion of prosperity. And even then, the US is rapidly fallout down in terms of standards of life, it is already out of top ten, and cannot compare to much smaller countries that are weaker in every aspect - financially, politically, militarily, economically.

    Putin is a great politician unlike western stringed puppets, which are just mouthpieces. Putin is actually more lenient than he outta be. And Russians support him not because they were trained to, but because they know what it is like to have trash politicians like Yeltsin or Gorbachev, and they have a point of reference to evaluate Putin objectively. Unlike people in the states who have had nothing but trash to the point of assuming this is the norm.

    You have been systemically indoctrinated to be clueless and ignorant and spew out the same old empty cliches. Barking at Russia for what the US is doing on a much larger scale. The US has over and over leaked its own dirty secrets, of its own world wide criminal activity in total disregard to domestic, foreign or international law. It is not allegations, it is a fact. Yet somehow, and despite all the outrage, even domestically, it seems to be OK and far better than the completely unproven allegations of Russian misdeeds.

    I'd say US citizens outta fix their own sty before giving it a mandate to fix the world. I am not saying Russia is somehow intrinsically good, in all likelihood they are only as bad as they can afford to be, and would probably be as bad or even worse than the US if they could afford to. But for the time being they can't, and they are basically stuck at being a lesser evil.

    In this aspect I'd rather be spied on by Russia than US, at least the odds of Russia being more professional about it are higher, it is less likely that they dig into stuff that is not a direct threat to their national security, it is less likely that they sell or leak the data due to incompetence to 3rd party exploiters. For some reason Russia isn't leaking dirty secrets like an old rotten septic tank, which means that they either don't have them, or at the very least, they are competent enough to not leak them.

  18. Good - Kaspersky is a Russian Spy Tool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It isn't a company selling a product.

  19. Because it doesn't respect your SW freedom. by jbn-o · · Score: 0

    The Russiagate narrative aims at distracting you away from assigning Hillary Clinton full responsibility for her own campaign, restarting a cold war with Russia, and it's all based on stories that fall flat on inspection. Kaspersky's software is part of the anti-Russia hysteria and is properly dismissed out of hand not for being from Russia but for being nonfree (proprietary, user-subjugating).

    Consider what they're telling you in the article: "This allows independent experts to verify that our software has no hidden functionality, that it doesn't send your files to third parties, doesn't spy on you and fully complies with the end-user agreement". These "independent experts" do not include the users, no matter how willing or technically astute Kaspersky's users are. Furthermore these alleged experts are unknown to you, subject to change (not at your choice), and even they don't get their software freedom respected with the software. Also, it's quite easy to bamboozle anyone who doesn't get free software.

    There's no reason to trust that one nonfree program will somehow "protect" you from the problems of malware. This has nothing to do with who wrote the software, what country the authors come from, or what they claim "experts" will vet. Proprietary software is often malware.

  20. And AMD PSP... And ARM TrustZone. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Literally every mainstream processor in the past 4 years has a read-only signing key in it restricting you from either replacing the firmware, or from using your own OS without invalidating it as a 'secure platform' for DRM software (such as netflix, hulu, google pay, etc.) Those same 'secure' platforms often having exploits which allow ripping of said content, or forging of valid payments utilizing software exploits on the system.

    Whether it is your cell phone, or your tablet/notebook/desktop computer, none of them can currently be trusted. None of them can currently be secured (unless old enough to not have these features included.)

    The concerns brought about when Intel made microcode software updatable, against the backdrop of the Clipper Chip and Anti-Encryption legislation of the 90s, have been expanded to a scope long feared and now fully realized in every major brand of processor on the planet. If they can turn on the functionality in these chips, or pass the legislation to make enablement mandatory, we are all technologically fucked at a breadth and depth that makes dystopian fiction like 1984, Farenheit 451, A Brave New World, etc pale in comparison to the reality.

    Cell phones, computers, televisions, telephones, many street corners and every corporate store, all spying on you, tracking you, watching you for dissentive thoughts or speech, or purchases.

    Once the legislation is passed and the blockchain is used for its true purpose of ledgering all common man's monetary transactions ever made from that period forth, we will find ourselves trapped with no way out. As the metaphoric beast curls its tail around you and prepares its fangs to strike, what will you do to fight back before it is too late?

  21. It's all about "the swamp" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Companies that live off the federal government directly (by subsidies or simply being a preferred vendor) or indirectly (by lobbying for laws to create and enforce regulatory capture) open offices in Washington DC or as close to there as possible for the convenience of their lawyers, lobbyists and other staff. When they lose access to the government nipple, there's no longer a justification for the premium rates for office space.

    Over the past eight years, with government growth on steroids and the regulatory super-state growing like a virus, the five counties around Washington DC became the richest counties in America. They surpassed the counties in the California Bay Area (whicn MAKE stuff), the counties where car companies make cars, where steel makers make steel, the counties where plane and ship builder make planes and ships..... EVERY other county in the USA was surpassed by the counties around DC.

    The founders of the USA specifically made that city NOT within any state and thus NOT represented in the congress as part of an effort to keep America's capital city from becoming an old-style gilded city of leaders living a wealthy life very different from the lives of the citizenry. This is breaking down as modern tech (from computers to transportation) enable the DC-related activities and people (and associated corruption) to bleed into the surrounding counties of the surrounding states.

    Sadly, this instance of a company closing its DC shop is far too rare; it would be nice to see everybody else who makes sub-standard crap for the government also shrivel-up and retract from the swamp (Boeing? LockMart? SEUI?)