As for what the Israelis think they saw, Kaspersky had a totally reasonable explanation that made for a far less interesting story - aside from the report on th

As for what the Israelis think they saw, Kaspersky had a totally reasonable explanation that made for a far less interesting story - aside from the report on the Israeli malware, which was pretty slick. I don’t have any specific information about Kaspersky (and I’m an anonymous internet comment, so I should not be given much weight anyway), but everything about Kaspersky’s version of the events is consistent with how AV companies work. https://www.kaspersky.com/blog/internal-investigation-preliminary-results/19894/ https://www.kaspersky.com/blog/internal-investigation-prelim... I just don’t buy it. Based on what I know about what kind of flimsy intel it takes to extrapolate to irrefutable proof to support what someone wants to be true, and how products in this space work (I have direct experience here, with competing products) it rings of chasing ghosts. Personally, I think if Kaspersky is compromised, I don’t think it would be from the top down, but rogue insiders. And I don’t think they are unique in that regard. There is indeed a catch 22 with providing proof. On one hand, you can’t burn an important intel source. On the other hand, we can’t take their word for it. Intel analysts never have the full story, and even with the best of intentions, their interpretations can be extremely wrong. According to Hayden, former Director of NSA, they were certain that Iraq had WMDs. According to him, it turns out that they were just wrong. Oops.