12 ms·

N.S.A. Tapped into North Korean Networks Before Sony Attack, Officials Say

213 points by sciurus 12y ago

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
lucb1e 12y ago
Might be me, but I'd be surprised if they hadn't. They hacked so many countries including China[1], Mexico[1], Belgium[1], Syria[3], Iran[4], etc. (after saying that a digital attack is an act of war[2]). I don't remember each and every leak and I don't feel like looking up everything, but they seem to have targeted loads of people in various countries. I doubt North Korea (which is not even an ally) is the exception. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tailored_Access_Operations#Known_targets_and_collaborations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tailored_Access_Operations#Kno... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyberwarfare_in_the_United_States#Cyberattack_as_an_act_of_war https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyberwarfare_in_the_United_Sta... [3] http://www.theverge.com/2014/8/13/5998237/nsa-responsible-for-2012-syrian-internet-outage-snowden-says http://www.theverge.com/2014/8/13/5998237/nsa-responsible-fo... [4] Stuxnet http://rt.com/news/snowden-nsa-interview-surveillance-831/ http://rt.com/news/snowden-nsa-interview-surveillance-831/
- GabrielF00 12y ago
  I don't believe that the US has ever said that "a digital attack is an act of war". The quote that you linked to says that the United States reserves the right to respond militarily to "hostile acts in cyberspace" if it exhausts all other options and judges the costs of action to be greater than the costs of inaction. The statement is not saying that any cyberattack is an act of war, it is saying that the United States might treat certain attacks as the cost of doing business but that other attacks might require a military response, depending on the specifics of the incident.
  - lisptime 12y ago
    or they did: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/01/us/politics/01cyber.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/01/us/politics/01cyber.html?_...
    - GabrielF00 12y ago
      That article is saying the exact same thing that I'm saying.
- junto 12y ago
  Obama very specifically said that this was 'not an act of war': http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2014/dec/21/obama-north-korea-sony-hack-not-act-of-war-video http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2014/dec/21/obama-n... He has to say this, otherwise the NSA has started an act of war against pretty every country on earth, so it would be pretty hypocritical. Obama knows this, so he can't go and classify the US as starting wars through their own cyber 'crimes'.
phkahler 12y ago
If that's true, who's to say our guys didn't launch the attack from their computers? Why would they even admit to being in there? The NSA doesn't say anything unless 1) they have to, or 2) they want to. I don't see why they would make this claim.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- xnull1guest 12y ago
  Certainly false flag operations are a tactic that has seen reliable and regular use, especially in counterintelligence. But what purpose exactly would a false flag operation against SONY serve? Definitely not as a pretext to take action against North Korea - the US could much more easily justify actions against NK than it has many other nations in its history.
  - gmuslera 12y ago
    They could use North Korea "attack" to justify more local measures, you know, banning encryption, tighter regulations, more penalties... more or less what has been happening last weeks.
    - xnull1guest 12y ago
      I absolutely believe that attacks are used as conveniences to justify legislative wishlists, but question whether such things are planned in advance like you are suggesting or are opportunistic responses to actual events. Regarding encryption bans I've mostly seen justification referencing the Charlie Hebdo attacks (which are assuredly not a false flag). Personally I believe that North Korean sympathizers were behind the SONY attacks given a number of pieces of evidence, but most heavily the #GOP leaks of emails detailing SONY collaboration with the US State Department and RAND Corporation that point toward The Interview being a strategic diplomacy product.
  - archgoon 12y ago
    Playing devils advocate here: <devils advocate> The NSA is arguably having a credibility problem at home in the US. It needs to convince the tech industry that there are enemies abroad who threaten their security, and attacks by nation states (who aren't the US) is something that is real. North Korea is a great scape goat. They can deny it all they want, and we don't care about the diplomatic costs, because it can't get any worse. People can't demand sanctions, can't demand recall of ambassadors, the only thing anyone could demand would be going to war with them, but for the most part, we don't care. They're the crazy uncle of the world stage. So basically, the only problem would be if the NSA got caught lying about it. </ devils advocate> However, getting caught would probably be the worst possible thing for the NSA (remember, there is likely still a leaker inside); as it would jeopardize the main benefit from doing this in the first place. So I don't think the risk versus reward pans out. That said if North Korea IS behind it, the above motivation for speaking out is still valid.
