Slashdot Mirror


Security Firm Kaspersky, Which Has Been Accused by US of Working With Russian Spies, Helped Catch an Alleged NSA Data Thief

An anonymous reader shares a report: The 2016 arrest of a former National Security Agency contractor charged with a massive theft of classified data began with an unlikely source: a tip from a Russian cybersecurity firm that the U.S. government has called a threat to the country. Moscow-based Kaspersky Lab turned Harold T. Martin III in to the NSA after receiving strange Twitter messages in 2016 from an account linked to him, according to two people with knowledge of the investigation. They spoke with POLITICO on condition of anonymity because they're not authorized to discuss the case.

The company's role in exposing Martin is a remarkable twist in an increasingly bizarre case that is believed to be the largest breach of classified material in U.S. history. It indicates that the government's own internal monitoring systems and investigators had little to do with catching Martin, who prosecutors say took home an estimated 50 terabytes of data from the NSA and other government offices over a two-decade period, including some of the NSA's most sophisticated and sensitive hacking tools. The revelation also introduces an ironic turn in the negative narrative the U.S. government has woven about the Russian company in recent years.

85 comments

  1. Me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thinks

    1. Re:Me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait, I wasn't thinking... I just wanted the FP

    2. Re: Me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Congrats my dude

  2. Only the KGB could catch NSA. Natch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See Subject

  3. Who? by sexconker · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Who actually believes the accusations against Kaspersky?

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

      Me. Russia! Russia! Russia!

    2. Re:Who? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know....

      But I sure believe accusations against a renowned IT clerk living in San Jose and working for a 3 letter agency in Palo Alto:

      Fresh! Breaking news from CNN:

      A renowned IT clerk living in San Jose and working for a 3 letter agency in Palo Alto has been identified by JSOC as a Russian troll.

      His family is typically from the Eastern part of Germany and it has been found that he has maintained contacts with homeland influential people.

      I would like to point out that East Germany was communist and controlled by Russia (CCCP) before Ronald Reagan took USSR apart.

      I can confirm this is true, see the renowned East German beard pictures below:

      Real pictures:
      Before the sex change:
      https://ibb.co/cc7Ddw
      After the sex change:
      https://ibb.co/gVad65

      And his obviously nazi father picture here, he converted to communism after the war:

      https://ibb.co/mHCKB9

      Send him to Gitmo at once!

    3. Re:Who? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The accusation was that KAV could not be trusted because K was in Russia and it was feared the company was infiltrated. Eugene was not credibly personally accused at any point of any crimes or malfeasance. It was a possibility.

      Ultimately it appears agents of Russia used the product to find NSA tools by name-matching to known keywords, it wasn't breached so much as it was misused for that purpose. Every system has vulns. AV ops are no different.

      But it should be noted that Russian agents were involved in that, albeit not with Eugene's knowledge or aid. So any Trumptards proclaiming this is Russophobia are abject morons proven once more again.

    4. Re:Who? by duke_cheetah2003 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Who actually believes the accusations against Kaspersky?

      I do. And only because... why wouldn't they? There's no reason I can conjure up that would plausibly explain how Kapersky is not in bed with the FSB.

      To think they aren't is folly. We know the Russian government loves to play all sorts of under the table games with just about every other country on the earth. That they wouldn't leverage software publishers within their sphere against other countries is just naive. Of course they would. Wouldn't you?

    5. Re:Who? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most people do, Mr. Russiabot, and with good reason.

    6. Re:Who? by Shotgun · · Score: 2

      And I think there is a surprising amount of evidence to indicate that US "intelligence" agencies do the same with companies in our influence. This is sort of SOP at this point, is it not?

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    7. Re:Who? by PPH · · Score: 2

      And China with Huawei, ZTE, etc. It's pretty much SOP wherever you go. So just learn to live with it.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    8. Re:Who? by jellomizer · · Score: 2

      In general if a country is known to be actively trying to hack and break into your countries sensitive systems. And said country has a proven policy of tight control between government and industry. It really wouldn't be a good idea, to use there system to protect yours.

