4 ms·

>What other motive do you have for a Sony hack where the perpetrators demand either that The Interview not be released or that the ending be modified so that Ki

>What other motive do you have for a Sony hack where the perpetrators demand either that The Interview not be released or that the ending be modified so that Kim's death wasn't "too happy?" That Lulzsec are engaged in a game of misdirection? I've never found "Malware X was used in attack Y" or "it came from these IP addresses owned by Z" to ever be a convincing argument for attribution. Whereas I'm fairly easily convinced that the party responsible for the hack would prefer it if the FBI believes that the real attacker is outside of their jurisdiction so they don't come knocking on their door. The fact that North Korea is everybody's favourite bogeyman from the CIA down makes them a convenient mark. North Korea also has a habit of admitting to and bragging about military attacks whereas this time they just said "wasn't us, good job though guys". I'm not entirely sure what motive they'd have for denying the fact that they revealed a bunch of movie star salaries when most people think it was them anyhow.

lern_too_spel 9y ago
> North Korea also has a habit of admitting to and bragging about military attacks They still claim no involvement in the death of Kim Jong Nam and the destruction of Korean Air Flight 858. You're confusing overt military actions with covert actions against civilian targets. Of course they will loudly boast about the former. Boasting about computer attacks that can help attribute other covert attacks is too stupid even for DPRK. > I've never found "Malware X was used in attack Y" or "it came from these IP addresses owned by Z" to ever be a convincing argument for attribution. That's just the publicly released evidence, which is enough to draw a conclusion. You think somebody who is doing it for the lulz wouldn't then brag about doing it for the lulz on IRC? That happens every other time, which is one reason why your explanation is less plausible.
- crdoconnor 9y ago
  >They still claim they didn't destroy Korean Air Flight 858. North Korea maintains that it was a false flag attack. The awkward timing (it occurred during the last throes of South Korean military dictatorship - there was a power struggle going on), the fact that the North Korean agent convicted of the attack was weirdly pardoned and the fact that North Korea had nothing really to gain from this attack lends some credence to this view. But, in any case, if it was them I can kind of see why they wouldn't want to admit to or approve of the wholesale murder of a bunch of civilians. Revealing a bunch of movie star salaries, approving of it and not admitting to it? Can't see the what the point would be. >That's just the publicly released evidence, which is enough to draw a conclusion. You think somebody who is doing it for the lulz wouldn't then brag about doing it for the lulz on IRC? If they don't want the FBI kicking their door in, yeah. >That happens every other time ...after which they got their doors kicked down. > why your explanation is less plausible. Because why would they learn from experience, right?
  - lern_too_spel 9y ago
    > Because why would they learn from experience, right? You realize it isn't the same kid every time, right? The whole point of doing something for lulz is to laugh about it within a group of like-minded people who share techniques and hacks. > Revealing a bunch of movie star salaries, approving of it and not admitting to it? Can't see the what the point would be. See GP post for reason. That it was really about not showing a film making fun of the leader makes them look silly. If it really were the case that their leader is so beloved all over the world that non-Koreans did it of their own volition as they claim, that would not reflect poorly on Kim, but then these supposed non-Koreans messed up by having so much evidence point to DPRK. > North Korea maintains that it was a false flag attack. The bomb was put on the flight by a pair of North Koreans. You believe that they were turned prior to planting the bomb? And what do you believe about the Kim Jong-Nam killers?
    - crdoconnor 9y ago
      >You realize it isn't the same kid every time, right? The whole point of doing something for lulz is to laugh about it within a group of like-minded people who share techniques and hacks. Yes. I both realize this and posited the admittedly outrageous notion that rest may have reacted to one or two of them getting arrested by the FBI by developing better opsec and engaging in a bit of misdirection. >See GP post for reason. That it was really about not showing a film making fun of the leader makes them look silly. It was a film made by a foreign enemy that has threatened them countless times about the assassination of their leader. They were pretty open that they took it plenty seriously - if they didn't fear being made to look silly by complaining about it at the UN why would they fear looking silly because of the hack? FWIW, if you made a similar film endorsing the assassination of a sitting US president the secret service would treat it as a national security threat. >then these supposed non-Koreans messed up by having so much evidence point to DPRK. As far as I'm aware there was no evidence that wouldn't have been easy enough to fake by hackers who had the skills to breach Sony's security. When I hear the word "sloppy" I can't help but think "deliberately placed in order to deceive".
      - lern_too_spel 9y ago

