Talk:Kaspersky Lab

Archives (Index)

2012 2014 2015 2016 2017 2019 2020 2021

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Merge Eugene Kaspersky here

Unless someone cites reliable sources that Eugene Kaspersky did something notable other than what is his company's article, I'll merge him to here after a week. Thank you. -- Perfecto 01:08, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

It's been a while so I've done it for you. Eugene Kaspersky now redirects here. Barrylb 19:34, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

It's not uncommon for Wikipedia to have separate articles for the founder of a company and for the company, even if the founder's fame is mostly based on founding that company. 84.163.202.2 (talk) 17:56, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

In this case, the founder's fame seems solely based on the company. --50.203.70.200 (talk) 20:47, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Kaspersky Lab. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121027114423/http://av-comparatives.org:80/comparativesreviews/detection-test/168-file-detection-test-february-2008 to http://www.av-comparatives.org/comparativesreviews/detection-test/168-file-detection-test-february-2008
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130215073050/http://www.av-comparatives.org:80/comparativesreviews/retrospective-test/92-heuristic-behaviour-test-may-2008a to http://www.av-comparatives.org/comparativesreviews/retrospective-test/92-heuristic-behaviour-test-may-2008a
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.anti-malware-test.com/?q=taxonomy/term/5

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:51, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Recent Edits

Hi All. I wanted to raise a few issues/comments regarding recent edits and news.

BLP: First, this edit appears to introduce allegations of criminal conduct by a living person that are not yet substantiated by the criminal justice system in violation of WP:BLPCRIME. It also appears to be of only marginal relevance to Kaspersky, especially since the criminal allegations are allegedly related to events prior to his employment at Kaspersky.

Lead: Second, the Lead now contains redundant and conflicting information about speculations that Kaspersky has an inappropriate relationship with the Russian government. It reads as follows:

Lead

"Despite some in the US worrying about the possibility of meddling by Russian intelligence, Kaspersky services are also used by such federal US agencies as the Bureau of Prisons, the Consumer Protection Safety Commission and some segments of the Defense Department.[6]. . . In 2017, Kaspersky became the subject of controversy in the United States, over allegations that the company has engaged with the Russian Federal Security Service (FSB), in the wake of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security subsequently banned Kaspersky products from all government departments on 13 September 2017. The company has denied that it has direct ties with or has engaged with the Russian government.[9]"

Section title: Third, the section title "Ties to the Russian government" seems to suggest such ties actually exist and are verified, whereas they are merely speculated or alleged. Plenty of sources are quite critical of these claims.[1] and many sources make explicit statements that these claims are speculated, but not supported by any evidence(see below). Suggest "alleged" or "speculated" there, or returning to the original section-format.

Sources verifying "alleged"/"speculated"

"Yet there has been no demonstrable evidence that Kaspersky is influenced by Russian authorities, nor that Russian intelligence services have cajoled the company into installing backdoors."WIRED "American officials have not presented any concrete evidence that Kaspersky has allowed the Kremlin to use its products to advance its intelligence operations."Chicago Tribune "Given the controversy over Kaspersky’s rumored but never clearly substantiated closeness with Russian intelligence, the move might just be erring on the side of caution. Still, to purge Kaspersky products altogether in such a public way sends a strong message, but who the message is to or what if anything it’s actually rooted in remains far from clear."TechCrunch

I know it takes a lot of time to review COI request on the Talk page and appreciate your time in advance. CorporateM (Talk) 21:32, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

I made a couple of the obvious changes, but am undecided as to how to word a replacement for the section that you say "contains redundant and conflicting information about speculations that Kaspersky has an inappropriate relationship with the Russian government" What wording would you suggest replacing it with? --Guy Macon (talk) 19:35, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: Bleh, I was afraid you might ask that. I fear anything I suggest would be criticized due to the political and controversial nature of the topic. That being said, I would do something like "Although there has been no direct evidence, many American government agencies and corporations suspect Kaspersky uses its IT security software to assist the Russian government with cyber-espionage against other nations." Three things: (1) eliminates recentism, because it no longer focuses on the most recent news item (2) more global perspective as my understanding is this is mostly an American concern (3) feels encyclopedic that we document a suspicion, without taking sides. CorporateM (Talk) 20:21, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 October 2017

