Slashdot Mirror


Kaspersky Halts Europol Partnership After Controversial EU Parliament Vote (bleepingcomputer.com)

An anonymous reader writes: Kaspersky Lab announced it was temporarily halting its cooperation with Europol following the voting of a controversial motion in the European Parliament. The Russian antivirus vendor will also stop working on the NoMoreRansom project that provided free ransomware decrypters for ransomware victims.

The company's decision comes after the EU Parliament voted a controversial motion that specifically mentions Kaspersky as a "confirmed as malicious" software and urges EU states to ban it as part of a joint EU cyber defense strategy. The EU did not present any evidence for its assessment that Kaspersky is malicious, but even answered user questions claiming it has no evidence. The motion is just a EU policy and has no legislative power, put it is still an official document. Kaspersky software has been previously banned from Government systems in the US, UK, Netherlands, and Lithuania.

104 comments

  1. My take by war4peace · · Score: 1, Troll

    Personally I think the EU has gone mad.

    --
    ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    1. Re:My take by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The power of influence.

    2. Re:My take by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They haven't gone anywhere. They were always that way.

    3. Re:My take by The123king · · Score: 0

      And people wonder why Britain voted out.

      --
      If you gave me a choice between a printer and a giraffe with explosive diarrhoea, i'll get my ladder and my raincoat
    4. Re:My take by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      And people wonder why Britain voted out.

      Not at all - we just don't agree about the reason. To me it is obvious that people voted leave (by a small majority) because they were lied to by a small group of people, who either expect to gain personally from the chaos that is the consequence of Brexit (as we can already see now), or who hate all things foreign.

      The Remain side, by and large, led a sober, pragmatic and fairminded campaign, while the Leave side appealed to what we used to call the inner Schweinehund in the many people that have been affected by the financial crisis, as well as using outright lies. As Hitler famously said, if you repeat a lie loudly and frequently, then people will eventually believe it.

      I don't think there are many, even on the remain side, that love the EU - being sober, pragmatic and fairminded means that you are able to see both the advantages and the disadvantages of EU, but in this casehave decided that it is better to remain and work on improving things. Fortunately nothing is permanent - I remain confident that once we have experienced the reality of this mess long enough, we will seek to get back in.

    5. Re:My take by war4peace · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      Interestingly I was considered a troll, despite being honest, as an EU citizen.
      When the EU decides to ban a company based on say-so and "trust me I know", they've gone mad.
      I have no love for Russia, with my country having lived under its (well the USSR) heel for 45 years, but what the EU and the USA are doing (e.g. banning Kaspersky just because) is equally insane. Extremism is extremism, no matter which side of the balance it lays on.

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    6. Re:My take by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As Hitler famously said, if you repeat a lie loudly and frequently, then people will eventually believe it.

      That's funny, because Hitler never said those words

    7. Re:My take by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Is that the EU of America you're talking about?
      https://politics.slashdot.org/...

    8. Re:My take by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      No you were being a troll by ignoring the fact that this isn't an EU issue as much as it is currently very much a global issues lead in part by people who are also completely anti-EU, and others who are actively trying to leave.

      What is the EU supposed to do? It's law makers are at the whim of advice from federal agencies, the agencies around the world they most heavily look to have a campaign against Kaspersky. Their source of truth is that Kaspersky is bad due to involvement with Russia, which in itself can be considered obvious and given the ties to Russia also be considered self evident.

      This is nothing more than informed decision making by politicians. Whether or not the information they are basing their decision on is right, that is a different question, but in terms of governing it's the exact opposite of going mad. Going mad would be to ignore everyone and do things your own way, declaring global warming a Chinese hoax, etc.

    9. Re:My take by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A lot of things are obvious to you when you don't actually take the time to talk to the people in question and try and understand them. It sure makes things a lot easier, but it's not usually the best way to go.

    10. Re:My take by Maritz · · Score: 1

      Personally I think the EU has gone mad.

      Luckily, no-one worthwhile gives a fuck what you think. Phew.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    11. Re:My take by DRJlaw · · Score: 1

      As Hitler famously said, if you repeat a lie loudly and frequently, then people will eventually believe it.

      That's funny, because Hitler never said those words.

      Oh no, a paraphrase!

      "[A]ll effective propaganda must be confined to a few bare essentials and those must be expressed as far as possible in stereotyped formulas. These slogans should be persistently repeated until the very last individual has come to grasp the idea that has been put forward." Mein Kampf

      A distinction without a difference.

