NSA Contractor Downloaded Backdoor to PC, Says Kaspersky Lab

[steven36]

There was also a follow up story  Snowden  didn't make  that much money  that that was fake news
 

Quote

Booz Allen can confirm that Edward Snowden, 29, was an employee of our firm for less than 3 months, assigned to a team in Hawaii. Snowden, who had a salary at the rate of $122,000, was terminated June 10, 2013 for violations of the firm’s code of ethics and firm policy. News reports that this individual has claimed to have leaked classified information are shocking, and if accurate, this action represents a grave violation of the code of conduct and core values of our firm. We will work closely with our clients and authorities in their investigation of this matter.

There’s a massive difference between $122,000 and $200,000 — a 64 percent difference. Yet Glenn Greenwald, the Guardian journalist at the forefront of these stories, says this: “That is a very strangely worded statement — using ‘rate,'” writes Greenwald. When asked whether he’d seen Snowden’s pay stubs, Greenwald said he hadn’t. “[H]is salary didn’t really strike me as a central part of the story, to put that mildly. It’s possible Booz Allen is using a pro-rated figure, or it’s possible Snowden talked about his salary at his prior NSA job at Dell.” A source told the Erik Wemple Blog that Snowden wasn’t bonus-eligible

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2013/06/11/did-snowden-really-earn-a-200000-salary/?utm_term=.6f7d7581745a

 

[steven36]

How’s the removal of Russian software from federal computers going?

 

WASHINGTON

The top Democrat on the Senate homeland security committee wants to know how the elimination from government computers of a popular anti-virus software, whose maker has suspected ties to Russian intelligence, is being handled.

 

Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., the ranking Democrat on the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, sought answers to nearly a dozen questions about the removal of products manufactured by Kaspersky Lab, a Russian company, in a letter Tuesday to Acting Homeland Security Secretary Elaine Duke.

 

Duke last month ordered all federal executive branch departments and agencies to remove Kaspersky software from their systems by mid-December.

Among other questions, McCaskill wants to know why the Department of Homeland Security waited so long. Several top national security officials warned the Senate Intelligence Committee last spring about the use of Kaspersky products.

 

McCaskill also asked Duke whether her department knows the full extent of Kaspersky use throughout the federal government; how it is ensuring that agencies are complying with her order; and what is it doing to make sure local and state governments that work with the federal government, as well as private businesses and government contractors, are aware of the concerns about Kaspersky software.

“Kaspersky products present a clear security threat to the U.S.,” McCaskill wrote.

 

Scott McConnell, a spokesman for the Homeland Security Department, declined to comment about the letter. The department has also declined to state how many federal agencies use Kaspersky products.

Spokesmen for several agencies that do use Kaspersky, including the National Institutes of Health and the Consumer Products Safety Commission, would only say that they are following the directives from the Homeland Security Department.

 

Though the Defense Department is not included under Duke’s order, a Pentagon spokesman told Nextgov that it was scrutinizing its software to ensure that Kaspersky was not employed in any military systems.

The concerns over the federal use of Kaspersky software has been growing and has reached a crescendo in recent months as the ongoing probes by Congress and Special Counsel Robert Mueller continue to dig into the role Russia played in the 2016 presidential election, and whether it colluded with President Donald Trump’s campaign to help him win.

 

Several former national security and intelligence officials have long been suspicious of the company, with 400 million users worldwide, given that its founder, Eugene Kaspersky, attended a school run by the KGB, the former Soviet spy agency, now succeeded by the Russian FSB. The company has repeatedly denied having any connections to Russian spy services.

 

McClatchy reported in July that documents appear to show a link between the company and the FSB. Given that Kaspersky software, which scans computer data to eliminate viruses, provides access to computers embedded with the software, there’s a nagging concern that Russian security services would gain access as well.

 

“If people aren’t concerned, they should be,” said Michael Sulmeyer, former director of Plans and Operations for Cyber Policy for the secretary of Defense.

