Talk:Kaspersky Lab

Archives (Index)

2012 2014 2015 2016 2017 2019 2020 2021

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

FCC Bans Kaspersky Lab

In March of 2022, the Federal Communications Commission of the United States added Kaspersky Lab to its list of entities that pose an unacceptable risk to US national security. This was announced in a press release by FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel.

This should be added to the article, an addition in the section "Bans and allegations of Russian government ties" ([Article]) 116.15.154.144 (talk) 12:30, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Germany, Avast, and many other security sources warn Kaspersky is not safe

The page should be reworked to prominently reflect the consensus of western security authorities and researchers that Kaspersky is not safe. Russia's February 2022 invasion of Ukraine has led to growing concern over security risks associated with Kaspersky.Apr 8, 2022 Is Kaspersky Safe to Use in 2022? - Avast Is it safe to use Kaspersky during Ukraine war? Germany's cyber-security authority has warned against using anti-virus software from Russian headquartered company Kaspersky. The Federal Office for Information Security (BSI) issued the statement in light of the conflict in Ukraine.Mar 15, 2022 Germany warns against Russian anti-virus use - BBC News https://www.bbc.co.uk › news › technology-60738208

Should I remove Kaspersky 2022?

Is Kaspersky Antivirus safe to use? We don't recommend using Kaspersky Antivirus, because there might be security issues related to its user identification ties to the Russian secret services.Jun 17, 2022 Kaspersky Anti-Virus Review (2022): Not Good for Your Safety - Cybernews Germany's Federal Office for Information Security (BSI) has warned against using any Kaspersky products. The German agency says the Russian government could use Kaspersky's IT infrastructure “as a tool for attacks against its customers.”Mar 29, 2022 Is it safe to use Russian-based Kaspersky antivirus? No, and here's ... https://www.komando.com › security-privacy › kaspersky...

Kaspersky, the fifth-largest vendor of enterprise IT products, has been added to the US FCC's blacklist. Those who know cyber security know Kaspersky Lab.Apr 7, 2022 Kaspersky Antivirus: Why the software was added to a US security risk list https://www.cshub.com › security-strategy › news › kaspe...

The EU labelled the company's software products as “malicious”, leading to an EU-wide ban. Following the wave of government bans, Twitter also prevented Kaspersky from placing ads on the social media platform, claiming its business model conflicts with its Twitter Ads business practices.Mar 16, 2022

Germany advises against using Kaspersky software due to hacking ... https://www.itpro.co.uk › security › cyber-security › germ...

Kaspersky banned by the US government

Immediately after Russia attacked Ukraine in February 2022, the US government started privately briefing companies responsible for critical state infrastructure about possible Russian interference. Now, Kaspersky and its affiliates have landed on the FCC's Covered List.Apr 8, 2022

Is Kaspersky Safe to Use in 2022? - Avast https://www.avast.com › c-is-kaspersky-safe — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yagulgluk (talk • contribs) 19:13, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

"Stole" the information from the NSA agent or the contractor themselves turned-on the 'auto-send' suspicious files feature?

Kaspersky "stole" them???? Which is a conclusion.

• Steal: Definition - "... to take the property of another wrongfully and especially as a habitual or regular practice" / "to take or appropriate without right or leave and with intent to keep or make use of wrongfully" / "to take away by force or unjust means" / "to take surreptitiously or without permission" / "to appropriate to oneself or beyond one's proper share"[1]

Or the NSA agent turned-on the option to auto-send suspicious files to Kaspersky? Which is it?

• Kaspersky: Yes, we obtained NSA secrets. No, we didn’t help steal them ArsTechnica.

CaribDigita (talk) CaribDigita (talk) 04:15, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

As your source indicates, American intelligence agencies believe that "Kaspersky AV was modified intentionally to help Russian spies locate the NSA material"; therefore, the current text is correct that such allegations exist and, as the allegations have been reported by multiple WP:RS, must remain documented in Wikipedia. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 20:14, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Inaccuracy of source - edit with spy drone - [147]

Hello, as mentioned on past interactions, my name is Jeff Esposito and I am the head of our company’s social media team. I wanted to address the recent edit to the page to include InformNapalm and ask that the addition to the page be removed/reverted.