xnull1guest 12y ago
We know that the NSA tapped into computer systems and the backbone of essentially every country on Earth - I don't see how NK would have somehow been excluded. What's interesting is what information the New York Times includes that is not covered in the NSA document, presumably from unidentified officials and former officials. The document on Der Speigel speaks primarily about taking copies of intelligence from SK hacking efforts against NK and also taking copies of intelligence from NK hacking efforts that had in turn been hacked by SK (and in turn by NSA - "fifth party collection"). The document mentions the NSAs unwillingness to rely on intelligence filtered through so many third parties and made efforts to establish its own foothold. Essentially none of the article is backed by the document as a first source and must have come from the unnamed sources.
- Alupis 12y ago
  I believe the reason this is "a big deal" is due to how the average US citizen reacted over the recent Sony Breach and the US Government's blame of NK (I might add with no supporting evidence, most industry professionals in high doubt, and even some security companies providing evidence to the contrary of statements by the government). The average US citizen was outraged that some other government would have the audacity to hack anything in the US. This article's goal seems to be to point out that the US Government is hacking all other nation's governments, including NK. (pot calling the kettle black)
  - xnull1guest 12y ago
    Interesting. I had thought it was common knowledge at this point that the US regularly hacks and is hacked by other nations. I think the biggest splash this article may have is added narrative supporting the truthiness of USG attribution to NK - something that seems to be held in high doubt by a large percentage of the technical crowd (but that I think seems pretty reasonable).
    - onewaystreet 12y ago
      People forget that before Snowden the story was how bad the US's cyber intelligence was compared to China, etc.
timmytokyo 12y ago
According to the article, NSA noticed the first spear-phishing attacks against Sony in September. Yet they didn't realize admin credentials had been stolen until much later. Nor did they seem to notice terabytes of data being exfiltrated out of Sony. Fishy story.
- ggreer 12y ago
  Fishy? It seems quite likely that such a thing could be overlooked. The NSA was (as the article says) concentrating their efforts on the DPRK's nuclear weapons program. Some spear phishing attacks aren't exactly a priority in comparison.
- sandworm 12y ago
  Why would they notice terabytes leaving Sony? It's a motion picture studio. They surely have piles of film-related data flowing constantly in and out of all sorts of places. And it's not like the hackers sent it directly to Pyongyang. As a member of the MPAA, probably the most hated organization in the history of the internet, I'm surprised that Sony wasn't under constant phishing attack. Given their total lack of internal security, I would have thought some angry filesharers would have broken in long ago.
Estragon 12y ago
Typical for the NYT to bury the strong countervailing evidence against the official war-mongering story in a couple of paragraphs 2/3rds of the way through the article. Still, the sophistication of the Sony hack was such that many experts say they are skeptical that North Korea was the culprit, or the lone culprit. They have suggested it was an insider, a disgruntled Sony ex-employee or an outside group cleverly mimicking North Korean hackers. Many remain unconvinced by the efforts of the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, to answer critics by disclosing some of the American evidence. ... it would not be that difficult for hackers who wanted to appear to be North Korean to fake their whereabouts.
- xnull1guest 12y ago
  The sophistication of the attack is pretty questionable IMO. The malware used can be purchased by anyone on the black market and had been used before by Iranian hackers in 2012. Furthermore, spearphishing emails were used to get inside the network. Furthermore, how would sophistication be evidence against a State actor with (a reported) 7,000 personnel?
  - wglb 12y ago
    When I hear "sophisticated" in the context of a breach, I think "we weren't paying attention"
    - xnull2guest 12y ago
      There is absolutely differing levels of sophistication in cyber attacks. The presence of new exploits, clever persistence mechanisms, evidence of a staged attack involving multiple targets (i.e. attacking a company through a compromised vendor, using a certificate from a prior breach), ability to break out of security boundaries like hypervisors, custom malware, jumping of air gaps, handling of multi-factor authentication, clever use and depth of renaissance, ability to change tactics in response to detection, specialization across multiple security contexts, highly scoped and pre-planned operations; these are some things that suggest higher levels of sophistication. Unfortunately the term is thrown around pretty loosely, limiting the usefulness of the term.
GabrielF00 12y ago
