
Russia requesting to review source code of Western companies’ security products - petethomas
http://reuters.com/article/idUSKBN19E0XB
======
horsawlarway
Despite the clear slant in this article to associate this with more
_malicious_ goals... This is an ENTIRELY reasonable request.

The US has shown time and time again that it has absolutely ZERO morals with
regards to monitoring/spying/breaking security products at whim, when it suits
us, and often even when it's a _REALLY_ bad fucking idea and everybody knows
it.

~~~
origami777
It may be reasonable, but it's not a good idea. We shouldn't trust Russsians,
and they shouldn't trust us. I'd rather the US companies be forced not to sell
if those are the terms. It exposes US companies even more than they are. The
Russians should find another product if they aren't happy with it.

~~~
mfoy_
Why with the "Us vs. Them" mentality?

~~~
jbooth
Because there's been a very recent and very public hacking scandal that was
"them vs us"?

~~~
ghostbrainalpha
I just think it might be more helpful to think about this as "Putin vs The
U.S" instead of "them vs us".

You can probably include his network and the oligarchy in there, but the
average Russian citizen shouldn't really have a problem with the U.S.

Before Putin started working on actively fear mongering, our relationship was
good and trending upward. They have slightly different cultural values than
us, but its nothing like it was in the cold war. Our interests are aligned on
most significant issues for the average citizen.

If both our countries could get rid of their current leader we could quickly
become allies.

~~~
mc32
I think it's not that simple. Russians are "proud" peoples, as they say. He
has high approval rating. An affront to Putin is an affront to Russia. The
Clinton "diplomatic" tack and tact was not effective and likely very
unproductive and has lead to much distrust at the govt level but also among
the average Dmitrys and Marinas on the street.

~~~
azangru
> Russians are "proud" peoples, as they say.

I doubt that as a people Russians are any more "proud" than any other nation;
such a sentiment reminds me of the age of Romanticism, when such kind of
analysis of nations, or of national spirit, was commonplace. It is so very
human (and so very superficial, too) to want to feel superior to or at least
no worse than others, that states exploit this via propaganda. If people are
being systematically told that they belong to a great nation (which defeated
the Germans in WWII, or was the first to send a man in space, or has a
magnificent cultural legacy in XIXth century writers, or has the second
largest nuclear arsenal, or other such stuff intended to boost nationalism),
they get "proud". When this propaganda stops, they go back to normal again.

~~~
mc32
What I mean is if you criticize Russia in most aspects, even if true, people
will tend not to receive it well and take it as a personal attack against them
or the people as a whole. So unlike the US where people frequently criticize
the country as well as people whole distancing themselves from those "bad"
others.

~~~
chokolad
> So unlike the US where people frequently criticize the country as well as
> people whole distancing themselves from those "bad" others.

People in Russia, like in the US, frequently criticize the country as well as
people. What they don't like, like people in US, is "others" criticizing their
country and the people.

~~~
mc32
There are people who do, but go too far and you get into trouble. For
historical reasons, people don't separate the state from their own identity as
much as people do in other countries. It really is different. Even Putin
haters will find "good" things in him, oh but he's defending Russia, etc.

~~~
chokolad
> It really is different.

Citation needed.

~~~
mc32
Talk to Russians is all I can say.

~~~
chokolad
> Talk to Russians is all I can say.

I do it quite often. Daily in fact.

------
pmontra
> The companies say they only allow Russia to review their source code in
> secure facilities that prevent code from being copied or altered.

So how do the Russians know that the code they see is the one generating the
binaries sold in Russia? This is where reproducible builds would help, but
without source code it's hopeless. They should at least build the product
inthe lab, make sha1 of every file and check if they match with the ones on
sale. But then there would be an inspection before every release and patch.

~~~
Lagged2Death
_So how do the Russians know that the code they see is the one generating the
binaries sold in Russia?_

Maybe this is more about training and retaining Russian tech talent, creating
friction for foreign vendors, and spreading a proto-fascist FUD and distrust
of governments all over the world.

Because yes, I would think inspecting binaries (probably secretly) would be
more productive in pursuit of the stated goal.

------
holtalanm
Is this really surprising? Most big/old corporations already require the same
level of scrutiny when auditing a new piece of security software, so it really
isn't that shocking to hear of a _government_ requesting the same thing.

Hell, most corporations require high scrutiny for _any_ software, let alone
security software.

~~~
dsfyu404ed
It's surprising to the people here. If this were a forum for tech workers for
banks and defense contractors it would be a different story.

~~~
holtalanm
I worked with an international shipping insurance company for a little while
as a QA tester (contracted). They required almost this level of scrutiny for
just testing software.

------
emilfihlman
I find it funny that they are afraid to show the code because it might lead to
hacks, as if there were intentional bugs in the code that can be abused.

If your product contains bugs it is up to you to fix them. If some "Russian
hackers" can find them by looking at the code in a clean lab but you can't,
well, you aren't supposed to be in this business.

------
rwmj
I wouldn't consider a security product unless it came with full source.

~~~
AJ007
I wouldn't consider a security product secure unless it was compiled from the
source code by oneself.

~~~
daxorid
This is security Inception. There have been many PoCs for compilers and
linkers being modified to then insert backdoors into compiled/linked output.

At _some_ point you have to trust your toolchain.

~~~
mikegerwitz
You're referring to the Thompson hack:

[https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=358210](https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=358210)

The system needs to be bootstrapped in such a way that the compiler can be
trusted. This may include compiling e.g. gcc through a multi-stage process
starting from a simple, easily-audited compiler with a small set of features
and working your way up to a full-featured C compiler. It might mean double-
compilation---comparing output from multiple compilers.

