3 ms·

The most damning argument is, as mentioned in the article, that the NK+The Interview conclusion was not mentioned by the attackers until the media started specu

by cyphunk 12y ago

The most damning argument is, as mentioned in the article, that the NK+The Interview conclusion was not mentioned by the attackers until the media started speculating. That those responsible for investigation have not looked at the relation to the embarrassing attack on the Playstation network from years ago, that also resulted in droves of user and likely employee data that could be utilized for future attacks, is astounding. This isn't 2002 where the US Gov can make a claim on hidden evidence and have people believe them, be they the world or its own people. Either put up or shut up.

Svip 12y ago
But the attackers did confuse a lot of people when they threatened with '9/11-style attacks' should any cinema show the movie in question. So either someone else is speaking on their behalf, or they are at least partial sympathetic to the North Korean regime. Edit: Or perhaps - as the article speculate - they were simply using the opportunity to threaten threats they couldn't live up to, but it wouldn't have mattered as their identity remains anonymous and whether or not Sony caved would be irrelevant to the argument on whether to make the threat.
- cyphunk 12y ago
  I agree the logic of the threats makes no sense. There are very few state actors that are this detached from objective and logic. In-fact it feels like the work of a troll, aka anonymous or a reincarnated Lulzsec. The same people responsible for the last Sony hack and whom some might be still sitting on the data trove from that attack. Then again, N.K. could claim to be the original troll.
alexqgb 12y ago
Then again, had the attackers made their intentions clear up front, media outlets would be reticent about doing someone else's very dirty dirty work for them. By releasing what amounted to to celebrity gossip and no clear demand, lots of outlets that would otherwise hold back dived right in. Only when the story was well and truly a monster did the attackers show their full hand. If this is, in fact, what happened it represents a far more media savvy approach than most people would expect from NK. That suggests any involvement they had was in partnership with people who actually knew how to operate in America.
meowface 12y ago
>The most damning argument is, as mentioned in the article, that the NK+The Interview conclusion was not mentioned by the attackers until the media started speculating. This is technically true but the full situation is more complicated. First, it is difficult to know which of the Pastebins were really made by the hackers and which were made by copycats/trolls. Second, the media began speculating about the connection to The Interview one day after the hack, Nov. 25. Some probably the day of. The hackers only explicitly mentioned The Interview ("Stop immediately showing the movie of terrorism which can break the regional peace and cause the War!") on Dec. 8. However, between Nov. 25 and Dec. 8 they released a number of dumps and messages addressing Sony, the public, and the media, while not mentioning The Interview at all. So if they wanted to jump on the sensationalism bandwagon, in my opinion it would have made more sense to start hinting at the movie specifically before Dec. 8. Of course, they may have randomly decided to wait that long for any number of reasons. Third, I think "Guardians of Peace" is a pretty clear allusion to "protecting the peace [by preventing the release of this terroristic movie]", which they made quite clear in later statements, including in statements before the Dec. 8 mention of the movie. And they used the name Guardians of Peace from day one. "Guardians of Peace" simply doesn't line up with the disgruntled insider or hacktivist hypotheses at all. This does not at all mean it was North Korea, but in my opinion it means the perpetrators either used The Interview as a motive, or as a pretext, from day 1. There are many possible explanations as to why this could have really been North Korea and why they did not explicitly mention the movie until Dec. 8. There are certainly many explanations as to why it could mean it isn't North Korea, but it's not damning evidence at all.

by cyphunk 12y ago

Svip 12y ago

But the attackers did confuse a lot of people when they threatened with '9/11-style attacks' should any cinema show the movie in question. So either someone else is speaking on their behalf, or they are at least partial sympathetic to the North Korean regime. Edit: Or perhaps - as the article speculate - they were simply using the opportunity to threaten threats they couldn't live up to, but it wouldn't have mattered as their identity remains anonymous and whether or not Sony caved would be irrelevant to the argument on whether to make the threat.

cyphunk 12y ago
I agree the logic of the threats makes no sense. There are very few state actors that are this detached from objective and logic. In-fact it feels like the work of a troll, aka anonymous or a reincarnated Lulzsec. The same people responsible for the last Sony hack and whom some might be still sitting on the data trove from that attack. Then again, N.K. could claim to be the original troll.

alexqgb 12y ago

Then again, had the attackers made their intentions clear up front, media outlets would be reticent about doing someone else's very dirty dirty work for them. By releasing what amounted to to celebrity gossip and no clear demand, lots of outlets that would otherwise hold back dived right in. Only when the story was well and truly a monster did the attackers show their full hand. If this is, in fact, what happened it represents a far more media savvy approach than most people would expect from NK. That suggests any involvement they had was in partnership with people who actually knew how to operate in America.

meowface 12y ago

>The most damning argument is, as mentioned in the article, that the NK+The Interview conclusion was not mentioned by the attackers until the media started speculating. This is technically true but the full situation is more complicated. First, it is difficult to know which of the Pastebins were really made by the hackers and which were made by copycats/trolls. Second, the media began speculating about the connection to The Interview one day after the hack, Nov. 25. Some probably the day of. The hackers only explicitly mentioned The Interview ("Stop immediately showing the movie of terrorism which can break the regional peace and cause the War!") on Dec. 8. However, between Nov. 25 and Dec. 8 they released a number of dumps and messages addressing Sony, the public, and the media, while not mentioning The Interview at all. So if they wanted to jump on the sensationalism bandwagon, in my opinion it would have made more sense to start hinting at the movie specifically before Dec. 8. Of course, they may have randomly decided to wait that long for any number of reasons. Third, I think "Guardians of Peace" is a pretty clear allusion to "protecting the peace [by preventing the release of this terroristic movie]", which they made quite clear in later statements, including in statements before the Dec. 8 mention of the movie. And they used the name Guardians of Peace from day one. "Guardians of Peace" simply doesn't line up with the disgruntled insider or hacktivist hypotheses at all. This does not at all mean it was North Korea, but in my opinion it means the perpetrators either used The Interview as a motive, or as a pretext, from day 1. There are many possible explanations as to why this could have really been North Korea and why they did not explicitly mention the movie until Dec. 8. There are certainly many explanations as to why it could mean it isn't North Korea, but it's not damning evidence at all.