Sulmeyer is currently director of the Belfer Center Cyber Security Project Director at Harvard University’s Kennedy School. He and other cyber experts said removing Kasperksy might not be that simple. Just hitting “un-install”might not be enough.

 

“The more realistic scenario is that there will be a lot of manual work to determine where Kaspersky actually exists and the impact of removing those impacts would be,” said Trevor Rudolph, former chief of the Cyber and National Security Unit at the Office of Management and Budget. “For instance, if Kasperksy is the sole anti-malware on a particular device, if you were just to remove it, you would leave the device vulnerable,” unless you were going to immediately replace it with another software product, he said.

 

Paul Rosenzweig, a cyber expert and former assistant Homeland Security secretary for policy, quipped, “Changing anti-virus software is like changing your underwear.” But he also said that sophisticated cyber enterprises are complex and individualized systems.

 

“Any good anti-virus software…is tailored to the system it’s protecting,” Rosenzweig said. “The programming is deeply integrated and figuring out how to remove, and more importantly, replace is not a trivial exercise.”

 

Concerns over Kaspersky heightened recently when the Wall Street Journal reported that in 2015, the personal computer of a National Security Agency contractor who used the Russian software was compromised by Russian hackers. Eugene Kaspersky denied that his company was involved.

 

In addition, The New York Times reported earlier this month that Israeli alerted U.S. authorities two years ago that Russian hackers had breached computers around the world in a hunt for the code names of American intelligence efforts, and used Kaspersky software to gain access.

 

In an attempt to overcome the mistrust, Kaspersky this week said it would open up the source code of its software for review by computer security experts and government officials.

Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., whose measure to ban the use of Kaspersky software across the federal government passed the Senate last month, said in agencies should leave “no proverbial stone unturned” in identifying and eliminating the Russian software.

 

“At the end of this process, there should be confidence that Kaspersky has been completely removed,” she said.

 

 

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/national/article180708661.html

 

[knowledge-Spammer]

steven36

u say u is from usa  do u real think what usa gov  saying about Kaspersky  is fair or u real trust what they say ?

look at all the things they have said about russia and hacking  and yet no proof   if people real think as usa gov say russia made trump boss  u real think russia played a part in helping trump   what u real think  give it to me

[steven36]

55 minutes ago, knowledge said:

steven36

u say u is from usa  do u real think what usa gov  saying about Kaspersky  is fair or u real trust what they say ?

look at all the things they have said about russia and hacking  and yet no proof   if people real think as usa gov say russia made trump boss  u real think russia played a part in helping trump   what u real think  give it to me

 The fact remains they  don't say why they removed  it only i hear what the press and kapersky  say  and only thing the government said was the  fact they removed  it  but not  really why   and nothing else. I cant change the fact  they removed it and I can't make the Government say why they done it. You asking me  to believe in what  ?  There is nothing to believe  only fact I'm sure  of  that they did remove it.   If the Government ever really  says why  i will get back too you on this question  if I believe or not  . I'm sure they have there reasons truth founded or not.  

 

What do except  from a bunch that's   up in  there now  that brings  something up as important  as who shot JFK  53 years ago.  Don't they got  some real issues to deal with? you cant do nothing about the past now  it's too late  .  This has fueled  conspiracy theories  for 53 years  and still going strong . It's just  like Kaspersky  they knew  the Government was fixing too  remove them  in July  once  it done  it's two  late and it would take a act of congress too ever put it back in place  and i don't see relations  improving too this level  .  

 

I know you  complain about  fake news  and things  but they made it leagl  in the USA  now  .

Quote

 

Because these stories were not blown up in the corporate media, you may not have noticed them. Instead you may have noticed stories in the New Yorker and New York Post and all over television and radio reporting that Russia has infiltrated the U.S. journalism landscape and has possibly bought off U.S. media and tampered with the U.S. elections.

