Timeline for Kaspersky Antivirus "secure connection scan" as broken as Superfish?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
14 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 7, 2016 at 14:53 | comment | added | rugk | You might want to read this blog post from a security researcher: How Kaspersky makes you vulnerable to the FREAK attack and other ways Antivirus software lowers your HTTPS security | |
| Feb 24, 2015 at 22:13 | vote | accept | mrclschstr | ||
| Feb 24, 2015 at 13:39 | answer | added | Iszi | timeline score: 12 | |
| Feb 24, 2015 at 1:57 | comment | added | tlng05 | It is possible for a program to install a root certificate and MITM, yet still be reasonably secure. See security.stackexchange.com/questions/82285/… | |
| Feb 23, 2015 at 23:35 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/#!/StackSecurity/status/570004031688593408 | ||
| Feb 23, 2015 at 21:11 | comment | added | Iszi | Link to Comodo story. Lavasoft (Ad-Aware) is also mentioned. arstechnica.com/security/2015/02/… | |
| Feb 23, 2015 at 21:10 | comment | added | Iszi | @ThoriumBR Comodo also makes security software (well-known for their free firewall), and is even a major CA for SSL certs used across the Internet, and we're hearing they got it wrong too - so I wouldn't assume Kaspersky to do any better, without actually testing myself. | |
| Feb 23, 2015 at 20:53 | comment | added | ThoriumBR | It can be the same as Superfish, but as Kaspersky first objective is securing (not pushing ads and tracking you), I would think Kaspersky is safer. | |
| Feb 23, 2015 at 20:49 | comment | added | AviD♦ | mrclschstr, welcome to Information Security, and thanks for bringing this here! I don't think it is substantially different, though as @CodesInChaos says hopefully it is not as broken as the others. Still doesn't change the negligent attitude to TLS, PKI, and CA security though . | |
| S Feb 23, 2015 at 20:48 | history | suggested | kalina | CC BY-SA 3.0 | spelling and linkified |
| Feb 23, 2015 at 20:46 | comment | added | CodesInChaos | If you're lucky it uses a different CA for each computer and the proxy validates the original certificate. If you're unlucky, it's just as bad as superfish or Privdog. | |
| Feb 23, 2015 at 20:44 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Feb 23, 2015 at 20:48 | |||||
| Feb 23, 2015 at 20:35 | review | First posts | |||
| Feb 23, 2015 at 20:38 | |||||
| Feb 23, 2015 at 20:29 | history | asked | mrclschstr | CC BY-SA 3.0 |