    12. Re:My take by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know, sometimes it's better to shut up and let people believe that you're a moron than speaking up again and eliminating all doubt that still remained in some people.
      I somewhat agreed with you. Until you compared what the EU and the US are doing here with Kasperky to the Soviet Union. Letting millions of Ukrainians starve to death? No biggie, banning Kaspersky is just as bad!
      Sure, banning Kaspersky just because is stupid, but saying that it is equal to what the Soviet Union did is actually insane. Of course using the things that were done by the Soviet Union as a justification for what is happening now is also quite dumb, because that's not really relevant here.

      Anyway in the end this isn't a pissing contest to find out who is worse and who is better. Banning Kaspersky without having any evidence to back it up is bad practise.

    13. Re:My take by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh no, a paraphrase!

      A paraphrase /pærfrez/ is a restatement of the meaning of a text or passage using other words.- wikipedia

    14. Re:My take by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      since Microsoft is used in Kremlin and around Russia, we need to stop cooperating with those dirty commies!!!

    15. Re:My take by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A paraphrase is something like: "If you simplify something and repeat it often enought, then everyone will get it". Also that's something I came up with and not something "Hitler famously said".

    16. Re:My take by DivineKnight · · Score: 1

      its*

    17. Re:My take by Maritz · · Score: 1

      I bet there are lots of decent people at Kaspersky. The problem is they live in a kleptocracy, and they do not get to say no to Dear Leader Putin. Establish rule of law in your fucking nation, get an actual elected leader, and then you can work with the free world again. In the mean time, sort your shit out and get your fellow patriotic, non-cowardly russians to do likewise.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    18. Re: My take by nnull · · Score: 1

      It's strange indeed. But the blatant constant attacks on Kaspersky sure does look ridiculous to me. What about all those secret court orders from the NSA being issued upon companies in the US who aren't allowed to talk about?

      Did we already forget all of that back in 2013? Still waiting for that evidence that Kaspersky is compromised when we have evidence to the contrary.

    19. Re:My take by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Oh your one of them peoples who'se more concerned, with typose than having a discussion?

    20. Re:My take by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How do we know this, your posting as AC so you could be Hitler, after all his body was never "technically" found

    21. Re:My take by Ryanrule · · Score: 1

      Plus the ivan interference.

    22. Re:My take by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can't even get "its" right. How am I supposed to have any confidence that you got the substance of your post right?

    23. Re:My take by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      its*

      Translation: "I'm a fucking child."

    24. Re: My take by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's strange indeed. But the blatant constant attacks on Kaspersky sure does look ridiculous to me. What about all those [...]

      Yeah, but what about the plight of the axolotl? What about that?

      All the critics were right--whataboutism is indeed far easier than actually presenting a substantive argument.

    25. Re:My take by war4peace · · Score: 1

      What the hell have you been drinking?

      Maybe Russia and China should ban Oracle, Microsoft, Apple, IBM, Intel, etc., because "Their source of truth is that those companies are bad due to involvement with USA, which in itself can be considered obvious and given the ties to USA also be considered self evident."

      The same retarded reasoning goes both ways, you see.

      Oh, there's proof? ZTE was proven to break embargo laws, and banning it was fine (that is, until Trump reversed it because why the fuck not), but Kaspersky was never proven to be spying. Paranoia isn't proof, FYI.

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    26. Re:My take by war4peace · · Score: 1

      Wow, talk about misinterpreting things, dude, you went WAAAAAY too far!

      Never mind you're putting an equal sign between the country and the tyrant, which by the way is retarded, however your assumption, or rather understanding of what I said, is way, WAY off.

      I never have put an equal sign between historical tragedies and banning Kaspersky, I just wanted to say I am not pro-Russia, yet I can remain objective. That's all.

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    27. Re:My take by war4peace · · Score: 1

      Let me change a few words and retain the truthfulness and meaning, as seen from "the other side":

      I bet there are lots of decent people at Microsoft. The problem is they live in a kleptocracy, and they do not get to say no to Dear Leader Trump. Establish rule of law in your fucking nation, get an actual elected leader, and then you can work with the free world again. In the mean time, sort your shit out and get your fellow patriotic, non-cowardly Americans to do likewise.

      See... two-edged blade. Can swing both ways.

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    28. Re: My take by war4peace · · Score: 1

      Actually, no. Whataboutism has nothing to do with anything. It's all about whether there's proof of misconduct around Kaspersky. So far, there's none. So what are we talking about here?

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    29. Re:My take by war4peace · · Score: 1

      Same for your case, man. The world has been saved!

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    30. Re:My take by Gamer_2k4 · · Score: 1

      And people wonder why Britain voted out.

      Not at all - we just don't agree about the reason. To me it is obvious that people voted leave (by a small majority) because they were lied to by a small group of people, who either expect to gain personally from the chaos that is the consequence of Brexit (as we can already see now), or who hate all things foreign.

