4 ms·

What evidence? Do you mean the FBI press release?

walshemj 12y ago
As described in the press release id be minded to think that NK is a strong possibility.
pdabbadabba 12y ago
This is quite a challenge you've set for us. You claim that there are no infosec professionals who think NK did it. Exclude, apparently, the FBI from the universe of infosec professionals. And then refuse to credit the description of the evidence provided by the FBI, literally the only organization likely to have direct access to the evidence. I'm not saying that the FBI is totally trustworthy on this, but it's one thing to distrust them and quite another to accord no epistemic weight at all to their claims about the evidence. While they may have ulterior motives, they (and NK itself) are also the ones best positioned to tell us the truth, if they choose to do so. And while, again, one should not take it on faith that the FBI always tells the truth, I'd trust them over the NK propaganda apparatus any day of the week.
- sroerick 12y ago
  I made no such claim. I'm no expert in this regard, and my knowledge base should be understood here as a layman's. I read the FBI report, and while I'm sure that there is plenty left out of the report, their diagnosis was based largely on first, structural and tactical similarities to other, earlier DPRK attacks, and second, North Korean IP addresses that were pinged by the malware. Both of these, to my layman's understanding, seem easily falsifiable. All I stated is that within my own circles and based on the infosec figureheads I follow, that I have not seen a single individual who claims to have been convinced that this is indeed a DPRK attack. Because I'm obviously somewhat filter bubbles, I was asking for individuals whose opinion I could get which would help me expand my own filter bubble. Dave Aitel has been raised as a counter example, and while he's certainly not unbiased, it's tough to find people in this field who are in fact unbiased, so I'm grateful to hear his opinion. I'd like to find more counter-opinions.

As described in the press release id be minded to think that NK is a strong possibility.

This is quite a challenge you've set for us. You claim that there are no infosec professionals who think NK did it. Exclude, apparently, the FBI from the universe of infosec professionals. And then refuse to credit the description of the evidence provided by the FBI, literally the only organization likely to have direct access to the evidence. I'm not saying that the FBI is totally trustworthy on this, but it's one thing to distrust them and quite another to accord no epistemic weight at all to their claims about the evidence. While they may have ulterior motives, they (and NK itself) are also the ones best positioned to tell us the truth, if they choose to do so. And while, again, one should not take it on faith that the FBI always tells the truth, I'd trust them over the NK propaganda apparatus any day of the week.

sroerick 12y ago
I made no such claim. I'm no expert in this regard, and my knowledge base should be understood here as a layman's. I read the FBI report, and while I'm sure that there is plenty left out of the report, their diagnosis was based largely on first, structural and tactical similarities to other, earlier DPRK attacks, and second, North Korean IP addresses that were pinged by the malware. Both of these, to my layman's understanding, seem easily falsifiable. All I stated is that within my own circles and based on the infosec figureheads I follow, that I have not seen a single individual who claims to have been convinced that this is indeed a DPRK attack. Because I'm obviously somewhat filter bubbles, I was asking for individuals whose opinion I could get which would help me expand my own filter bubble. Dave Aitel has been raised as a counter example, and while he's certainly not unbiased, it's tough to find people in this field who are in fact unbiased, so I'm grateful to hear his opinion. I'd like to find more counter-opinions.