Kaspersky and spying for Russian Federation


Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, adrynalyne said:

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. 

I've provided enough facts and evidence for user to test it. You are just not accepting provided data as an evidence and refusing to check it by yourself.

2 minutes ago, AndyMutz said:

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-

You have to use "Internet Explorer", enable Kaspersky addon and press F12 inside the web browser to see if browser tries to make requests to ie.kis.scr.kaspersky-labs.com.

 

5 minutes ago, EJocys said:

I've provided enough facts and evidence for user to test it. You are just not accepting provided data as an evidence and refusing to check it by yourself.

I didnt make the claim, you did. You have yet to tell me what sensitive information was sent. You are purposely dodging the question. Why should I pollute my machine with an AV I would never use for me to prove to myself a claim someone else made? If I was making the claim and told you the same, you would not do so either. 

 

Just provide evidence of senstive information being sent and we can be done with this. It only serves to make you look ridiculous by dancing around the issue. 

10 minutes ago, adrynalyne said:

I didnt make the claim, you did. You have yet to tell me what sensitive information was sent. You are purposely dodging the question. Why should I pollute my machine with an AV I would never use for me to prove to myself a claim someone else made? If I was making the claim and told you the same, you would not do so either. 

 

Just provide evidence of senstive information being on being sent and we can be done with this. It only serves to make you look ridiculous by dancing around the issue. 

Browser debug tools clearly shows that data was not only sent but response was received and I could see results (Script and JASON data). I proved my original claim - browser tried to make request to URL which has external address with geolocation in Moscow. Then, you asked me to prove something which I did not claimed i.e. that request reached remote server. I have no intention to prove this extra claim, because I removed Kaspersky from all my PCs and have no intention to reinstall it. For this reason I've asked users to test (gather evidence) themselves.

 

You could be more precise-specific with your answers. Pointing directly to, where I am wrong, would be more constructive in this discussion, than abstract statement, that I don't know something about network and security.

 

 

11 minutes ago, EJocys said:

Browser debug tools clearly shows that data was not only sent but response was received and I could see results (Script and JASON data). I proved my original claim - browser tried to make request to URL which has external address with geolocation in Moscow. Then, you asked me to prove something which I did not claimed i.e. that request reached remote server. I have no intention to prove this extra claim, because I removed Kaspersky from all my PCs and have no intention to reinstall it. For this reason I've asked users to test (gather evidence) themselves.

 

You could be more precise-specific with your answers. Pointing directly to, where I am wrong, would be more constructive in this discussion, than abstract statement, that I don't know something about network and security.

 

 

Did you not post this?

 

or example: Every time I was using secure search on google.co.uk, Kaspersky would make connections to server in Russia and load JavaScript which in itself enables

ability to send all my logins, passwords and other sensitive data to file providers, because it was running from inside a secure connection and all sensitive data was available in plain text:

 

I want to see evidence of what is highlighted. Your links don't work. I don't know why you thought they would.

31 minutes ago, adrynalyne said:

Did you not post this?

 

 

 

 

I want to see evidence of what is highlighted. Your links don't work. I don't know why you thought they would.

See. We don't agree even on what sensitive data is. I think that information about bank (clearly supplied in URL), I hold my accounts in, is sensitive data, because it allows more precise targeting for hackers. Since requests to external URL include not only bank host name, but path and query (GET data) this means that much more than just bank name is sent to third party.

It doe not end here. Web browser gets reply as a JavaScript and this opens possibilities to request any data from the page on demand. I used that method myself to override functions on remote clients, it was legal because my code was not coming from third party and was used to fix broken functions I could not deploy onto to remote client. I knew what I could do with my "workaround" and how to bypass cross-domain restriction when submitting data to third parties and this is exactly why I don't feel comfortable when Kaspersky is using similar method.

 

> Your links don't work. I don't know why you thought they would.

 

These links return data to browser only when Kaspersky add-on handles them, which is perfectly expected. It is up to Kaspersky to refresh them and decide who gets cashed content and who get updated version directly or indirectly from the Internet.

 

Edited by EJocys
20 minutes ago, EJocys said:

See. We don't agree even on what sensitive data is. I think that information about bank (clearly supplied in URL), I hold my accounts in, is sensitive data, because it allows more precise targeting for hackers. Since requests to external URL include not only bank host name, but path and query (GET data) this means that much more than just bank name is sent to third party.

