Kaspersky and spying for Russian Federation


Recommended Posts

30 minutes ago, adrynalyne said:

Ok then. Let's see a screenshot of it sending your private information to that IP. Full headers and data. You can use fake details and reproduce I am sure. 

I removed it from all my PCs'. If you want to see evidence by yourself then you are more than welcome to install Kaspersky trial on your own PC :). I have provided links and external sources. It does not invalidate fact that, browser tries to send sensitive data to Kaspersky's servers, even if Kaspersky blocks traffic to its own domains later. It is still a big security hole.

5 minutes ago, EJocys said:

I removed it from all my PCs'. If you want to see evidence by yourself then you are more than welcome to install Kaspersky trial on your own PC :). I have provided links and external sources. It does not invalidate fact that, browser tries to send sensitive data to Kaspersky's servers, even if Kaspersky blocks traffic to its own domains later. It is still a big security hole.

That isn't how this works. You made the claim. Burden of proof is on you friend. 

 

From everything you you have posted so far, I think you just misunderstood what you saw. Feel free to prove otherwise though. 

  • Like 2
9 minutes ago, adrynalyne said:

That isn't how this works. You made the claim. Burden of proof is on you friend. 

 

From everything you you have posted so far, I think you just misunderstood what you saw. Feel free to prove otherwise though. 

 

Facts and evidence are very obvious:

 

a) Kaspersky is using ie.kis.scr.kaspersky-labs.com domain for injection URLs on Internet Explorer

b) ie.kis.scr.kaspersky-labs.com points to external server (185.85.13.154) on the Internet. Proof:

https://who.is/dns/ie.kis.scr.kaspersky-labs.com

 

P.S.: How long do you think it takes for Kaspersky devs to update DNS records to 127.*.** and claim honest mistake?

Edited by EJocys
8 minutes ago, EJocys said:

 

Facts and evidence are very obvious:

 

a) Kaspersky is using ie.kis.scr.kaspersky-labs.com domain for injection URLs on Internet Explorer

b) ie.kis.scr.kaspersky-labs.com points to external server (185.85.13.154) on the Internet. Proof:

https://who.is/dns/ie.kis.scr.kaspersky-labs.com

 

P.S.: How long do you think it takes for Kaspersky devs to update DNS records to 127.*.** and claim honest mistake?

Not proof nor evidence of sending sensitive data home, and to the Kremlin at that. It's far more likely that IE doesn't have the plugin needed to use internal routing like ff. 

 

Is it a good practice how they have it set up? Nope. Is it indicative of phoning home with your bank details to Russia?  Nope. 

  • Like 2
12 minutes ago, adrynalyne said:

Not proof nor evidence of sending sensitive data home, and to the Kremlin at that. 

If you cannot understand evidence, which I have supplied in my previous posts and security implications of Kaspersky's solution, then no evidence will convince you. It is not only about sending data, it is about huge security hole in implementation, which looks like definition of the back door.

 

I have screenshot (taken before I got rid of Kaspersky) which relates to injection on IE. You can see script loading from ie.kis.scr.kaspersky-labs.com domain. I do not expect people to believe it and this is the reason, why I provided instructions on my first post on how to replicate it.

KasperskyIE.PNG

Edited by EJocys
2 minutes ago, EJocys said:

If you cannot understand evidence which I've supplied in my previous posts and security implications of Kaspersky's solution, then no evidence will convince you. It is not only about sending data it is about huge security hole in implementation which looks like definition of the back door.

I think everyone reading this thread can agree: you have provided no such evidence and instead only what you think is evidence. 

 

Again, nobody denies the script injection and I'm sure most of us agree that it's not a good way to handle it. That's not what you are on the line for though. You made a claim that it is sending home your sensitive data and have yet to provide any evidence. 

  • Like 2
17 minutes ago, adrynalyne said:

Again, nobody denies the script injection and I'm sure most of us agree that it's not a good way to handle it. That's not what you are on the line for though. You made a claim that it is sending home your sensitive data and have yet to provide any evidence. 

So, according to you, web browser trying to open https://ie.kis.scr.kaspersky-labs.com/1B74BD89-2A22-4B93-B451-1C9E1052A0EC/init?url=https%3A%2F%2Ffc1.retail.santander.co.uk%2Fquery%2F1%2FfwyK.html%3Feu%3Dhttps%3A%2F%2Fretail.santander.co.uk%2FLOGSUK_NS_ENS%2FChannelDriver.ssobto%3Fdse_operationName%3DLOGON&nocache=1fdc6, when ie.kis.scr.kaspersky-labs.com points to external Internet server (185.85.13.154) do not qualify as evidence of browser trying to sending sensitive data to external server?

