3 ms·

There definitely seems to be at least a little truth to that argument, though. Over the years Kaspersky has found and documented a whole bunch of seemingly US g

by makomk 5y ago

There definitely seems to be at least a little truth to that argument, though. Over the years Kaspersky has found and documented a whole bunch of seemingly US government linked malware whilst their Western competitors just haven't, and I think there's at least some evidence this is intentional on the part of those other companies.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
saiya-jin 5y ago
It may be, or his company is really that good above others (I don't think he personally was involved in any of this, but hired good enough people to do so). I tend towards former but have no proof either way. I still have a serious and (since Russia-started a war in Ukraine) permanent problem with him - as pointed elsewhere [1] he went through KGB school - voluntarily, he was actually active KGB intelligence just like Putin. At those places, your objective morals go down the drain very fast and for good. And obviously both are still very close, he approves overall totalitarian direction of Russia and often spoke against 'too much freedom' in the west and on internet. [1] https://web.archive.org/web/20140423055434/http://www.wired.com/2012/07/ff_kaspersky https://web.archive.org/web/20140423055434/http://www.wired....
kelnos 5y ago
> There definitely seems to be at least a little truth to that argument, though. Of course there is, but as this thread is trying to point out, that "little truth" is completely insufficient when assessing risk. The degree to which a particular government can interfere with companies headquartered there matters. The legal culture in those countries matter. The ability to contest and redress this interference matters. An estimate of the worst that can happen to an individual who resists this interference matters. I'm a US citizen living in the US, so I'm certainly biased, but I do believe my data (and my person, and if I ran a company, my company too) is much safer being in the US than in Russia. It's certain that all major world powers engage in various forms of cyber warfare. It's completely expected that countries (and companies within them) that are allied will (most of the time) not expose other allies for cyber attacks and malware distribution. It's also completely expected that antagonistic countries (and their companies) will do so. Back to the point of this article: of course Kaspersky is a US national security threat, precisely because it (as a Russian entity) will try to expose the US government's cyber warfare capabilities. Whether or not Kaspersky is a threat to the cybersecurity of individuals in the West isn't the issue here. (I would expect they probably are, to some extent, though!)
- sudosysgen 5y ago
  We already do know, however, that the US has no shame "asking" US run companies for their customer's data without due process, and that this has been going on for every large US tech company. So I don't see the logic. You talk about assessing risk, but we know from the Snowden leaks that the risk in this matter in the US approaches 100% as the size of your company increase. What degree of risk is higher than 100%?

by makomk 5y ago

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

saiya-jin 5y ago

It may be, or his company is really that good above others (I don't think he personally was involved in any of this, but hired good enough people to do so). I tend towards former but have no proof either way. I still have a serious and (since Russia-started a war in Ukraine) permanent problem with him - as pointed elsewhere [1] he went through KGB school - voluntarily, he was actually active KGB intelligence just like Putin. At those places, your objective morals go down the drain very fast and for good. And obviously both are still very close, he approves overall totalitarian direction of Russia and often spoke against 'too much freedom' in the west and on internet. [1] https://web.archive.org/web/20140423055434/http://www.wired.com/2012/07/ff_kaspersky https://web.archive.org/web/20140423055434/http://www.wired....

kelnos 5y ago

> There definitely seems to be at least a little truth to that argument, though. Of course there is, but as this thread is trying to point out, that "little truth" is completely insufficient when assessing risk. The degree to which a particular government can interfere with companies headquartered there matters. The legal culture in those countries matter. The ability to contest and redress this interference matters. An estimate of the worst that can happen to an individual who resists this interference matters. I'm a US citizen living in the US, so I'm certainly biased, but I do believe my data (and my person, and if I ran a company, my company too) is much safer being in the US than in Russia. It's certain that all major world powers engage in various forms of cyber warfare. It's completely expected that countries (and companies within them) that are allied will (most of the time) not expose other allies for cyber attacks and malware distribution. It's also completely expected that antagonistic countries (and their companies) will do so. Back to the point of this article: of course Kaspersky is a US national security threat, precisely because it (as a Russian entity) will try to expose the US government's cyber warfare capabilities. Whether or not Kaspersky is a threat to the cybersecurity of individuals in the West isn't the issue here. (I would expect they probably are, to some extent, though!)

sudosysgen 5y ago
We already do know, however, that the US has no shame "asking" US run companies for their customer's data without due process, and that this has been going on for every large US tech company. So I don't see the logic. You talk about assessing risk, but we know from the Snowden leaks that the risk in this matter in the US approaches 100% as the size of your company increase. What degree of risk is higher than 100%?