Uncategorized

After the US banned its software, a cybersecurity firm denied it was a hazard

The Commerce Department’s ban on Russian cyber security information is based on “theoretical concerns” rather than “geopolitical concerns”

Kaspersky boasts one of the world’s most popular consumer antivirus products and a research unit widely respected for routinely exposing elite hacking groups.

When you think about national security, Gina Raimondo said you may think about guns and tanks. “But the truth is, increasingly, it’s about technology, and it’s about dual-use technology, and it’s about data.”

Commerce will work with the departments of Homeland Security and Justice to “get this message out” and “ensure a smooth transition,” including through a website explaining the ban, Raimondo said. “We certainly don’t want to disrupt the business or families of any Americans.”

The Commerce Department official said that the DHS’s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency would assist critical infrastructure organizations that use the Kaspersky service to find alternative methods of security.

We look forward to what the future holds and will continue to defend our interests against actions that attempt to harm our reputation and commercial interests.

The company says that it can’t deliberately get sensitive data on Americans and that only aggregate or statistical data that isn’t related to one person can be accessed by employees in Russia. It said the main impact of the U.S. government’s decision would be to benefit cybercrime, while also diminishing the freedom of consumers and organizations to choose the cyber protection they want.

The Associated Press found that an undercover operative tried to gather intel on some of the cybersecurity experts he targeted.

The Commerce Department stated in a decision dated June 14 that Eugene Kaspersky is a Russian citizen who lives in Russia and is subject to Russian law, which was posted on the Federal Register.

Kaspersky said the government had based its decision on the “geopolitical climate and theoretical concerns” rather than independently verifying if there was a risk.