Two months ago, a U.S. District Court dismissed our challenge to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Directive and the provisions in the FY18 National Defense Authorization Act that ban the use of our products by federal agencies. As you\u2019d expect, we\u2019re appealing the court\u2019s dismissal.<\/p>\n
Now, you might wonder why we\u2019re doing that. Why do we keep getting up after every punch when we could just move on and save ourselves a great deal of time, money, and frustration?<\/p>\n
Well, the answer\u2019s twofold \u2014 and very close to my heart.<\/p>\n
First, we believe it\u2019s the right thing to do. Kaspersky Lab has never, and will never, help anyone in the world with their offensive security efforts. Put simply, we protect our customers with the very best<\/a> cybersecurity solutions and services in the world. Allegations \u2014 without any<\/em> supporting evidence of any<\/em> wrongdoing \u2014 have harmed our reputation and negatively affected our commercial interests and those of our business partners. And because we feel that these actions have violated our constitutional rights and protections, we absolutely must challenge them in court.<\/p>\n Second, we\u2019re doing it to protect our own industry: This situation sets a dangerous precedent. One of the concerns about us relates to our Russian origins. Labeling a company as a national security risk just because of its country of origin does little to address real cybersecurity risks. Think about it: IT supply chains are global by nature, and governments around the world recognize that cyberthreats can originate from anywhere and that threat actors don\u2019t limit their activities to certain countries or companies. Former National Security Advisor Michael Hayden recently said<\/a> that he \u201chope[s] to God [the U.S. intelligence services] have a case rather than just a concern\u201d regarding KL; otherwise, they would \u201clegitimate people all over the world to possibly reject American technology simply because it\u2019s American.\u201d But not one real case has been presented. And that is why we\u2019re forced to act as we have, with legal action. Today it\u2019s KL at the top of the list of companies causing \u201cconcern,\u201d but you can be sure other companies will be there in the future.<\/p>\n The cybersecurity industry may become balkanized: slowly fragmented into insulated areas through company-specific or geography-specific bans and restrictions. Of course, countries facing advanced cyberadversaries are fearful of what they might expect next. And there\u2019s a natural inclination for those legitimate concerns to result in protectionist barriers. We fully support the need to better protect governments, businesses, and consumers against increasingly sophisticated cyberthreats. But we must ask ourselves if the solutions being implemented to address these valid concerns actually result in stronger cybersecurity.<\/p>\n