5 ms·
For context (that of course is buried far from the title), Kaspersky is a Russian company and Apple, being an American one, is subject to the embargo and sancti
by koolba 2y ago
For context (that of course is buried far from the title), Kaspersky is a Russian company and Apple, being an American one, is subject to the embargo and sanction list of the USA:
> While Kaspersky is a multi-national company, it was founded and headquartered in Russia, a country the United States has heavily sanctioned due to the war in Ukraine. This could severely restrict financial transactions between U.S. companies and those in the region.
> Additionally, per Apple Security Bounty’s terms and conditions, “Apple Security Bounty awards may not be paid to you if you are in any U.S. embargoed countries or on the U.S. Treasury Department’s list of Specially Designated Nationals, the U.S. Department of Commerce Denied Person’s List or Entity List, or any other restricted party lists.”
- klabb3 2y ago> Galov even proposed that Kaspersky donate the bounty to charity, but Apple rejected this, citing internal policies without explanation. I just don’t get why Apple wouldn’t cite the law if that’s the reason? Surely doesn’t look good on them if they’re just holding back bounties for undisclosed reasons.
- analognoise 2y agoThat would be seen as payment to a sanctioned entity, right? Just because you donated the award to charity doesn’t mean it isn’t considered a transaction on behalf of a sanctioned entity. Makes total sense to me.
- AdamJacobMuller 2y agoIf they money didn't flow through Kaspersky (the wording here of "Kaspersky" donating it vs Apple donating it is weird) and it was donated to a neutral charity (say, red cross or Médecins Sans Frontières), I don't think anyone would raise an eye on it.
- analognoise 2y agoI think you’re underestimating the risk - it’s clear (to me anyway) that you cannot move money around at the request of a sanctioned entity; even if the money doesn’t “flow through” them, influence, goodwill and connections do - all of which are reasonable attack vectors for the sanctioned entity (Russia). Any potential downside far outweighs the upside. Apple does not want to get on the State Department’s shit list, period, and certainly not to do goodwill efforts for the Russians.
- throwaway199956 2y agoIs Kaspersky sanctioned?
- AdamJacobMuller 2y agoI don't think it has any benefit for them to explain why. Explaining why just invites argument. "Oh, you can't pay because we are in Russia, just pay to our Massachusetts subsidiary!"
- bastard_op 2y agoI was thinking this exact thing, they have the Massachusetts subsidiary, so why not? I would still call this a "refuse to" vs "can do", but hey, Apple can keep that money - keeps the layoffs away.
- toomuchtodo 2y agoViolating OFAC sanctions can result in extreme consequences, including prison for up to 30 years and fines in the millions of dollars. It would be prudent and reasonable for Apple to do nothing rather then to do something that invites this type of inquiry. To do nothing invites, at most, a de minimis amount of reputational risk.
- mcv 2y agoReputational risk can lead to security risk if researchers think Apple is not paying bounties anymore.
- toomuchtodo 2y agoIf you’re a security researcher who potentially falls under OFAC sanctions. Everyone else will likely still get paid.
- pdpi 2y agoYes, of course, they can't work around OFAC sanctions, but donating the bounty to a charity would probably have been 100% fine, and a show of good will. It's not the first time we've seen Apple not playing nice with their bug bounty programme, so it's something of a pattern of behaviour. "A show of good will" is exactly what they need.
- throwaway199956 2y agoThere are US sanctions against Russian government and some officials, but is Russia an 'Embargoed Country' whatever might be it's legal defenition?