      So because they don't share your point of view, they must have been simpletons who were lied to? That sounds like what Hillary Clinton said about all the women who voted for Trump - something like, "In those households, they probably voted for him because their husbands did."

      News flash - just because a majority doesn't agree with you doesn't mean they're gullible fools. I'm not British, so I can't speak for them, but it does sound very similar to the Trump situation over here. People can't comprehend why other people voted for Trump, and rather than try to understand those people, they just assume they're not very bright. And by condescending toward them, such people only solidify those voters' decisions.

    31. Re:My take by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I did not have sexual relations with that woman!
      Technically true, but only that. Because in fact he did have sex with that woman. And you wrote 'equally insane'. And you also wrote 'extremism' is 'extremism'. Technically also true because it's a tautology, but even there there's a lot of gradation. Like with most tribe mentality issues extremists only agree with each other as long as there's some "bigger enemy" to fight. Other than that they may fight among themselves, which can be observed when you look at militant Islamic groups for example, who all believe in the same god, hate the West and Jews, but kill themselves over some interpretation of their sacred texts (because there can be only one truth). But I digress.
      Maybe that's not what you meant to write or express. But in that case it's still your duty to make your message understandable, not the duty of the receiver to make some sense out of that mess.

    32. Re: My take by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The GP asked:
      "What about all those secret court orders from the NSA being issued upon companies in the US who aren't allowed to talk about? Did we already forget all of that back in 2013?"

      Therefore we can assume that GP certainly wanted to talk about that as well. Perhaps you didn't want to talk about this and that's fine. But GP apparently does want to talk about that. And that's a textbook whataboutism.
      It's indeed irrelevant to ask that question here. Because point that there's no evidence against Kaspersky would be just as valid with or without asking such a deflective question.

    33. Re:My take by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      What the hell have you been drinking?

      Water and coffee.

      Maybe Russia and China should ban Oracle, Microsoft, Apple, IBM, Intel, etc., because "Their source of truth is that those companies are bad due to involvement with USA, which in itself can be considered obvious and given the ties to USA also be considered self evident."

      You mean like the Chinese 863 Program? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... which among other things lincluded source code review from Windows?
      Or Russia blocking western services, and their current plan to deploy their own root servers, or their blocking of several of Microsoft's products?

      I'm not sure what is so startling here for you. Intelligence agencies have informed their governments of a threat and the governments have acted on it appropriately. Now the fact that the intelligence agencies' recommendations lie somewhere between wrong and malicious is a completely different story.

      Oh, there's proof?

      Good idea we should check for proof. Who does the government trust to look for proof? How about it's own agencies and those of its allies? It's not paranoia to act on the advice of the very agency you set up to give advice.

      Again you're pissed here at the FBI, the AIVD, and the GCHQ, not at the governments of the USA or the EU.

    34. Re:My take by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      If you can't solve a Fourier transform how am I supposed to have any confidence that you are able to arrange flowers in a wedding bouquet?

      Or better still, if you are unable to separate skillsets logically or determine the difference between a typo and a fundamental inability to communicate a message, how am I supposed to have any confidence that you have functioning grey matter in your brain at all?

    35. Re:My take by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have no recollection of any country wanting to join a EU Federation, the motives were coorporation and trade. It is obvious to me that it will have backlash when your trade organization turns into a federation. If people really want a federation it should come from the bottom and not from the top.

      If this discussion is to have any meaning at all we need to list the pros and cons. Then rate how we value each point. To me local democracy, freedom and independence trumps everything. I think the EU should be replaced with a Business-2-Business online platform and a chat room for politicians.

  2. Bam! by BeauHD++(.)+(0) · · Score: 1

    Finally, Europol is onto Russian influence.

    1. Re: Bam! by negRo_slim · · Score: 1

      Embarrassing.

      --
      On the Oregon Cost born and raised, On the beach is where I spent most of my days
  3. Trump hasn't ended Putin support whatsoever by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Trump has been effusively praising, justifying, apologizing, and whataboutizing every single military despot he's come across while insulting and mischaracterizing the historical alliances in what is a deliberate effort to weaken them, the EU, NATO, and repeal the Magnitsky Act. There's really no question he's in the pocket of Russia on some level, else he wouldn't have needed to lie about his seeking Moscow Trump Tower, having been there overnight, and on and on and on. It's not a mistake, and it's not a witch hunt. There is a there there, and it's Moscow, and Trump has been in direct and indirect communication with a military despotism there.

    This is treason. Declaring war would make that formally true. Congress must now act, and it realizes that whether or not it chooses to. If it does not, Congressional supporters of treason must also be considered defacto complicit.
    Jeff Flake may be right for the wrong reasons, and late to the realization, but he is not wrong. Neither are the legions of Republicans realizing Trump is not legitimately looking after US interests - and never really was.
    It was a hail mary to pardon his friends and wipe away his decades of fraud, and it has failed spectacularly. Now we see what remains, and we unfortunately see the Republican party is far too weak to police itself anymore.

