Ovchinnikov Vasily

Biography

As of August 2011 - Head of Department. information security EOS

Quote

It is impossible to call the Russian market for cryptoprotection systems finally formed: it still continues to form and increase. Rather, we can say that it is growing dynamically. This was especially facilitated by recent changes in federal laws that regulate the circulation of electronic documents.

True, while we are still lagging behind European countries and the United States, and quite strongly for a number of indicators, there are several reasons for this. Firstly, until recently, Russia lived according to, to put it mildly, the "wrong" law - 1-FZ. He had a very indirect attitude to the real circulation of digital signatures. Accordingly, those cryptographic systems that were presented on the Russian market had to be "adjusted" to this law. Secondly, many of our documents at the moment, in principle, cannot exist in electronic form, which, for example, cannot be said about similar European or American documents. Thirdly, to recognize documents as legally relevant, in accordance with 1-FZ, it was required that the funds by which these documents were signed be certified, quite expensive and long-term. This led to an increase in the price of systems, demand was small, and therefore there was no development of such products.

In Russia, the cryptoprotection market is de facto monopolized. We have Crypto-Pro - and everyone else. At the same time, in certain market segments, some, as a rule, large companies use the decisions of foreign manufacturers for internal document management - only because they have a much lower cost of ownership. However, this does not greatly affect the general market, and only the revision and entry into force of the new 63-FZ "On Electronic Signature" can change the situation. And then it cannot be argued with a 100% guarantee that this will radically change the situation: monopolists never give up their market for nothing. But some changes will definitely appear. For example, in Russia, the most common standard is X 509, everyone lives on it, but there are other standards that in some cases can be significantly cheaper and more convenient from the point of view of infrastructure organization. Now it is difficult to predict how the market will develop if the law is put in order - too many changes in general happened in a year, it is too difficult to predict their consequences.

One thing is clear: without the will of the market development regulator, there will be no. Everyone is afraid to find themselves in a situation where, even with agreements with partners on the use of certain solutions for the exchange of documents in electronic form, these documents will not be recognized as legally significant. And if one of the partners violates the rules of the game and a trial is necessary, no one will vouch for the fact that the court recognizes the documents as valid. In Russia, there are examples of how an electronic document without a digital signature was recognized as legally significant based on an analysis of correspondence and behavior of partners before the conflict situation. And there are reverse examples: the document with an electronic signature was not recognized. So until the issue of legal significance is resolved, people will not trust electronic documents and signatures, and will be afraid to use this tool, although it is convenient. Or worse: they will duplicate everything on paper just in case, and, as a result, bear double costs.