It doe not end here. Web browser gets reply as a JavaScript and this opens possibilities to request any data from the page on demand. I used that method myself to override functions on remote clients, it was legal because my code was not coming from third party and was used to fix broken functions I could not deploy onto to remote client. I knew what I could do with my "workaround" and how to bypass cross-domain restriction when submitting data to third parties and this is exactly why I don't feel comfortable when Kaspersky is using similar method.

 

> Your links don't work. I don't know why you thought they would.

 

These links return data to browser only when Kaspersky add-on handles them, which is perfectly expected. It is up to Kaspersky to refresh them and decide who gets cashed content and who get updated version directly or indirectly from the Internet.

 

If that was sensitive to you, then I don't know what to tell you. Thousands (more?) use that same URL...

39 minutes ago, EJocys said:

Amount of users does not make information non-sensitive. Pornhub users would agree. :)

It isn't sensitive nor private if everyone uses it. 

 

Do you feel the same about Google.com? It isn't any different. 

39 minutes ago, adrynalyne said:

It isn't sensitive nor private if everyone uses it. 

 

Do you feel the same about Google.com? It isn't any different. 

Sensitivity of data doesn't depend on popularity of the website. There is a difference between information that you are visiting google and information on what you are looking for. If person is nobody, then he is safe, because nobody gives a ###### what he is doing, but information gives ability to use blackmail if it is private and person holds some decision power. For example person from the government who is using online cheating or some other kinky site, person who is looking at his medical records, or gay politician who is visiting gay sites and lives in a country with strict sharia laws. There are sites which use URL query to pass private data when using HTTPS, especially web sites with REST design. Also to note: You managed to ignore important part that, that URL to Kaspersky included not just domain name but full path.

 

P.S.: I must admit that system, designed by Kaspersky is actually brilliant, because if Kaspersky allows browser to make full request then Russian Secret services can enable spying and hacking on any client of their choosing. This system potentially allows to kill and infect all Kapsersky protected PCs in a single move if cyber attack by government is necessary. Why? because, according to web browser debug logs, every web browser "protected" by Kaspersky tries to get out and call the mothership. And you can't just refuse to visit some "infected" site, because browser tries to make this call for every site.

2 minutes ago, EJocys said:

Sensitivity of data doesn't depend on popularity of the website. There is a difference between information that you are visiting google and information on what you are looking for. If person is nobody, then he is safe, because nobody gives a ###### what he is doing, but information gives ability to use blackmail if it is private and person holds some decision power. For example person from the government who is using online cheating or some other kinky site, person who is looking at his medical records, or gay politician who is visiting gay sites and lives in a country with strict sharia laws. There are sites which use URL query to pass private data when using HTTPS, especially web sites with REST design. Also to note: You managed to ignore important part that, that URL to Kaspersky included not just domain name but full path.

 

P.S.: I must admit that system, designed by Kaspersky is actually brilliant, because if Kaspersky allows browser to make full request then Russian Secret services can enable spying and hacking on any client of their choosing. This system potentially allows to kill and infect all Kapsersky protected PCs in a single move if cyber attack by government is necessary. Why? because, according to web browser debug logs, every web browser "protected" by Kaspersky tries to get out and call the mothership. And you can't just refuse to visit some "infected" site, because browser tries to make this call for every site.

I'm done. Your PS statement is absolutely ridiculous. 

17 minutes ago, adrynalyne said:

I'm done. Your PS statement is absolutely ridiculous. 

Which part is ridiculous exactly? Because everything is supported by evidence. Please explain why Kaspersky choose to force browser to make request to domain name which points to external source on the internet when 127.0.0.1 would be fine and much more secure? Do you think that they made this mistake because they are stupid? Maybe you need a reality check and realize that Russia is under sanctions, because their government is not known for their moral behaviour. It is not ridiculous, it would be perfectly normal behaviour for a country which fights hybrid wars with other countries and constantly lies on TV channels owned by the government.

Edited by EJocys
12 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.

 

Thank you.

Funny, I have Kaspersky Total Security and just did as you requested, and the only traffic that shows is to Google, nothing else, just Google.