    1. Re:Trump hasn't ended Putin support whatsoever by BeauHD++(.)+(0) · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Agreed, the whole North Korea thing is to appease PUTIN. Vladimir Putin knew he couldn't handle North Korea himself, so he made his lapdog TRUMP do it for him.

      I find it sickening how the Russians destroyed Hillary Clinton through lies and treasury, pumped up TRUMP by hacking into American voters, and funneled the election effectively right toward Russia. The USA is now a satellite of Russia and it is only gonna get worse from here.

    2. Re:Trump hasn't ended Putin support whatsoever by CaptainDork · · Score: 2

      "Treason," is not the word you're looking for.

      It has two components that do not apply:

      1.) No United States citizen has declared war on the United States.

      The last time that happened was the Civil War.

      2.) The United States has no list of enemies.

      The last time that happened was WWII.

      *The United States has, at times, considered a list of enemies, but the idea fell through because of the complications that arise in that it would nullify many treaties that the United States has with other countries.

      U.S. Constitution
      Article III
      Section 3.

      Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

      The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
  4. I TOLD YAs! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    We wouldn't be in this mess if we had just drafted John McAfee President.

    1. Re:I TOLD YAs! by Narcocide · · Score: 1

      You're right, though I shudder at the thought.

  5. A new way to create cyber-weapons manufacturer by misnohmer · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The way things are going, Kaspersky will become the victim of "we can't prove it but they are evil" global campaign, eventually leaving the company very few options to survive. A natural shift would be to cyber-security offensive tools - a cyber weapon manufacturer if you will. While the US may balk at using Kaspersky as a defense tool, I don't think the FBI will blink if they can buy a better iPhone hacking tool from Kaspersky, or US or Chinese army if they can buy a better cyber-weapon. They'll rename it for security reasons I'm sure, so it won't be Kaspersky iPhone hacking or electrical grid crashing tool, it will be ACME Inc.

    That's one way to create cyber-weapon manufacturers in today's world. No need to wait for someone to start it and get funding from investors with no scruples.

    1. Re:A new way to create cyber-weapons manufacturer by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      Good points.

      Kaspersky is a business, and a damned good one, at that.

      It will make money; the question is, "How?"|

      Any entity good at defense knows the offensive tactics, and Kaspersky is right up there among the best.

      AND ...

      If Kaspersky is truly evil, it has embedded itself in all the key points around the globe.

      $$$$

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    2. Re:A new way to create cyber-weapons manufacturer by grep+-v+'.*'+* · · Score: 1

      The way things are going, Kaspersky will become the victim

      Hell, they already ARE. I wouldn't blame them if they did: "You've already judged and convicted us as the bad guys? Then let us show you how it's actually done. What have we got to lose, your trust?"

      --
      If the universe is someone's simulation -- does that mean the stars are just stuck pixels?
    3. Re:A new way to create cyber-weapons manufacturer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I don't think the FBI will blink if they can buy a better iPhone hacking tool from Kaspersky, or US or Chinese army if they can buy a better cyber-weapon"
      What makes you think the Chinese, Russians, or anyone else's hacking tools are better than the NSA, FBI, DOD, or CIA hacking tools? And China, Russia, or the US would never sell advanced hacking tools to their enemies. Do you honestly think the US would buy security software from China or Russia? And China, Russia, or even NK hacking tools and methods can't be all that good since they tend to leave enough evidence behind that can be tracked back to the source.

    4. Re:A new way to create cyber-weapons manufacturer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's one way to create cyber-weapon manufacturers in today's world. No need to wait for someone to start it and get funding from investors with no scruples.

      So, "pay us CIA or we will fuck your shit up"? Good bidness model. Go back to drinking industrial solvent you call Vodka, Petya. You not drunk enough.

    5. Re:A new way to create cyber-weapons manufacturer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What makes you think the Chinese, Russians, or anyone else's hacking tools are better than the NSA, FBI, DOD, or CIA hacking tools?

      It's badly worded, but the GP was saying that the FBI, US Army, or Chinese Army would gladly buy from the likes of Kaspersky for cyber weapons. It stands to reason that the NSA, FBI, DOD, and CIA don't have a monopoly on hacking. Israeli intelligence hacked Kaspersky's internal networks before the NSA did, which is why they could confirm the FSB's activities and the NSA's finding about it later. Further, look at the whole iPhone hacking scene which involves buying 3rd party shoftware.

      And China, Russia, or the US would never sell advanced hacking tools to their enemies. Do you honestly think the US would buy security software from China or Russia?