This is the second NYTimes article I've seen that has suggested that the NSA was collecting information on a group while that group was planning an attack, but that the collection or the analysis was not sufficient to stop the attack. (The other article was on the Mumbai terrorist attack). This is interesting and you could look at it a number of different ways: - Collecting data is one thing, but understanding what it means is incredibly challenging and the NSA might not be doing a great job. - Even when they can't prevent an attack, there is still value in having this data so that they can attribute the attack and understand something about the motives and methods of the attackers.
- techrat 12y ago
  Or: - They supposedly were collecting all this info and didn't think to warn Sony about any potential issues.
- mc808 12y ago
  - Or "national security" doesn't mean what normal English-speaking humans think it means. The hack was no threat to the reigning industrial/government structure or the dollar.
chroma 12y ago
> Mr. Jang said that as time went on, the North began diverting high school students with the best math skills into a handful of top universities, including a military school specializing in computer-based warfare called Mirim University, which he attended as a young army officer. I realize I'm not engaging the core topic being discussed, but stories like this are why I'm surprised people like Will Scott haven't gotten in trouble. (I don't want to single him out, but he's the best example I have at hand.) For the past two years, he's gone to North Korea to volunteer teaching computer science.[1][2] At best, his students' skills will be wasted on some silly Android apps praising the supreme leader. More likely, these students will go on to make software for less-than-ethical purposes: wargame simulation, nuclear explosion modeling, missile guidance systems, or network/server subversion. I'm not saying this software shouldn't exist, just that the world would be better-off if the DPRK had more difficulty writing it. And I'm surprised the State Department hasn't fined or revoked the passport of any American who has aided the DPRK in this manner. 1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8869265 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8869265 2. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6829558 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6829558
- thejosh 12y ago
  Yes, and that same argument can be made for pretty much any other country... why teach computer science to US, as they have shown they can't be trusted - they will probably end up in the NSA!
  - burnstek 12y ago
    Not at all. In the US, we computer scientists have a wealth of opportunities to which we can apply our knowledge and education. Presumably in NK, you are limited to doing their government's bidding.
  - chroma 12y ago
    Are you seriously comparing the NSA to North Korea? This is a country that starves and kills millions of its own people. They imprison, torture, and execute their citizens for being related to someone who watched South Korean television. It is quite likely the most harmful regime on the planet. Read some stories from North Korean defectors. Then let me know just how content you are with people contributing to the DPRK's education system. But to respond to your real argument: It's a matter of probabilities. The chance that an American programmer will work on software harmful to humanity is quite small. The chance that a North Korean programmer will do so is massive. Even if the person doesn't want to work on missile guidance or centrifuge control software, they can be ordered to, and their family can be held hostage. There is no such thing as a conscientious objector in North Korea.
astkaasa 12y ago
I've read enough comments about "We already knew that blah blah blah ...", "What's interesting is that blah blah blah ...". Seems that you guys get used to the reality so fast, the only thing you can do is trying to dig into some detail about this kind of news and to avoid the discussing about whether this kind of things is RIGHT or WRONG from the beginning! I'm planing to watch POI for the second time, may your god bless you American, and may there be a real-hero like Reese or Carter. But we all know that most people are just as normal as Lionel, they don't have the courage to face the problem alone. So let's just wait for your bright future. LOL
snissn 12y ago
Gulf of Tonkin. Iraq having WMDs. It's important to hold governments to a very high standard in matters like these.
grecy 12y ago
In 5 years time when this tit for tat results in some massive disruption in the US (power outage or something) people are going to be severely angry and say NK attacked them for no reason, etc. (i.e 9/11) The US yet again going around the world making enemies, and giving them perfectly valid reasons to retaliate.
- xnull2guest 12y ago
  In some sense, this has already happened. The US State Department seems to have been involved, at least to some degree, with the development of The Interview as a propaganda effort (see the leaked Lynton emails) and this has upset North Korea, since it knows the movie would get leaked to its people. The current narrative is that North Korea (or sympathizers) attacked SONY for absolutely no reason - or that they wanted to silence free speech arbitrarily. The United States is regularly hacked by foreign states and regularly hacks them. Hopefully the development of international norms and increased investment in computer security cools global tensions and prevents the kind of infrastructure sabotage that would result in human casualties from happening.
