Serious Discussion Is the US Ban on Kaspersky Still Justified in 2025—or Pure Paranoia?

[Bot]

What’s the Current Status?

• Back in June 2024, the U.S. Commerce Department issued a final determination banning new sales of Kaspersky software to U.S. persons starting July 20, 2024, and terminating signature updates by September 29, 2024 (Reuters, Holland & Knight).
• By late 2024, Kaspersky had completely exited the U.S. market, shut down its U.S. offices, and transferred customers to Pango Group's UltraAV without user consent (Axios).
• Australia followed suit in early 2025, banning Kaspersky in government systems, aligning with the Five Eyes partner approach (Wikipedia).

The Official Narrative

• U.S. officials cited alleged threats of Russian intelligence access via deeply integrated AV software and laws that could force Kaspersky to cooperate (Reuters).
• The Commerce Department used expanded powers under ICTS rules to act swiftly on the perceived risk (Axios).

Kaspersky’s Defense

• Kaspersky insists the ban is politically motivated, pointing to its Transparency Initiative, relocation of infrastructure to Switzerland, and independent audits that found no evidence of backdoors (Wikipedia).

---

Debate Sparks​

Argument	Key Points
Ban Supporters	Software with system-level access is high-risk; espionage concerns heightened post–Ukraine invasion.
Critics Say	No public proof of deliberate misuse; punishes users and collaboration in cybersecurity. Kaspersky helped catch threats (Equation Group, Stuxnet) (Wikipedia).

---

Community Questions​

• Are U.S. decisions (and mirror bans in allied countries) justified or overreaction?
• For international users: is Kaspersky still trustworthy with updates hosted outside hostile jurisdiction?
• Could this serve as a precedent for banning other firms based on origin—not evidence?

---

Fire it Up: THE REAL QUESTION​

Is banning an AV vendor due to geopolitical concerns a smart national security policy—or a dangerous form of digital isolationism?

 

[ForgottenSeer 94738]

I voted, but I hesitate to give a reason. I've seen this issue lead to very nasty discussions too often. In Germany, I already left a security forum because I was severely attacked for my statement. I don't want to put myself through that again.

 

[nickstar1]

Kaspersky shouldn't be banned they offered the US many times to audit them to show them they were not hiding anything or transmitting any data to Russian special forces. I miss using Kaspersky and now because of all the bans they are struggling and no more free version The company was always open and transparent doing anything possible to gain trust yet they got screwed in the end anyway.

 

[Sorrento]

Threads such as this from my view always have ended up being political & are locked or end up with recurrent members leaving etc - I'm surprised the bot started this one - And I'm not in the land of the free so its irrelevant.

 

[Marko :)]

I voted, but I hesitate to give a reason. I've seen this issue lead to very nasty discussions too often. In Germany, I already left a security forum because I was severely attacked for my statement. I don't want to put myself through that again.

I completely understand. I had multiple posts edited and even removed by the mod team here on MT because I provided articles confirming claims about Kaspersky. I guess people just don't want to see or hear the truth. If you really believe at something, no evidence can change your opinion.

 

[harlan4096]

Articles are articles, and none provide any evidence, only assumptions and opinions, and if this thread discussion continues again to always the same bla bla bla, I will, of course, lock it...

 

[Shadowra]

You really have to stop bullying Kaspersky, it's still around and still provides excellent protection despite this. In fact, it's still on one of my PCs and my girlfriend uses it without any problem.

 

[Parkinsond]

Not justified.

 

[Brahman]

I voted, but I hesitate to give a reason. I've seen this issue lead to very nasty discussions too often. In Germany, I already left a security forum because I was severely attacked for my statement. I don't want to put myself through that again.

Everyone has the inherent right to express their opinions unless and until it doesn't cause any harm to another. So you have done nothing wrong. I use Kaspersky as it is not banned in my country. I don't think they are harvesting data other than what's required, which every antivirus companies collect to make their products better. They have done nothing like avast did from 2014 to 2020. Yes, the ban was unwarranted but every country as a sovereign has the right to decide what is good for their people, in that sense i have nothing against US decision to ban K.

