Cybersecurity firm Kaspersky Lab has hired Igor Prosvirnin, a former bulletproof hosting provider operating under the moniker "Prospero." Prosvirnin and his company were notorious for harboring criminal operations, including malware distribution and spam campaigns, despite repeated takedown attempts. Kaspersky claims Prosvirnin will work on improving their anti-spam technologies, leveraging his expertise on the inner workings of these illicit operations. This move has generated significant controversy due to Prosvirnin's history, raising concerns about Kaspersky's judgment and potential conflicts of interest.
Brian Krebs, in a February 2025 post on KrebsOnSecurity titled "Notorious Malware, Spam Host 'Prospero' Moves to Kaspersky Lab," reports on the perplexing migration of a significant spam and malware-hosting operation known as "Prospero" to servers seemingly owned and operated by Kaspersky Lab, a prominent cybersecurity firm. This move has raised eyebrows and generated considerable concern within the cybersecurity community. Prospero, long identified as a haven for cybercriminals, facilitating phishing attacks, malware distribution, and other nefarious activities, appears to have inexplicably shifted its infrastructure to an internet address space registered to Kaspersky.
Krebs meticulously documents the technical details of the shift, pointing to specific IP address blocks and Autonomous System Numbers (ASNs) associated with Kaspersky that are now hosting Prospero's operations. He notes that this is not a mere co-residence situation, where legitimate and malicious activities happen to share the same IP space due to network configuration. Instead, the evidence strongly suggests that Prospero's command-and-control servers, which direct the activities of botnets and malware infections, are now directly operating from within Kaspersky's designated network.
The article highlights the unexpected and unsettling nature of this development. Kaspersky Lab is globally recognized for its antivirus and cybersecurity products, dedicated to combating the very threats that Prospero embodies. This seemingly contradictory situation raises numerous questions about how such a notorious malicious actor could end up operating within the infrastructure of a company dedicated to cybersecurity.
Krebs acknowledges the possibility of a complex technical explanation, such as a server compromise or a sophisticated misdirection tactic employed by Prospero. He details his attempts to contact Kaspersky Lab for clarification, including emails and phone calls, emphasizing the urgency and importance of understanding this situation. However, as of the article's publication, Krebs had not received a definitive response from Kaspersky, leaving the situation shrouded in mystery.
The implications of this migration, whatever the explanation, are potentially significant. The credibility of Kaspersky Lab could be undermined if Prospero's presence within their network is not adequately addressed. Moreover, this situation could provide Prospero with a degree of protection or legitimacy, making it harder for security researchers and law enforcement to disrupt its operations. The article concludes by emphasizing the need for transparency and a thorough investigation into the circumstances surrounding this unusual and concerning development.
Summary of Comments ( 24 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43209878
Hacker News users discuss Kaspersky's acquisition of Prospero, a domain known for hosting malware and spam. Several express skepticism and concern, questioning Kaspersky's motives and the potential implications for cybersecurity. Some speculate that Kaspersky aims to analyze the malware hosted on Prospero, while others worry this legitimizes a malicious actor and may enable Kaspersky to distribute malware or bypass security measures. A few commenters point out Kaspersky's past controversies and ties to the Russian government, furthering distrust of this acquisition. There's also discussion about the efficacy of domain blacklists and the complexities of cybersecurity research. Overall, the sentiment is predominantly negative, with many users expressing disbelief and apprehension about Kaspersky's involvement.
The Hacker News post titled "Notorious Malware, Spam Host "Prospero" Moves to Kaspersky Lab" has generated several comments discussing the implications of the domain's move to Kaspersky's infrastructure.
Several commenters express skepticism and concern about Kaspersky's explanation. One commenter finds it "hard to believe" Kaspersky's claim that they haven't seen any malicious activity from the domain, given its history. They suggest that Kaspersky is either being dishonest or incompetent in their monitoring. Another commenter questions whether this is a deliberate move by Kaspersky to sinkhole the domain, but doubts it given the way the DNS records are set up, speculating it's more likely a customer leveraging Kaspersky's services.
One thread delves into the possibility of this being a reverse takeover or some kind of malicious action aimed at Kaspersky. This theory posits that perhaps someone compromised Prospero's infrastructure and deliberately pointed it to Kaspersky to damage their reputation. However, another commenter counters that this scenario is unlikely given the relative simplicity of just redirecting the domain elsewhere.
Some comments analyze the technical details of the DNS records, noting the use of Kaspersky's infrastructure for various services, suggesting a typical customer relationship. They also discuss the potential for false positives in malware detection, and how a domain previously used for malicious purposes might now be legitimately used.
A few commenters express general distrust towards Kaspersky, stemming from past allegations and controversies surrounding the company. These comments reflect a pre-existing skepticism, influencing their interpretation of this specific event. However, others argue that dismissing Kaspersky outright based on past incidents is unfair and that concrete evidence is needed before jumping to conclusions in this specific case.
The discussion also touches upon the challenges of cybersecurity and the complex nature of domain ownership and usage. It highlights the difficulty in definitively determining the intent behind such moves, as well as the potential for misinterpretations and the spread of misinformation.