      Yes. Do you honestly believe there aren't people in the Chinese, Russian, or US intelligence agencies with hacking tools that wouldn't be willing to sell copies to other governments? Beyond that obvious point, Kaspersky isn't "Russia" anymore than Microsoft is "America". By your logic Russia and China wouldn't run Windows. Yes, they've tried to making their own OS software, but mostly they've focused on forcing Microsoft to show their source code. By the same token, they can ask Kaspersky to show their source code as well . And in the event they still don't trust the software, they can use it on a quarantined system without internet access and probably blocked off from sound (given how much that's been proven to be a risk).

      And China, Russia, or even NK hacking tools and methods can't be all that good since they tend to leave enough evidence behind that can be tracked back to the source.

      You think that's an accident? The whole point of most cyber warfare is to attack, penetrate, not be discovered for quite some time, and leave a cryptic enough calling card that can be tracked back to the source but is ambiguous enough to be hard to use as a justification for outright war. You want to have your opponent know they're vulnerable while gathering information and still having sufficient deniability. Being entirely untraceable is often near impossible, anyways. Literally a massive part of intelligence gathering is tracing connections, be they people or whatever else.

    6. Re:A new way to create cyber-weapons manufacturer by pots · · Score: 1

      Kaspersky will become the victim of "we can't prove it but they are evil" global campaign

      There is no claim that is can't be proven, only that it hasn't been proven. i.e.: This hasn't gone to court.

      There are some obvious parallels between this and the people imprisoned in Guantanamo Bay, accused but not proven of committing any crimes, and it is somewhat unsettling for the same reason. On the one hand, this is not nearly so bad as that - the people who work for Kaspersky are not in prison, and are free to go about their lives. It's only the company that's in a bad position. So in that regard this is not nearly such a moral affront.

      On the other hand, it is still an affront. It's bothersome to see that the reason this all seems okay is because the bar has been lowered to such a degree.

    7. Re:A new way to create cyber-weapons manufacturer by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      The way things are going, Kaspersky will become

      I'm not sure what you mean by those words: "will become". Did you make this post in November but the packets got misrouted by Comcast and only just now hit Slashdot's servers?

  6. Witch hunt! Russian scare. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Disgraceful. Don't these fear mongers realize they are hurting the people that work for Kaspersky too?

    Microsoft, Apple, and Google are all clearly agents of the US Government and are in COLLUSION with the US Government and it would be in the best interest of other countries to ban their use.

    1. Re:Witch hunt! Russian scare. by CaptainDork · · Score: 4, Informative

      Not quite how it works.

      In the US, certain agencies are forbidden by law from using their tactics on US citizens.

      A workaround is to get foreign agencies to do the intrusive work and share it with the US.

      Then there's reciprocity.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    2. Re:Witch hunt! Russian scare. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      are you serious? Did any US agency ever actually abided by this bullshit?
      might wanna get back to read wikileaks...

    3. Re:Witch hunt! Russian scare. by Pinky's+Brain · · Score: 3, Interesting

      That doesn't protect the EU though.

      Kaspersky has been the prime antagonist of US internet intrusion based spying worldwide. Which is why propaganda against them has gone into overdrive. The EU is killing our best defense against US spying, then again the EU has always been a tool by which the US can control Europe, so no surprises there.

    4. Re:Witch hunt! Russian scare. by CaptainDork · · Score: 2

      So you're completely unaware that the US gathers intel on EU citizens and feeds that shit back to the EU under the table?

      Reciprocity.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    5. Re:Witch hunt! Russian scare. by Pinky's+Brain · · Score: 2

      Reciprocity suggests there is an equality in the exchange, there is not. It's quid pro quo.

      The EU sells out it's citizens to US demands, it gets to have a little more safety for the time granted back, while continuing down the path which makes it unsafe.

    6. Re: Witch hunt! Russian scare. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Would you, as an US citizen, feel more safe if say an EU spy agency was allowed to spy on you then gives your data back to US spy agencies? I mean it must enhance your safety, right, thatâ(TM)s what spy agencies are for ...

    7. Re:Witch hunt! Russian scare. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you seem to fail to undestand that the EU is just a protectorate of the US

    8. Re:Witch hunt! Russian scare. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you're completely unaware that the US gathers intel on EU citizens and feeds that shit back to the EU under the table?

      Reciprocity.

      Search replace EU with UK in your statement. Look up five eyes. The EU was not involved in any of that, the UK was.

  7. Evidence? Who needs evidence? by AlanObject · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Can someone please provide a post or a link to any credible information as to what Kaspersky actually has done wrong? The authorities in the EU and the US has pretty much called them a malware manufacturer but I have never heard of anyone victimized by malware they were alleged to have made.

