I remain agnostic and can't think of a basis for arguing one side to the exclusion of the other. On the one hand, it's not unthinkable that NK had a mole at Son

I remain agnostic and can't think of a basis for arguing one side to the exclusion of the other. On the one hand, it's not unthinkable that NK had a mole at Sony, or that the attack succeed beyond expectation owing to Sony's abysmal security practices, using vectors that have supposedly been known to black hats for a while. And of course it's possible that the U.S. has hard evidence that can't be revealed. On the other hand, there's the "trust me" problem with the US Govt, the constant push for a free hand from the agencies (and the contractors who supply them and the politicians who enjoy their campaign contributions), and the embarrassment to a Hollywood that overwhelmingly supports the President and his party. Finally, there's the curious statement by Obama last Sunday that this isn't "an act of war," but rather "an act of cyber vandalism"--odd way to characterize actions by a hostile state if he knows that to be the case.