sandworm 12y ago
Anyone else notice this: "We realized there was another actor [South Korea] that was also going against them [North Korea] and having great success because of a 0 day they wrote. We got the 0 day out of passive and were able to re-purpose it. Big win." NSA learned of a 0-day exploit being used by South Korea (not five eyes) and re-purposed it. They had knowledge of an exploit in the wild. Did they share this with anyone in order to close this security flaw? They exploited it. This is not a case of the NSA developing an exploit in house. They took this from the wild. This would seem to confirm suspicions that NSA is/was willing to allow active 0-days to fester, leaving the general public exposed.
- redstripe 12y ago
  Are you suggesting the NSA should be a government funded QA department for large corps and open source? For commercial software the companies who are not finding these bugs on their own are to blame. For open source, the cheapskates who mooch free software without contributing are too blame.
  - sandworm 12y ago
    Yes and no. They are tasked with protecting national security assets within the US, most of which rely on commercial systems. When they find a dangerous flaw in those systems, especially one loose in the wild, they are to help fix it. To not fix it is to leave US systems at risk. "in almost all instances, for widely used code, it is in the national interest to eliminate software vulnerabilities rather than to use them for US intelligence collection" ( quote from the 2013 panel report, not wired.) http://www.wired.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/White-House-NSA-Panel-Report-2013.pdf http://www.wired.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/White-House-...
    - csandreasen 12y ago
      Not all 0-days affect national security assets. Heck, I'm sure there's plenty of software out in the world that isn't even used in the US at all.
  - 12y ago
interesting_guy 12y ago
NSA IS TALIBAN
Eye_of_Mordor 12y ago
Does this mean the NSA hacked Sony (from NK)? Would explain both the 'Sony internal' nature of the attack and the FBI's assertion that this was 'from North Korea'.
shutupalready 12y ago
> General Clapper praised the food; his hosts later presented him with a bill for his share of the meal. Not only are they evil, but they're cheap too. But the fact is that the hosts would have billed for the meal because the U.S. government asked to be billed. The USG requires that officials traveling on business not accept gratuities, gifts, dinners, or anything above a certain value (which is about US$100 -- it gets adjusted for inflation, so it might be higher today).[1] There is an exemption to allow acceptance of gifts of travel expenses of more $100 when officials travel outside the United States on business, but only if "such acceptance is appropriate, consistent with the interests of the United States, and permitted by the employing agency".[1] In this case, General Clapper and his staff probably didn't want to deal with the question of whether it was "appropriate" or deal with reporting requirements, so they just asked for the bill. Or, their North Korean hosts, knowing U.S. policy, were proactive in making up a bill. Either way, the NYT article should have mentioned the USG policy. If they can't get that little thing right, it makes me wonder about the accuracy of the rest of the article. [1] http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2010-title5/html/USCODE-2010-title5-partIII-subpartF-chap73.htm http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2010-title5/html/USCODE-...
- donohoe 12y ago
  they can't get that little thing right, it makes me wonder about the accuracy of the rest of the article. Given they got a small detail correct like the persons present was Gen. Clapper inclined me to trust the accuracy of the rest of the article. Same logic?
  - thomasahle 12y ago
    Not quite. When reading an article I want nearly all facts to be correct. Otherwise it won't do me any good. Now if I sample two facts and one is true, the other is false, it makes it unlikely that the article is mostly true. Sure, it is also unlikely that nearly every facts is false, but that's still not very comforting.
  - shutupalready 12y ago
    No it's not the same logic. If a 1000-word article had 50 misspelled words, would you then say that it was a pretty accurate because it was 95% correctly spelled? No, you'd be horrified. Things like spelling, grammar, and basic facts (the capital of a country, USG policy on gifts, etc.) should be close to 100% correct. That's a lower bound to be taken seriously.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
finid 12y ago
So we hacked them first, now we've imposed a sanction on them for hacking one of our companies. Unbelievable!
- enlightenedfool 12y ago
  We can have nukes. You can't. We can violate human rights. You can't. We can kill your people. You can't kill ours. It's an accepted pattern.
  - finid 12y ago
    Meanwhile, we're training "moderate islamist" to fight ISIS. Not too long ago, groups of earlier "moderate islamist" that we trained joined ISIS. Someday I hope I wake up from this dream.
chippy 12y ago
Something that probably gets overlooked is that Sony is a Japanese Corporation, and that the politics between Japan and Korea are often to be considered.

