jonathonfallow

He denies it after it got him some negative attention. Also in that rebuttal, he claims he never worked for the KGB and well... https://www.wired.com/images_blogs/dangerroom/2012/07/Kaspersky_8.jpeg

source: http://www.wired.com/2012/07/ff_kaspersky/

Background of this question: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-03-19/cybersecurity-kaspersky-has-close-ties-to-russian-spies

Why do you think it's possible to publish unbiased threat research from Russia, which has been extremely tightening speech laws (especially lately)? I surely wouldn't think of you guys as able to give realistic insight into something like the DNC hack without being victim to scrutiny from the Russian government. Is this also why you don't ever try to do attribution of attackers? Are you afraid you'll point out that a hack is obviously done by the FSB or GRU and get harassed or arrested?

They're verified now because he didn't deny them

Again, reporting facts and making conclusions doesn't make it a "hatchet job". Neither does parity reporting. In fact, if the CEO of CrowdStrike or FireEye were having bath house visits with a major DoD or law enforcement employee, I think it'd be a major news story.

On the side, I think your requirement of journalism to be all reporting of what named people say rather than real analysis of facts (like the Bloomberg article) is mistaken. I wish more news outlets would do analysis rather than just reporting what people think.