 

The last U.S. government effort toward legalizing domestic propaganda happened in 2013 when the NDAA explicitly repealed parts of the Smith-Mundt Act, which had been passed in 1949 to prevent Voice of America propaganda from being broadcast inside the U.S. This made it possible for VOA (whose employees work at Buzzfeed and the Atlantic Council) and the Broadcasting Board of Governors (patrons of supposedly secure communications software like Tor and Signal) to aim their propaganda at the U.S. domestic population. As a result, 2014 saw an incredible uptick in editorials encouraging people in the U.S. to support U.S. war and intervention in the Middle East, whether against the Islamic State group (IS) or the Syrian government.

 

The median pay of a U.S. journalist is around $39,000 a year. (payscale.com) In a city like New York, this makes journalism a nearly impossible endeavor. With freelance journalists making around $250 an article, this means quantity is key, not quality.

 

A well-thought-out article may cost the journalist more time and energy than it’s worth. Grants from the U.S. government that are supposed to “support local independent media to refute foreign disinformation and manipulation in their communities” will line more pockets. They will favor those toeing the official line over those engaging in adversarial journalism — exposing and countering the lies of capitalism and imperialism.

 

The new bill also offers grants to “collect and store examples of disinformation and propaganda directed at the United States and its allies.” This is clearly a call for a hit list, such as was seen in the pages of the Washington Post when it covered the anonymous “PropOrNot” list of supposedly unreliable news websites.

In this country, corporate-­owned media are clearly accountable to the government and private interests, not the public they are supposed to serve.

 

https://www.workers.org/2016/12/15/fake-news-covers-up-domestic-propaganda-law/

Fake news  use too not be a problem like it  is now in the USA  because it was illegal  tell   2013 .

 

[Sylence]

Stev makes me laugh, he's a try hard, but seriously how a nsa guy couldn't find the right keygen for Microsoft office i mean wtf lol

well obviously Kaspersky is innocent even though they trying to throw any kinds of accusations around them

[knowledge-Spammer]

Proud to keep on protecting – no matter the false allegations in the U.S. media.

Hi folks!

I doubt you’ll have missed the unrelenting negative news coverage about KL of late. The most recent accusation is that alleged Russian hackers and the hidden hand of the Kremlin have somehow used our products to spy on American users and pilfer their secrets.

The media attacks have been intense, fierce and persistent – so much so that we’ve had to lay low for a while to catch our breath and work out what on earth this is all about. But now, since nearly a week has passed without any significant flak coming our way, I’ve been able to take the time to sit down and put fingertips to keyboard and assess the situation as objectively as I can. And I’d best do it quickly, since the respite may be short.

So, again… What exactly is going on here?

Clearly we’re doing something right. And we want to continue doing it better – in the ongoing fight against cybercrime

First up, let’s keep in mind that concerns about KL, given its origins, are not new. We recognize that some people think ‘Russian cybersecurity company’ are three words that shouldn’t be in the same sentence, especially these days. Still, the motivations behind recent reports, while intriguing, cannot be our concern. Instead, we need to focus on doing everything possible to be as transparent as possible for our most important stakeholders: our customers and partners.

Despite today’s tense geopolitical situation, KL has continued do what it does best: focusing on protecting our customers from cyberthreats regardless of where those threats may come from. Our folks work hard every day to be the best at what they do in order to provide the best cybersecurity protection available. And independent tests and awards show that our efforts haven’t been in vain. Just this month we were awarded the top ‘Platinum Award’ as part of the first ever Gartner Peer Insights Customer Choice Awards for Endpoint Protection Platforms. To receive any industry award is a good thing; to receive one based on what customers say about us is even better. We’ve strengthened our partnership with INTERPOL to fight cybercrime even more effectively. Clearly we’re doing something right. And we want to continue doing it right… no – better – in the ongoing fight against cybercrime.

If these recent allegations in U.S. media are true, where’s the evidence?

