DOCSLIB.ORG

FROM COLD WAR to CYBERWAR? | #1 | August 2013

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
FROM COLD WAR to CYBERWAR? | #1 | August 2013 A product of Russia Beyond The Headlines EDITOR’s note RUSSIA DIRECT MONTHLY MEMO | #1 | AUGUST 2013 EkatErina Zabrovskaya Editor-in-Chief FROM COLD Russia Direct is pleased to launch the first edition of RD Monthly - a new product available only to subscribers of Russia Direct. Each month, these analytic reports, written by leading WAR TO thinkers and practitioners, will pro- vide background and context on the most important issues facing U.S. and Russian policy makers. The topic this month could not be more timely - the threats and op- portunities involving cybersecurity. CYBERWAR? Modern battlefields may already have shifted to keyboards and serv- ers, but is this any less destabilizing and costly than the weapons used in previous conflicts? This report, written by Pavel Sharik- ov, the head of the Applied Studies Center at the Russian Academy of Sciences’ Institute for U.S. and Cana- dian Studies, delves deeper into how different governments are facing this challenge. It also provides a great re- source on important books, articles and Twitter feeds you need to stay abreast of this emerging field. RD will feature a Q&A with the author soon, so please send any questions you want us to ask Pavel Sharikov via email, Twitter and Face- book and we will highlight as many of them as we can. Also, stay tuned for the September debut of RD Quarterly, an exclusive white paper series that will focus in even more in-depth on the key trends and topics resonating in the U.S.- Russia relationship. Next month’s topic will be on public diplomacy and how best to project soft power overseas. tassphoto.com www.russia-direct.org FROM COLD WAR TO CYBERWAR? | #1 | August 2013 FROM COLD WAR TO CYBERWAR? by Pavel Sharikov Head of the Center for Applied Research Institute for U.S. and Canadian Studies Russian Academy of Sciences EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The threat of a cyberwar between the world’s great powers has transformed from myth into reality. While the U.S. was originally the leader in understanding the unique threats posed by cyberattacks, other nations – including both Russia and China – are now deploying new mili- tary and political resources to create strategic cyberwar capabilities. Against a backdrop of rapid technological change, both the U.S. and Russia are developing different frameworks for understanding and responding to the threat in cyberspace. The potential for divergence in views on cyberspace has placed more importance than ever before on establishing new levels of bilateral cooperation between the U.S. and Russia, especially when it comes to responding to the threats posed by non-state actors. If the Cold War was defined by a drive for numerical superiority in nuclear strike capacity, a future cyberwar will be defined by innovation and the ability to create new, undetectable cyberweapons specifically targeted at a nation’s infra- structure grid and telecommunications network. Introduction If nuclear security provided a framework for under- whether national security concerns – such as the standing U.S.-Russia relations during the Cold War threat of a cross-border cyberattack launched by a era, then cybersecurity may end up providing a new terrorist group abroad – can supersede issues of pri- framework for understanding U.S.-Russia relations vacy and human rights for a nation’s citizens. in the digital era. Recognizing this fact, the leaders of For cybersecurity experts, there are a number of the U.S. and Russia are now actively working to form important questions to answer. Do nations have cybersecurity command centers. the right to use computer malware to unilaterally They are also creating comprehensive national cy- take out the nuclear weapons facilities of another bersecurity strategies that define the appropriate re- nation-state, as the U.S. is thought to have done sponses to emerging threats in cyberspace. In June, with Iran? Will the revelation of the USA’s broad the U.S. and Russia put into place a broad agreement surveillance program against its own citizens give on cybersecurity that could play an important role in Russia a broader hand to monitor cyberactivists bringing their competing views of cyberspace into within its own borders? At what point does Chinese greater alignment. surveillance of U.S. corporate and government en- In a multipolar world where rogue non-state actors tities trigger a cyberattack or other response from can launch unprovoked attacks on another nation’s the U.S.? infrastructure and telecommunications networks, What follows is a comprehensive survey of how the emerging field of cybersecurity raises a number the U.S., Russia, Europe and China are responding of important questions about international law. to this new cybersecurity reality. To understand the Within the U.S. there are already warnings of a digi- next steps forward in the global debate over cyber- tal “Pearl Harbor” that could take out the nation’s security, it is important to understand how each of infrastructure with little or no warning. As a result, these geopolitical players views their own respec- cybersecurity also raises the important question of tive place within cyberspace. 