    My guess is that they refused to play footsie with the U.S. security state and this is the payback.

  8. Re:Evidence? Who needs evidence? by campuscodi · · Score: 5, Informative

    They didn't call them a "malware manufacturer." US authorities claimed Kaspersky allowed FSB agents to use its software as a search engine of users' PCs and look for sensitive files. That's how an NSA leak happened, claimed the US. Kaspersky said the leak happened because the NSA agent took nation-state cyber-weapons home, which its software detected and uploaded to its servers for analysis. They also say the agent's computer had several malware infections, and other malware operations could have stolen the files and passed them to Russian intelligence. It's a he says she says mess.

  9. Meanwhile, back at the ranch... by Narcocide · · Score: 1

    Symantec and Norton go unpunished for their numerous crimes against society.

    1. Re:Meanwhile, back at the ranch... by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Surely Visual Cafe was a crime against humanity, but if they punished them for it they'd probably also have to round up McAfee and he's really popular these days.

  10. Re:Evidence? Who needs evidence? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My guess is that they refused to play footsie with the U.S. security state and this is the payback.

    No need to involve the US in this petty bullshit. Screaming "RUSSIA!" at every turn is a popular tactic to distract from domestic issues. The EU isn't doing too well, financially and with all the growing internal discord. A "common enemy" is always useful.

  11. Re:Evidence? Who needs evidence? by KiloByte · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Kaspersky dared to reveal NSA malware, when all other "anti"virus company cooperated.

    --
    The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
  12. Re:Evidence? Who needs evidence? by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

    It's not "evidence," it's "fear."

    “The department is concerned about the ties between certain Kaspersky officials and Russian intelligence and other government agencies, and requirements under Russian law that allow Russian intelligence agencies to request or compel assistance from Kaspersky and to intercept communications transiting Russian networks,” the DHS said in a statement.

    “The risk that the Russian government, whether acting on its own or in collaboration with Kaspersky, could capitalize on access provided by Kaspersky products to compromise federal information and information systems directly implicates US national security.”

    --
    It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
  13. Re:Evidence? Who needs evidence? by BlueStrat · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Kaspersky said the leak happened because the NSA agent took nation-state cyber-weapons home, which its software detected and uploaded to its servers for analysis.

    The software did what it says it will do on the tin which many of it's competitors do as well (never mind that you can easily choose to have that functionality turned off), and because some idiot US TLA contractor commits an illegal act the developers would have no way to predict, the software and the company behind it are the 'bad guys'.

    This is blame-shifting combined with propaganda meant to distract from US domestic issues regarding powerful people and government agencies run amok.

    Strat

    --
    Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
  14. Hometown companies making money by cwsumner · · Score: 1

    It is likely that "hometown" companies are assuming they will get lots of government contracts if Kapersky is banned. But the reason that so many places use Kapersky is that it was good and effective.

    Of course, software from possibly hostile (or even possibly friendly) countries should not be used in high security government areas. But those leaks could have happened with -any- anti-virus software, there was nothing different about Kapersky except its home. It is -not- ok to take top-secret stuff home with you!

    Also, condemning someone without any evidence is against our laws (in most countries).

  15. Re:Evidence? Who needs evidence? by guygo · · Score: 1

    when you are a Friend of Putin evidence comes to you

  16. Re:Evidence? Who needs evidence? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    US authorities claimed Kaspersky allowed FSB agents to use its software as a search engine of users' PCs and look for sensitive files.

    Replace "allowed" with "failed to stop". It sounds like the issue is Kaspersky's internal network was compromised. That leads me to the next obvious point, of whether what's true with Kaspersky's software is true for most anti-virus software--the automatic upload and analysis of suspect files to the anti-virus vendor. If it is, then it's likely every anti-virus vendor has been targeted. But like failed banks in the US, I don't see them announcing them all vulnerable and banning them because that'd undermine the illusion of security they provide for which the NSA/FBI actually would like to exploit just as much as the FSB.

    I guess the real main difference is the fear that the FSB may have physical access to Kaspersky system regardless of exploits because of jurisdiction over Kaspersky. I'd retort that it's likely every anti-virus vendor and Microsoft/Apple/Google has moles or informants from several different intelligence agencies and/or active exploit campaigns; given the breathe of potential intelligence gathering, it's almost a certainty. The only safe thing to do is to not use anti-virus or Microsoft/Apple/Google code with any privilege with anything you have any secrecy concerns about, and if possible don't use an internet connected device.

