I get where you're coming from. It's frustrating when geopolitics interfere (not a fan of politics or politicans myself). Finding alternatives that meet your standards is important.

I hear you, but it’s worth noting that Kaspersky has consistently denied those allegations and has never been conclusively proven guilty of such activities. Sometimes, public perception outweighs facts, unfortunately.

You've hit the nail on the head. The ban does seem driven more by geopolitical maneuvering than by clear-cut evidence. It’s a classic case of protecting interests under the guise of security. Your point on the intelligence agencies is spot on.

1st off, thank you for taking the time to share your perspective, I do appreciate it - I've learned a ton from people like you who have actually taken the time to give there side. I appreciate your perspective, but I think the comparison holds when you consider the principle of pragmatism in both cases. The US leveraged expertise from controversial figures like von Braun for national gain, overlooking their pasts. Similarly, dismissing Kaspersky solely based on its founder’s education without concrete evidence of wrongdoing seems like a double standard. Thanks for the thoughtful input!

The Huawei situation definitely set a precedent. It’ll be interesting to see how these trade bans evolve. You're right; a lot of US production depends on international supply chains. Let's see how this plays out.

Haha, it’s “Kas-PER-ski.” Funny how pronunciation can be tricky, right? Thanks for the laugh!

I get your sarcasm, but it's important to discuss these issues regardless of location. Moving to Russia isn’t the point; understanding the inconsistencies in the US government's actions is. Appreciate the feedback on the video!

Exactly! The US Gov. can be quick to forget its own messes, like EternalBlue. Thanks for pointing that out!

Hey, thanks for the tip! I’ll try adding a second camera to mix up the angles and keep things smooth.

Glad you enjoyed it

I understand your skepticism about US motivations and media portrayal. The geopolitical landscape is complex, and it's important to question narratives from all sides. The Smith-Mundt Modernization Act definitely complicates the media landscape by allowing government-produced content domestically. I appreciate you taking the time to comment.

Hey Andy, thanks for the kind words and support (as always)! I do, XMR: 44KNWfmHQhV5w1nsuW98jBTPxKoAomkEeTYHFU2WcwvJDaYrBDTASGPYZXFh7bu8qe6a11azJ1WC9ingZ1T8PW4gQtqYHra

Great point about the SOC TYPE II certification-it's a rigorous standard. The ban does seem more about geopolitical maneuvering than actual security concerns

@@DoingFedTime Thanks for the reply, it seems that they might have a darker objective to me at least, see, most do not understand how these classifications work work, if they did they would not this slip, in the US companies are bound by laws and regulations and so I do make use oversight committees that based in the US because of this, not because of anything else. They are not to blame. given how long I have been doing this, know how some G's make use Deceptive Warning and Indicators, what will likely follow is some kind of Win/OSX rollout whether it is in the form of an update or new version. Since they cannot negotiate with partners in terms of might very well be akin to Pegasus-like functionality or something a long those lines, Kaspersky is not even a Russian 'state asset' or company but Swiss they do have ties Russia but Kaspersky have equally been effective against threats from Russia. However, this is just a guess. regardless, due to the mentioned certification (there is more though) the US G cannot simply banned this in terms of allegations, but likely will and we are dealing with security, this is not a trivial matter. My guess is they will like recommend Bitfender since Bitfender is remarkably close to Kaspersky, again this this is confirmed by the same 'companies'. I may not be American but if you are part of this cybersecurity community this should not matter, Bitfender might be suitable for most but I have yet to go through their corporate solutions, since trying to figure out the true reason or waiting a report with the required preponderance of evidence to that factually (redacted or not) may not even be the case and thus the quicker those helping, help to secure the entire landscape the better. Those who do this for a living know the existential risks. Trouble with Security Analysts and many other 'labels' they are too slow, not this is not my domain of expertise since I deal more with cases regarding tracking, fraud, scams and end-to-end, after all, I work for myself, so I can only do that much at any given time. Thanks for the response

Glad you caught the connection with Operation Paperclip! It’s important to highlight these historical inconsistencies. Thanks for watching and for taking your time time to comment!