2 / 1 1 Russia DiRect monthly memo www.russia-direct.org FROM COLD WAR TO CYBERWAR? | #1 | August 2013 Cybersecurity and national sovereignty bersecurity issues. However, serious differences have emerged between countries in the specific approach THE MOST More than 30 years have passed since the creation to this problem. DANGEROUS of the modern Internet. During this time period, the One approach, adhered to by Russia, China, their al- CYBERWEAPONS threat to information security has evolved from prob- lies in the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation and OF 2013 lems of fraud and theft to strategic threats to national the Commonwealth of Independent States, as well as security posed by both state and non-state actors. some Latin American countries, would see the devel- RED OCTOBER The targets of this Many states today are establishing special units opment of common international legal norms that attack were various within their national armed forces that are respon- make it mandatory for all national governments to government bodies sible for the conduct of information operations and introduce them at the internal political level. In their and diplomatic are capable of using information technologies to opinion, because the information network is a com- organizations. strike civil infrastructure elements in other states. mon good, ensuring information security should be MINIDUKE The United States tops the list of countries that are analogous to the approach to environmental prob- Its victims included implementing such organizational and technological lems or regulations concerning outer space. government changes. Similar reforms are reportedly being con- entities in Ukraine, ducted in China, Russia and North Korea [1]. Serious differences have emerged Belgium, and Ireland. It is not by chance that the problems of information between countries regarding security have come to be viewed as related to threats a universal international legal APT1 to national sovereignty. stole terabytes of Recent history offers quite a few examples of cyber- framework data from at least attacks causing considerable damage to the economic 141 organizations potential of states. One of the most salient examples The other approach, reflected in the cyberpolicies around the world. was the infection of Iranian nuclear facilities with of the United States, the United Kingdom and their the Stuxnet virus, which threw Iran’s nuclear pro- NATO allies, rules out internal state regulation that TEAMSPY Its targets were gram back several years [2]. Pulitzer Prize-winning limits free development of information resources. The top-level politicians journalist David Sanger, author of the book Confront advocates of this approach are convinced that each and human rights and Conceal: Obama’s Secret Wars and Surprising Use of state has sovereignty over its information resources. advocates. American Power, claims that the Stuxnet virus was Accordingly, each state reserves the right to react to born as part of a secret US program aimed at develop- cyberthreats as it sees fit. STUXNET ing cyberweapons against hostile states. It is strategically important to resolve these differ- is believed to be targeted against Today, practically all countries and international or- ences considering the proliferation of cyberthreats, Iran’s nuclear ganizations have come out in favor of creating a uni- and cooperation between Russia and the United projects. versal international legal framework regulating cy- States is a precondition for achieving a compromise. Countries most likely to be affected by viruses downloaded from the Internet (data from the first quarter of 2013) 12-20% 20-28% 28-36% 36-46% 46-61% sourse: Kaspersky Lab, 2013 [1] DOD Report: North Korea Still Critical US Security Threat. Cheryl Pellerin. Washington. 2 May 2013. www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=119924 [2] Mark Clayton, Stuxnet malware is ‘weapon’ out to destroy ... Iran’s Bushehr nuclear plant? Christian Science Monitor. 21 September 2010. www.csmonitor.com/USA/2010/0921/Stuxnet-malware-is-weapon-out-to-destroy-Iran-s-Bushehr-nuclear-plant 3 / 1 1 Russia DiRect monthly memo www.russia-direct.org FROM COLD WAR TO CYBERWAR? | #1 | August 2013 The US becomes the world’s leader in developing offensive cyberweapons The ‘special status’ of the United States in cyberspace stems from several factors. The Internet was invented in the United States and, accordingly, American soci- ety received access to the benefits of cyberspace ear- lier than other countries. The United States was also the first to face the threats coming from cyberspace. Today, the Obama Administration attaches special significance to information technology policy, put- ting its stake on information technology resources in maintaining the competitiveness of the national economy. A significant amount of work accomplished by a special commission for the study of America’s cyber- security policy has produced two documents regulat- ing the development of cyberspace: the International Strategy For Cyberspace [3] and the Department of Defense Strategy for Operating in Cyberspace [4].