But we know awards and accolades don’t address these recent allegations. And we all know that government scrutiny of KL will continue. The past year has seen concerns about KL change from ‘what if their technology could be a tool for cyber-espionage by nation states’ to ‘they were hacked and used as a vehicle to spy on spies’. And while it’s hard for us to keep up with the constantly evolving narrative, ask yourself one thing: ‘if these recent allegations are true, where’s the evidence?’ If there was any evidence that we’ve been knowingly involved in cyber-espionage, we’d be toast! No ifs or buts – it’d be game over: governments would take immediate, severe action, including legal moves, and that would be that. But there’s been nothing of the kind. And you have to wonder why.

Another issue is where’s the due process? The steady stream of media leaks seem intentionally designed to damage our reputation without providing us with any real opportunity to address any concerns – because action is being taken before we can engage. Some will say that the government has provided us with an administrative remedy that we can pursue, and if so we will do so. But genuine due process provides you with the opportunity to defend yourself and see the evidence against you before action is taken; it doesn’t ask you to respond once action is already underway.

We know that the allegations are very serious, and we’re taking them very seriously. And since we aren’t seeing the due process we’d expect, here, for now, let me at least put the record straight on a few technical matters that appear to have been misrepresented in the recent media reports – a few explanations of what it is our software actually does:

The functionality of our products depends entirely on the code of our applications and the records in our databases – no mysterious magic here (just like there’s no mysterious magic with all other software companies’ products). And all our products and databases are all openly accessible on public servers. All our old products and former updates – in backups. If in any of it there’s any undeclared (espionage) functionality that violates the confidentiality of data of our users – do tell us the name of the product, the name of the module, and where the suspected code is, or the number of the update and the record identifier. That’s the information we’d be ready to look at – with the utmost seriousness. If there’s no information like that in any media report with accusations aimed at us, such a report is based on known-to-be lies, or simply repeated lies and falsifications of someone else.

How our products work is determined exclusively by the logic of the algorithms in the program modules and contents of our databases. The last time we conducted a full audit of the source code of our products and database records was in spring-summer of 2015 since our own network had been compromised by the Duqu 2 espionage malware. And we found zero bugs, zero backdoors – not in our products, not in our databases, not in our updates. We’re conducting a similar audit right now. And we’re inviting external expert IT-security observers too. And I’m absolutely certain nothing untoward will be found.

Yes, our products do conduct deep scanning of a computer and its files (as does all software in the ‘utility’ category). We do test files for the presence of malicious code. We do specially track and evaluate suspicious behavior of unknown objects in a system. And yes, we do – in full accordance with declared functionality and industry standards – send data on such objects to the cloud for further analysis (if the user has decided to go for this option). And this is how any antivirus worth its salt works. Any why? It’s all for one purpose: a finely-tuned, fully-optimized ability to do nothing but catch malware, neutralize it, and so protect our users. And we happen to be the best in the world at it. Our mission is to protect our users and their data. Surveillance, snooping, spying, eavesdropping… all that is done by espionage agencies (which we occasionally catch out and tell the world about), not us.

The main priority of our company is the protection of our users from all types of cyberthreats, no matter their origin.

In the cyberworld, evidence usually means the names of the respective modules, location of the code, and its disassembler (or its part). Indeed, it’s details like these that make up the main findings in our expert reports on the world’s most complex cyber-incidents (more on those – here).

Again, we remain absolutely committed to the protection of our users, and we work hard every day to do it better than anyone else. We’ve asked those with any relevant information to share it with us so we can do everything possible to fulfill our mission. Buy one of our boxed products in the nearest supermarket or an online version – analyze it, decompile it, and let us hear your findings! But we know we can’t wait for folks to come to us. Therefore, we’ll do everything we can to respond to the stated concerns by being fully transparent about our efforts and our findings. Our customers deserve nothing less.

In closing, I once again declare:

The main priority of our company is the protection of our users from all types of cyberthreats, no matter their origin. We do this better than anyone else. And that’s nothing to be ashamed of – only proud of.

Sincerely yours,
E.K.

