this post was submitted on 24 Sep 2024
107 points (87.9% liked)
Technology
59534 readers
3183 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
Yes... no... sorta....kinda... but no different than how most, if not all, large American security and tech vendors have either overt, or covert, links to the the American Security State.
Kaspersky is a long established credible actor and leader in the threat research space, hands down one of the best track records over the long run, and you should take their reporting and disclosures seriously.
I'm not saying that to dismiss the very valid concerns about installing Kaspersky on sensitive private sector and government systems, but to contextualize my answer.
On a sort of related note, earlier I said that the American security state has both overt, or covert, links all across the American tech sector.
What that means is that, even if a company holds their principles not compromising their customers or their product, the US government can either get a court order to force it, or they'll be targeted by something like the Pentagons Signature Reduction program and have sheep dipped employees worked into their organization.
Point is, Kaspersky is one of the few remaining Russian brands and entities still holds a lot of credibility in it's field, but again, that doesn't mean the concerns of Western government's aren't valid, just that they should be viewed in the proper context.
Great explanation! So, to summarize: They know their trade but their software should not be installed because it's like with US Software: Backdoors Likely Integrated.
On the other side, I still use some Google Products...
No problem, happy it helped.
Your summary is mostly accurate, but I think a better way to understand it would be like this:
Low level security software, by nature, is the ultimate attack vector, if compromised.
Assume that all countries that have both a domestic tech sector, and a well-resourced national security apparatus, have some version of on demand government initiated supply chain attack capabilities.
So it's not like I believe that all Kaspersky installs include a RAT piped directly to some GRU/FSB unit, just the ability for a malicious payload to be inserted - just as the NSA can do with American tech companies.
Not every risk can be mitigated, but some risks just shouldn't be taken.
The difference for me is: As for now, the US is not run by a fascist (yet). Injecting Malicious Software to bust terrorism/mafia/corruption... ok,.... Injecting Malicious Software to kill gays/opposition... Nope (and that is what I would expect the Russians to do)
I think you've confused my previous comments as some sort of moral equivocation, which they really weren't meant to be, but since you brought it up...
You may believe that America's intelligence agencies, on balance, are more moral than Russia, and you're probably right, but that is damning by faint praise.
Espionage is literally the act of committing crimes on behalf of a government. It's not altruistic and it's not used to fight the good fight of corruption, or the mafia. In fact, it's often done in conjunction with those actions and organizations, because that is what the job often requires.
Either way, Russia doesn't need Kaspersky to run its domestic surveillance network or it's myriad of police state apparatuses.
FYI oftentimes terrorism is blowback from actions taken by intelligence agencies years, or decades, prior. That is, the groups and ideologies they fund, train, and use, for their own ends, don't cease to exist just because they're no longer useful, or needed, by those agencies.
Yes you are 100% correct (or at least in line with my views... which I think should be correct)