The Wall Street Journal just published an incendiary article that says hackers working for the Russian government stole confidential material from an NSA contractor's home computer. The hackers did so, according to the WSJ, after identifying files though the contractor's use of antivirus software from Moscow-based Kaspersky Lab. WW 02:00, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. -- Dane ^talk 04:09, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

GCHQ Concerns about Kaspersky in relation to Barclays Bank - A Reliable source?

Not adding it to the article until there are other confirmations but in November 2017, according to an FT article, some un-named officials at GCHQ in the UK had apparently expressed concerns about Kaspersky's free giveaway to Barclays bank customers, http://fortune.com/2017/11/13/kaspersky-barclays-russia-gchq/ . Is the publication concerned a reliable source for the GCHQ claims? Are the alleged GHCQ claims something that should be included in the article?ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:45, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

The FT article mentioned in the given link appears to be pay-walled. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:25, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Criticisms and Controversy

@Guy Macon: previously removed the "Criticisms and controversies" section-header, so that the "Malware discovery" and "Allegations of ties to the Russian government" sections stood apart. This is aligned with WP:CRIT, which says "In most cases separate sections devoted to criticism, controversies, or the like should be avoided" and "sections within an article dedicated to negative criticisms are normally also discouraged." Also, putting "Malware discoveries" under "Criticisms" just doesn't make sense; discovering malware is something Kaspersky is known for and it reflects positively on their reputation.

@CaribDigita: restored the "Criticisms and controversies" section here and so I wanted to start a discussion about it on the Talk page. I think there may be some confusion on what the "Malware discovery" section is about (it is not negative or controversial).

Disclosure: I am affiliated with Kaspersky and have a COI.

CorporateM (Talk) 15:04, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

I have once again removed the "Criticisms and controversies" section-header per WP:CRIT and because it was inaccurate. CorporateM is entirely correct; the "Malware discovery" section is not negative nor is it controversial. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:12, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Looking over the "Allegations of ties to the Russian government" section, I see "CEO Eugene Kaspersky's prior work for the Russian military and his education at a KGB-sponsored technical college has led to allegations..." Do we treat the CEOs of other antivirus companies the same way we are treating Kaspersky? There are very few US colleges that don't receive US military funding and almost none that don't receive US government funding. Our article at Eugene Kaspersky says "Competitor FireEye said many U.S. IT companies also have executives that formerly worked for government military and intelligence agencies". I think that we may have a WP:NPOV problem here.

