Hacker News Reader

Comment by koolba | Hacker News Reader

For context (that of course is buried far from the title), Kaspersky is a Russian company and Apple, being an American one, is subject to the embargo and sanction list of the USA:

> While Kaspersky is a multi-national company, it was founded and headquartered in Russia, a country the United States has heavily sanctioned due to the war in Ukraine. This could severely restrict financial transactions between U.S. companies and those in the region.

> Additionally, per Apple Security Bounty’s terms and conditions, “Apple Security Bounty awards may not be paid to you if you are in any U.S. embargoed countries or on the U.S. Treasury Department’s list of Specially Designated Nationals, the U.S. Department of Commerce Denied Person’s List or Entity List, or any other restricted party lists.”

View on HN

> Galov even proposed that Kaspersky donate the bounty to charity, but Apple rejected this, citing internal policies without explanation.

I just don’t get why Apple wouldn’t cite the law if that’s the reason? Surely doesn’t look good on them if they’re just holding back bounties for undisclosed reasons.

I don't think it has any benefit for them to explain why. Explaining why just invites argument.

"Oh, you can't pay because we are in Russia, just pay to our Massachusetts subsidiary!"

> I don't think it has any benefit for them to explain why.

It clearly has. There are lots of hackers and security researchers who will make very different decisions depending on if they expect Apple will honor their bounties. Traditionally, people who report security bugs have been treated poorly, and arbitrary rejections certainly helps move the incentives towards the exploit market instead.

> Explaining why just invites argument.

... and who knows where that could lead. Why, the rabble might get the idea that they're allowed to disapprove of decisions Apple makes!

Yep. Despite the Hacker News peanut gallery essentially yelling “debate me!”, exposing the public to these specifics has never been part of Apple’s MO.

I was thinking this exact thing, they have the Massachusetts subsidiary, so why not?

I would still call this a "refuse to" vs "can do", but hey, Apple can keep that money - keeps the layoffs away.

Violating OFAC sanctions can result in extreme consequences, including prison for up to 30 years and fines in the millions of dollars. It would be prudent and reasonable for Apple to do nothing rather then to do something that invites this type of inquiry. To do nothing invites, at most, a de minimis amount of reputational risk.

Reputational risk can lead to security risk if researchers think Apple is not paying bounties anymore.

If you’re a security researcher who potentially falls under OFAC sanctions. Everyone else will likely still get paid.

Yes, of course, they can't work around OFAC sanctions, but donating the bounty to a charity would probably have been 100% fine, and a show of good will.

It's not the first time we've seen Apple not playing nice with their bug bounty programme, so it's something of a pattern of behaviour. "A show of good will" is exactly what they need.

“probably fine” is not the comment I would’ve wanted from my lawyer. There are tons of ways this could’ve gone south. For example, which charity? What if Kaspersky benefited from a tax break as a result. Etc. etc. why take a chance?

So why are they even able to have the Massachusetts subsidiary? Is every vendor doing business with that corporation also violating sanctions?

That would be seen as payment to a sanctioned entity, right? Just because you donated the award to charity doesn’t mean it isn’t considered a transaction on behalf of a sanctioned entity.

Makes total sense to me.

If they money didn't flow through Kaspersky (the wording here of "Kaspersky" donating it vs Apple donating it is weird) and it was donated to a neutral charity (say, red cross or Médecins Sans Frontières), I don't think anyone would raise an eye on it.

I think you’re underestimating the risk - it’s clear (to me anyway) that you cannot move money around at the request of a sanctioned entity; even if the money doesn’t “flow through” them, influence, goodwill and connections do - all of which are reasonable attack vectors for the sanctioned entity (Russia).

Any potential downside far outweighs the upside. Apple does not want to get on the State Department’s shit list, period, and certainly not to do goodwill efforts for the Russians.

Is Kaspersky sanctioned?

There are US sanctions against Russian government and some officials, but is Russia an 'Embargoed Country' whatever might be it's legal defenition?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com