      Can Kaspersky be honest and not send any data to its host government... Yes, it is possible. However, for the Russian Government, they are a key ready at their disposal if they ever feel they need them. Just like how the United States NSA went into the privately owned Telcos to get our telephone meta-data, without much resistance from them, because of "9/11" it would be just as easy for the Russian Government to get in and get the data.

      Kaspersky, will need to do a Lot to prove their trustworthiness to be on US government systems.

      I have no reason to not believe the accusations against Kaspersky. And for this story there is really isn't a connection. Because it is very easy for a company to actually do its job, and report back to its customer.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    9. Re: Who? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      50 ruble, good job Boris

    10. Re:Who? by mattyj · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This is the worst reasoning. You sound like one of those "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about" guys re: the Surveillance State.

      Kaspersky has had a stellar reputation in the community for two decades. They've consistently been one of the top cybersecurity researchers in the world.

      That being said, who knows, maybe Putin has an office at their HQ, but all this FUD without a shred of evidence whatsoever isn't helping anything.

    11. Re:Who? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Just like how the United States NSA went into the privately owned Telcos to get our telephone meta-data, without much resistance from them, because of "9/11" it would be just as easy for the Russian Government to get in and get the data.

      It's not just easy, it is required by laws for telcos to cooperate. More than that, telcos are required to buy wiretapping equipment at their expence

    12. Re:Who? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In other words the accusations were borne of sheer xenophobia, paranoia and fearmongering.

    13. Re:Who? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh noes, the Russian government might gain some data on viruses and trojans that is already freely available everywhere! Panic mode! PANIC FUCKING MODE!

      But seriously just shut your mouth, paranoid, delusional American. The sky isn't falling and people from other places in the world aren't evil savages but rather far more civilised than your uneducated, uncultured, physically and mentally lazy, echo-chamber society.

    14. Re:Who? by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      AV software does its job and reports new malware efforts found in the wild.
      Lots of other AV software is strange in the way it finds nothing in the same way ...
      Why would the Russian gov show what it can do in real time?
      Why would any Western spy agency show it can spy on networks in Russia in real time to the media?

      Russia would never show what it can do.
      The West and NATO would never be allowed by the NSA/GCHQ to show that it can do in Russia.
      No nations talks to the media without full and early declassification and then never really about methods used.
      Now we are to trust the publication of US/NSA/NATO methods used in Russia that are free to read in the media?

      Intelligence services hide all their methods used/names for decades and prevent real historians from publication 50-60 years later.
      Now we get to read along with ongoing spy methods used in Russia by Western spies?

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

      This is the worst reasoning. You sound like one of those "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about" guys re: the Surveillance State.

      Kaspersky has had a stellar reputation in the community for two decades. They've consistently been one of the top cybersecurity researchers in the world.

      I never believed their alleged reputation, I always figured they were in with Russian Mobsters.

      Then again I don't trust the US based security firms either; especially Norton.

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

      Kaspersky has had a stellar reputation in the community for two decades. They've consistently been one of the top cybersecurity researchers in the world.

      For years Kaspersky has "discovered" exploits they have created, used and sold to Putin. They "discover" these exploits and save us, only when they think their usefulness is no longer needed.

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

      Right. What part of you really believes that a totalitarian government can't control a domestic firm

    18. Re: Who? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What part of you believes that this doesn't happen in every country in the world? But oh noes, evil Russians!

      Grow the fuck up and travel. Maybe you won't be such an uncultured douchebag.

    19. Re:Who? by khchung · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Who actually believes the accusations against Kaspersky?

      I do. And only because... why wouldn't they?

      Then use the same logic to believe that the US lied about Kaspersky, because... why wouldn't they?

      --
      Oliver.
    20. Re:Who? by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      Kaspersky has had a stellar reputation in the community for two decades. They've consistently been one of the top cybersecurity researchers in the world.

      Their technical competence is not in question, their ability to resist the probable demands of the Russian security apparatus is. I don't mean to imply that this fact differentiates Russia from the USA in any fashion, but Russia is known to be a bit insistent about cooperation with the state.

      That being said, who knows, maybe Putin has an office at their HQ, but all this FUD without a shred of evidence whatsoever isn't helping anything.

