Eset Company Stance on Privacy Issue

Discussion in 'NOD32 version 1 Forum' started by Luthorcrow, Dec 4, 2002.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Luthorcrow

    Luthorcrow Registered Member

    Nov 30, 2002
    Does Eset have an official company stance on cooperation with the US/FBI regarding building none detection of US sponsored Trojans? I remember when the whole Magic Lantern thing was in the press Symantec had gone on record as actively cooperating and McAfee had made some similar but more muddled company statements.

    Now, of course, I realize this malware may not actual exist, but just the fact that a company is willing to willing to roll over and play dead with any government for special privileges is not cool to me.

    Anyway, curious.
  2. Paul Wilders

    Paul Wilders Administrator

    Jul 1, 2001
    The Netherlands

    This one needed digging into our rather old archives.

    Since this statement is made quite a while ago, I for one cannot vouch for the credibility as it is now - and I don't have any reason to doubt the statement made either.


  3. :eek:

    Looking over the archives, I don't think this issue is worth bothering with...

    Here's why...

    If the US Gov't is so intent on creating this "Homeland Trojan", or whatever, they are not going to be stupid enough to create something that will be detected or discovered (hopefully) by US av makers, suppliers (like ESET) or foreign interests..

    If they did create something, and lets pretend only "Poop" antivirus was able to find it, then ALL of Al Queda will wind up buying "Poop" and poor me and you, Mr. Normal Persons (of any country) are going to have a U.S. keylogger in our computers that will be able to report to Rumsfield that you and I log in, check our email, surf a couple of sites, also went to a couple of porn sites (oooops!) and then played internet backgammon..

    ... in all the while, where ever terrorists lurk, are free of being caught because they did their homework and installed "Poop" Antivirus, NOT made in America, and they can keep raising hell, while Rumsfield and his gang are looking at "Aunt Mary" while she's surfing for a Hunky Boyfriend...

    I don't think that's going to happen.. So when those companies that are saying that they will detect Uncle Sam's Keyloggers if they find it, well, that's a tough pill to swallow..

    Aunt Mary, you'd better start looking over your back!!!

    remarks concerning possible name calling deleted - Forum Admi
  4. Luthorcrow

    Luthorcrow Registered Member

    Nov 30, 2002
    Don't Quite Agree with You

    Straight Shooter,

    Well first, as far as I know we have no reason to believe this thing exist at this time. But if it is an actual project, I don't believe the reasons you listed above would have much to do with it's end use. Just as I don't believe these same reasons have much to do with many civil rights reductions that are happening. Honestly, I don't have much faith in the intelligence of the people that are making these decisions or for that matter their character.

    Often a increased police power is given but the real net effect is much different than that of the justification. No knock policies and 'tainted money' rulings are good examples.

    In the end, yes if such a thing were used it would, as most law enforcement tools, be used to catch the unaware or less sophisticated person.

    But beyond all that I think an issue like is a good litmus test for how trustworthy a company is or at least the degree that they are willing to reset stupid government actions.

    Obviously the quote regarding NOD32 was fairly positive, I just didn't like the fudge factor of the 2nd point ("eset and nod32 in united states will comply with all american laws and regulations"). I thought DiamondCS and Kaspersky Lab Ltd (which backs up an e-mail reply I received to this same question from their tech support at their Swiss site) were much stronger statements.
  5. mrtwolman

    mrtwolman Eset Staff Account

    Dec 5, 2002
    The problem with any govt produced malware (GPM) is quit more complex as one can ever think of.

    Read my lips: The magic word is "jurisdiction"

    The GPM may be considered legal in one jurisdictiom while in the all other may (and mostly will be illegal... ;)

    Therefore, IMHO for any AV software sold world wide non-detection of GPM outside its legal space would cause substantial loss of market to GPM detecting competitors. Which may result in different versions of AV software for sale in GPM legal space (not detecting GPM) and and for sale in the rest of the world (detecting GPM). :D :D :D
  6. Doug Rees

    Doug Rees Guest


    I certainly hope that ESET (and indeed the whole AV industry) tellls Bush, Ashcroft, Rumsfeld & Co. to go straight to Heligoland!!! We don't need govt-sponsored malware--and IMHO it would be a betrayal of its customers for any AV company to deliberately permit such stuff to go undetected.

    So there!!! I've done my ranting for the month, and feel alot better. ;)
  7. solarpowered candle

    solarpowered candle Registered Member

    Jan 9, 2003
    new zealand
    mmmmm be interesting , not that they would tell you any ways . Oz govt has had very strong links with USA policies for some time now . And its unlikely an anti virus co or any one else would be in a position to say "if or not ".
    But then again most users subscribe to windows anyways who must have strong links to that sort of policy, I would have thought .
    An interesting thread that runs along similar tracks I think is;start=15#lastPost
    particularly detox s thoughts .
  8. spy1

    spy1 Registered Member

    Dec 29, 2002
    Clover, SC
    The thread being referred to is here: .

    It's quite out of date, but there are upsides and downsides to that.

    The upside is that maybe some of them changed their minds in the meantime.

    The downside is that maybe some of them didn't.

    You won't find software on my computer that's produced by any of the companies that indicated an immediate willingness to roll over for the government (any government).

    Maybe a meaningless/futile gesture - maybe not. Pete
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.