4 ms·

I agree with all the points regarding the evidence-less-ness of the IPs used, and I'd even take it further than that. From the article: > Like I said on Twitte

I agree with all the points regarding the evidence-less-ness of the IPs used, and I'd even take it further than that. From the article: > Like I said on Twitter last night, I can see my way to saying that DPRK was behind this. I can use Occams Razor to apply the logic of who had motive, look at their actions on the face of it, and say “most likely” it is them. I don't know if my brain is stuck on some self-reinforcing loop with this, and feel free to call me Mr. Pedantic here, but I don't think Occam's Razor can take you that far. The simplest-explanation buck stops at "someone who really wanted to hurt Sony"[1]. Given that tons of groups would have axes to grind with Sony (anti-piracy, losing customer data regularly, general "Golliath" image & behaviour), you'd need to have a reason why the simplest choice is NK in particular. I may have missed something, but I just don't see it. * Would you have needed super-l33t 0-day APT ninja bullfrogs (that only a state actor could have afforded?) No, the reports make it seem that Sony's networks were (still!) much akin to a merry-go-round[2]. So, from a "capabilities" perspective, I don't see a state actor as a more obvious choice than a disgruntled ex-sysadmin + his friends. * Would NK have any motive to deny involvement? By my read of their past PR patterns, they'd own it loud and clear ("we own you with nuclear, we own you with cyber! fear us, fear us"). [1] Could still be someone counting on one of the side-effects of this FUD shitstorm. That's what our favourite razor "rejects". [2] "But it is moving! Nobody will be able to get on or off while it is moving. It have perfect securities."

overgard 12y ago
I can see that there would be other groups that don't like Sony, and would be interested in hacking them, but why would any of them (other than NK) target "The Interview" in particular? Maybe that was a smoke screen, but that seems elaborate. Unless you're Kim Jong-un, the subject matter is pretty tame. (IE: not likely to rile up other domestic groups of crazy). I agree the evidence is weak, though. Probably not smart of the US government to publicly point fingers at this stage.
- makomk 12y ago
  From what I recall, the hackers first claimed to be going after The Interview well after Sony and most of the press announced it as a possible motive.
- yourad_io 12y ago
  The leaks started on November 24. > On December 1st, NBC News aired a segment reporting that the FBI were investigating the breach and the possibility that North Korea was involved. While this may sound far-fetched at first, North Korea has a clear motive in attacking Sony. That was the first NK link. > (December 8) Unlike previous disclosures that were straight-forward, this group of files comes shortly after the appearance of a Pastebin link (now 404) that purports to be from the GOP, and gives a reason for the attacks on Sony Pictures, linking it to the now controversial movie, “The Interview”. There is speculation that the new announcement may not be authentic as it did not get sent out via the previous channels, and suggests an almost afterthought of blaming the movie for their actions. That was the first time the GoP (if that was them in the first place) mentioning any of this. Two likely possibilities (imho): * Someone else did it purporting to be them, and the GoP didn't deny it for the extra lolz (+ it didn't hurt their cause/objectives) * They did it themselves to reinforce the media frenzy (by that time, the NK link was almost presented as a fact in many media sources) Think about it this way: If this is an independent group of hackers, completely unrelated with any states (through funding or otherwise), through the NK link they "leveled up": Convincing the World that this was NK, we're in cyberwar, the world is ending (etc) far outweighs "hacked Sony for the nth time". Qutoes from: https://www.riskbasedsecurity.com/2014/12/a-breakdown-and-analysis-of-the-december-2014-sony-hack/ https://www.riskbasedsecurity.com/2014/12/a-breakdown-and-an...
tjradcliffe 12y ago
The utility of Ockham's Razor in an argument is simple: if the best argument you've got to distinguish two or more propositions based on the evidence is Ockham's Razor, you don't have an argument and you aren't using the evidence. This is because Ockham's Razor says nothing but: "The proposition with the highest prior plausibility has the highest posterior plausibility after updating based on evidence that increases the plausibility of all propositions about equally." "When you hear hoofbeats think horse not zebra" simply reflects the fact that horses are--all else being equal--more likely than zebras, and hoofbeats are just as good evidence for zebras as horses. They do nothing to differentiate between the possible explanations of the hoofbeats, so you go with the prior. The "simplest" explanation in Ockhamian terms--if it means anything at all--is just the proposition with the highest Bayesian prior. This doesn't mean it's wrong to use Ockham's Razor, but it also isn't right, and if it's the best argument you've got then you need a better argument. Your reduction of the Ockhamian "simplest explanation" to "someone really wanted to hurt Sony" is a lovely example of this principle, and makes explicit that the evidence fails to differentiate between the minions of the twit in charge of North Korea and the minions of various other malicious organizations around the world. I was disappointed with the Ockhamian post-script to the article, as the actual analysis is making precisely this point.