213 points by sciurus 12y ago

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

Might be me, but I'd be surprised if they hadn't. They hacked so many countries including China[1], Mexico[1], Belgium[1], Syria[3], Iran[4], etc. (after saying that a digital attack is an act of war[2]). I don't remember each and every leak and I don't feel like looking up everything, but they seem to have targeted loads of people in various countries. I doubt North Korea (which is not even an ally) is the exception. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tailored_Access_Operations#Known_targets_and_collaborations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tailored_Access_Operations#Kno... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyberwarfare_in_the_United_States#Cyberattack_as_an_act_of_war https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyberwarfare_in_the_United_Sta... [3] http://www.theverge.com/2014/8/13/5998237/nsa-responsible-for-2012-syrian-internet-outage-snowden-says http://www.theverge.com/2014/8/13/5998237/nsa-responsible-fo... [4] Stuxnet http://rt.com/news/snowden-nsa-interview-surveillance-831/ http://rt.com/news/snowden-nsa-interview-surveillance-831/

GabrielF00 12y ago
I don't believe that the US has ever said that "a digital attack is an act of war". The quote that you linked to says that the United States reserves the right to respond militarily to "hostile acts in cyberspace" if it exhausts all other options and judges the costs of action to be greater than the costs of inaction. The statement is not saying that any cyberattack is an act of war, it is saying that the United States might treat certain attacks as the cost of doing business but that other attacks might require a military response, depending on the specifics of the incident.
- lisptime 12y ago
  or they did: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/01/us/politics/01cyber.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/01/us/politics/01cyber.html?_...
  - GabrielF00 12y ago
    That article is saying the exact same thing that I'm saying.
junto 12y ago
Obama very specifically said that this was 'not an act of war': http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2014/dec/21/obama-north-korea-sony-hack-not-act-of-war-video http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2014/dec/21/obama-n... He has to say this, otherwise the NSA has started an act of war against pretty every country on earth, so it would be pretty hypocritical. Obama knows this, so he can't go and classify the US as starting wars through their own cyber 'crimes'.

phkahler 12y ago

If that's true, who's to say our guys didn't launch the attack from their computers? Why would they even admit to being in there? The NSA doesn't say anything unless 1) they have to, or 2) they want to. I don't see why they would make this claim.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
xnull1guest 12y ago
Certainly false flag operations are a tactic that has seen reliable and regular use, especially in counterintelligence. But what purpose exactly would a false flag operation against SONY serve? Definitely not as a pretext to take action against North Korea - the US could much more easily justify actions against NK than it has many other nations in its history.
- gmuslera 12y ago
  They could use North Korea "attack" to justify more local measures, you know, banning encryption, tighter regulations, more penalties... more or less what has been happening last weeks.
  - xnull1guest 12y ago
    I absolutely believe that attacks are used as conveniences to justify legislative wishlists, but question whether such things are planned in advance like you are suggesting or are opportunistic responses to actual events. Regarding encryption bans I've mostly seen justification referencing the Charlie Hebdo attacks (which are assuredly not a false flag). Personally I believe that North Korean sympathizers were behind the SONY attacks given a number of pieces of evidence, but most heavily the #GOP leaks of emails detailing SONY collaboration with the US State Department and RAND Corporation that point toward The Interview being a strategic diplomacy product.
- archgoon 12y ago
  Playing devils advocate here: <devils advocate> The NSA is arguably having a credibility problem at home in the US. It needs to convince the tech industry that there are enemies abroad who threaten their security, and attacks by nation states (who aren't the US) is something that is real. North Korea is a great scape goat. They can deny it all they want, and we don't care about the diplomatic costs, because it can't get any worse. People can't demand sanctions, can't demand recall of ambassadors, the only thing anyone could demand would be going to war with them, but for the most part, we don't care. They're the crazy uncle of the world stage. So basically, the only problem would be if the NSA got caught lying about it. </ devils advocate> However, getting caught would probably be the worst possible thing for the NSA (remember, there is likely still a leaker inside); as it would jeopardize the main benefit from doing this in the first place. So I don't think the risk versus reward pans out. That said if North Korea IS behind it, the above motivation for speaking out is still valid.