 

Please note that, I am not trying to prove that destination server gets the data. What is obvious that web broser is trying to delive it to server with remote address. I've provided you with the screenshot from IE debugger and proof that domain point to external source is also there:

https://who.is/dns/ie.kis.scr.kaspersky-labs.com

 

 

1 minute ago, EJocys said:

So, according to you, web browser trying to open https://ie.kis.scr.kaspersky-labs.com/1B74BD89-2A22-4B93-B451-1C9E1052A0EC/init?url=https%3A%2F%2Ffc1.retail.santander.co.uk%2Fquery%2F1%2FfwyK.html%3Feu%3Dhttps%3A%2F%2Fretail.santander.co.uk%2FLOGSUK_NS_ENS%2FChannelDriver.ssobto%3Fdse_operationName%3DLOGON&nocache=1fdc6, when ie.kis.scr.kaspersky-labs.com points to external Internet server (185.85.13.154) do not qualify as evidence of browser trying to sending sensitive data to external server?

 

Please note that, I am not trying to prove that destination server gets the data. What is obvious that web broser is trying to delive it to server with remote address.

 

Ok? Where in that url is sensitive data???

  • Like 1
11 minutes ago, adrynalyne said:

Ok? Where in that url is sensitive data???

That link contains URL and GET data used by my bank. GET requests frequently contain usernames; secret and password reset keys and sometimes passwords (depending on implementation). Kaspersky does it with every single page and browser tries to submit every single request to Kaspersky server. Another problem that browser tries to load external script (main.js) into encrypted secure connection which poses security issues on its own.

7 minutes ago, EJocys said:

That link contains URL and GET data used by my bank. GET requests frequently contain usernames; secret and password reset keys and sometimes passwords (depending on implementation). Kaspersky does it with every single page and browser tries to submit every single request to Kaspersky server. Another problem that browser tries to load external script (main.js) into encrypted secure connection which poses security issues on its own.

Please point out the portions that contain your sensitive data. 

Enable any sniffer and check if any sensitive data was delivered to Kaspersky servers.

 

Stop your paranoia, Kaspersky KIS just comparing your JS and dangerous file with his catalog of dangerous files.

 

Kasperky Application Advisor at 

http://whitelisting.kaspersky.com/advisor?lang=es-MX#search/c9b3b344c26c697eca4939d54f9036df

  • Like 3
2 minutes ago, adrynalyne said:

Please point out the portions that contain your sensitive data. 

So the, fact that that browser tried to inform Kaspersky's server which bank I am using and passed data used in GET method is not sensitive enough :). Are you trying to prove that Kaspersky knows which GET data is sensitive and eliminates it before browser tries to post it to remote server? I have no intention to post more data which is even more sensitive on public forums. I've posted just enough to make my point.

2 minutes ago, EJocys said:

So the, fact that that browser tried to inform Kaspersky's server which bank I am using and passed data used in GET method is not sensitive enough :). Are you trying to prove that Kaspersky knows which GET data is sensitive and eliminates it before browser tries to post it to remote server? I have no intention to post more data which is even more sensitive on public forums. I've posted just enough to make my point.

The only point you have made is that you don't understand what you are reading. You have already been shown to be wrong about t going to the Kremlin. Further you have not shown any evidence of data sent past a query string that contains no sensitive information. 

 

Stop wasting our time. 

10 minutes ago, Alejandro779 said:

Enable any sniffer and check if any sensitive data was delivered to Kaspersky servers.

 

Stop your paranoia, Kaspersky KIS just comparing your JS and dangerous file with his catalog of dangerous files.

 

Kasperky Application Advisor at 

http://whitelisting.kaspersky.com/advisor?lang=es-MX#search/c9b3b344c26c697eca4939d54f9036df

You don't understand the problem. Problem is that Kesperky injects scripts into encrypted content and browser tries to post data to external servers on the internet.

3 minutes ago, EJocys said:

You don't understand the problem. Problem is that Kesperky injects scripts into encrypted content and browser tries to post data to external servers on the internet.

Omg!  What data is being posted? You are making claims and delivering proof on none of them!

12 minutes ago, adrynalyne said:

The only point you have made is that you don't understand what you are reading. You have already been shown to be wrong about t going to the Kremlin. Further you have not shown any evidence of data sent past a query string that contains no sensitive information. 

 

Stop wasting our time. 