    In the end, like you say, the biggest failing is an NSA agent who improperly took secret information and put it on any such machine. It's easier to blame Kaspersky than to acknowledge that at the root of capitalism (just like communism) is the willingness of people to sell out to governments, so that applies to all companies and all people. They want to teach Kaspersky a lesson though, much the same as any other sanction, because they were caught more in their incompetence and not necessarily in their malice. I think you'll find plenty of malice on US soil, though.

  17. Re:Evidence? Who needs evidence? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Meanwhile, in Russia, they're probably concerned about the ties between Google/Microsoft and the Pentagon.

    It's like the news was born yesterday and just suddenly realized that private corporations work closely with government entities.

  18. Evidence of US influence by manu0601 · · Score: 0

    Of course they have no evidence Kaspersky sells malware. The only evidence we have here is that some members of EU parliament are working under US influence.

    US banned Kaspersky because it discovered post-Snowden NSA hacking tools. What reason EU would have to follow the US ban? Spotting new NSA hacking tool should rather be a good selling point for non US countries, since they are the victims of such tools.

  19. Guilty by association by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anymore your guilty of something even if you only have hearsay as evidence. Personally I think the EU is a crime in and of itself and does it really benefit the people.

  20. Re:Evidence? Who needs evidence? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is blame-shifting combined with propaganda meant to distract from US domestic issues regarding powerful people and government agencies run amok.

    Is that a tactic, or a strategy? Either way, over the thousands of years, it works as well as ever. Probably the real problem is the audience. Their brains are mush. They still believe in *majority rule*, as if they can even find a good plumber...

  21. One of the few by AHuxley · · Score: 3, Insightful

    good brands with skills to help detect new malware and tell the world about
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
    Stuxnet
    Flame
    Equation Group https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
    Duqu
    Nation backed cyber-espionage

    Thats some good real history of protecting users globally. What does the EU cyber defense strategy do? Pass a motion?

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    1. Re:One of the few by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Their skill isn't in question, their integrity is. One particular country, which is known to widely engage in cyber warfare, is conspicuously missing from their list of uncovered malware peddlers, wouldn't you say, Ivan? The same country which is in position to ehm, "influence" the authors of Kaspersky to include various backdoors (or send them off to a gulag in Siberia if they don't cooperate).

      How's the weather in St. Petersburg by the way? You trolls having a nice day?

    2. Re:One of the few by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This goes both ways and you know it. The same country which is in position to ehm, "influence" the authors of to include various backdoors (or send them off to Guantanamo if they don't cooperate).

    3. Re:One of the few by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stupid /. formatting, "of to" was meant to be "of every western anti-virus to".

  22. Re:Evidence? Who needs evidence? by AHuxley · · Score: 2

    Yes. The good brands protect the net from any new malware they discover in the wild.
    Other AV brands cover for PRISM, Equation Group or don't have the skills to detect.
    Recall the Magic Lantern (software) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
    That showed US thinking on US antivirus vendor cooperation

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  23. Re:Evidence? Who needs evidence? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You don't know how much the recent Russian actions have raised suspicions and distrust in Europe towards Russia, particularly in the east. These kinds of motions in the EU parliament are simply inevitable.

  24. Re:Evidence? Who needs evidence? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Their relationship with the Russian government is their problem. Not that Kaspersky had any choice in the matter. Kaspersky will do anything the Russian government asks them to do. They can do the FSB's bidding or be "nationalized" by the Russian government.

    "they refused to play footsie with the U.S. security state and this is the payback"
    They are locked out of the US government market because of their relationship with the Russian government. A Russian government that requires any company operating on their soil to give the Russian government access to any encrypted data. A Russian government that requires web sites to register with the state. It makes it easier for the government to track down any site that dares to complain about the government.

    What's interesting is that Russia cannot do anything about the sanctions they operate under. The state of California has a higher GDP than Russia. The California National guard wields more military power than Russia. Russia has no economic levers to use against the US. US natural gas deliveries to eastern Europe has reduced Russia's influence because they can no longer threaten to stop supplying natural gas to it's neighbors.

    And the Obama administration finally got Russia bogged down in the money pit better known as the Ukraine and Syria conflicts. Russia has very little to show as a result of these two conflict.

  25. Re:Evidence? Who needs evidence? by Pinky's+Brain · · Score: 2

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    That is what Kaspersky did "wrong".

  26. Out with the good... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is a set up. Now all government computers are without "good" antivirus. I, being an american born, anti-american, am enjoying this Trump. Watching the county implode is a great joy.

  27. Win 10 is data mining so why by Stan92057 · · Score: 1

    Why isn't windows 10 getting the same treatment? They ARE data mining, no question about it and no way to completely say stop so why is Microsoft not getting the same treatment? Their is a good argument its malware also.

