Trump Signs Into Law US Government Ban on Kaspersky Lab Software (reuters.com) 140
President Donald Trump signed into law on Tuesday legislation that bans the use of Kaspersky Lab within the U.S. government, capping a months-long effort to purge the Moscow-based antivirus firm from federal agencies amid concerns it was vulnerable to Kremlin influence. From a report: The ban, included as part of a broader defense policy spending bill that Trump signed, reinforces a directive issued by the Trump administration in September that civilian agencies remove Kaspersky Lab software within 90 days. The law applies to both civilian and military networks. "The case against Kaspersky is well-documented and deeply concerning. This law is long overdue," said Democratic Senator Jeanne Shaheen, who led calls in Congress to scrub the software from government computers. She added that the company's software represented a "grave risk" to U.S. national security.
Re: (Score:1)
Yup. He Tomahawked an airbase in Syria after a chemical attack, something Obama didn't do.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
And he shot down a Syrian jet.
https://edition.cnn.com/2017/0... [cnn.com]
Both of those are significant because Russian personnel were at the airbase. Russian pilots also fly Syrian aircraft.
If you look at the CNN coverage of the jet shootdown they were warning rather excitedly of the risk of a US/Russia war over that, which of course never happened. And at the same time they're obsessed with the
Re: (Score:1)
Exactly. Trump is anti-Russia which is terrible for the American people. This latest anti-Russian action of attacking Kaspersky proves that.
Re: (Score:1)
That's another addition to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 like the drone registration requirement.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/... [congress.gov]
SEC. 1630B. PROHIBITION ON USE OF SOFTWARE PLATFORMS DEVELOPED BY KASPERSKY LAB.
(a) Prohibition.-No department, agency, organization, or other element of the Department of Defense may use, whether directly or through work with or on behalf of another organization or element of the Department or another department or agency of the United States Government, any software platform developed, in whole or in part, by Kaspersky Lab or any entity of which Kaspersky Lab has a majority ownership.
(b) Severance Of Network Connections.-The Secretary of Defense shall ensure that any network connection between a department, agency, organization, or other element of the Department of Defense and a department or agency of the United States Government that is using or hosting on its networks a software platform described in subsection (a) is immediately severed.
(c) Effective Date.-This section shall take effect on October 1, 2018.
That's more a RNC/McCain thing than a Trump one. It's not like Trump could veto the NDAA.
Re: (Score:1)
LOL. From your first link:
Internationally, the United States also notified several countries, including Canada, the UK, Australia, and Russia, in advance of the strike.[13][14][15][16] The U.S. military stated it communicated with the Russian military to minimize any chance of Russian casualties."
Hours after the U.S. missile strike, Syrian government's warplanes took off from the Shayrat base to attack rebel positions again, including the town of Khan Shaykhun.[11] Commentators attributed the ability of the Syrian government to continue to operate from the base to the fact that the US gave Russia, Syria's ally, an advanced warning regarding the strike, which enabled Syrians to shelter many of its aircraft from the attack
LOL. You fucking halfwit.
Re: (Score:1)
Internationally, the United States also notified several countries, including Canada, the UK, Australia, and Russia, in advance of the strike. The U.S. military stated it communicated with the Russian military to minimize any chance of Russian casualties."
There were Russian advisers at that base. Would you prefer he'd not warned Russia and killed a few of them? It was entirely prudent to warn Russia. That way they could get their personnel out, but they didn't have time to remove all the materiel the strike was aimed at.