overgard 12y ago

I can see that there would be other groups that don't like Sony, and would be interested in hacking them, but why would any of them (other than NK) target "The Interview" in particular? Maybe that was a smoke screen, but that seems elaborate. Unless you're Kim Jong-un, the subject matter is pretty tame. (IE: not likely to rile up other domestic groups of crazy). I agree the evidence is weak, though. Probably not smart of the US government to publicly point fingers at this stage.

makomk 12y ago
From what I recall, the hackers first claimed to be going after The Interview well after Sony and most of the press announced it as a possible motive.
yourad_io 12y ago
The leaks started on November 24. > On December 1st, NBC News aired a segment reporting that the FBI were investigating the breach and the possibility that North Korea was involved. While this may sound far-fetched at first, North Korea has a clear motive in attacking Sony. That was the first NK link. > (December 8) Unlike previous disclosures that were straight-forward, this group of files comes shortly after the appearance of a Pastebin link (now 404) that purports to be from the GOP, and gives a reason for the attacks on Sony Pictures, linking it to the now controversial movie, “The Interview”. There is speculation that the new announcement may not be authentic as it did not get sent out via the previous channels, and suggests an almost afterthought of blaming the movie for their actions. That was the first time the GoP (if that was them in the first place) mentioning any of this. Two likely possibilities (imho): * Someone else did it purporting to be them, and the GoP didn't deny it for the extra lolz (+ it didn't hurt their cause/objectives) * They did it themselves to reinforce the media frenzy (by that time, the NK link was almost presented as a fact in many media sources) Think about it this way: If this is an independent group of hackers, completely unrelated with any states (through funding or otherwise), through the NK link they "leveled up": Convincing the World that this was NK, we're in cyberwar, the world is ending (etc) far outweighs "hacked Sony for the nth time". Qutoes from: https://www.riskbasedsecurity.com/2014/12/a-breakdown-and-analysis-of-the-december-2014-sony-hack/ https://www.riskbasedsecurity.com/2014/12/a-breakdown-and-an...

tjradcliffe 12y ago

The utility of Ockham's Razor in an argument is simple: if the best argument you've got to distinguish two or more propositions based on the evidence is Ockham's Razor, you don't have an argument and you aren't using the evidence. This is because Ockham's Razor says nothing but: "The proposition with the highest prior plausibility has the highest posterior plausibility after updating based on evidence that increases the plausibility of all propositions about equally." "When you hear hoofbeats think horse not zebra" simply reflects the fact that horses are--all else being equal--more likely than zebras, and hoofbeats are just as good evidence for zebras as horses. They do nothing to differentiate between the possible explanations of the hoofbeats, so you go with the prior. The "simplest" explanation in Ockhamian terms--if it means anything at all--is just the proposition with the highest Bayesian prior. This doesn't mean it's wrong to use Ockham's Razor, but it also isn't right, and if it's the best argument you've got then you need a better argument. Your reduction of the Ockhamian "simplest explanation" to "someone really wanted to hurt Sony" is a lovely example of this principle, and makes explicit that the evidence fails to differentiate between the minions of the twit in charge of North Korea and the minions of various other malicious organizations around the world. I was disappointed with the Ockhamian post-script to the article, as the actual analysis is making precisely this point.