Despite the firm’s existing judicial and financial woes, the President of the infamous spyware supplier NSO Group seems to have a new strategy in mind: marketing the firm’s harmful malware to the exact authorities who brought it into regulatory hot water in the first place. The business appears to be in an economic meltdown, with continuous litigation, falling revenues, fleeing shareholders, and an endless stream of unfavorable news exposure.
According to the Financial Times, Chairman Shalev Hulio has decided to market his company’s goods to nations that have been labeled as having an “increased risk.” A now-disbanded administrative panel had allegedly classified these customers as high-risk following a due diligence study. Even while we can’t tell for sure which nations they are, you can reasonably guess that these aren’t locations wherein civil rights and political standards are a big deal.
NSO Had a Rough Few years
The NSO Group has had a difficult few years. There has been a steady stream of scandals involving the malware provider, formerly a little-known peddler of technologically advanced cyber warfare weapons, during the last several years. An investigation into the sale of strong Pegasus spyware to authoritarian governments, the usage of Pegasus devices to eavesdrop on reporters and activists as well as the alleged involvement of the company in the assassination of Jamal Khashoggi, have tarnished its image.
It was reported by the FT that Hulio reportedly offered this notion to a conference full of men assigned to defend the firm’s biggest economic backers. To “close up” a private investment fund that was intended to assist NSO but disintegrated last year owing to internal battling as well as regulatory challenges, officials from the worldwide consultancy company Berkeley Research Group were dispatched to the conference. Hulio began attempting to pitch them on this “dicey” clientele approach in the middle of those conversations.
This method was allegedly considered lucrative by Hulio. The BRG’s leadership snubbed the concept outright. NSO investors heard from Hulio later on that BRG’s action had affected the firm monetarily, according to the Financial Times, and also that BRG found itself reactive as a result. They issued a letter to NSO debtors confirming their intention not to accept transactions from problematic clients.
Does it seem like NSO is struggling to make money sans marketing its products to many of the most repressive regimes in the world? As a result, some businesses may want to rethink their customer base in favor of those who are less scandal-prone.
