As a frantic 2013 unfolded, and every digital castle seemed under siege from shadowy cyber warriors, some of the most unexpected of siege machinery is coming from the gates themselves. One of last year’s unexpected heroes is a Russian cybersecurity firm: Kaspersky, which late last year went public with Operation Triangulation, a deep dive on the ‘most sophisticated and frightening exploit’ against iOS, the operating system that powers Apple’s iPad and iPhone. However, if you thought that Apple, a company that has built its own brand reputation on innovation and security, might publicly reward Kaspersky, you are mistaken. Instead, the revelations about the company’s efforts to alert Apple to a security vulnerability has led to discussions about the ethics of security researchers, policy, and geopolitics.


When Kaspersky penetrated Apple’s walled garden of iOS systems, the company discovered the most carefully crafted zero-click exploit ever found. It allowed attackers to hack an iPhone without the victim even having to click on anything. The exploit took advantage of a string of four zero-day vulnerabilities, allowing the attacker to find out if their victim was in a particular location, spy on them via their iPhone microphone, or even surreptitiously take pictures. Just minutes after Kaspersky published details of the vulnerability, Apple reacted by patching it. Needless to say, Apple’s quick action probably prevented spying on millions of people.


At the centre of this story is Apple’s Security Bounty Program, which is a very worthy initiative to encourage the disclosure of weaknesses by offering rewards. The program encourages a mutually beneficial relationship between Apple and the world’s security research community, if it works as intended. But why did Apple not pay out for this discovery, which it acknowledged was critical to its systems? And why did the program turn out to be less global than Kaspersky thought? Geopolitics might be the explanation.

Why Did Apple Withhold the Bounty?

Perhaps there’s a technical reason why Kaspersky can’t be paid: he’s a Russian company, and he operates under the shadow of sanctions and other financial restrictions, imposed by the US on Russia, and vice versa, in the context of the geopolitical clash between the world’s two superpowers. Perhaps Kaspersky would have difficulty transferring the money to the US, given that Apple is a US company. To be fair, we don’t know that this is a complication, but all the same, we’re left with no clarity at all on why Kaspersky did not get paid. What we do know is that this case illuminates how these conflicts can intersect with global security collaboration, and shape the dividing lines of trust. We badly need a public reckoning with that fact.

The Ethical Dimension: Rewarding Cybersecurity Vigilance

The quite simply marvelous tack that Kaspersky offered to donate the bounty to charity if he won (an offer greeted with stony silence from Apple) would have propelled global cybersecurity work to the next level and strengthened the essential ethos of the fight against hacking. His rebuff leaves a vacuum where a possible moment of cybersecurity history has been lost. It was to be an apotheosis, a brilliant rise of the generous and selfless spirit of Tipping in the ethics of cybersecurity.


Apple patched the vulnerabilities so quickly, in fact, that it revealed the company’s laser focus on security in its walled garden. But, as this case shows, the garden would be weaker without contributions from the outside.

Kaspersky's Unrelenting Watch

And yet, without the lure of the bounty, Kaspersky’s determination to police the digital place was still undiminished. The company is still diving into the depths of threat and keeping a constant watch for new threats on behalf of the millions of users it protects. This kind of work is often unrecognised, but its value to humanity is undeniable. It is, after all, cyberspace’s unsung protectors who keep the web safe.

Conversations and Controversies: A Call for Clarity

The rhetorical flurry around Apple’s decision opens up a Pandora’s Box of arguments about moral obligations, the complex nature of international law, and the vital role of cybersecurity contributions. As this debate takes place, it also reminds us just how many hurdles lie ahead in the road to digital security.


Reflecting now on the Apple-Kaspersky episode, we are reminded that the values on which Apple built its brand—making things, keeping things moving, and not harming the user—are occasionally put to the test, and that this particular trade-off is one that the broader tech industry will be forced to consider more and more often as it works to balance operational policy and ethical principle.

Apple's Continued Crusade Against Cyber Threats

Apple’s desire to ensure that the digital castle it sells is free from exploits is a reflection of its commitment to user safety. The speed with which it acted in response to Kaspersky’s revelations is a reflection of the lengths it will go to in order to keep its users safe. Every new update, every patch and every security refit brings the digital fortress a little closer to invulnerability – all the while also recognising and rewarding the guards on the gates.

In Conclusion: Guarding the Orchard - The Unseen Shields of Apple

It’s yet another chapter in the shadowy story first told by Apple, the company that has always refused Kaspersky a bounty for his discovery. But whether paid or not, ‘Operation Triangulation’ is a tale of the silent warriors who guard Apple’s digital orchard. For Apple, there might be an opportunity to rethink its policies, to create a place where every sentinel can be known and all the guards can watch the orchard in their shared strength.

Jun 10, 2024
<< Go Back

More Info: