Following the US government's ban on the sale of Kaspersky products, Kaspersky customers in the United States are being forced to switch to UltraAV, a new antivirus provider.
The ban, which went into effect in July 2024, is based on concerns that the Russian cybersecurity company could be pressured by the Kremlin to spy on US customers.
But as the transition to UltraAV begins, many users who received the email are left wondering if this is the right decision.
Kaspersky, once a trusted name in cybersecurity, informed its U.S. customers that their antivirus software would no longer receive updates after September 29th.
To avoid leaving users vulnerable, Kaspersky signed a deal with Pango Group, transferring approximately 1 million US customers to Pango's antivirus brand, UltraAV.
In an email to customers in the United States, Kaspersky announced the transition to UltraAV, here is what the email stated:
“Dear user,
As part of our commitment to providing you with continued top-tier service, we are pleased to announce that Kaspersky US users will be able to maintain reliable cybersecurity protection from our trusted partner – UltraAV.
You will now get UltraAV with your existing paid subscription, which includes important features including industry-leading VPN, password manager, and identity theft protection.
In the coming days, you will be receiving communications from UltraAV with instructions on how to activate your new account. We’re confident that you’ll enjoy the enhanced protection and features UltraAV offers.
Learn More About This Update
Thank you for your continued trust in our services.
Regards, Kaspersky
However, the decision has caused a wave of suspicion and unease among longtime Kaspersky users.
A mysterious new antivirus player
One of the major concerns about the transition is UltraAV's relative obscurity. Unlike Kaspersky, which has built a solid reputation over the years, UltraAV is not well-known or discussed in the cybersecurity community.
Although UltraAV claims to have been in operation since 2019, many users are unfamiliar with the product, and it receives little attention in independent antivirus reviews and comparison sites.
A quick search turns up little information about UltraAV. It does not appear in major antivirus test results from companies such as AV-Test, AV-Comparatives, and Virus Bulletin.
For a product that has been thrust into the spotlight with over a million new users, this lack of transparency and established reputation is a red flag to many.
“UltraAV? “Never heard of it,” one user wrote online. I'm hesitant to use a product with no reviews or industry experience. “Why would I trust it with my data?”
Others expressed similar concerns, with some wondering if UltraAV is simply a rebranded version of Kaspersky to avoid the US ban.
While Kaspersky's email to users referred to UltraAV as a “trusted partner,” there is little evidence to back up that claim, leaving many users guessing about the company's true origins and capabilities.
Reactions from the community
The announcement of the transition sparked heated debate among former Kaspersky users. While some are cautiously optimistic, others are completely dismissive.
“Looking at the feature set, this UltraAV seems like Kaspersky with a new name,” commented one user on a tech forum. “But without any reviews or information, I'm not sure I want to trust it.”
Some users have already jumped ship, opting for more well-known antivirus solutions such as ESET or Bitdefender.
“I'm not sticking around for this UltraAV thing,” another user wrote. “I switched to ESET when Kaspersky was banned, and I'm happy with it.”
Others have expressed concern about UltraAV's parent company, Pango Group. Pango owns several cybersecurity products, including Hotspot Shield and Betternet, which have previously been criticized for privacy concerns.
UltraAV appears to be just another branch of Pango's operations, and this connection hasn't made anxious Kaspersky users feel any better.
What's going on?
Kaspersky's exit from the US market was swift, and the transition to UltraAV appears to be a rushed attempt to protect users from being exposed.
The concern is that, while UltraAV may function as an antivirus, it lacks the reputation and transparency that Kaspersky once possessed.
On the surface, Pango Group positions UltraAV as a viable alternative to Kaspersky.
The company provides a variety of cybersecurity tools, including VPNs and identity protection services.
However, users aren't convinced. The doubt is made stronger by the fact that UltraAV has no significant track record or third-party validation in the antivirus industry.
For Kaspersky's former US customers, the transition to UltraAV raises more questions than answers.
Many people are hesitant to trust an unfamiliar product, especially one that appears to lack independent testing and reviews, which provide confidence in the cybersecurity world.
In the end, it is up to individual users to decide whether they are satisfied with UltraAV or will switch to a more established antivirus provider.
However, for many, the transition feels hasty, with insufficient information and too much uncertainty.
I don’t like that we are forced as many to accept something that works to something that we have no knowledge about and not explained to why we have to switch, so what if it is from another country like we are not in all countries that want our recognized as a power how totally tacky, Kaspersky has done well by me , and I am celtic American born and raised here and Native Wampanoag tribe and Irish and Italian, French, Portuguese. an American Mutt, really, has Kaspersky Hurt anyone??? Is there documents that show they are culprits to our government??
You are correct. Kaspersky is one of the best antivirus solutions available. In fact, we used to advocate it here, but it is now considered ineffectual for US visitors. Perhaps the government could have prohibited access to government computers instead, but it is farfetched that American citizens would have to do the same when Kaspersky protected them all these years. Not to mention, there is very little proof of cyber espionage beyond “allegations” and “may have” incidents.
And now, people in the US would have to switch over to a no-name antivirus that appeared out of nowhere. No real-world tests, detection rates, nada.