[straycat19]

Let's cut to the root of the problem.  The U.S. Govt says there is a problem with Kaspersky software, Kaspersky says there isn't.  News media reports it was used as a portal to gain access to classified data, Kaspersky admits that his software had previously mined classified data from a computer running his software but he had the data destroyed.  Accusations, counter accusations, admissions.  Logically, if the software retrieved classified data once, it could do it again.  What proof is there that he previously destroyed the data?  None, just his word.  (Read the article on this forum on Trust.)  The bottom line is security software that is constantly changing cannot be audited, unlike a software package that isn't updated daily and which updates can be delayed until they are audited.  No independent third party has stepped in with any proof on whether one side or the other is right.  I understand why none of them will, which is for the same reason mentioned above, that software that is constantly updated cannot be audited and no security firm is going to risk their reputation.  And in the light of day an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.  So even if it can't be proven the software somehow puts classified data at risk, it is better to be ultra safe and secure than to be right or wrong.  In the field of security there is only secure or not secure, there is no right or wrong.

[DKT27]

You guys should know we allow AV related discussions because we are technology forum. But please try to keep politics out of it as much as possible, even though this news is very much political in itself, but we can atleast try.

 

I'm sad all this is happening. AV company's role, no matter which side they are from, is to protect it's users. Anything they do which purposely compromise it's user's security is wrong. Again, I'm not saying about any one particular AV here, as previously, there have been many bad examples from AV companies I think.

[knowledge-Spammer]

12 hours ago, straycat19 said:

Let's cut to the root of the problem.  The U.S. Govt says there is a problem with Kaspersky software, Kaspersky says there isn't.  News media reports it was used as a portal to gain access to classified data, Kaspersky admits that his software had previously mined classified data from a computer running his software but he had the data destroyed.  Accusations, counter accusations, admissions.  Logically, if the software retrieved classified data once, it could do it again.  What proof is there that he previously destroyed the data?  None, just his word.  (Read the article on this forum on Trust.)  The bottom line is security software that is constantly changing cannot be audited, unlike a software package that isn't updated daily and which updates can be delayed until they are audited.  No independent third party has stepped in with any proof on whether one side or the other is right.  I understand why none of them will, which is for the same reason mentioned above, that software that is constantly updated cannot be audited and no security firm is going to risk their reputation.  And in the light of day an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.  So even if it can't be proven the software somehow puts classified data at risk, it is better to be ultra safe and secure than to be right or wrong.  In the field of security there is only secure or not secure, there is no right or wrong.

Let's cut to the root of the problem
U.S. Govt says there is a problem with Kaspersky now lets see usa proof ? i still not see
look at all the things usa say about russia and still no proof y ? its all lies
Kaspersky  is going  to open his code to all to see  and then lets see what usa bs say then  its funny as Kaspersky  is open to show and do real proof but yet usa not want this y  maybe Kaspersky  can show its all bs  with no real proof
u say Kaspersky admits that his software had previously mined classified data from a computer running his software but he had the data destroyed. who is saying this is it from usa or russia ?

let me say as is  nsa guy take files or docs from nsa and take them home   and now as the files he take from nsa  are docs now he need download office  from pirated to see the files and when he download office   it had malwere in his download   and then what he do he download
Kaspersky   and clicked scan if the download office   had malwere with it  y people thik Kaspersky   will not scan the malwere files  ? is crazy to me  its what Kaspersky    job is   
u say this So even if it can't be proven the software somehow puts classified data at risk,  so Kaspersky    cant win nomatter what them do  but still whats the real proof then ? i am still not seeing it  maybe i am slow  but still  what a load of bs
the guy in the wrong is from nsa not Kaspersky     can u name one usa program av thats going to open its code  never will happen y  as people will see the real truth about spys   to me this is all scary things as people talk with out real proof  and want people to  say well usa must be right  
but yet with all the things usa have said about russia its never been proof  so ill trust usa  i think not

again this nsa guy download and take files from nsa and Kaspersky is the risk  it just to much for me

[knowledge-Spammer]