Capture.PNG

9 minutes ago, EJocys said:

Which part is ridiculous exactly? Because everything is supported by evidence. Please explain why Kaspersky choose to force browser to make request to domain name which points to external source on the internet when 127.0.0.1 would be fine and much more secure? Do you think that they made this mistake because they are stupid? Maybe you need a reality check and realize that Russia is under sanctions, because their government is not known for their moral behaviour.

I have met Kaspersky, and his employees... By random chance.

 

At computing meetings in Russia.. In airplane, sitting next to them....

 

And i know i would not trust them.

 

I would not touch that antivirus with a 10 foot pole. 

 

If it is not the government... They are selling all your info to the highest bidder. That is a fact.

 

 

Hello,

 

Perhaps the following would be of interest:

 

Quote

Kaspersky Lab would like to explain the injection of special script in web pages loaded in users’ browsers. This technology is going to replace the obsolete plugin technology in our consumer products launched or updated in 2015 and later on. The new protection technology adds a special script to a web page shown to the user, which does not send any data from the computer to third-party servers but works as a communication channel between the browser and our security solution. This interaction is performed in the form of sending requests to a special technical URL, which the browser interprets as addressing a remote server, however, instead of the remote server these special requests are handled by security solution, running locally. This means that no information leaves the computer via this script.


This technology is used by several components of Kaspersky Lab solutions for home users, including web antivirus, anti-phishing and Safe Money. As this technology was designed solely for the purpose of providing better protection, our products currently do not offer an option of disabling this script. However, our experts are currently working on modifications to the company’s solutions that will enable users to disable the script if they desire. This change may be included in forthcoming updates.

 

Source:  f.kis.scr, main.js javascript injection issue with Firefox, [merged with same]  (Kaspersky Lab Forum)

 

So, it looks like it is a normal part of their software.

 

Regards,

 

Aryeh Goretsky

 

 

 

  • Like 2
6 hours ago, goretsky said:

Hello,

 

Perhaps the following would be of interest:

 

 

Source:  f.kis.scr, main.js javascript injection issue with Firefox, [merged with same]  (Kaspersky Lab Forum)

 

So, it looks like it is a normal part of their software.

 

Regards,

 

Aryeh Goretsky

 

 

 

That was very informative. Thank you.

 

Kaspersky claims that "requests are handled by security solution, running locally", but they do not explain why they decided to use live domains for local solution. If "security solution" was not intercepting then requests would go directly to their servers on The Internet. In the context, sentence "technology was designed solely for the purpose of providing better protection" sounds a little bit like "we are spying on you for your own protection" :).

 

P.S.: This reminded me to check if they conveniently forgot to remove something, after I uninstalled Kaspersky Anti-Virus. Antivirus scans content of HTTPS web sites by creating tunnel and having full access in unencrypted form, which is normal practice for firewalls. In order for web browser not display security warnings, Kaspersky installs security certificate into "Trusted Root Certification Authorities". Launched "certmgr.msc" and here it is - forgotten "Kaspersky Anti-Virus Personal Root Certificate". Removed.

Hello,

 

No idea about the decision to use live domains.  I would imagine there is some logical reason for this, though.  I've met a number of their researchers over the years and they're pretty sharp.

 

Decrypting encrypted streams to scan them is pretty standard behavior for anti-malware software these days.

 

Regards,

 

Aryeh Goretsky

 

@OP

...and Windows 10 is sending all your data to US Federation. .... Drumroll !!

 

Doesn't matter. Your personal data is always going to end up at either side of the world the moment you plug that LAN cable or join wifi. Don't worry. Your data would be safe there :)

 

If you are really paranoid, back up and save that data to Baidu cloud too just to be safe.

1 hour ago, goretsky said:

Hello,

 

No idea about the decision to use live domains.  I would imagine there is some logical reason for this, though.  I've met a number of their researchers over the years and they're pretty sharp.

 

Decrypting encrypted streams to scan them is pretty standard behavior for anti-malware software these days.

 

Regards,

 

Aryeh Goretsky

 

I agree that they are pretty sharp and I liked their product in general.