Hours after the U.S. missile strike, Syrian government's warplanes took off from the Shayrat base to attack rebel positions again, including the town of Khan Shaykhun.[11] Commentators attributed the ability of the Syrian government to continue to operate from the base to the fact that the US gave Russia, Syria's ally, an advanced warning regarding the strike, which enabled Syrians to shelter many of its aircraft from the attack
LOL. You fucking halfwit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
U.S. Central Command stated in a press release that Tomahawk missiles hit "aircraft, hardened aircraft shelters, petroleum and logistical storage, ammunition supply bunkers, defense systems, and radars". Initial U.S. reports claimed "approximately 20 planes" were destroyed, and that 58 out of the 59 cruise missiles launched "severely degraded or destroyed" their intended target. According to the satellite images the runways[31] and the taxiways have been reportedly undamaged and combat flights from the attacked airbase resumed on 7 April a few hours after the attack, although U.S. officials did not state that the runway was a target. In a later statement on 10 April 2017, the US Secretary of Defense James Mattis claimed that the strike destroyed about 20% of the Syrian government's operational aircraft and the base had lost the ability to refuel or rearm aircraft.
An independent bomb damage assessment conducted by ImageSat International counted hits on 44 targets, with some targets being hit by more than one missile; these figures were determined using satellite images of the airbase 10 hours after the strike.
The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said the strike damaged over a dozen hangars, a fuel depot, and an air defense base.
Al-Masdar News reported that 15 fighter jets were damaged or destroyed and that the destruction of fuel tankers caused several explosions and a large fire.
According to the claims of Russian defense ministry, the "combat effectiveness" of the attack was "extremely low"; only 23 missiles hit the base destroying six aircraft, and it did not know where the other 36 landed. Russian television news, citing a Syrian source at the airfield, said that nine planes were destroyed by the strikes (5 Su-22M3s, 1 Su-22M4, and 3 Mig-23ML) and that all planes were thought to have been out of action at the time.
So the US claims it was effective with 20 planes destroyed as do ImageSat, the Syrian Observatory for Human RIghts and Al-Masdar. The Russian defence ministry claimed the combat effectiveness was 'extremely
Re: (Score:2)
>> Neither Fox nor CNN have any programs I'd personally watch. Both of them are straight up propaganda for the RNC and DNC respectively.
I feel the same way about MSNBC and WaPo. Talk about obvious left-wing agendas. Rachel Maddow is an especially bad joke. No actual news reporting at all, just radical blowhard opinions and braindead editorial commentary. She might as well be on The View.
The entire US media has become a joke and has totally lost all credibility. I wish the government would step in and
Re: (Score:2)
If it was "as obvious as some though," we wouldn't need a special prosecutor to investigate in the first place. Robert Mueller has to be very careful at this point to cross all the t's and dot all the i's, and even more careful to stay politically impartial because even the slightest deviation (either way) could be the excuse Trump needs to oust him and kill the investigation completely.
Re: (Score:2)
Politically impartial? Muller? Now that's a laughable contention. This whole investigation is politically motivated, from day one.
Please sir, tell me another!
I realize that a lot of the critique of Muller and his staff is politically motivated, but this whole mess was an invented story, invented it seems by the DNC and Hillary's campaign -- In league with Russian informants none the less. I'll believe that Muller is impartial if, when this is all over, it's clear that he investigated all that with the
Re: (Score:2)
This whole investigation is politically motivated, from day one.
Yes, and that's why Mueller has to be as impartial as he can. If he shows even a slight lean towards the left, Trump will oust him as fast as he can rampage off the pink tweet.
And if he shows a slight rightward lean, Trump's cronies will immediately start flying off with "nothing to see here, Mueller's done all this work and he's decided we're right!" even if he's decided no such thing, and they'll plaster that all over the news so that by the time Mueller does complete his investigation -- regardless of t
Re: (Score:2)
Well... Nice analysis there, not sure I can argue too much with it.
Problem here is that the reason for this investigation has 100% democrat support with only a handful of republicans. Trump really tweaked off some of the more entrenched republicans, blasting their presumptive heir to the throne to pieces before Jeb could get his campaign out of first gear. Then he handed the rest their heads, with only Cruz having a credible chance about half way though the primaries. He ticked a bunch of folks off. Tru
Re: (Score:2)
this investigation has 100% democrat support
Obviously. Not especially relevant though.
only a handful of republicans
Define "handful." The senate might be pretty close but the house is very republican-tilted. Either side could potentially start the process of canning the investigation.
in fact seems to quite enjoy keeping a bucket of mud at the ready
Question is whether he was just better at slinging the mud, or if he was swinging the bucket around illegally as well.
the whole idea of Russian Collusion, is a democrat invention to explain Hillary's loss
Actually it was a Trump invention to explain why he was polling so badly prior to the election. And then he ended up winning anyway and shit got all mixed up. A similar thing hap
Re: (Score:2)
You spin the facts your way pretty well there sir.