Combining that with reproducible builds, you can (one day) trust your
toolchain and your system. Hardware is another story.

[https://reproducible-
builds.org/events/athens2015/bootstrapp...](https://reproducible-
builds.org/events/athens2015/bootstrapping/)

Hopefully this will be all sorted out and standard practice in the near
future.

------
mikegerwitz
With regards to opinions on whether or not specific entities like Russia
should be permitted to examine source code: we can also consider the Apple v.
FBI case.

For those who don't recall, one of the concerns was the government trying to
compel Apple to make changes to iOS to permit brute forcing the San Bernardino
attacker's PIN. This is a violation of First Amendment rights (compelled
speech), so this drew a lot of opposition, including from people that are part
of free software and open source communities. The alternative was to have the
FBI make changes to the software instead of compelling Apple to do so.

For those who agree with the free software philosophy, it's important to
remove consideration of _who_ is trying to exercise the four freedoms. In the
case of the FBI, from a free software perspective, of course they should be
able to modify the software---we believe that all software should be free.
(But that doesn't mean they should be able to install it on _someone else's_
device.)

In this case, Russia doesn't have to ask to examine free software. And if they
did, it shouldn't be a concern. Restricting who can use and examine software
is a slippery slope:

[https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/programs-must-not-limit-
freed...](https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/programs-must-not-limit-freedom-to-
run.en.html)

But not all software is free/libre. But by extending that philosophy---there
would be no _ethical_ concerns with a foreign power wanting to inspect
proprietary source code. But proprietary software might have something of
concern to hide: it might be something malicious like a backdoor, or it might
be something like a lack of security or poor development practices.

------
DarkKomunalec
I find it rather revealing how much weight is given to the concerns of the
tech firms, while entirely ignoring the concerns of consumers that run closed
code, and are at the mercy of Intel and AMD's management engines, and the
reported cases of backdoored routers, smart TV's sending your filenames back
to HQ, cars and appliances with regulatory defeat devices, etc.

The negative spin put on asking to know how our devices work, and what they
do, is frankly disgusting.

Edit: Is posting identical comments in identical submissions, where one
submission is upvoted and the other buried, not allowed? What should one do
instead, if one's opinion on the story hasn't changed?

------
thresh
Does that also happen with, say, German or French governments? Or US
government? What about the Chinese?

Do they not ask to review source code of the tools they buy and use?

~~~
endorphone
A counter example is the F35 -- it is a fighter that is hugely contingent upon
its software, but the US has denied partners (the people who also cofunded
development) access to it. Given that software controls everything, that
should invalidate it as an option for any other military at the outset.

~~~
AnimalMuppet
Not everyone else can build something equivalent. That leaves them two
options: Trust the hidden software, or fly inferior planes. It's not clear
which one is the correct answer.

------
dmichulke
It's a natural consequence of the US trying to bug / backdoor hardware. A
plain 2nd order effect.

~~~
mi100hael
Seems more like a natural evolution of the digital landscape. The US certainly
doesn't have a monopoly on covertly compromising hardware/software.
Considering China, Israel, and Russia's posture, the US would be laggards at
this point if they weren't doing it.

------
codedokode
It would be good if anyone could review the source code of any program they
are using.

~~~
sqeaky
I am curious what it would take to make a law prohibiting the sale of software
without source code and build scripts.

Some would fight it tooth and nail, but it would be better for society. It
would be end the idea of selling prepackaged software, but it would end whole
categories of viruses and malware.

------
BrandoElFollito
I wonder how much the author was involved with actual tests. My guess is that
it was exactly zero.

I was heading the team overseeing these tests for a large western European
company.

The reviews are done on the customer's company computers, with no access to
network. After that the Russians only get a hash of the binary compiled with
the reviewed code, that's all. They then compare this hash to the sw they get
(on firmware for instance) to make sure that it comes from the code they
reviewed.

I am paranoid but this is a very reasonable requirement we do not,
unfortunately, normally have in Europe for "friendly" software coming from
"friend" US companies (and probably vice versa but I do not care that way).
Snowden proved that the BFF approach does not work.

------
rb808
> But those inspections also provide the Russians an opportunity to find
> vulnerabilities in the products' source code -

this is the biggest part of the article. If the Russians are trying to hack US
govt/corps/people its really helpful to have the US security companies show
how they check.

------
EugeneOZ
Some specialists, if you have time, please explain me in few words, why they
can't just disassemble products they need to check?

~~~
johngalt
After code is written it goes through a compilation step that makes it easier
for machines to read and harder for humans to understand.

Think of the index of a reference book. Where every pertinent word is listed
along with a page number. Imagine you wanted to read a complicated and
meaniful book like Tolstoy or Kafka and really understand it. Walk away with a
sense of exactly what it meant. To gain that understanding you only have an
index and you had to reconstruct the book's meaning from there. Technically
you can, but it is massively more difficult.

Edit: A more accurate analogy would be that you aren't even given an index of
words, but an index of phonetic sounds that you have to piece together to
create words.

------
jb613
The more slow-moving government will get involved, the more industry will be
pulled towards open source where there is no need to get government approval.

Sure - it won't be easy and will come with other pitfalls, but in some
circumstances these may be easier hurdle than waiting months/years for some
government to approve your product sale.

------
schemathings
How many people here use Kaspersky privately or at work?