      It would be foolish not to assume that they are compromised, much as major American companies have been compromised. I always pretty much assume that the US, Russia, and China are doing more or less the same stuff... only in differing proportions. And probably more than a handful of others as well, but I don't want to go too far off track. Those, at least, are actors known to behave in such a fashion. Anyone who can afford to engage in espionage does so.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    21. Re: Who? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except the Russians DID use KAV to find the NSA tools successfully, and this was passed to the US from an allied intel agency. So it's their JOB to investigate it and mitigate the risks, which made perfect sense.

      Xenophobia != SOP. Sorry, that's retarded.

      Try not to lecture anyone on culture, it won't ever work when Trump traitors attempt that. You are the definition of uncultured.

    22. Re:Who? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah you live with it by avoiding those products, if you care.

    23. Re:Who? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And Cisco. And Ericsson. And Motorola.

      Did I leave anyone out?

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

      > who knows, maybe Putin has an office at their HQ

      This is funny. Yes, he does. His name is https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_Kaspersky. Read the _Early life_ section.

    25. Re:Who? by Vlad_the_Inhaler · · Score: 1

      You made that up.
      This is classic FUD without a shred of proof or even evidence.
      If you read what the politicians said when calling for Kaspersky to be locked out, it was full of weasel-words like "could" but without anything concrete.

      The one case where something from the NSA is known to have landed in Russia was part of a known and documented feature - heuristic analysis of executables which can then (this is optional and can be turned off by the user) be sent back for deeper analysis. The software in question fit the criteria and the worker in question was too stupid to have turned the feature off.

      --
      Mielipiteet omiani - Opinions personal, facts suspect.
    26. Re:Who? by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      I do, but as a Cold War vet, you'd probably think I'm biased.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    27. Re:Who? by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Technically they are a security threat in that the US government can not issue a binding security letter to force questionable activity, where all the others will roll right over, well roll you right over. It was inevitable the US government would ban them and likely will ban other companies they can not force security letters on.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    28. Re:Who? by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      I always pretty much assume that the US, Russia, and China are doing more or less the same stuff

      In general, I agree with this. The only difference is that in the U.S. companies don't have to cooperate with the government. And it's much more difficult to do so because it would be easy for one person to spill the beans.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    29. Re:Who? by T.E.D. · · Score: 1

      Kaspersky has had a stellar reputation in the community for two decades. They've consistently been one of the top cybersecurity researchers in the world. That being said, who knows, maybe Putin has an office at their HQ, but all this FUD without a shred of evidence whatsoever isn't helping anything.

      This is sort of missing the point. There is no real rule-of-law in Russia right now, so any company or person operating out of that country is completely at the mercy of the whims of Putin. Kaspersky could be the greatest defender of free-speech and computer security the world has ever known 99% of the time, but if the day comes (or has come) when Putin wants something out of a computer, and he wants Kaspersky's software to quietly do it, the guy has literally no recourse.

    30. Re:Who? by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      Not saying they didn't but it's a bit more difficult for the US to do so. If the lie gets leaked to the media or pretty much anyone not on the inside, the whole cover is blown. For the same reason most conspiracy theories are BS, this is also BS...you have too many people who know the facts, and it takes one person to blab if it's all a lie. The media (think Pentagon Papers) can get away with that in the US...try it in Russia or China.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    31. Re:Who? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      The only difference is that in the U.S. companies don't have to cooperate with the government

      Never Forget Qwest.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    32. Re:Who? by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      Good point. I guess we don't know if the insider trading conviction was payback or not.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    33. Re:Who? by duke_cheetah2003 · · Score: 1

      This is the worst reasoning. You sound like one of those "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about" guys re: the Surveillance State.

      Possibly the worst reasoning, I'll yield that one. But doesn't change anything. It's realistic thinking. Given the history of the Russian government tendency to tinker with levers behind the scenes.

      Look, it's certainly possibly Kapersky is on the up and up, but this is the Russian government we're talking about. An abundance of caution and possibly even paranoia regarding Russian companies is most certainly wise and warranted. Regardless of Kapersky's reputation, the government they operate under have a very nefarious reputation and it has to be taken into consideration when considering Kapersky's usefulness and integrity.