Regarding POV, we tend to follow the lead of Western WP:RS media, which have reported on Kaspersky's government ties more than on Western antivirus vendors' government ties. My guess is that the media focus is primarily because of a combination of (1) There is, as far as I know, much more evidence (though not currently proof) suggesting that Kaspersky may have spied on the U.S. than that, say, that McAfee (to pick a company on random) has spied on some foreign country, (2) the U.S. and European countries have a "Rule of Law" that provides some protection for corporations wanting to opt out of spying for their governments as well as a culture more open to whistleblowing than Russia, rendering agressive spying by, say, McAfee less a priori likely, and (3) Russia is already smart enough to skeptically vet U.S. software before installing it on sensitive systems, but not vice versa, thus the question of Kaspersky ties is germane to superpower dynamics in a way that Western companies' ties are not. While I presume Western media would implicitly prefer that Russian spying on the West be curtailed, they also haven't historically shied away from reporting on evidence of Western spying on Russia. But, as always, if we have WP:RS providing WP:DUE coverage discussing the links of Western companies, we should certainly add that to those companies, and if content in this article relies on WP:UNDUE sources (which I don't think it currently does), it can be removed. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 20:01, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Full disclosure: I have worked on classified projects for the US military and for a US ally (completely different part of the world, far from Russia). None involved IT. The work involved firefighting robots for use by the military. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:24, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi there, my intent was not to "restore" any sections. If there was one which was removed previously I apologize. I didn't know it was even there. I didn't look at the history. My earliest edit on this article was "September 28-29 of 2017." At which time I only added the alternate locations as it came to my knowledge they have some kind of Office in Massachusetts after I called their tech support. My unrelated copy-edit on "October 25,2017" intent was to place most of the seemingly 'current events' about the company under one area. I had used my copy-edit(s) from the Dish Network article (around the same time) as a blueprint of sorts as that article was very scattered all over too. As that header was already on Dish Network's I assumed it must be close to manual of style and so I copied the header from there and tried to narrow down the lead which looked like it was about 1/3rd of the article, and yet the article hardly mentioned anything about the company's products intricately. If I came here I'd want to know what's in the news, true. However, also some about what they make and who is claiming what about those products. So before I wind up on some Senate Committee now too like anybody in the U.S.A. who doesn't maintain the status quo I'm coming clean now. Oh, and I'm not suicidal or depressed so if I wind up dead investigate the U.S. regime!!! LMAO. just kidding. CaribDigita (talk) 19:54, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for chiming in @CaribDigita:. Sorry if my comment came off as too critical. To be fair, there are dedicated articles about Kaspersky products, such as Kaspersky Anti-Virus and Kaspersky Internet Security, though both pages include this controversy as well (a bit redundant IMO). @Guy Macon: The article's contents have been changing rapidly as current events unfold. The Lead in particular has been bouncing back and forth depending on whether the latest editor was American or European. IMO, the solution to the issue you raise with that particular sentence is to take the sentence out of Wikipedia's voice and make it more aligned with the source, which says Kaspersky's alleged Russian ties has led to mistrust with "the west". We merely document different perspectives after all, rather than make our own arguments for fairness, but even the English Wikipedia is intended to have a global perspective. CorporateM (Talk) 20:17, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

• Hi @CorporateM, not taken as critical at all. Just indicating I have no vested interest in the issue one way or the other. In Europe the media is required to give a balanced view on issues. The U.S. media appears to choose what it's going to publish on the matter though. Since I have the app on my computer I'm looking for facts not in between "coulda, kinda, seems like," style of journalism without facts. CaribDigita (talk) 22:45, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Lead

I noticed @Crossswords: created a Kaspersky bans and allegations of Russian government ties page and accordingly implemented WP:Summary Style here on the main page. I'm wondering if the Lead should still have so much on the topic now that it is a relatively small part of this page. I also noticed stuff in the Lead that clearly does not belong, like Gartner naming Kaspersky a "leader." IMO, the Lead could be improved by cutting it in half.

As previously disclosed, I am affiliated with Kaspersky. CorporateM (Talk) 13:29, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

I believe the idea of moving this section into a separate article wasn't a good one. I don't get how it was justified. Neither of three messages that introduced movement clarify this: one, two and three. DAVRONOVA.A. ✉ ⚑ 12:11, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't get it either. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 20:38, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Pinging @Crossswords: who made the move, in case nobody else already contacted them on their user page. CorporateM (Talk) 13:37, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

No mention of Russian arrests?

What about the 2017 Russian rubber hose decrypting case, arresting Ruslan Stoyanov and later the FSB guys? Zezen (talk) 12:40, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

@Zezen: According to Russian sources he was arrested on espionage charges and "treason. Though it easily may turn out to be untrue due to the closed court trial and unfair justice. Allegedly he turned over information about hackers who hacked DNC servers. Here is | a Russian article on that. DAVRONOVA.A. ✉ ⚑ 12:13, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Ta, User:Alexander_Davronov! I had read some technical background in his very own blog just before he was taken down for that. Anyhow: let us elaborate on that here.

Spasiba & pozdravljaju!

Yet Another Example of Wikipedia’s Built-In Bias

NPOV is MIA as usual. Readers of this article learn that “[s]ince 2015 Kaspersky was alleged to have close ties to the Russian government by various western media outlets, and finally the US government itself.”