xnull1guest 12y ago

We know that the NSA tapped into computer systems and the backbone of essentially every country on Earth - I don't see how NK would have somehow been excluded. What's interesting is what information the New York Times includes that is not covered in the NSA document, presumably from unidentified officials and former officials. The document on Der Speigel speaks primarily about taking copies of intelligence from SK hacking efforts against NK and also taking copies of intelligence from NK hacking efforts that had in turn been hacked by SK (and in turn by NSA - "fifth party collection"). The document mentions the NSAs unwillingness to rely on intelligence filtered through so many third parties and made efforts to establish its own foothold. Essentially none of the article is backed by the document as a first source and must have come from the unnamed sources.

Alupis 12y ago
I believe the reason this is "a big deal" is due to how the average US citizen reacted over the recent Sony Breach and the US Government's blame of NK (I might add with no supporting evidence, most industry professionals in high doubt, and even some security companies providing evidence to the contrary of statements by the government). The average US citizen was outraged that some other government would have the audacity to hack anything in the US. This article's goal seems to be to point out that the US Government is hacking all other nation's governments, including NK. (pot calling the kettle black)
- xnull1guest 12y ago
  Interesting. I had thought it was common knowledge at this point that the US regularly hacks and is hacked by other nations. I think the biggest splash this article may have is added narrative supporting the truthiness of USG attribution to NK - something that seems to be held in high doubt by a large percentage of the technical crowd (but that I think seems pretty reasonable).
  - onewaystreet 12y ago
    People forget that before Snowden the story was how bad the US's cyber intelligence was compared to China, etc.

timmytokyo 12y ago

According to the article, NSA noticed the first spear-phishing attacks against Sony in September. Yet they didn't realize admin credentials had been stolen until much later. Nor did they seem to notice terabytes of data being exfiltrated out of Sony. Fishy story.

ggreer 12y ago
Fishy? It seems quite likely that such a thing could be overlooked. The NSA was (as the article says) concentrating their efforts on the DPRK's nuclear weapons program. Some spear phishing attacks aren't exactly a priority in comparison.
sandworm 12y ago
Why would they notice terabytes leaving Sony? It's a motion picture studio. They surely have piles of film-related data flowing constantly in and out of all sorts of places. And it's not like the hackers sent it directly to Pyongyang. As a member of the MPAA, probably the most hated organization in the history of the internet, I'm surprised that Sony wasn't under constant phishing attack. Given their total lack of internal security, I would have thought some angry filesharers would have broken in long ago.

Estragon 12y ago

Typical for the NYT to bury the strong countervailing evidence against the official war-mongering story in a couple of paragraphs 2/3rds of the way through the article. Still, the sophistication of the Sony hack was such that many experts say they are skeptical that North Korea was the culprit, or the lone culprit. They have suggested it was an insider, a disgruntled Sony ex-employee or an outside group cleverly mimicking North Korean hackers. Many remain unconvinced by the efforts of the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, to answer critics by disclosing some of the American evidence. ... it would not be that difficult for hackers who wanted to appear to be North Korean to fake their whereabouts.

xnull1guest 12y ago
The sophistication of the attack is pretty questionable IMO. The malware used can be purchased by anyone on the black market and had been used before by Iranian hackers in 2012. Furthermore, spearphishing emails were used to get inside the network. Furthermore, how would sophistication be evidence against a State actor with (a reported) 7,000 personnel?
- wglb 12y ago
  When I hear "sophisticated" in the context of a breach, I think "we weren't paying attention"
  - xnull2guest 12y ago
    There is absolutely differing levels of sophistication in cyber attacks. The presence of new exploits, clever persistence mechanisms, evidence of a staged attack involving multiple targets (i.e. attacking a company through a compromised vendor, using a certificate from a prior breach), ability to break out of security boundaries like hypervisors, custom malware, jumping of air gaps, handling of multi-factor authentication, clever use and depth of renaissance, ability to change tactics in response to detection, specialization across multiple security contexts, highly scoped and pre-planned operations; these are some things that suggest higher levels of sophistication. Unfortunately the term is thrown around pretty loosely, limiting the usefulness of the term.