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Kaspersky Lab, Inc. V. United States, No
    United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT Argued September 14, 2018 Decided November 30, 2018 No. 18-5176 KASPERSKY LAB, INC. AND KASPERSKY LABS LIMITED, APPELLANTS v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY AND KIRSTJEN M. NIELSEN, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF HOMELAND SECURITY, APPELLEES Consolidated with 18-5177 Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (No. 1:17-cv-02697) (No. 1:18-cv-00325) Scott H. Christensen argued the cause for appellants. With him on the briefs were Ryan P. Fayhee and Stephen R. Halpin III. Lewis S. Yelin, Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, argued the cause for appellees. With him on the brief was H. Thomas Byron, III. 2 Before: TATEL, Circuit Judge, and EDWARDS and GINSBURG, Senior Circuit Judges. Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge TATEL. TATEL, Circuit Judge: Kaspersky Lab is a Russian-based cybersecurity company that provides products and services to customers around the world. Recently, however, Kaspersky lost an important client: the United States government. In September 2017, based on concerns that the Russian government could exploit Kaspersky’s access to federal computers for ill, the Acting Secretary of Homeland Security directed federal agencies to remove the company’s products from government information systems. And a few months later, Congress broadened and codified that prohibition in the National Defense Authorization Act. Kaspersky sued, arguing that the prohibition constitutes an impermissible legislative punishment—what the Constitution calls a bill of attainder. The government responded that the prohibition is not a punishment but a prophylaxis necessary to protect federal computer systems from Russian cyber-threats.
    [Show full text]
  • What You Should Know About Kaspersky
    What you should know Proven. Transparent. about Kaspersky Lab Independent. Fighting for your digital freedom Your data and privacy are under attack by cybercriminals and spy agencies, so you need a partner who is not afraid of standing beside you to protect what matters to you most. For over 20 years, Kaspersky Lab has been catching all kinds of cyberthreats. No matter whether they come from script kiddies, cybercriminals or governments, or from the north, south, east or west. We believe the online world should be free from attack and state-sponsored espionage, and will continue fighting for a truly free and safe digital world. Proven Transparent Independent Kaspersky Lab routinely scores the highest We are totally transparent and are making As a private company, we are independent marks in independent ratings and surveys. it even easier to understand what we do: from short term business considerations and institutional influence. • Measured alongside more than 100 other • Independent review of the company’s well-known vendors in the industry source code, software updates and We share our expertise, knowledge • 72 first places in 86 tests in 2017 threat detection rules and technical findings with the world’s • Top 3 ranking* in 91% of all product tests • Independent review of internal security community, IT security vendors, • In 2017, Kaspersky Lab received processes international organizations, and law Platinum Status for Gartner’s Peer • Three transparency centers by 2020 enforcement agencies. Insight** Customer Choice Award 2017, • Increased bug bounty rewards with up in the Endpoint Protection Platforms to $100K per discovered vulnerability Our research team is spread across the market world and includes some of the most renowned security experts in the world.
    [Show full text]
  • Last Summer, the World's Top Software-Security Experts Were
    A DeclarationLast summer, the world’s top software-security experts were of Cyber-War panicked by the discovery of a drone-like computer virus, radically different from and far more sophisticated than any they’d seen. The race was on to figure out its payload, its purpose, and who was behind it. As the world now knows, the Stuxnet worm appears to have attacked Iran’s nuclear program. And, as MICHAEL JOSEPH GROSS reports, while its source remains something of a mystery, Stuxnet is the new face of 21st-century war: invisible, anonymous, and devastating 152 VANITY FAIR PHOTOGRAPHS BY JONAS FREDWALL KARLSSON APRIL 2011 A DeclarationLast summer, the world’s top software-security experts were of Cyber-War panicked by the discovery of a drone-like computer virus, radically different from and far more sophisticated than any they’d seen. The race was on to figure out its payload, its purpose, and who was behind it. As the world now knows, the Stuxnet worm appears to have attacked Iran’s nuclear program. And, as MICHAEL JOSEPH GROSS reports, while its source remains something of a mystery, Stuxnet is the new face of 21st-century war: invisible, anonymous, and devastating GAME OF SHADOWS Eugene Kaspersky, co-founder and C.E.O. of Kaspersky Lab— a Moscow-based computer-security company and an early investigator of Stuxnet—photographed on the Bolshoy Moskvoretsky Bridge, FOR DETAILS, GO TO VF.COM/CREDITS near the Kremlin. APRIL 2011 153 “PERSON OF INTEREST” Computer-security researcher Frank Rieger, one of the !rst to study the Stuxnet worm closely, at Berlin’s Chaos computer Club.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 United States District Court for the District Of
