>I think this is a very key point for another reason. If this was perpetrated by North Korea, why would they use an anonymizing proxy in the first place? What w

>I think this is a very key point for another reason. If this was perpetrated by North Korea, why would they use an anonymizing proxy in the first place? What would be the point? Have we ever known North Korea to not crave media attention? Yes. When they do something provocative they try to maintain plausible deniability, because otherwise the target of the provocation would have to do something. The best example is the sinking of the Cheonan. Everyone knew it was the Norks, but they played coy because otherwise South Korea would have been forced to respond. Probably by sinking the North Korean navy. Also, if the cyber attack was DPRK, it was likely carried out by the unit that does espionage, and for a unit like that proxies are just standard procedure. All that said, I'm skeptical that it actually was North Korea. They do have this kind of capability, but they tend to use it for more concrete gains, like uncovering spies and stealing technology. A big in-your-face attack on a company like this is out of character for a regime that wants to retain its cyberwar capability for clandestine uses.