 

My tin-foil side thinks that script injection was created as a workaround to solve the legal issue i.e. to be able to make an official claim that Kaspersky is not sending customers data to Kaspersky servers. Technically they are correct. It is the browser, which is trying to send data to Kaspersky servers. Kaspersky antivirus is just giving ze orders :). Live domain means that Kaspersky use rules, which are responsible to identify which domains can pass through and which will be blocked. My wild guess would be that there is a way to edit these rules without recompiling the code. This would make product compatible with the countries where law requires access to tracking by the government.


People are forgetting that anti-virus software plays major role in cyber warfare. It is like missile defence system but against viruses and hacking. It would be naïve to think that governments are not interested in affecting antivirus products in order for it to give strategic advantage, especially knowing the fact that CEO of Kaspersky was educated in KGB sponsored facility and worked with FSB.

On 8/21/2016 at 2:01 PM, 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.

You dont undestand an a idea. 

 

If you visiting www.Santander-bank.com it will say STOP, instead of original santanderbank.com

 

And it checking ANY JS scripts of any hosts to worry you if host been hacked. As again STOP you paranoia and disable kaspersky at network setting if you dont like it.

http://support.kaspersky.com/us/9007#block2

12092_0413-274390.png

conflittorete.jpg

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

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • Why it's almost impossible to produce a smartphone in the United States by Hamid Ganji If you look at the back of some Apple products, you can see the famous phrase “Designed by Apple in California, Assembled in China.” This phrase appears on products from one of the largest smartphone brands in the United States. These products are designed in the U.S., but their manufacturing takes place in China, India, Vietnam, or even Brazil. But why can’t Apple, as one of the largest American tech companies, produce its iPhones on U.S. soil? The idea for this topic came to me after the Trump Foundation launched a smartphone called the T1 and claimed that it was designed and built with American values in mind. However, this claim did not last long, as it was revealed that Trump’s phone was actually a rebranded HTC U24 Pro, with only a gold case and minor internal component changes. You see? Even a phone that is supposed to represent American values is manufactured in China. With a gross domestic product (GDP) exceeding $32 trillion, the United States is currently the world’s largest economy, while China ranks second with around $20 trillion. On the other hand, the United States is by a wide margin the global leader in various technological fields, and American companies spend hundreds of billions of dollars annually on research and development. From Apple and Google to Microsoft, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and others, American tech and industrial giants lead their foreign competitors in many sectors. The United States also has no shortage of smartphone brands. Apple, Google, and Motorola are among the major brands in the smartphone market, collectively holding a significant share. However, the vast majority of their products are manufactured outside the United States. So why is it that the world’s largest economy, home to the most advanced technology companies and industrial powers, cannot produce a smartphone on its own soil? Let’s explore this question together. Even threats to impose tariffs won’t work After Trump entered the White House as the 47th President of the United States, his administration adopted strict tariff policies. One of these policies was the imposition of a 25% tariff on smartphones manufactured outside the United States. Trump said he “had a little problem” with Apple CEO Tim Cook over producing smartphones outside the U.S. So he thought that threatening a 25% tax on imported phones might force Apple to bring manufacturing back to the United States. “I have long ago informed Tim Cook of Apple that I expect their iPhones that will be sold in the United States of America will be manufactured and built in the United States, not India, or anyplace else,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. Image via The White House Although Apple currently manufactures some of the iPhone’s chips in the United States with TSMC's help, it still shows no willingness to shift full iPhone production to the country. At the time, renowned Apple supply chain analyst Ming-Chi Kuo wrote on X, “In terms of profitability, it’s way better for Apple to take the hit of a 25% tariff on iPhones sold in the US market than to move iPhone assembly lines back to the US.” However, manufacturing a smartphone in the United States is not as easy as it might seem, and many technical and economic barriers are involved. The lack of necessary manufacturing hubs There is a clear reason why many companies prefer to manufacture their products in China. China has established itself as the main global manufacturing hub for international companies, and over the past few decades, large contract manufacturers have emerged there, allowing companies like Apple to outsource production. One such example is Foxconn, which also manufactures some Apple products in India. Building the infrastructure required to produce smartphones in the United States would require tens of billions of dollars in new investment. Factories would need to be built, essential manufacturing equipment would have to be installed, and, most importantly, a skilled workforce capable of operating these systems would need to be recruited and trained. The United States currently