Where I don't agree with your conclusions in most cases, you do seem to have a coherent argument for most of this.
Only a couple of "facts" that I'd debate with you, which are key to your conclusion...
1. The Dossier thing wasn't a republican thing, really it wasn't. Sure the idea came up over here, but the development of it was totally HRC and the DNC funded. It also doesn't excuse the use of a fictitious and slanderous document's use. Republicans didn't
Re: (Score:2)
1. Yeah, the dossier got blown way out of proportion (in no small part thanks to Trump's inability to let things go.. it probably would have been forgotten about early on if he and his supporters didn't keep bringing it up.) My only point though was that while the dems may have ran with it, they weren't the ones who initiated it.
2. I don't recall HRC claiming that Trump didn't win. She might not like it, and she might question why the electoral college is allowed to override the popular vote, but Trump
Re: (Score:2)
1. Yeah, the dossier got blown way out of proportion (in no small part thanks to Trump's inability to let things go.. it probably would have been forgotten about early on if he and his supporters didn't keep bringing it up.) My only point though was that while the dems may have ran with it, they weren't the ones who initiated it.
But... The problem here is how the dossier was used -- BY THE FBI This is a serious problem given the previous administration was from the "other" party and this dossier was seemingly used to justify a whole bunch of investigative activities. IF it can be established that the DNC or HRC's campaign shared this with the FBI on purpose, then anything the FBI investigated based on this document is tainted as a partisan political effort. IF this theory is true, it's going to make Watergate look like a failed f
Re: (Score:1)
Isn't that called Sharia?
A lot of retirements soon (Score:1)
You'll find out on Thursday.
Or Saturday if you wait for the distracting tweets.
They should just for the heck of it ... (Score:2, Flamebait)
... rebrand to "All-American US Antiviral" and use some sort of Eagle + Stars & Stripes thingie as their logo/CI.
I have not a single doubt they'd be back into business in no time.
Re: (Score:3)
Big Brother is Watching You. IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH!
Clickbait Title (Score:1)
So, Trump signed a law banning Kaspersky software in the US?
How about making a few changes to look like less of an asshat.: "Trump Signs Law Banning US Government Purchases of Kaspersky Lab Software."
Re: (Score:2)
I totally agree, but the truth wouldn't be half as sensational.
.
Didn't you already know that drama always beats facts these days, especially if you're a Democrat.
Stuxnet (Score:2, Insightful)
It's payback for Kaspersky uncovering Stuxnet.
Re: (Score:1)
did... did the United States *really* just pass a law prohibiting American Citizens from being at liberty to choose precisely which software they wish to purchase and run? that appears to me to be an extremely dangerous precedent, and an extremely fascist thing to do, like the Nazis did in the 1930s: burning "unapproved" books. it would not surprise me if this same thought occurs to Civil Rights supporters and a case is taken up, fairly soon.
Re: law prohibiting use of software?? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No. they *really* didn't.
Just like you *really* didn't bother to even RTFA before posting a clueless rant.
Re: (Score:1)
Good lord your reading comprehension needs help. And somehow you equate a software ban on government owned computers to book burning.
Are you going to foam at the mouth if they decide to remove Solitaire as well?
Never trust anything until it has been banned (Score:5, Informative)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Instead of encouraging more research and security work, the US puts a ban on a company that helps keep the internet safe.
Back to the days of Magic Lantern (software) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] and thoughts of US AV antivirus vendor cooperation.
Re: (Score:1)
Ivan is that you?
Re: (Score:1)
I agree 100%. The only people who can possibly keep us safe... are located in a country with horrific human rights abuses and clear national-level spying and military intrusion against our country. We NEED those guys to 'protect' us!