    --
    Jack of all trades,master of none
    1. Re:Win 10 is data mining so why by CriticalYetLazy · · Score: 1

      It's cause our tech fobic European lawmakers have no clue about the actual dangers and are just reiterating "facts" without proofs following US guidelines. Esp. note that Kaspersky is labeled "malicious", while we KNOW plenty of US products we use are full of spy-/malware, yet they are not ever mentioned or labeled as dangerous, let alone malicious.

  28. Re:Evidence? Who needs evidence? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    my seasoned guess is that their software (and team of people who write it) is too good at outing five eye malware

  29. Re:Evidence? Who needs evidence? by Aighearach · · Score: 2

    Kaspersky also "defends" themselves by claiming it isn't their fault the Russian intelligence services stole access, they claim to just be a crime victim. Problem is, they continue to also cooperate with the Russian government. They're Russian, so of course they have to.

    But the net total of that is that they admit to be controlled by the Russian government, they just don't want to lose business over it. Which is understandable, but not a strong argument. ;)

    It isn't a he-said-she-said, it is a bunch of hand-waving with idiots claiming not to comprehend the known facts.

    They certainly don't deny that the NSA's data ended up with the FSB, or that they were the conduit.

  30. Irony? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "The Russian antivirus vendor will also stop working on the NoMoreRansom project that provided free ransomware decrypters for ransomware victims."

    So...Kaspersky is essentially holding NoMoreRansom hostage, ostensibly a free program or set of programs, until they get what they want? Best move ever 10/10 360 noscope.

    1. Re: Irony? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well it was a free service that even came without much advertising for kaspersky, just a note that they made it. I still costs money to develop so if they have less clients they might not be willing to invest in such a thing anymore.

      Probably if someone wants to pay for nomoreransom development it can be discussed...

      Probably they also want to avoid some gov getting a ransomware attack after dropping kaspersky (acquisition of a new antivirus program is likely to take months or years) and then using nomoreransom to solve it.

  31. Re: Evidence? Who needs evidence? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am always wondering - if their military and economic power is so tiny, why are they always presented as a major threat to the US might ? The US media is saying that the US elections were hacked, it would be impossible that a country with so little power is able to hack the worldâ(TM)s top superpower elections ?

  32. Re:Evidence? Who needs evidence? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is another example of a Republican whattaboutism Trump traitor faggot sucking cock on his way to an early grave, above. Shoot the bitch, let it be buried in Russia. It is not American.

  33. Re:Evidence? Who needs evidence? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    That is what Kaspersky did "wrong".

    Spies are spying, news at eleven! Turns out NSA isn't paid to walk the strees, seek out cute dogs and pet them! Who would have thought! Thank you Kaspersky for revealing this totally non-obvious fact!!! The USA must be, like, totally angry that this got out!!!!!111 And EU too! And everyone else! And their cat!

  34. Re:Evidence? Who needs evidence? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Excellent post, comrade! You have earned your rubles!

  35. From top antivirus provider to... by atrex · · Score: 1

    So, they intend to force Kaspersky from being one of the top antivirus providers (and probably the only one that refuses to install NSA/CIA backdoors) into... what? Do they think they'll put them out of business?
    Meanwhile, they use their baseless allegations to convince the rest of the populous to install one of the other PC security packages that have backdoors in place for the local spy agencies...

  36. The Swiss! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Swiss need to develop an impartial AV product. Boom. Thank me later Switzerland.

  37. Confusing authors of the quotes by DrYak · · Score: 1

    As Hitler famously said, if you repeat a lie loudly and frequently, then people will eventually believe it.

    That's funny, because Hitler never said those words.

    "[A]ll effective propaganda must be confined to a few bare essentials and those must be expressed as far as possible in stereotyped formulas. These slogans should be persistently repeated until the very last individual has come to grasp the idea that has been put forward." Mein Kampf

    Most people simply confuse who among the Nazis top heads uttered this idea.
    (Basically confusing the guy who wrote it in his book, and the guy who applied it systematically in all propaganda).

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
  38. Re: Evidence? Who needs evidence? by nnull · · Score: 1

    Versus our companies who cooperate with secret court orders that we're not even allowed to talk about. There's no telling how many US software companies are compromised other than the ones that have protested.

  39. Tell me what I think by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thanks for telling me what I think and how I decided which way to vote,
    "I remain confident that once we have experienced the reality of this mess long enough, we will seek to get back in." So now YOU want more chaos and hate all things domestic, how pragmatic of you: "who either expect to gain personally from the chaos that is the consequence of Brexit (as we can already see now), or who hate all things foreign."

  40. Hey obvious ivans by Ryanrule · · Score: 1

    Fuck right off

  41. Re: Evidence? Who needs evidence? by Aighearach · · Score: 1

    That's complete nonsense and just shows you don't care about the topic enough to learn the public details and get them straight in your head.