So, what might be the reason for banning best-in-class cybersecurity solutions trusted by millions? Has the problem been defined clearly and objectively? Have you seen any evidence of those risks that the US government has been referring to for years? We haven\u2019t either.<\/p>\n
While having to deal with the outcomes of growing protectionism (and its hard-hitting effects) \u2013 like zero-evidence claims of misconduct, and accusations based purely on theoretical risks \u2013 we\u2019ve been continuously developing a universal methodology for cybersecurity product assessment, while remaining ever true to our key principle: being maximally transparent and open about how we do our work.<\/p>\n
We became the first and remain the only major cybersecurity company to provide third parties with access to our source code, and we also allow our stakeholders and trusted partners to check our threat-detection rules and software updates in an unparalleled goodwill gesture. For several years already we\u2019ve had our Global Transparency Initiative<\/a> in place \u2013 unique in its scope and practical value \u2013 which once again reflects our cooperative attitude and determination to address any potential concerns regarding how our solutions work. Nevertheless, we still faced apprehensiveness regarding the reliability of our products \u2013 usually stemming from external factors like geopolitical conjecture \u2013 and so we went the extra mile by suggesting an even more thorough framework, which would assess the integrity of our security solutions throughout their lifecycle.<\/p>\n What I\u2019ll be describing below is a framework we\u2019ve been proactively sharing with the parties expressing concerns about the credibility of Kaspersky solutions \u2013 including those in the United States government. We believe the framework is comprehensive enough to address the most commonly expressed concerns, and is capable of forming a dependable chain of trust.<\/p>\n The key pillars of the cybersecurity assessment methodology we\u2019ve been presenting (which, incidentally, we believe has the potential to form the basis of an industry-wide methodology) include: (i) the localization of data processing, (ii) the review of data received, and (iii) the review of both the information and updates delivered to user machines (as part of software and threat-database updates). Just as within our Global Transparency Initiative, the strategy\u2019s core aim is the engagement of an external reviewer for checking the company\u2019s processes and solutions. What, however, is new about this methodology is both the extent and depth of such reviews. Let\u2019s look into the details\u2026<\/p>\n The matter of data processing and storage has been one of the most sensitive, not only for Kaspersky, but for the entire cybersecurity industry. We frequently get reasonable questions about what data our products can process, how this data is stored and, most fundamentally, why we need this data. The key purpose of data processing for Kaspersky is providing our users and customers with the very best cybersecurity solutions: by gathering data on malicious and suspicious files that we detect on user machines, we can train our algorithms \u2013 teaching them how to detect new threats and contain their spread.<\/p>\nData processing localization<\/h2>\n
![\"One](\"https:\/\/media.kasperskydaily.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/103\/2024\/07\/25094754\/managing-cybersecurity-risks-01.png\")
<\/a>