3 ms·

There are some details in the whitepaper. I don't think this post comes off as an attempt to make more money. Rather, I think it's applaudable that they relea

There are some details in the whitepaper. I don't think this post comes off as an attempt to make more money. Rather, I think it's applaudable that they release information on threats from governments (and not only traditional spyware/virus). Since this is (probably) built by a government, one can be certain that a government somewhere (presumably Western, given the infected countries) is upset about the release. And they didn't cave in to that, which is good.

ealexhudson 12y ago
I would guess they didn't cave because no Government has registered their upset at this. If they did, it would be pretty clear which Government it was - making me think the Government in question has few levers to pull against Symantec.
- sandstrom 12y ago
  A good point. They cannot force anything without revealing involvement, and after the details are published it's too late to try to influence.
- billyhoffman 12y ago
  I disagree. Symantec is one of the few companies on the planet that has had to deal with this exact situation before: Stuxnet. By late 2010, Synametic had come to the conclusion that Stuxnet was most probably a joint US/Israeli malware project, designed to disrupt Iran's quest for a nuclear bomb. [1] Just try and imagine that the gravity of that moment. They had stumbled into an international covert action involving weapons of mass destruction. I mean the closest thing I can even compare this with is fiction (the "too many secrets"/"using the magic box" scene in the movie Sneakers). But this wasn't fiction, and Symantec researchers and management had to decide what to do. They could have just shut up and said nothing. After all they were a US company, forbidden by law to even to do business in Iran. But they didn't do that. Rightly or wrongly, they published their findings in a whitepaper and told the world about it. I think Synmantec has earned the benefit of the doubt when dealing with state sponsored malware. [1] http://www.wired.com/2011/07/how-digital-detectives-deciphered-stuxnet/all/ http://www.wired.com/2011/07/how-digital-detectives-decipher...

ealexhudson 12y ago

I would guess they didn't cave because no Government has registered their upset at this. If they did, it would be pretty clear which Government it was - making me think the Government in question has few levers to pull against Symantec.

sandstrom 12y ago
A good point. They cannot force anything without revealing involvement, and after the details are published it's too late to try to influence.
billyhoffman 12y ago
I disagree. Symantec is one of the few companies on the planet that has had to deal with this exact situation before: Stuxnet. By late 2010, Synametic had come to the conclusion that Stuxnet was most probably a joint US/Israeli malware project, designed to disrupt Iran's quest for a nuclear bomb. [1] Just try and imagine that the gravity of that moment. They had stumbled into an international covert action involving weapons of mass destruction. I mean the closest thing I can even compare this with is fiction (the "too many secrets"/"using the magic box" scene in the movie Sneakers). But this wasn't fiction, and Symantec researchers and management had to decide what to do. They could have just shut up and said nothing. After all they were a US company, forbidden by law to even to do business in Iran. But they didn't do that. Rightly or wrongly, they published their findings in a whitepaper and told the world about it. I think Synmantec has earned the benefit of the doubt when dealing with state sponsored malware. [1] http://www.wired.com/2011/07/how-digital-detectives-deciphered-stuxnet/all/ http://www.wired.com/2011/07/how-digital-detectives-decipher...