this post was submitted on 21 Jun 2024
360 points (99.2% liked)
Technology
59495 readers
3114 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Seems reactionary, but maybe not
Not really https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/01/technology/kaspersky-lab-antivirus.html
Very creative how Kaspersky used SEO to hide this story. When searching you have to exclude all of their sites to find it.
Not everyone has a NYT subscription: https://web.archive.org/web/20180102011635/https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/01/technology/kaspersky-lab-antivirus.html
Thanks for the link. The article is a whole lot of nothingburger. The entire premise of the article is that Kaspersky works as intended (just as any other security software) to flag files with certain phrases. Therefore, it can be used to find classified markings. Therefore, Kaspersky is bad... What?
So we should just ban all security software?
Why is it so hard to find a single piece of evidence that Kaspersky fucked up, or that their software has something in particular that is more risky compared to other security software. Anyone with more knowledge can explain plz?
Sounds like there is some other motive for doing this. Or they found something they aren't willing to tell us. But why?
From the article:
From the "recent news" article mentioned above:
Honestly, I agree, it's a serious accusation against Kaspersky with very scant details and allegations made by off-the-record "officials". Having said that, just because they didn't present any compelling evidence doesn't mean it didn't happen. In the words of Carl Sagan, "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." I'm not sure where that leaves us though lol. Honestly, I don't trust Kaspersky with my data any less that with any of the other big antivirus companies. I guess it makes sense they would want antivirus software with CIA/NSA backdoors over alternatives though :p
The entire premise of the article is that the Russian government can and has used Kaspersky's access to perform espionage operations against the United States.
That absolutely is not a nothingburger. Russia is a hostile power and banning software a hostile power is actively using to attack you is perfectly legitimate behavior. This isn't "malware is using a file transfer application instead of rolling their own". It's "this is an application that by definition relies on absolute trust in the good faith of the provider, that is compromised by an enemy state".