      As I posted originally, to do otherwise is naive and folly.

    34. Re:Who? by duke_cheetah2003 · · Score: 1

      Kaspersky has had a stellar reputation in the community for two decades. They've consistently been one of the top cybersecurity researchers in the world.

      That being said, who knows, maybe Putin has an office at their HQ, but all this FUD without a shred of evidence whatsoever isn't helping anything.

      This is sort of missing the point. There is no real rule-of-law in Russia right now, so any company or person operating out of that country is completely at the mercy of the whims of Putin. Kaspersky could be the greatest defender of free-speech and computer security the world has ever known 99% of the time, but if the day comes (or has come) when Putin wants something out of a computer, and he wants Kaspersky's software to quietly do it, the guy has literally no recourse.

      This pretty much is my concern. Kapersky could be fine and dandy today, and yesterday.. but tomorrow is always going to be a question mark, which is why I find them untrustworthy and lacking in integrity. Not because they're a bad company, or are out to steal stuff on behalf of the Russian government. It's that they can turn into that at any moment, and we'd never know the difference.

  4. A more accurate headline should have read as... by bogaboga · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Security Firm Kaspersky, Which Has Been Accused by US of Working With Russian Spies, Helped Catch an Alleged NSA Data Thief

    Security Firm Kaspersky, Which Has Been Accused by US of Working With Russian Spies with no evidence furnished thus far, Helped Catch an Alleged NSA Data Thief

    1. Re:A more accurate headline should have read as... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You should read about this. There was evidence the program was used to find specific filenames linked to NSA tools. There was no public evidence KAV was a witting conspirator or operative in that.

      But it did warrant being investigated obviously, and the ambiguous threat report that resulted did warrant US gov to stop using and prohibit that product on US machines during that time.

      Frankly I don't see why they'd focus only on KAV, there are dozens of AV packages from Baltic countries that could be equally surreptitiously compromised.

    2. Re:A more accurate headline should have read as... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Specific evidence is irrelevant.

      Known Russian security services agents work for the company or are associated. There are known instances of Trojans being pushed via software updates.

      All companies in Russia are subject to the will of Russian security services - If you don't play ball your company is stolen and given to an oligarch. Or you are murdered, then it is stolen. (Any of this can happen if you do play ball too)

      There is no reason you should trust Kaspersky because at any time their product can be used to hijack your computer at the behest of the Russian govt . And there is plenty of hard evidence to support that it can and will happen.

      Before whataboutsim - Fuck off.

      Whole lot of Russian apologia in this place for a community that is supposedly libertarian leaning and in favor of property rights.

    3. Re:A more accurate headline should have read as... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Found the Russian troll... that was pretty easy actually.

    4. Re:A more accurate headline should have read as... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Releasing the evidence publicly would tip off the FSB about some of the contacts the US has, as well as reveal which projects at the FSB the US has infiltrated the FSB. It is very common for such sources to be redacted so they can continue to be leveraged.

    5. Re:A more accurate headline should have read as... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... pretty much like every other piece of BS we've been fed regarding Russia and hacking.

      You repeat a lie long enough....

    6. Re:A more accurate headline should have read as... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Libertardrians want to get rid of the State, except for the Deep State (military, security etc.). They also want to live under the oligarchs' boot, because libertarianism immediately becomes corporate dystopia. It will be like 1990s Russia with surveillance capitalism.

    7. Re:A more accurate headline should have read as... by mattyj · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Kasperksy Lab is incorporated in the UK, by the way, only HQ'd in Moscow, so the company as a whole can't really be taken over by the Russian government. My guess is that a 20 year old cybersecurity company HQ'd in Russia has the good sense to have their digital assets stored/cloned outside the reach of the government.

      It's pretty standard for a cybersecurity outfit to employ former government agents. You know, like all the American ones that have former NSA spooks on the payroll. Standard operating procedure because that's where the best people come from.

      Maybe it all just a front, but I'm not believing it. Kaspersky Labs has had a pretty stellar reputation for a very long time now.

