http://www.securelist.com/en/blog/8191/Agent_btz_a_source_of_inspiration
Background -- http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/09/world/europe/suspicion-falls-on-russia-as-snake-cyberattacks-target-ukraines-government.html?_r=0 [Note the NYT is notoriously friendly to the current admin.]
Right now in the US talk of the evil Chinese cyber threat may give way to focusing on the Russians. Not getting into any debate re: how close Kaspersky is to their gov, the linked blog I think does present a fair accounting of the other side of the argument, i.e. maybe it was the Russian gov behind the mal-ware, or maybe not. There are at any rate quite a few well funded individuals, groups etc. that stand to win or lose depending on how things shape up in Ukraine. And of course the Ukrainian gov IT & network security might be as chaotic as the rest of their gov can seem. Personally, & FWIW, I'm not making any judgements one way or the other -- Kaspersky's blog may be a fully independent piece or they may be acting as gov spokespeople, & I have no idea one way or the other.
There's a theme that's been expressed by governments since the dawn of governments really -- they'll protect you from whatever threats but 1st you have to give them something, whether it's increased authority or complacence or taxes etc. There's a fine line between what's legitimate & what's more of a power grab by those in charge. Particularly of late, the worthy goal of protecting you can be used to hide the true goal of providing support for favored individuals, groups, &/or industries that contribute loads of cash, e.g. SOPA. And that sort of thing is also often turned into an alibi for incompetence, as in we might have done better, caught whomever, or avoided something bad if only we had more tools & authority.
My disagreement is with the US gov employing incompetent people, not setting & enforcing proper security policies/procedures, then expecting their citizens to pay for it through increasing taxes with reduced privacy & fewer freedoms. I don't think you should claim you need the biggest & best locks on your doors when you refuse to lock the ones you have now. Every time the gov's tried to put someone with an industry recognized high level of security know-how in charge, they've quit out of frustration. Which IMHO suits the NSA & their contractors just fine. The greater the perceived cyber security threat, the less they have to fear their enormous budgets getting cut. They profit from fear. So do many politicians. I simply don't buy *anything* based solely on the claims of the salesperson.