    Case 1:17-cv-02697-CKK Document 26 Filed 05/30/18 Page 1 of 55 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA KASPERSKY LAB, INC., et al., Plaintiffs v. Civil Action No. 17-2697 (CKK) UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, et al., Defendants KASPERSKY LAB, INC., et al., Plaintiffs v. Civil Action No. 18-325 (CKK) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant MEMORANDUM OPINION (May 30, 2018) The United States government’s networks and computer systems are extremely important strategic national assets. Threats to these systems are constantly expanding and evolving. Their security depends on the government’s ability to act swiftly against perceived threats and to take preventive action to minimize vulnerabilities. These defensive actions may very well have adverse consequences for some third-parties. But that does not make them unconstitutional. Plaintiffs in the two lawsuits discussed in this Opinion represent Kaspersky Lab, a large multinational cybersecurity company headquartered in Russia. At least until 2017, Kaspersky Lab’s cybersecurity products were used to defend the networks and computer systems of a number of United States federal government agencies. Amid growing concerns in early 2017 about malicious Russian cyber activity against the United States, government officials and members of Congress began asking questions, and voicing concerns, about the presence of these products on government systems. These concerns were based on the risk that the use of 1 Case 1:17-cv-02697-CKK Document 26 Filed 05/30/18 Page 2 of 55 Kaspersky Lab products to defend United States government computer systems could be exploited by Russia, either with or without Kaspersky Lab’s consent, cooperation, or knowledge.
    [Show full text]
  • What You Should Know
    Kaspersky For Business What You Should Know About Kaspersky Lab Kaspersky Lab is a private, international company that operates in almost 200 countries and territories, protecting over 400 million people and 270,000 companies worldwide. The company has R&D centers and anti-malware experts around the world, including the United States, Europe, Japan, Israel, China, Russia and Latin America. More than 80 percent of its sales and operations are outside of Russia. The company’s North American headquarters is located in Woburn, Massachusetts. Kaspersky Lab employs more than 300 people in North America, including cyber experts from the company’s renowned Global Research and Analysis Team (GReAT). With more than 20 years of experience, Kaspersky Lab is the world’s largest privately owned cybersecurity company, and it consistently ranks among the world’s top four vendors of security solutions for endpoint users (IDC, 2017).1 In addition to leading endpoint protection, the company’s comprehensive security portfolio includes a number of specialized solutions and services to fight sophisticated and evolving digital threats. 1. IDC, Worldwide Endpoint Security Market Shares, 2016: Competition Gets Fierce, # US42553717, May 2017 2 What You Should Know Kaspersky Lab Principles for Fighting Cyberthreats As an IT security company, Kaspersky Lab is determined to detect and neutralize all forms of malicious programs, regardless of their origin or purpose. One of Kaspersky Lab’s most important assets in fighting cybercrime is its Global Research & Analysis Team (GReAT), comprised of elite security researchers located in every major region across the world. The company’s research team is actively involved in the discovery and disclosure of a significant proportion of the world’s major malware attacks.
    [Show full text]
  • Cyber Threats Facing America: an Overview of the Cybersecurity Threat Landscape
    S. Hrg. 115–298 CYBER THREATS FACING AMERICA: AN OVERVIEW OF THE CYBERSECURITY THREAT LANDSCAPE HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION MAY 10, 2017 Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov/ Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs ( U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 27–390 PDF WASHINGTON : 2018 COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin, Chairman JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri ROB PORTMAN, Ohio THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware RAND PAUL, Kentucky JON TESTER, Montana JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma HEIDI HEITKAMP, North Dakota MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming GARY C. PETERS, Michigan JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota MAGGIE HASSAN, New Hampshire STEVE DAINES, Montana KAMALA D. HARRIS, California CHRISTOPHER R. HIXON, Staff Director GABRIELLE D’ADAMO SINGER, Chief Counsel COLLEEN BERNY, Professional Staff Member MARGARET E. DAUM, Minority Staff Director JULIE KLEIN, Minority Professional Staff Member LAURA W. KILBRIDE, Chief Clerk BONNI DINERSTEIN, Hearing Clerk (II) C O N T E N T S Opening statements: Page Senator Johnson ............................................................................................... 1 Senator McCaskill ............................................................................................ 2 Senator Lankford .............................................................................................. 15 Senator Daines
    [Show full text]
  • Offense-Defense Theory Analysis of Russian Cyber Capability
    Calhoun: The NPS Institutional Archive Theses and Dissertations Thesis Collection 2015-03 Offense-defense theory analysis of Russian cyber capability Medvedev, Sergei A. Monterey, California: Naval Postgraduate School http://hdl.handle.net/10945/45225 NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA THESIS OFFENSE-DEFENSE THEORY ANALYSIS OF RUSSIAN CYBER CAPABILITY by Sergei A. Medvedev March 2015 Thesis Advisor: Wade L. Huntley Co-Advisor: Mikhail Tsypkin Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved OMB No. 0704–0188 Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instruction, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302, and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0704-0188) Washington, DC 20503. 1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave blank) 2. REPORT DATE 3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED March 2015 Master’s Thesis 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5. FUNDING NUMBERS OFFENSE-DEFENSE THEORY ANALYSIS OF RUSSIAN CYBER CAPABILITY 6. AUTHOR(S) Sergei A. Medvedev 7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION Naval Postgraduate School REPORT NUMBER Monterey, CA 93943-5000 9. SPONSORING /MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSORING/MONITORING N/A AGENCY REPORT NUMBER 11.