I have same opinion about you :). I provided links and screenshots which clearly shows browser requests and replies. I've provided IP addresses by using independent DNS services. You managed to ignore it and even misunderstand my "Kremlin" references, despite providing you with clear proof that IP geographical location is pointing to Kremlin and noting that it is a technical record and in reality location can be different (which probably is). At this point you are trying hard to misrepresent my points and missed security flaw consequences in Kasperskys "injection" implementation.

 

Just now, EJocys said:

I am have same opinion about you :). I provided links and screenshots which clearly shows browser requests and replies. I've provided IP addresses by using independent DNS services. You managed to ignore it and even misunderstand my "Kremlin" references, despite providing you with clear proof that IP geographical location is pointing to Kremlin and noting that it is a technical record and in reality location can be different (which probably is). At this point you are trying hard to misrepresent my points and missed security flaw consequences in Kasperskys "injection" implementation.

 

 This whole thread reeks of ignorance. Have fun misunderstanding what you are seeing and making claims you either can't or don't know how to backup. I'm tired of wasting my time. 

3 minutes ago, adrynalyne said:

 This whole thread reeks of ignorance.

Yes, because you are posting on it :). Why don't you install Kaspersky Trial. Login to your bank, reset your password, look at account details and post all browser request/reply details involving Kaspersky's URL here.

3 hours ago, EJocys said:

There is no need to use Fidler because integrated debug tools of the browser reported all links and traffic just fine. Extension was using real domain registered in Russia (ie.kis.scr.kaspersky-labs.com). If there were, no need to go outside then https://localhost:port would be enough. It probably would be fine if "ie.kis.scr.kaspersky-labs.com" had 127.0.0.0 assigned internally, but that was not the case. Supplying data with GET requests also is interesting, because I used same method as a workaround to bypass web Brower’s cross-domain security in some of my applications. What I was seeing was browser extension with intentional back door used by antivirus. Do you think it was a mistake, for company, specializing in security and linked to Russian KGB and FSB to inject secure web content with externaly pointing URL? I don't think so.

 

URL for Firefox users (ff.kis.scr.kaspersky-labs.com) resolves to 127.245.107.154 which is internal, but URL for Internet Explorer (ie.kis.scr.kaspersky-labs.com) resolves directly to Kremlin: 185.85.13.154.

 

If you don't know what you're doing and what you're analyzing or what the reports from the "tools" you are using says.  Then you shouldn't write an post about how you found someone spying on you. it'll just lead you you being on youtube, telling people how to hack with tracert...

9 minutes ago, HawkMan said:

If you don't know what you're doing and what you're analyzing or what the reports from the "tools" you are using says.  Then you shouldn't write an post about how you found someone spying on you. it'll just lead you you being on youtube, telling people how to hack with tracert...

I've used debugging tools of "Internet Explorer" and "Firefox" to analyse requests made by web browser which is exactly the right tool I need to see all requests made to hosts. My point was to prove that Kaspersky is forcing web browser to send data to external addresses on the Internet. Point was to prove that Kaspersky opens "back door" unnecessary. I don't care if it closes/blocks later.

8 minutes ago, HawkMan said:

If you don't know what you're doing and what you're analyzing or what the reports from the "tools" you are using says.  Then you shouldn't write an post about how you found someone spying on you. it'll just lead you you being on youtube, telling people how to hack with tracert...

He totally knows what he is doing...

 

After all:

 

I am writing comercial software (including network capturing and encryption), websites and network mobile apps and debug them by using network tools for 21 years now. I know that I am reading.

19 minutes ago, adrynalyne said:

He totally knows what he is doing...

 

After all:

 

Sure I do, for example: ported System.Security.Cryptography classes (RSA, AES-256) for JavaScript: http://www.codeproject.com/Articles/22073/Object-Oriented-JavaScript-Class-Library-in-C-NET. I don't know everything. But I think, that your assumption, that I don't know, how to use network sniffing tools, is based on your misunderstanding. I am not a native English speaker, maybe it contributes to that.

 

Please note that I asked for people to check this issue (gather evidence) by themselves.

 

Edited by EJocys
2 minutes ago, EJocys said:

Sure I do, for example: ported System.Security.Cryptography classes (RSA, AES-256) for JavaScript: http://www.codeproject.com/Articles/22073/Object-Oriented-JavaScript-Class-Library-in-C-NET. I think, your assumption, that I don't know, how to use network sniffing tools, is based on your misunderstanding. I am not a native English speaker, maybe it contributes to that.

 

Your lack of ability to provide evidence is what contributes to it. Your lack of knowledge of ip geolocation and how inaccurate it can be contributes to it. 

 

i think it is true in any language--if you make a bold claim, back it up. You are not doing that here. 

