Has MBAM responded to BoF's letter?

Discussion in 'other anti-malware software' started by DoctorPC, Feb 18, 2014.

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

    DoctorPC Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2014
    Posts:
    813
    Curious.. If they have, where, and what was the response? If not, can we get something on this? Since MBAM is US-Based, and I've basically dropped all US-Based software (as much as possible), any that I do use - I'd like to know the overall stance.

    http://www.informationweek.com/secu...ompanies-whitelist-nsa-malware/d/d-id/1112911

    That's the subject of an open letter, sent in October to leading antivirus vendors, from 25 different privacy information security experts and organizations. The letter asks the vendors to detail whether they've ever detected state-sponsored malware or received a government request to whitelist state-sponsored malware, and how they would respond to any such requests in the future.
     
  2. lordraiden

    lordraiden Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2006
    Posts:
    3,075
    This is really useless, and I can tell you already the answer. The answer is no, they don't collaborate with the government.
    Do you think they will tell the truth in case they are?
     
  3. DoctorPC

    DoctorPC Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2014
    Posts:
    813
    You don't know the answer, so why reply? You don't seem to have a good legal framework, do you?

    The way NSL's work is - you cannot disclose your involvement. It's really that simple. The way we get around this is to ask the question. A company cannot say NO if that's not the truth, from a legal standpoint, as they'd be liable for civil action. The NSL only protects them from legal action in regards to the act of helping, not a false disclosure of that action. In otherwords they cannot say NO if the answer really isn't NO, as they can then be actionable to that false statement, legally. Specifically it would be very easy to open a class action if a company stated no, and actually were. Does that make sense?

    So the only legal, and official response if they ARE is simply to not answer. A lack of response is itself considered to be an admission of receipt of an NSL, whitelisting state sponsored malware, or assisting the NSA in some capacity. Most offshore companies have already responded with a resounding NO, but I am trying to get a solid response from Malwarebytes in this respect.
     
  4. nosirrah

    nosirrah Malware Fighter

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2006
    Posts:
    561
    Location:
    Cummington MA USA
    The only thing we have ever been asked to whitelist is certain PUP software, which we refused to do.

    For those that don't know I am the last stop before anything makes it into the DB and I see the complete DB every day.
     
  5. lordraiden

    lordraiden Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2006
    Posts:
    3,075
    Let me laugh again. HA HA HA
    Please read again what you wrote because is doesn't make any sense.
    If they collaborate with NSA, this is illegal so who cares, they are not going to say that they are doing something illegal to be more illegal, if they are not force to answer is useless, and if they are force they will lie... who can prove the opposite?
     
  6. ronjor

    ronjor Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2003
    Posts:
    57,773
    Location:
    Texas
    MBAM has responded to the question. Thread closed.
     
Loading...
Similar Threads
  1. FanJ
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    798
  2. NonGeek
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    1,678
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.