Kaspersky always seems angry, maybe the fact that Kaspersky hasn't successfully penetrated the enterprise market, their SaaS division went out of business, and they really only have a tiny presence in the SMB world. I'd be frustrated too!
Stop this nonsense. If you would be personaly attackted with never prooven allegations again an again, how would you react? But @FleischmannTV wrote some clear words...
Actually from his answers it seems quite the opposite to me. He looks like he is having fun answering claims without base.
Kaspersky already owned up to his intelligence ties 3-4 years ago in several articles; http://www.wired.com/2012/07/ff_kaspersky/ Also, what if suddenly it was discovered that a big US Antivirus firm had NSA CEO, and NSA executives? What would the reaction be?
I always say, if you are located within US country or its allies, prefer Russia/China software/services and in the opposite case, use US/EU based. Simple.
Agreed. There is no way that a US based AV is going to alert you to official US malware, even if they do recognize it. That said, the chances of Kaspersky or any other AV recognizing any given piece of official US malware is still quite low. Non-government malware writers make existing code evade detection on a constant basis. One would have to assume that government agencies are even better at it and have many more ways of delivering it. IMO, any computer device that employs a default-permit based security policy/product has almost no chance of resisting government malware, regardless of its country of origin. Regarding the country of origin for security software, I have no issues with foreign software. I'm a long time user of SSM which is originally Russian in origin. I consider it one of the best of its kind. Government malware aside, I have other issues with domestic commercial software, starting with feature creep, bloat, and this push to the cloud. AVs are looking for more than malicious code, eg pirated material, cracks, etc. They upload user files without the users consent. Others restrict user applications but don't restrict Windows components, especially services. I expect security software to enforce my rules and protect my interests, not those of its corporate partners.
Wonder how my protection is? Every file is scanned with; Sophos - UK AVG - Czech Avira - Germany Bit Defender - Germany Kerish - Russian I actually don't use any US-Based products for security/privacy. I do use OneDrive for cloud storage, but I encrypt it automatically with Viivo, offering secondary encryption over OneDrive's.
Even better, another threat surface reduction. Maybe I should add a US product into the mix so they can duel over things?
We might already have that. One controls the operating system and firmware. Another controls the hardware. Where does this leave us, pawns on their chessboard?
Yeh, well, I did too if you had a clue as to the "banned" history my fave TV dude referenced. The "transformation" couldn't be anything less than conspicuous at best. Not that there's anything wrong with that. So, how does that big K match up with SS firewall? At this end, thus far, EA and Spyshelter are a match made in heaven.
A good reason to avoid both sides, although I'm convinced that any AV company, under pressure can be asked to "cooperate" willingly or not.
And you and a lot of people from the USA need to realize that when you are in an international internet forum like this one (Dutch, by the way) you are not in "this country" or "that country", you are in a discussion with people from all over the world.
During the past months some companies opted to shut down before handing their private keys to the US government. Some people believe that the makers of TrueCrypt are among them.
So if Kaspersky is a "virus" then Windows must be an antivirus itself. Otherwise we don't have a chance...
No, no, no. Windows is a trojan. You have a virus running on a trojan, which is installed on a hardware backdoor, which communicates over over a wire(less)tapped internet.