lacks the core infrastructure needed to manufacture smartphones, and for this reason, many companies prefer to outsource production to Chinese contractors rather than spend tens of billions of dollars to build that infrastructure, which is significantly more economically efficient. Additionally, building such infrastructure in the United States could take up to a decade, ultimately leading to a significant increase in the product's final price for consumers. Shortage of trained labor in the U.S. compared to China Decades of serving as a global manufacturing hub have allowed China to build a massive talent pool in the production sector that is almost unmatched worldwide. Today, if a company chooses to manufacture its products in China, it can be confident that the workers involved in production have years of experience in their respective roles and are capable of producing high-quality goods with minimal errors. Even if we assume that tens of billions of dollars were invested in building smartphone manufacturing infrastructure in the United States, finding skilled workers would remain highly challenging. Apple CEO Tim Cook visiting the iPhone 6 assembly line in China in 2014. Image: Tim Cook on X In a 2015 interview on CBS’s 60 Minutes, Tim Cook said the main reason Apple isn’t producing in the US is a lack of skills. "China put an enormous focus on manufacturing, in what you and I would call vocational kind of skills. The US over time began to stop having as many vocational kinds of skills. I mean you could take every tool and die maker in the United States and probably put them in the room that we're currently sitting in. In China you would have to have multiple football fields,” Cook said. Also, in 2017, at the Fortune Global Forum in Guangzhou, Cook once again emphasized the importance of highly skilled Chinese workers. “China has moved into very advanced manufacturing, so you find in China the intersection of craftsman kind of skill, and sophisticated robotics and the computer science world. That intersection, which is very rare to find anywhere, that kind of skill, is very important to our business because of the precision and quality level that we like. The thing that most people focus on if they’re a foreigner coming to China is the size of the market, and obviously, it’s the biggest market in the world in so many areas. But for us, the number one attraction is the quality of the people,” Apple CEO said. Higher labor costs in the United States Producing almost any product in the United States is more expensive than in many other countries, and one of the main reasons is the higher cost of labor in the U.S. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, median weekly earnings of full-time workers in the United States were $1,235 in the first quarter of 2026. Meanwhile, the average annual salary in China's private sector in 2025 was RMB 71,590 (US$9,961). In many parts of the world, the weekly wage of an American worker is equivalent to several months of income. Another important factor to consider is that in the United States, the workforce capable of working on a smartphone assembly line is highly specialized and therefore commands higher-than-average wages. According to an estimate by Bank of America, producing an iPhone in the U.S. is technically possible, but “iPhone cost can increase 25% purely on higher labor cost in the U.S.” However, this 25% increase applies only if final assembly is performed in the United States while components are still sourced from China or elsewhere. In this case, the price of a base iPhone would rise from $799 to around $1,000. But in another scenario, if Apple were to produce the required components for the iPhone within the United States, production costs could increase by more than 90%. Trump’s dream for a “Made in the USA” iPhone might never come true In a free-market capitalist economy, one of the primary responsibilities of any CEO is to maximize profit. Using Apple as an example, Tim Cook’s role is to maximize the company’s profits so that it can fund research and development for new products and invest in areas such as artificial intelligence, while also keeping shareholders satisfied. Therefore, it is entirely understandable that Apple would choose not to bring its manufacturing back to the United States and instead keep production in countries where labor is cheaper, and products can be manufactured at a lower cost, thereby maximizing its profit margins. What is your opinion about manufacturing smartphones in the United States? If you are an American citizen, would you be willing to pay hundreds of dollars more for a smartphone made domestically in the USA? Let us know in the comments.
    • Cheers everyone for the replies. It's been very useful. 👍
    • Compared to the 7735HS it is around 25-30% slower in multi-threaded tasks (according to Google search) I did a review of the 7735HS Beelink SER6 Max in 2023, but thinking about it, it's not comparable to the 7730U. For the example you gave about how it will be used, the 7730U is actually an excellent choice for its power and battery efficiency.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Reacting Well
      JuvenileDelinquent earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • One Month Later
      Excellence2025 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      Excellence2025 earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      flexorcist earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      Woland13 earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      503
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      194
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      151
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      71
    5. 5
      FloatingFatMan
      67
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!