GabrielF00 12y ago

This is the second NYTimes article I've seen that has suggested that the NSA was collecting information on a group while that group was planning an attack, but that the collection or the analysis was not sufficient to stop the attack. (The other article was on the Mumbai terrorist attack). This is interesting and you could look at it a number of different ways: - Collecting data is one thing, but understanding what it means is incredibly challenging and the NSA might not be doing a great job. - Even when they can't prevent an attack, there is still value in having this data so that they can attribute the attack and understand something about the motives and methods of the attackers.

techrat 12y ago
Or: - They supposedly were collecting all this info and didn't think to warn Sony about any potential issues.
mc808 12y ago
- Or "national security" doesn't mean what normal English-speaking humans think it means. The hack was no threat to the reigning industrial/government structure or the dollar.

chroma 12y ago

> Mr. Jang said that as time went on, the North began diverting high school students with the best math skills into a handful of top universities, including a military school specializing in computer-based warfare called Mirim University, which he attended as a young army officer. I realize I'm not engaging the core topic being discussed, but stories like this are why I'm surprised people like Will Scott haven't gotten in trouble. (I don't want to single him out, but he's the best example I have at hand.) For the past two years, he's gone to North Korea to volunteer teaching computer science.[1][2] At best, his students' skills will be wasted on some silly Android apps praising the supreme leader. More likely, these students will go on to make software for less-than-ethical purposes: wargame simulation, nuclear explosion modeling, missile guidance systems, or network/server subversion. I'm not saying this software shouldn't exist, just that the world would be better-off if the DPRK had more difficulty writing it. And I'm surprised the State Department hasn't fined or revoked the passport of any American who has aided the DPRK in this manner. 1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8869265 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8869265 2. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6829558 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6829558

thejosh 12y ago
Yes, and that same argument can be made for pretty much any other country... why teach computer science to US, as they have shown they can't be trusted - they will probably end up in the NSA!
- burnstek 12y ago
  Not at all. In the US, we computer scientists have a wealth of opportunities to which we can apply our knowledge and education. Presumably in NK, you are limited to doing their government's bidding.
- chroma 12y ago
  Are you seriously comparing the NSA to North Korea? This is a country that starves and kills millions of its own people. They imprison, torture, and execute their citizens for being related to someone who watched South Korean television. It is quite likely the most harmful regime on the planet. Read some stories from North Korean defectors. Then let me know just how content you are with people contributing to the DPRK's education system. But to respond to your real argument: It's a matter of probabilities. The chance that an American programmer will work on software harmful to humanity is quite small. The chance that a North Korean programmer will do so is massive. Even if the person doesn't want to work on missile guidance or centrifuge control software, they can be ordered to, and their family can be held hostage. There is no such thing as a conscientious objector in North Korea.

astkaasa 12y ago

I've read enough comments about "We already knew that blah blah blah ...", "What's interesting is that blah blah blah ...". Seems that you guys get used to the reality so fast, the only thing you can do is trying to dig into some detail about this kind of news and to avoid the discussing about whether this kind of things is RIGHT or WRONG from the beginning! I'm planing to watch POI for the second time, may your god bless you American, and may there be a real-hero like Reese or Carter. But we all know that most people are just as normal as Lionel, they don't have the courage to face the problem alone. So let's just wait for your bright future. LOL

snissn 12y ago

Gulf of Tonkin. Iraq having WMDs. It's important to hold governments to a very high standard in matters like these.

grecy 12y ago

In 5 years time when this tit for tat results in some massive disruption in the US (power outage or something) people are going to be severely angry and say NK attacked them for no reason, etc. (i.e 9/11) The US yet again going around the world making enemies, and giving them perfectly valid reasons to retaliate.

xnull2guest 12y ago
In some sense, this has already happened. The US State Department seems to have been involved, at least to some degree, with the development of The Interview as a propaganda effort (see the leaked Lynton emails) and this has upset North Korea, since it knows the movie would get leaked to its people. The current narrative is that North Korea (or sympathizers) attacked SONY for absolutely no reason - or that they wanted to silence free speech arbitrarily. The United States is regularly hacked by foreign states and regularly hacks them. Hopefully the development of international norms and increased investment in computer security cools global tensions and prevents the kind of infrastructure sabotage that would result in human casualties from happening.

