what to say first email online dating - Kaspersky updating source

Your computer is left exposed to viruses, malicious programs, network attacks and what nots.

True, Kaspersky Internet Security or Antivirus has proven itself irreplaceable due to its effectivity and performance efficiency, taking only a small amount of computer resources while running protection.

No matter what we see in the source, Kaspersky will have to add code over time to update features. Suppose they then offer to send updated source code for audit. There are other problems with a code audit as well and we shouldn’t equate a code audit with true security.

The intent of this post is not to say Kaspersky software is bad, Rendition has no formal opinion on that one way or the other.

It is simply to offer education to Rendition’s clients and the public about why a software source code audit isn’t a feasible to allay the fears stated by the Senate.

We make no apologies for being aggressive in the battle against malware and cyber-criminals – you shouldn't accept any less. “In a world of hi-tech hacking tools and mass data collection programmes, it seems the NSA actually needs to get back to basics, starting with security awareness training for its highly skilled people - who really ought to know better." UPDATE: In a blog today Eugene Kaspersky commented further on the NSA hack story, saying, “In 2015 ...

a spy-software developer was working at home on same spy-software, having all the instrumentation and documentation he needed for such a task, and protecting himself from the world's computer maliciousness with our cloud-connected product. This is what: “Malware could have been detected as suspicious by the AV and sent to the cloud for analysis.

If another program’s auto-updates include malware, antivirus should catch it (eventually).

In this case, the fear is that the antivirus is deploying the malware and therefore will ignore it. Read this post for nothing more than it is, an explanation of why a code audit and congressional testimony aren’t enough to allay fears.

Rendition encourages a thorough discussion on the topic with appropriate levels of disclosure to back claims that Kaspersky software poses a bonafide threat to Do D networks.

For more background on the Senate claims and the reactions of infosec professionals (including Rendition’s founder Jake Williams) see this article.

While Rendition Infosec commends Eugene Kaspersky’s move of transparency for a code audit, this won’t really ensure security. For one thing, a source code audit occurs at a point in time.

Eugene Kaspersky has also offered to testify in front of Congress, but it seems doubtful that his testimony would sway many people on this. What we see today may not be the code used to build the product tomorrow. Also, backdoors in code are particularly difficult to detect and can be extremely carefully obfuscated to make them resistant to static code analysis.

The order gave US federal agencies three months to inventory and remove the software.

Tags: , ,