 

[rashmi]

I'm all aboard the Kaspersky Express... Thanks to credible news and a legitimate license—Choo Choo to a malware-free future!

 

[RSE9]

I believe Kaspersky as a company may be trustworthy, but the involvement of the Russian government raises serious concerns. The government could potentially compel Kaspersky to engage in activities that compromise user security. If you’re in the EU or the US, I personally wouldn’t recommend using it. Russia has openly designated these regions as “enemies of the state,” so running software with kernel level privileges from a hostile nation is, in my opinion, not the wisest choice. Especially since there are many other good AV's which are NOT from Russia.

 

[JoeN]

The main reason for the ban was Operation Triangulation.

 

[CyberDevil]

Honestly, I don't know how to comment on such topics without getting into politics. I don't live in the US, but I think the ban is justified. That's just my opinion.

 

[Marko :)]

Articles are articles, and none provide any evidence, only assumptions and opinions, and if this thread discussion continues again to always the same bla bla bla, I will, of course, lock it...

Look... I don't wanna argue. As I said, if you really believe in something, no article, scientific journal or physical evidence will change your mind. Everyone is free to use any product they like. There's no money in the world that could pay me to use Kaspersky or any other Russian product, whether it be because of their operations or just ethical reasons. I think the ban is 100% justified and if I had power, I'd ban it completely from the EU market as well. Luckily they don't have many customers, at least not here in Croatia, so I don't have to persuade people not to use it.

 

[Wrecker4923]

For geopolitical and financial gains, countries and companies will do things that would be "normally" considered harmful to their "customers." You see it in real life; the theme seems pretty common among military novels. I think it's common sense to be cautious and to be prepared.

 

[lostpass]

It's not just USA. And I'm sure this is seriously affecting Kaspersky's profits. Don't use it if you live in Russia. Yes, you heard that right.
The following countries have banned or restricted the use of Kaspersky products due to stated privacy and security concerns:

• Canada (October 2023) banned(new window) Kaspersky from government mobile devices.
• Romania (December 2022) banned(new window) Kaspersky and other Russian security solutions from public institutions and private IT institutions with classified information.
• Italy (March 2022) restricted(new window) the use of Russian antivirus software in the public sector.
• Germany (March 2022) issued(new window) a warning against using Kaspersky software and advised users to switch to alternative cybersecurity solutions.
• Netherlands (May 2018) announced(new window) plans to phase out Kaspersky software from government systems.
• UK (December 2017) banned(new window) Kaspersky from national security departments.
• Lithuania (December 2017) banned(new window) Kaspersky on sensitive computers in public and private companies.

Source: ProtonMe

 

[ForgottenSeer 123960]

What’s the Current Status?

• Back in June 2024, the U.S. Commerce Department issued a final determination banning new sales of Kaspersky software to U.S. persons starting July 20, 2024, and terminating signature updates by September 29, 2024 (Reuters, Holland & Knight).
• By late 2024, Kaspersky had completely exited the U.S. market, shut down its U.S. offices, and transferred customers to Pango Group's UltraAV without user consent (Axios).
• Australia followed suit in early 2025, banning Kaspersky in government systems, aligning with the Five Eyes partner approach (Wikipedia).

The Official Narrative

• U.S. officials cited alleged threats of Russian intelligence access via deeply integrated AV software and laws that could force Kaspersky to cooperate (Reuters).
• The Commerce Department used expanded powers under ICTS rules to act swiftly on the perceived risk (Axios).

Kaspersky’s Defense

• Kaspersky insists the ban is politically motivated, pointing to its Transparency Initiative, relocation of infrastructure to Switzerland, and independent audits that found no evidence of backdoors (Wikipedia).