And this is Slashdot. If you've got a virus on your machine, you're already 99% fucked. Stop downloading "Britney Spears Naked.exe" from Kazaa you blockheads. Download some FOSS shit like Clamwin and downloading stupid shit.
I mean, you're making out a SINGLE anti-virus company (
Lies (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
> Public decision upon lies and propaganda. ...and you know this how? If it was, I'm sure a democrat senator wouldn't also be saying that the law was long overdue.
Also because it can detect US gov spyware... (Score:1)
...and that would be embarrassing to find inside the US on government computers, right?
Wrong ban! (Score:1)
Kaspersky is just one kind of band-aide on the hemorrhage that is Microsoft software. Band Microsoft products and you won't even need to bother with Kaspersky to start with.
Re: (Score:2)
Band Microsoft products [songsmith.ms]
Remember when EULA dance? EULA dance again! (Score:1)
If you read the EULA for any anti-virus product it will explain to you in the plainest of terms that use of said product allows uploading of software deemed as potential virus/malware for analysis. In the case of Kaspersky AV I have yet to see any evidence of any behavior beyond what the terms of your typical AV software EULA spells out. If some dipshit fed didn't bother to read this EULA before testing spookware on a box with Kaspersky AV installed it seems pretty obvious where the blame should be placed.
Easy Money for Kaspersky ? (Score:1)
Won't this allow Kaspersky to sue US because a law is bad for their cash ?
There are something like that in many treaties, between Europe and Canada for example.
Governments make laws. Corporations feel armed and sue. People pay taxes to pay corporations.
(sorry, I miss the correct English vocabulary to describe properly)
Re: Easy Money for Kaspersky ? (Score:1)
BestBuy (Score:1)
The message is clear (Score:2)
If you don't let our spooks install backdoors into your software, no government contracts for you.
Effective advertising (Score:1)
This is one of the best advertisements for Kapersky anti-virus yet.
Hilarious (Score:2)
On the one hand the US government is banning Kaspersky software because they claim it's a "grave security risk" that contains back doors.
On the other hand the US government is publicly criticising and shaming technology vendors like Apple and Google for refusing to add back doors to their products.
Re: (Score:3)
No, a company in russian jurisdiction makes and sells that software.
Being located within russia means they are beholden to the demands of the russian government. If the russian government demands backdoor access to their software then the company has no choice but to comply unless the company owners want to go to a russian jail.
The US government is rightfully wary of any software or hardware coming from a non trusted source, and should not use it without thorough auditing first. Although this should apply t
Re: (Score:2)
Re:B-b-but CBS and CNN say Trump colludes w/ Russi (Score:4, Insightful)
I just assume ALL news I hear is fake until I can verify it myself and/or a couple of days have passed without it being withdrawn or changed..
I also distrust ANY story that happens during a political campaign where the timing is suspiciously of benefit to one candidate over the other and involves some recently "discovered" evidence/witness of something that is alleged to have happened years ago, but only now was discovered.
Come to think of it.. I don't really believe much of what passes as "news" for most sheeple..
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No you describe "Faith" not belief.. Fine point I know but the difference is relevant to this..
Re: (Score:1, Offtopic)
I've said before I am a ham radio operator. I am actively involved in storm spotting in my area so I'm likely to know before the national weather service issues the warning that there is a possible tornado coming my way.
Try again?
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
(For those that are unfamiliar with the term, he literally has a set of Heil Pro 7 headphones plugged into a 12 lb smoked ham with orange glaze.)
Re: (Score:1)
No.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, that's news to me... When can I expect my rubles comrade? Yes, Western Union is fine... Heck, BitCoin will work if you think that's less risky for you...
Re:B-b-but CBS and CNN say Trump colludes w/ Russi (Score:5, Insightful)
You may think you're funny, but in all honesty Bobbied speaks the truth of the reality of our government.