    [Show full text]
  • Cyber Report 25 December 2017
    25 Report Cyber 2017 December תקציר מנהלים 1 Cyber Report no. 25 by the International Institute for Counter-Terrorism (ICT) reviewed the prominent uses made of cyberspace by terrorist organizations and their supporters in December 2017. This is not an exhaustive list but rather an identification of the main trends as they arose from the field, and their analysis is divided into five areas. 1. In the operational domain, jihadist organizations continued to use cyberspace for a variety of needs, the most prominent among them being propaganda and financing. The dissemination of propaganda on social networks continued as usual during this period, while the financial aspect showed a drastic trend of the increased use of digital currency. 2. In the defensive domain of terrorists in cyberspace, there was no significant innovation. The trend of distributing content on issues of security and encryption, privacy and anonymity, warnings against phishing, and the safe use of mobile devices continued; most of the publications consisted of recycled content that was observed and documented over the past year, mainly through the Telegram channels of the “Electronic Afaq Horizons” institution. 3. domain offensive the In, the following stood out during the period under review: Caliphate Cyber Ghosts, which is associated with the Islamic State (IS) and hacker groups supported/directed by Iran. In addition, the third issue of the magazine, Kybernetiq, which is distributed by global jihad supporters and dedicated entirely to cyber-terrorism, was published. Terrorist organizations continued their efforts to improve their offensive capabilities, but they have not yet been fully developed. 4. In the domain between cyber-crime and cyber-terrorism, there was a trend of hacker groups operating under state direction – the main players being Russia, Iran and North Korea.
    [Show full text]
  • Russian Anti-Virus CEO Offers up Code for US Govt Scrutiny 2 July 2017, by Raphael Satter and Veronika Silchenko
    Russian anti-virus CEO offers up code for US govt scrutiny 2 July 2017, by Raphael Satter And Veronika Silchenko can do to prove that we don't behave maliciously I will do it." Kaspersky, a mathematical engineer who attended a KGB-sponsored school and once worked for Russia's Ministry of Defense, has long been eyed suspiciously by some competitors, particularly as his anti-virus products became popular in the U.S. market. Some speculate that Kaspersky, an engaging speaker and a fixture of the conference circuit, kept his Soviet-era intelligence connections. Others say it's unlikely that his company could operate independently in Russia, where the economy is dominated by state-owned companies and the power of spy agencies has expanded Eugene Kaspersky, Russian antivirus programs dramatically under President Vladimir Putin. developer and chief executive of Russia's Kaspersky Lab, watches trough a window decorated with No firm evidence has ever been produced to back programming code's symbols at his company's up the claims. But this has not stopped what was headquarters in Moscow, Russia, Saturday, July 1, once gossip at tech conferences from escalating 2017. Kaspersky says he's ready to have his company's into public accusations from American politicians source code examined by U.S. government officials to and intelligence officials amid rising concerns over help dispel long-lingering suspicions about his company's ties to the Kremlin. (AP Photo/Pavel Russian interference in the United States. Golovkin) The chief executive of Russia's Kaspersky Lab says he's ready to have his company's source code examined by U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Kaspersky Lab Threat Predictions for 2018
    Kaspersky Security Bulletin: KASPERSKY LAB THREAT PREDICTIONS FOR 2018 Version 1.1. KASPERSKY SECURITY BULLETIN: THREAT PREDICTIONS FOR 2018 CONTENTS Introduction ..................................................................................................3 Advanced Persistent Threat Predictions by the Global Research and Analysis Team (GReAT) .....................4 Introduction .............................................................................................5 Our record ................................................................................................6 What can we expect in 2018? ...........................................................7 Conclusion .............................................................................................18 Industry and Technology Predictions .............................................19 Introduction ..........................................................................................20 Threat Predictions for Automotive ..........................................21 Threat Predictions for Connected Health ........................... 26 Threat Predictions for Financial Services ............................30 Threat Predictions for Industrial Security ........................... 35 Threat Predictions for Cryptocurrencies ........................... 39 Conclusion ............................................................................................42 This report was updated on December 6, 2017 – with additional content for Threat Predictions for Financial Services
    [Show full text]
  • Kaspersky Security for Linux Mail Server Receives Highest Vbspam+
    Kaspersky Lab Fact Sheet Kaspersky Lab Fact Sheet Kaspersky Lab: Facts and Figures Founded in 1997 and led by Eugene Kaspersky, chairman and CEO of the company. Holding company registered in the United Kingdom, 35 representative offices in 31 countries on 5 continents, and operations in almost 200 countries and territories worldwide. Kaspersky Lab’s technologies protect over 400 million people and 270,000 companies worldwide including large enterprises, and small and medium businesses. Over 4000 highly qualified specialists work at Kaspersky Lab all over the globe, more than a third of them are R&D specialists (almost 1600). In 2017, the company launched the Global Transparency Initiative – aimed at strengthening the company’s commitment to earning and maintaining the trust of its most important stakeholders: its customers. As part of it, Kaspersky Lab increased bug bounty rewards, started relocating data processing for some countries from Russia to Switzerland, and opened a Transparency center in Zurich to review the company's code, software updates and threat detection rules. Kaspersky Lab’s global unaudited IFRS revenue for 2017 was US$ 698 million, demonstrating 8% growth over the last year. There was a strong growth of 30% in the enterprise segment, 61% in non- endpoint, and 41% in bookings from cybersecurity intelligence services. The B2B segment demonstrated a 13% increase. Kaspersky Lab is one of the four biggest endpoint security vendors in the worldi. Kaspersky Lab has been recognized for its customer satisfaction ratings, being named a 2018 Gartner Peer Insights Customer Choice for Endpoint Protection Platformsii for the second consecutive year.
    [Show full text]
  • Who's Spying on You? | Cyber-Espionage Whitepaper
    SPECIAL REPORT WHO’S SPYING ON YOU? No business is safe from cyber-espionage With Kaspersky, now you can. kaspersky.com/business Be Ready for What’s Next CONTENTS “Many cyberattacks can be mitigated by relatively Cyber-espionage: simple measures. Why should your business care? 4 Espionage is nothing new 5 Unfortunately, some What do the perpetrators gain? 7 people fail to take Is any business safe? 8 what appear to be basic precautions – such as Methods of spreading cyber-espionage malware 14 using strong passwords, Beyond cyber-espionage 16 applying patches and How can you protect running a security your business? 17 solution. In many cases, How Kaspersky Lab security breaking into a company’s technologies can help 22 network is easier than Appendix: it sounds.” An overview of some COSTIN RAIU significant cyberthreats 28 “High-profile targeted DIRECTOR, GLOBAL RESEARCH & ANALYSIS TEAM A cyber-glossary 30 KASPERSKY LAB attacks on enterprises About Kaspersky 34 are becoming increasingly widespread. Thousands of businesses have already been hacked and had their sensitive data stolen – resulting in multi-billion dollar losses. Cyber-espionage is a tangible and growing global threat today – and fighting it is one of the principal tasks we’ve set ourselves.” EUGENE KASPERSKY CEO, KASPERSKY LAB 2 3 WHY SHOULD YOUR BUSINESS ESPIONAGE IS NOTHING NEW CARE ABOUT CYBER-ESPIONAGE? EXECUTIVE OVERVIEW Espionage, in one form or another, has existed for as long as any Cyber-espionage may sound like some strangely exotic activity from organisation or individual has felt that it could gain an advantage the movies. However, the harsh reality is that almost any business by illicitly accessing someone else’s confidential information.
    [Show full text]