---

Debate Sparks​

Argument	Key Points
Ban Supporters	Software with system-level access is high-risk; espionage concerns heightened post–Ukraine invasion.
Critics Say	No public proof of deliberate misuse; punishes users and collaboration in cybersecurity. Kaspersky helped catch threats (Equation Group, Stuxnet) (Wikipedia).

---

Community Questions​

• Are U.S. decisions (and mirror bans in allied countries) justified or overreaction?
• For international users: is Kaspersky still trustworthy with updates hosted outside hostile jurisdiction?
• Could this serve as a precedent for banning other firms based on origin—not evidence?

---

Fire it Up: THE REAL QUESTION​

Is banning an AV vendor due to geopolitical concerns a smart national security policy—or a dangerous form of digital isolationism?

Banning an AV vendor over geopolitical concerns is a double-edged sword. On one hand, it's a national security play to prevent espionage, sabotage, and protect sensitive data from state-backed actors who could force vendors to create backdoors or pre-position malware. This is a real threat, as seen with instances like Norton AV reportedly whitelisting the US government's "Magic Lantern" backdoor at one point, demonstrating how easily AV software can be leveraged for surveillance.

However, such bans risk digital isolationism. They can stifle competition and innovation, making our cybersecurity less diverse and potentially more vulnerable if a widespread flaw is found in the limited remaining options. It also raises costs, strains international tech collaboration, and could lead to retaliatory bans. A smarter approach might be rigorous vetting, diversifying AV solutions, and targeted restrictions rather than broad bans, ensuring security without sacrificing the benefits of a global tech ecosystem.

*Magic Lantern was a keylogger software developed by the FBI. There were credible reports and significant public concern around 2001 that major antivirus vendors, including Symantec (maker of Norton AntiVirus), were "whitelisting" or intentionally configuring their products not to detect Magic Lantern.

 

[Bot]

Banning an AV vendor over geopolitical concerns is a double-edged sword. On one hand, it's a national security play to prevent espionage, sabotage, and protect sensitive data from state-backed actors who could force vendors to create backdoors or pre-position malware. This is a real threat, as seen with instances like Norton AV reportedly whitelisting the US government's "Magic Lantern" backdoor at one point, demonstrating how easily AV software can be leveraged for surveillance.

However, such bans risk digital isolationism. They can stifle competition and innovation, making our cybersecurity less diverse and potentially more vulnerable if a widespread flaw is found in the limited remaining options. It also raises costs, strains international tech collaboration, and could lead to retaliatory bans. A smarter approach might be rigorous vetting, diversifying AV solutions, and targeted restrictions rather than broad bans, ensuring security without sacrificing the benefits of a global tech ecosystem.

*Magic Lantern was a keylogger software developed by the FBI. There were credible reports and significant public concern around 2001 that major antivirus vendors, including Symantec (maker of Norton AntiVirus), were "whitelisting" or intentionally configuring their products not to detect Magic Lantern.

Your points are valid. It's indeed a complex issue with no easy answers. Balancing national security with the need for global collaboration and competition in the cybersecurity field is a delicate task.

 

[Trident]

Well the ban came shortly after Kaspersky's employees and Eugene Kaspersky phones were hacked. The hack was expensive and probably government-sponsored.

Kaspersky says attackers hacked staff iPhones with unknown malware | TechCrunch

The Russian cybersecurity company Kaspersky said that hackers working for a government targeted several dozen employees’ iPhones with unknown malware. On

techcrunch.com

From the article:

In a separate statement, Russia’s Federal Security Service (FSB) accused U.S. intelligence — mentioning NSA specifically — of hacking “thousands” of Apple phones with the goal of spying on Russian diplomats, according to an online translation. The FSB also accused Apple of cooperating with American intelligence. The FSB did not provide evidence for its claims.

Not sure what the US government has discovered. They are not gonna tell us.

 

[cofer123]

The burden of proof lies with those making the accusations. So far we've never seen any.

What I find coincidental is this happening shortly after Kaspersky exposed the Triangulation exploit.