Nobody is buying the media horse-shit anymore. It's all about chasing the dollar and pitching for the people they want in office is not only a protected American right, it can be very profitable if the right people get elected. Trump has proven that with his campaign spending. Both sides do it too.
So no, I don't really believe what's in the news anymore either. So much of it is the little boy that cried wolf, chicken little, or false flag action with just *enough* truth to sound plausible.
Re: (Score:2)
That's because the news is no longer about reporting the days events. It's about chasing ratings and making money. Journalistic integrity went by the wayside years ago once publishers realized they can draw attention to whatever dress was worn on the red carpet (and the resulting advertising money).
Re: (Score:2)
You read me correctly. I have worked in a major radio network, and they said as much in the conference meetings when discussing the dismissal of radio hosts that didn't tow the line.
Re: (Score:1)
You better hope the Daily Stormer starts running tornado warnings or you're gonna be fucked.
I read Stormfront.org for the weather coverage.
Re: (Score:2)
Why didn't you have sex with the overage women if you went for sex?
I think they would much prefer the "of age" than the overage.
Remarkably fast, comrade (Score:1)
And there it is, and post #2 no less. The Russian astroturfing. Way to be on the spot, comrade.
Re: (Score:2)
I actually think there is good reason for this. Trump isn't saying YOU cannot use these products, he's just saying the federal government is not allowed to use it. Just like they don't use network hardware developed by the Chinese for good reasons.
In this case it makes sense to not willingly install something that could be easily be used by a global geopolitical adversary to compromise your government infrastructure. Sure, it's not currently compromised, but given the location of where the development t
Re: (Score:2)
>Sure, it's not currently compromised
Are you certain of that? I didn't follow the details, but has anyone actually done a thorough, independent source-code audit? (after confirming the source does in fact compile to the distributed binaries of course). That's gotta be thousands of man-hours to do a halfway decent job, and would still almost certainly miss skillfully obfuscated malware or vulnerabilities.
Re: (Score:2)
Heh heh heh. Good one.
Rail against my pointing out that we don't actually know whether Kaspersky is already compromised or only vulnerable to it, while accusing the US government of the same abuses against those in their sphere of influence, and then finish with declaring invalid everything except whitelists - the epitome of "guilty until proven innocent" philosophy.
And hey - who gets to do the whitelisting? Are you certain they're competent, thorough, and incorruptible?
Re: (Score:2)
>"I actually think there is good reason for this. Trump isn't saying YOU cannot use these products,"
Being somewhat nit-picky, because of the last few Slashdot stories about recent laws. Trump isn't actually "saying" anything. He is signing a bill that was passed by the House and the Senate into law. So there are hundreds of representatives saying something.
Re: (Score:2)
Trump had no choice when making this decision. Had he not signed the bill he would have been accused of being a Russian lackey. In this particular case the government should have never certified the software for government use in the first place.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, but maybe he thinks it is a good idea and doesn't care about any of this Russian Collusion nonsense...
Of course, if you simply MUST ascribe malice and stupidity to this action because it's Trump doing it, enjoy your partisan dreams as long as you can.
Re: (Score:2)
I am not a big fan of Trump but I was not commenting on any malice directed at Trump. I think the Russian collusion accusations are complete non-sense. All of the investigations are spearheaded by those who lost the election and their supporters. They refuse to acknowledge that Trump won not because of Russian influence but because of their own incompetence married to a political platform that alienated more people than it attracted.
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty much this.
Who can kick down your door for searching "questionable material" on the net? The FBI or the FSB?
Re: (Score:2)
The FSB would only do that if the user lives in Russia - after all they are a domestic intelligence agency/federal and border police service. Actual espionage is carried out by the SVR.
Re: (Score:2)
And you think the SVR cares what you in the US do on your computer?
Re: (Score:2)
I am in Germany. And I speak Russian fluently and work in the oil industry, so maybe they do care, who knows. But I don't use Kaspersky because their software kind of sucks, not because I am afraid of spies.
Re: (Score:2)
In your position I wouldn't use Kaspersky Software either... ;)