sandworm 12y ago

Anyone else notice this: "We realized there was another actor [South Korea] that was also going against them [North Korea] and having great success because of a 0 day they wrote. We got the 0 day out of passive and were able to re-purpose it. Big win." NSA learned of a 0-day exploit being used by South Korea (not five eyes) and re-purposed it. They had knowledge of an exploit in the wild. Did they share this with anyone in order to close this security flaw? They exploited it. This is not a case of the NSA developing an exploit in house. They took this from the wild. This would seem to confirm suspicions that NSA is/was willing to allow active 0-days to fester, leaving the general public exposed.

redstripe 12y ago
Are you suggesting the NSA should be a government funded QA department for large corps and open source? For commercial software the companies who are not finding these bugs on their own are to blame. For open source, the cheapskates who mooch free software without contributing are too blame.
- sandworm 12y ago
  Yes and no. They are tasked with protecting national security assets within the US, most of which rely on commercial systems. When they find a dangerous flaw in those systems, especially one loose in the wild, they are to help fix it. To not fix it is to leave US systems at risk. "in almost all instances, for widely used code, it is in the national interest to eliminate software vulnerabilities rather than to use them for US intelligence collection" ( quote from the 2013 panel report, not wired.) http://www.wired.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/White-House-NSA-Panel-Report-2013.pdf http://www.wired.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/White-House-...
  - csandreasen 12y ago
    Not all 0-days affect national security assets. Heck, I'm sure there's plenty of software out in the world that isn't even used in the US at all.
- 12y ago

interesting_guy 12y ago

NSA IS TALIBAN

Eye_of_Mordor 12y ago

Does this mean the NSA hacked Sony (from NK)? Would explain both the 'Sony internal' nature of the attack and the FBI's assertion that this was 'from North Korea'.

shutupalready 12y ago

> General Clapper praised the food; his hosts later presented him with a bill for his share of the meal. Not only are they evil, but they're cheap too. But the fact is that the hosts would have billed for the meal because the U.S. government asked to be billed. The USG requires that officials traveling on business not accept gratuities, gifts, dinners, or anything above a certain value (which is about US$100 -- it gets adjusted for inflation, so it might be higher today).[1] There is an exemption to allow acceptance of gifts of travel expenses of more $100 when officials travel outside the United States on business, but only if "such acceptance is appropriate, consistent with the interests of the United States, and permitted by the employing agency".[1] In this case, General Clapper and his staff probably didn't want to deal with the question of whether it was "appropriate" or deal with reporting requirements, so they just asked for the bill. Or, their North Korean hosts, knowing U.S. policy, were proactive in making up a bill. Either way, the NYT article should have mentioned the USG policy. If they can't get that little thing right, it makes me wonder about the accuracy of the rest of the article. [1] http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2010-title5/html/USCODE-2010-title5-partIII-subpartF-chap73.htm http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2010-title5/html/USCODE-...

donohoe 12y ago
they can't get that little thing right, it makes me wonder about the accuracy of the rest of the article. Given they got a small detail correct like the persons present was Gen. Clapper inclined me to trust the accuracy of the rest of the article. Same logic?
- thomasahle 12y ago
  Not quite. When reading an article I want nearly all facts to be correct. Otherwise it won't do me any good. Now if I sample two facts and one is true, the other is false, it makes it unlikely that the article is mostly true. Sure, it is also unlikely that nearly every facts is false, but that's still not very comforting.
- shutupalready 12y ago
  No it's not the same logic. If a 1000-word article had 50 misspelled words, would you then say that it was a pretty accurate because it was 95% correctly spelled? No, you'd be horrified. Things like spelling, grammar, and basic facts (the capital of a country, USG policy on gifts, etc.) should be close to 100% correct. That's a lower bound to be taken seriously.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

finid 12y ago

So we hacked them first, now we've imposed a sanction on them for hacking one of our companies. Unbelievable!

enlightenedfool 12y ago
We can have nukes. You can't. We can violate human rights. You can't. We can kill your people. You can't kill ours. It's an accepted pattern.
- finid 12y ago
  Meanwhile, we're training "moderate islamist" to fight ISIS. Not too long ago, groups of earlier "moderate islamist" that we trained joined ISIS. Someday I hope I wake up from this dream.

chippy 12y ago

Something that probably gets overlooked is that Sony is a Japanese Corporation, and that the politics between Japan and Korea are often to be considered.