    8. Re:A more accurate headline should have read as... by dohzer · · Score: 1

      Well they've given the US one thief, so I guess we can trust them completely from now on. Right?!

    9. Re:A more accurate headline should have read as... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kasperksy Lab is incorporated in the UK, by the way, only HQ'd in Moscow, so the company as a whole can't really be taken over by the Russian government. My guess is that a 20 year old cybersecurity company HQ'd in Russia has the good sense to have their digital assets stored/cloned outside the reach of the government.

      Again, irrelevant. The company exists inside Russia borders. Where they throw you in jail and steal your company if you don't do what you're told (or just murder you), as documented in hundreds of cases.

      Kasperksy Lab is incorporated in the UK, by the way, only HQ'd in Moscow, so the company as a whole can't really be taken over by the Russian

      It's pretty standard for a cybersecurity outfit to employ former government agents. You know, like all the American ones that have former NSA spooks on the payroll. Standard operating procedure because that's where the best people come from.

      Whataboutism.

      Maybe it all just a front, but I'm not believing it. Kaspersky Labs has had a pretty stellar reputation for a very long time now.

      Again, irrelevant. Russia is an illiberal government that does not respect human or property rights. It's like trusting a root CA that has it's root keys compromised. There is no good will that will fix that problem.

    10. Re:A more accurate headline should have read as... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's exactly the same reason why US companies shouldn't be trusted by foreign governments for their sensitive infrastructure. Trusting Cisco is the same as trusting Huwawei for a third party.

    11. Re:A more accurate headline should have read as... by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      Well they've given the US one thief, so I guess we can trust them completely from now on. Right?!

      Quite possibly a quid pro quo for some other action that was privately agreed to. Or, it would be a red herring to simply make them more legitimate looking. That thief might have already been compromised so why not give him up publically.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
  5. He wasn't a rocket surgeon by netringer · · Score: 3, Funny

    Kaspersky found who was behind the Twitter handle by using the highly specialized tool ...Google. He used the same HAL9999999 handle when posting to a dating site. Protip to eleeet spy teefs: Don't do stuff like that.

    --
    Ever dream you could fly? Get up from the Flight Sim. I Fly
  6. So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Pedophile coaches can make some kids better players. Does that mean they get a pass if they do?

  7. Re: A more accurate headline should have read as.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe you should write a novel about your long running imaginary affair with this imaginary non -evidence - salut - cheers. Im waiting for the first chapter to spy on you desperately pitching every editor you can find on the street

  8. Does this matter? by duke_cheetah2003 · · Score: 0

    If a criminal turns in another criminal, it doesn't magically make the criminal not a criminal anymore.

    Same applies here to Kapersky. In fact, I'd go as far to say, it's a PR stunt to try to regain favor, an attempt to convince others they're not in bed with the FSB. Not a chance. If anyone falls for this, you deserve Russian crafted malware.

    1. Re: Does this matter? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was purely by accident. The IT janitor was impressing his sons girlfriend by showing her his collection of rare medieval torture devices and Kaspersky happened to have a sales rep at the door who saw that the NSA logo was stitched to the girls jeans. They immediately claimed credit for the invention of the head axe

    2. Re:Does this matter? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're being a moron. If you had any evidence Eugene was involved in any crime at any time, you could post it here and prove your point. Otherwise it's just blathering libelous bullshit. I say this as an American.

      Put up, or do shut up.

    3. Re: Does this matter? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      50 ruble

    4. Re:Does this matter? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      eh. i would say there is no proof in what the poster said but i think its safe to assume every nation state thats advanced enough is going to try to leverage companies that are in their sphere of influence to spy. Personally it might not be an issue for the average consumer unless you get into politics but you should be wary of where your stuff is made and who might possibly spy on you. (and yes the CIA spys on people as well)

  9. who posted this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ivan, is that you?

  10. Nobody said they were willing participants. by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Nobody has claimed Kaspersky was a willing or even witting participant in the event, only that they were a participant. As such, it's fully within the rights of the US government to deem their software on US government systems to be a threat and to advise employees to not use it.