lern_too_spel 9y ago

> North Korea also has a habit of admitting to and bragging about military attacks They still claim no involvement in the death of Kim Jong Nam and the destruction of Korean Air Flight 858. You're confusing overt military actions with covert actions against civilian targets. Of course they will loudly boast about the former. Boasting about computer attacks that can help attribute other covert attacks is too stupid even for DPRK. > I've never found "Malware X was used in attack Y" or "it came from these IP addresses owned by Z" to ever be a convincing argument for attribution. That's just the publicly released evidence, which is enough to draw a conclusion. You think somebody who is doing it for the lulz wouldn't then brag about doing it for the lulz on IRC? That happens every other time, which is one reason why your explanation is less plausible.

crdoconnor 9y ago
>They still claim they didn't destroy Korean Air Flight 858. North Korea maintains that it was a false flag attack. The awkward timing (it occurred during the last throes of South Korean military dictatorship - there was a power struggle going on), the fact that the North Korean agent convicted of the attack was weirdly pardoned and the fact that North Korea had nothing really to gain from this attack lends some credence to this view. But, in any case, if it was them I can kind of see why they wouldn't want to admit to or approve of the wholesale murder of a bunch of civilians. Revealing a bunch of movie star salaries, approving of it and not admitting to it? Can't see the what the point would be. >That's just the publicly released evidence, which is enough to draw a conclusion. You think somebody who is doing it for the lulz wouldn't then brag about doing it for the lulz on IRC? If they don't want the FBI kicking their door in, yeah. >That happens every other time ...after which they got their doors kicked down. > why your explanation is less plausible. Because why would they learn from experience, right?
- lern_too_spel 9y ago
  > Because why would they learn from experience, right? You realize it isn't the same kid every time, right? The whole point of doing something for lulz is to laugh about it within a group of like-minded people who share techniques and hacks. > Revealing a bunch of movie star salaries, approving of it and not admitting to it? Can't see the what the point would be. See GP post for reason. That it was really about not showing a film making fun of the leader makes them look silly. If it really were the case that their leader is so beloved all over the world that non-Koreans did it of their own volition as they claim, that would not reflect poorly on Kim, but then these supposed non-Koreans messed up by having so much evidence point to DPRK. > North Korea maintains that it was a false flag attack. The bomb was put on the flight by a pair of North Koreans. You believe that they were turned prior to planting the bomb? And what do you believe about the Kim Jong-Nam killers?
  - crdoconnor 9y ago
    >You realize it isn't the same kid every time, right? The whole point of doing something for lulz is to laugh about it within a group of like-minded people who share techniques and hacks. Yes. I both realize this and posited the admittedly outrageous notion that rest may have reacted to one or two of them getting arrested by the FBI by developing better opsec and engaging in a bit of misdirection. >See GP post for reason. That it was really about not showing a film making fun of the leader makes them look silly. It was a film made by a foreign enemy that has threatened them countless times about the assassination of their leader. They were pretty open that they took it plenty seriously - if they didn't fear being made to look silly by complaining about it at the UN why would they fear looking silly because of the hack? FWIW, if you made a similar film endorsing the assassination of a sitting US president the secret service would treat it as a national security threat. >then these supposed non-Koreans messed up by having so much evidence point to DPRK. As far as I'm aware there was no evidence that wouldn't have been easy enough to fake by hackers who had the skills to breach Sony's security. When I hear the word "sloppy" I can't help but think "deliberately placed in order to deceive".
    - lern_too_spel 9y ago