There is no ongoing collaboration or commercial partnership between Kaspersky and Albatros, and Kaspersky doesn’t offer neural networks as a commercial solution. Kaspersky ended an Antidrone solutions distribution agreement with Albatros in 2022.

In 2021 Kaspersky had an experimental, non-commercial collaboration with Albatros focused on emergency response. The pilot project was aimed for humanitarian actions and that was it. The story is also based on alleged leaked emails that are taken out of context presenting disinformation and speculation.

While Vladimir Turov and Vladimir Kleshnin are indeed Kaspersky employees, the alleged cooperation with Albatros within the Odyssey project dates back to a period predating their employment at Kaspersky.

The unverified opinions about Kaspersky should be taken as nothing more than unsubstantiated, false allegations against a company whose mission has always been to protect against malware regardless of its source. Kaspersky remains committed to the full transparency about its business, products and technologies.

While I know that Wikimedia rules note that corporate messages are not allowed, neither are unverified news sources and the source used is openly noted a bias against Russia. So it is using a source on alleged hacked materials vs. factual basis. Jeffespo (talk) 15:35, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 May 2024

As mentioned on Talk page, the latest addition to the page should be removed. The source of data is an alleged hack, which is inaccurate.

Inaccuracy of source - edit with spy drone - [147] Hello, as mentioned on past interactions, my name is Jeff Esposito and I am the head of our company’s social media team. I wanted to address the recent edit to the page to include InformNapalm and ask that the addition to the page be removed/reverted.

There is no ongoing collaboration or commercial partnership between Kaspersky and Albatros, and Kaspersky doesn’t offer neural networks as a commercial solution. Kaspersky ended an Antidrone solutions distribution agreement with Albatros in 2022.

In 2021 Kaspersky had an experimental, non-commercial collaboration with Albatros focused on emergency response. The pilot project was aimed for humanitarian actions and that was it. The story is also based on alleged leaked emails that are taken out of context presenting disinformation and speculation.

While Vladimir Turov and Vladimir Kleshnin are indeed Kaspersky employees, the alleged cooperation with Albatros within the Odyssey project dates back to a period predating their employment at Kaspersky.

The unverified opinions about Kaspersky should be taken as nothing more than unsubstantiated, false allegations against a company whose mission has always been to protect against malware regardless of its source. Kaspersky remains committed to the full transparency about its business, products and technologies.

While I know that Wikimedia rules note that corporate messages are not allowed, neither are unverified news sources and the source used is openly noted a bias against Russia. So it is using a source on alleged hacked materials vs. factual basis. Jeffespo (talk) 15:35, 2 May 2024 (UTC) Jeffespo (talk) 10:10, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: This request has no standing for reasons that are incredibly obvious, namely no sourcing and lack of sufficient justification. Quetstar (talk) 03:06, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Again, while I disagree, the sourcing is a factual reply but doesn't meet the Wiki rules, but that's the catch-22. The allegations come from unsourced and hacked data and misinterpretations. We followed the rules here, but at the core of it, they are allegations from questionable sources, which unto itself should be a flag for edits. We will follow the rules and stick with the ruling from the editorial board, but it’s still something that is a bit biased against companies with allegations as 1st party accounts count less than allegations stemming from hacked sources, which unto itself is questionable data and/or sourcing.

Perhaps a more fair account could be:

In 2024 hacked email accounts allegedly showed that Kaspersky Lab has helped the Russian government develop software for its spy drones. Kaspersky denied those allegations.

Using the Register who is a publication that was spoken to vs. just using the hacked allegations.

https://www.theregister.com/2024/05/03/kaspersky_russia_military_drone_claims/ Jeffespo (talk) 15:52, 9 May 2024 (UTC)