    On the other hand, what better way to sow seeds of self-doubt than to sacrifice a pawn?

    There are a couple reasons to trust them but far more numerous and more compelling reasons to distrust them.

    --
    Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    1. Re:Nobody said they were willing participants. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That can all be said about the USA too.

    2. Re:Nobody said they were willing participants. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A 20 year biggest data thief isn't a pawn.

  11. lets see....what has my hacker archive really got by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    lets see....what has my hacker archive really got ..ohhhh

  12. Highly classified material isn't generally... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Released to the public for consumption and deliberation.

    1. Re:Highly classified material isn't generally... by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      If your reading about ongoing US intelligence work in real time?
      Someone declassified something in part early for some reason.
      Real US intelligence gets looked at to be officially released about in 30-50 years without methods.
      Anything before that is politics, the deep state, US propaganda, a limited hangout.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  13. Known as Chicken Feed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is common for one country to reveal useful info to its enemy -- in exchange for other info. We don't know what the FSB or Kaspersky was given in return for them outing Martin. see Chicken Feed:

    https://www.spymuseum.org/education-programs/news-books-briefings/language-of-espionage/

  14. 90% truth, 10% lies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    90% truth, 10% lies.
    That is how misinformation works.

    How many Russian companies tell the Russian govt No and that's the end? Er .... none. The "govt"/Putin gets what he wants or people are killed.

    Whenever US companies tell the US govt no, it is headlines.

  15. Kaspersky is in real trouble now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They just exposed the NSA's strategy for establishing plausible deniability when leaking data to private businesses.

  16. Rule of Acquisition 76 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Every once in a while, declare peace. It confuses the hell out of your enemies.

  17. In all likelihood by nehumanuscrede · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Kaspersky is probably the only company who refuses to look the other way at NSA / CIA born malware and viruses.

    If you don't play nice with the spooky types, they make life hell on you in return.

    1. Re:In all likelihood by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, and how many "spooky types" have you actually know to do this? I've worked around three letter agencies for forty plus years, and never once seen that occur. Not saying it hasn't, but it would certainly be the exception.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
  18. Backdoors by The+Evil+Atheist · · Score: 1

    Surely, stuff like this can't happen if we have backdoors only for the good guys!

    --
    Those who do not learn from commit history are doomed to regress it.
  19. too bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    that the archive didn't turn up somewhere online. Would be a treasure trove of details on how to make computer systems secure from government hacking.

    1. Re:too bad by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      With wifi at the CPU level for network wake up, that's going to be easy for police/mil/gov at the consumer level.
      The US got all the big brand help it needed with PRISM for years.
      Whats floating around the web is bait, a trap, contractor efforts.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  20. He was actually a brain scientist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He deliberately used HAL9999999 to frame another guy. Cunning!

  21. This makes sense by Miles_O'Toole · · Score: 4, Interesting

    TFA says Kaspersky's tip led to the arrest in 2016 of a security contractor who stole massive amounts of data from the NSA. Their reward was that in 2017, Donald Trump signed legislation banning Kaspersky on government computers, and prohibiting government institutions from buying or installing it on "computers and other devices".

    It looks an awful lot like Kaspersky proved in 2016 they were not a tool of the Russian government. Their reward was that less than a year later, Putin reached out through his asset in the White House to punish them for failing to bend over and spread for him.

    --
    Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.
    1. Re: This makes sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of all the comments, yours surprisingly makes the most sense.

    2. Re: This makes sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *shakes head sadly*

  22. It was a setup by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Since Kaspersky is untrusted, how can they prove it wasn't the antivirus code that download terabytes of crap from the NSA over a period of years?

  23. Integrity Initiative Re: Who? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Most people that fear monger about Russia have their reason: it's the money they get from the British military intelligence. I hope you did get some too, AC.

  24. not the whole government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just mostly Dems still butt hurt that Trump is President.

  25. We Have to Tell the NSA?! by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

    Boy do I feel awkward. I have been accessing the NSA data bases to do light credit checks of folks that use debit cards. I just thought it was ok, what with cell tower owners selling location data. So I just figure that any data collected is accessible.