2 hours ago, EJocys said:

I am not planing to install KAV anymore. I am writing comercial software (including network capturing and encryption), websites and network mobile apps and debug them by using network tools for 21 years now. I know that I am reading. It is hard to mis-unbderstand or misread web brower debug tools. It is not the rocket science. It looks like, it is not the first time Kaspersky is injecting scripts. While I understand the purpose of it (antivirus must have access to plain content in order to analyse it), I don't agree with "back door" implementation method of it i.e. Using live domains and live IPs.

You could try getting Xkeyscore to see what's really going on on your system and with your traffic :D 

6 hours ago, EJocys said:

So, if you have Kaspersky on your computer, then please open secure site like https://www.google.com, press F12 for debug mode, go into “Network” tab, refresh page, see for yourself and report your opinion.

i just tried this and i have no traces of any kaspersky entries in that log.

i have been using kaspersky for years, but i am not using every protection it offers, e.g. i always disable the browser addon and i also deactivate the URL and HTTPS scan options.

 

 -andy-

  • Like 2
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • Yup, that's a doozy right there 😄
    • It's a bundle of tools created by a variety of people, so things can go wrong sometimes. It's a great addition to Windows, and I use a lot of the tools on a daily basis. Also, it's still a 0.**** release so quick updates are to be expected 😉
    • Oh, I did. And it's even worse than I was hoping! Besides a lot of techno-babble jargon (yes I understand 100% of it but it's still all just techno-babble) there's 2 key points that make me super-weary about even considering testing this out. -- By default, after installation, a relay is automatically set up, so you do not need to care about that. * Non-chatmail apps use email servers as a long-term message archive while chatmail clients use email servers for ephemeral instant message relay. * Supporting the full variety of classic email setups would require considerable development and maintenance efforts, and complicate making chatmail-based messaging more resilient, reliable and fast. -- Basically, the end-user device is the 'server' (relay) so there is NO ARCHIVING whatsoever because every message is necessarily ephemeral. Great for techno-paranoia (and for illicit activities preferring no tracks to cover) but terrible for everybody else. It's also ironically contradictory to engineering principles of redundancies besides the transport layers due to the explicit absence of any persistent storage. Instead of 'classic email address' retaining multi-GB messaging archives on its server, now every device must retain 100% of those storage demands. (Email messages were originally meant to be short correspondences, not the multi-MB attachments boondoggle that now exists with unlimited spam engines flooding every potential recipient.) Any device swap or reset (or loss) makes the entire message history go bye-bye forever... lest there's an off-device auto-archival "relay" mechanism that's really a separate server that holds onto all transported messages (an email server) that utilizes 'chatmail email address' identities (like an email server) and its own persistent storage archive (like an email server). But... this solution is hoping to exist alongside real-world email address identities (based on the email server relay pathway) but simply render messages in chat thread format in an ephemeral manner (with contents being encrypted, and messages auto-expiring) ... In the end, it's a chat app/experience for the Web3/P2P-at-all-costs zealots. (I have accts on all sorts of federated web3 services so I understand the technical and non-technical alike.) For any practical users, however, it's just another service to download/install, register, cross-share id cards/qr codes, but know that there's no history/archive whatsoever (by design) so no account/message recovery whatsoever... update the device, install a bummed update patch, or dare upgrade your device... all history, poof, gone. Ya gotta start everything over again like they're a brand new person.
    • You've tried DuckDuckGo and Brave Search, now get serious with SearXNG by Paul Hill Over the last decade, it has become quite trendy to dump Google Search in favor of privacy-preserving alternatives such as DuckDuckGo, Startpage, and Brave Search. These search engines have done a very good job at highlighting dodgy practices by Google, such as adjusting search results based on what it thinks you’ll like (filter bubble) and stalking you around the web to advertise to you. While these search engines are good starting points when compared to non-private services like Google, there are still quite a few issues with them. For example, both DuckDuckGo and Brave Search require running non-free JavaScript in your web browser, which is comparable to running proprietary software on your computer, meaning you can be sure about what it’s actually doing in the background. Another issue is that these search engines are hosted on the respective companies’ servers, and you are using a service that you don’t control. Finally, DuckDuckGo, while offering privacy features, relies heavily on Microsoft’s infrastructure for its results and, in the past, has permitted Microsoft tracking scripts. If you are looking for a more private search solution than DuckDuckGo, Brave Search, and Startpage, then I recommend taking a look at SearXNG. It is a privacy-respecting metasearch engine that can be used via different public instances, which is useful for mobile users, or you can install it on your computer or server and run it locally with maximum control. Unlike Google, Bing, or Brave Search, which crawl the web and have their own search indexes, SearXNG is a metasearch engine, meaning it taps other search engines, stripping your identifying data, such as IP address, user agent, and cookies, in the process. Your search query is sent to