![]() ![]() But Kaspersky says he doesn't see this as an isolationist policy. The so-called "Russian internet" is one such initiative. One of the emerging trends is that many countries, including Russia, are looking to protect their sovereign interests online. The geopolitical climate that resulted in the ban has changed over recent times. Kaspersky suggested that if the Chinese government wanted to spy and steal data that there were easier and cheaper ways to do so. "I'm afraid it's both as a geopolitical and political motivation", he said. With Huawei facing similar bans, Kaspersky said that it was something of a furphy to suggest Huawei was installing telecommunications equipment as a way of giving the Chinese government a way of spying. He noted that the opening of the San Paolo centre has been delayed as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. In early 2020, new Transparency Centers will be opened in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, and in São Paulo, Brazil. ![]() The company opened Transparency Centers in Zurich and Madrid. And partners that left Kaspersky in 2016 are now returning, suggesting that Kasperky's business is starting to recover there.īut, despite the cost of the ban, Kaspersky says he would not do anything differently. Since the ban on the company, Kaspersky noted that revenue in other parts of the world has increased such that the losses suffered in the US following the government ban were covered by business growth in other regions. And he believes that the software's ability to detect those kinds of threats and suggest connections between the source code of malware it detected and malware from other sources, among other factors, suggested that perhaps the software detected something the US government didn't want revealed - a view supported by Kaspersky APAC boss Stephan Neumeier. He suggested that threats fell into two broad categories: Those that stole data and were focused on espionage and those that stole money and we're most likely criminal. Kaspersky told ZDNet that his software doesn't focus on attribution but could detect state-sponsored threats. "I think that it's better to ask this question on the other side of the Pacific Ocean," he said. After two years, no proofs, no data at all," the eponymous CEO said.Īt the time of the ban, his company transacted just $50,000 with the US government - a figure he called "nothing", noting that the congressional hearings into the ban had cost the US government far more than the revenue he lost - at least initially. ![]() Kaspersky describing the time as a "shitstorm". According to Eugene Kaspersky, the reality was that the US government's business was insignificant and there was no foundation for the accusations made against the company. But that was all put at risk when the US government banned the use of the company's security software. In 2016, Kasperky's annual revenue was over $640 million. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |