Basically: US law enforcement is telling US companies that Kaspersky products are likely compromised by Russian intelligence. Surely foreign law enforcement is issuing similar warnings about Symantec and McAfee products being compromised by the NSA.
------------------------------------
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Intelligence_Com...
> In view of the fact that significant cyber incidents will often involve at least the possibility of a nation-state actor or have some other national security nexus, the Department of Justice, acting through the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the National Cyber Investigative Joint Task Force, shall be the Federal lead agency for threat response activities.
https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2016/0...
https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/new-us-cyber-security-polic...
Whether the federal government should be lobbying against a private companies’ products is a more complicated issue. I think, if it could be demonstrated that there is sufficient evidence to link them to unethical behavior, it might be appropriate.
Pretty much anyone with money in Russia crosses the Putin government at their own peril. There are numerous cases of Russian billionaires in opposition to Putin losing their companies to supposedly trumped-up charges of tax evasion and subsequently dying in jail under suspicious circumstances.
Having money is not a prerequisite, and in some cases even being in Russia is not a prerequisite.
Much of the US critical infrastructure is owned and operated by private industry. For that reason, a collaboration between the FBI and private industry was formed in 1996, called Infragard [0]. Today, there are chapters in each of various regions of the US, each with an FBI coordinator who facilitates the communication between feds and local industry.
[0] http://www.infragardmembers.org/critical-infrastructures.htm...
They do have somewhat orthogonal missions (HUMINT vs SIGINT) as others have commented, but never underestimate each piece of the government wanting their own agents.
If this was a problem for the country, wouldn't it be DHS's job? And if there was an issue to be looked in to, it's FBI's job. And if there is something about spying to figure out if someone is doing something, there is the CIA and the NSA depending on where they need to look?
On top of that: wouldn't this be something that should simply be looked at internally at agencies and if there is an actual problem, resolve it for the country by issuing a law or directive or bill or whatever name they put to rules the US-based companies have to follow?