the other search engines you enable before aggregating the results. SearXNG has deployment flexibility. If you are a casual user or a mobile user and don’t want to run SearXNG locally, you can use a public instance that is hosted by someone else. The main problem with this is that you are putting trust in the maintainer of the instance regarding stuff like logs that they may keep; good hosts should have a privacy policy explaining their policies. If you are trying to use SearXNG, you can also install the software on your device and then head to 127.0.0.1:8080 in your browser and search from there. While you don’t have to worry about a third-party admin like the public instances, search engines could ultimately block your IP address if they frown on you pulling in their search results locally. If you want to run it locally, it’s a good idea to use proxies or VPNs to hide your actual IP. You don’t have to worry about this with a public instance, as search engines never see your IP address. The main privacy benefit of using SearXNG is that it isolates your identity from the underlying engines that it’s capable of searching, such as Google and Bing. These search engines will only see requests coming from a generic server, so they can’t profile you and create a bubble filter that influences what results you see. This also ensures that your search engine doesn’t turn into an echo chamber that prevents you from reading alternative points of view. As a free software project, you are allowed to inspect SearXNG to make sure there are no negative features bundled inside. This sets it apart from the privacy search engines mentioned earlier because you can’t check their source code. As a meta search engine, you are not restricted to getting results from one source. Due to the fact that it scrapes content from other websites, your SearXNG instance will periodically get blocked from different providers, so it’s good to select a range of sources as a backup. While enabling all of the services will give you great results, this can make searching slower. I am personally happy with slower searches for the best results, but you can always check which providers are slowing down your search from the search results page and disable them to speed things up. If you want decent results quickly, enable the main search providers such as Google, Brave, DuckDuckGo, Qwant, Bing, and Yahoo. This way, you get wide coverage without the latency. On the Engines tab in Preferences, do note that there are different tabs, such as General, Images, and Videos, with their own providers that can be toggled and are not covered by "Enable all" while on the General tab, so be sure to dig into each. Just a note, if you want to enable everything, press "Enable all" in one tab, then hit save at the bottom of the page, then do the next tab, and so on. If you press "Enable all", then do that in each tab, and then save, nothing will stick. When I had just some of the search engines enabled, I searched “define nefarious” and results came back with the definition of “define” - obviously that was a sucky result. However, when I had everything enabled, it found dictionary pages for the word “nefarious” and even had an inline definition on the sidebar, which is quite nice too - that was delivered by WolframAlpha for anyone wondering! Probably the worst thing about this meta search engine is that the engines you select are saved with a cookie, so you must enable them on every new device you use SearXNG on, including if you decide to go into incognito mode with your web browser. Honestly, I would say this is the most annoying aspect, and perhaps if your browser lets you choose a separate private browsing search engine, then it would be best to use DuckDuckGo for this portion of your browsing. Another weakness of SearXNG is the random blocking of it by search providers. When you are on the results page, expand the “Response time” box, and it will show things like “Suspended: too many requests” or “access denied”. This is why it is good to enable several providers so that there is always a fallback to get results from. I won’t pretend SearXNG will be for everyone, however, if you enable all of the providers and put up with the slower response time, the results can be really amazing. Even if you don’t want to use it as your daily driver, keeping a bookmark handy that links to it is a good idea if you ever feel like doing a deep dive into a niche topic where other search engines are just failing to bring up any good result, due to the amount of sources it looks on. If you’re interested in radical user control over the software you use, installing SearXNG locally can also be a good idea, but be prepared to be temporarily blocked from sites if you trigger bot sensors without a VPN. Personally, I’ve opted to use a public instance, rather than install it myself. If you want to use it via a public instance, head over to searx.space to find a provider. Let us know in the comments if you have used SearXNG or its predecessor, Searx. What do you think about the quality of the results?
    • Dear Neowin, If it is not too much trouble, can you start using the new-ish designations for Insider Preview? "Experimental" is different than "former Dev" as it can apply to different models, eg 26H1 or 26H2 etc, right? No need to seed confusion IMHO. And, please "finally" update your graphics. OK?
  • Recent Achievements

    • Week One Done
      flexorcist earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Month Later
      Woland13 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      Woland13 earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Year In
      bernmeister earned a badge
      One Year In
    • Week One Done
      Scoobystu earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      503
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      226
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      158
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      75
    5. 5
      FloatingFatMan
      71
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!