Now take a look at the article for Amazon, an American tech company that regularly collaborates or otherwise cooperates with the NSA, CIA and other USG agencies and departments. You will not find a word like ‘alleged’ (implying, in the Kaspersky article, that a Russian company working with the Russian government is akin to a crime or a sinister transgression of universally established norms).

You will not find a phrase like ‘close ties’ (a term that implies a conflict of interest, or a corrupt relationship, between influential groups, governments and organizations, e.g. “the article alleged close ties between the casino’s owners and the state body regulating gambling establishments”).

Here is the exact same biased and loaded sentence from this article that I quoted above, but with ‘Amazon’ replacing ‘Kaspersky’, ‘Western media’ changed to ‘unaligned media’ and ‘United States government’ swapped out for ‘Chinese government’:

“Since 2015 Amazon was alleged to have close ties to the United States government by various unaligned media outlets, and finally the Chinese government itself.”

That would never ever fly because it just screams bias, implied assumptions and value judgements and deploys manipulative language. But Wikipedia has no problem whatsoever with that propaganda sentence when it implicitly assumes that the United States is ethically superior to its rivals and therefore its value judgements are valid even when it promotes a blatant “do as I say, not as I do” double-standard.

Wikipedia has a blatant western bias and if the organization valued honesty and integrity, it would state that fact up front. The fact that it does not, and indeed pretends that it is neutral or “objective”, suggests it is itself a cog in America’s propaganda dissemination system. User2346 (talk) 13:37, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

@User2346: The overall balance and tone of the article has swung back and forth over time due to the stark contrast in perspective between American and international sources/editors. I disagree with your criticisms of language choice. "Alleged" is on-target since the accusations are unproven. However, in my opinion the Lead focuses excessively on controversial recent events and the sentence "various western media outlets" begs for a similar sentence on what someone besides Western media says. I am affiliated with Kaspersky and have a disclosed conflict of interest, so I won't make any changes - just commenting. CorporateM (Talk) 16:05, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Have to agree. Not even a mention of how Karsperky actually helped the NSA in the past. Prinsgezinde (talk) 13:02, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Article-name

The company dropped "Lab" from its name and is now just called "Kaspersky"[2]. The majority of independent sources have since adopted the new name.[3]. Any thoughts on changing the article-name to something like "Kaspersky (company)" and/or changing references from "Kaspersky Lab" to "Kaspersky" throughout the article? CorporateM (Talk) 11:17, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Interesting question. We do change article names when a company changes it's name and sources start using the new name. Examples: KFC and Altria. On the other hand attempted name changes don't always end up being the name people use. For example, you often hear that Google own YouTube, never that Alphabet owns both.

On the other hand, sometimes a company tries to change their name and everybody keeps using the old name. Sometimes we see a press release announcing the new name and then nothing -- they continue on with the old name.

So I could go either way on this one.

I tend to pay little attention to Google results like "Kaspersky Labs" vs. "Kaspersky". People tend to drop parts of names. Examples: People used "Apple" from the start even though the official name was Apple Computer, Inc., and everyone says "Microsoft" instead of "Microsoft Corporation" I would bet that people were calling it "Kaspersky" long before the name change.

One thing I look at when evaluating an article name change is the contact page and the copyright notice. At the bottom of every page on kaspersky.com, I see "© 2019 AO Kaspersky Lab", https://usa.kaspersky.com/about/careers says "Careers at Kaspersky Lab", and https://usa.kaspersky.com/about/contact mentions Kaspersky Lab HQ. If anyone reading this has any influence with Kaspersky please tell them that Wikipedia will be more likely to change the name if they themselves stop using the old name. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:04, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 August 2020

Update revenue both in infobox and second para lead section from US$ 698 million to US$ 685 million (2019) and don't forget to add the Source. Also, update employee figure 4,000+ in infobox as per given source. Thanks--103.102.116.123 (talk) 04:23, 27 August 2020 (UTC)