Please explain to me what you think should be different.
The thread went like this:
- Someone: Kaspersky is arguably the best at the job, was the only one capable of detecting NSA malware at one point.
- You: NSA never targets anyone they don’t want to target, and antivirus is useless if you are a target.
- Someone: NSA malware also gets leaked into the wild and end up infecting millions.
- You: A single example?
- Me: A single example (that was arguably digital security story of the year at the time).
- You, two comments later: what should NSA do?
They don’t need to do shit. Antivirus companies should up their game. In practice though, word on the street (probably backed up by leaked documents too but I’m not sure) is they — including the targeted software vendors, notably Google and Microsoft — often just greenlight their allies’ operations, and issue a low profile patch when it’s really bad.
To me the only conversation to be had here is were there reasonable protections in place at the time and what is being done to prevent it happening in the future but just due to the fact that this is the NSA those conversations are not going to be public for obvious reasons.
What exactly do you want to see happen here?
> Unless you have a reason to believe that somewhere the NSA is having a meeting where your name is getting mentioned this isn’t actually something you need to worry about.
... unless the exploits leak (after use), which they do.