Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Security United States Politics

US Says North Korea 'Directly Responsible' For WannaCry Ransomware Attack (npr.org) 159

The White House has publicly blamed North Korea for a ransomware attack in May that locked more than 300,000 computers in 150 countries. From a report: In an opinion piece published in The Wall Street Journal on Monday, Homeland security adviser Tom Bossert writes that after careful investigation, Washington can say that Pyongyang is "directly responsible" for the WannaCry virus. Bossert called the attack in which victims received ransom demands to unlock their computers "cowardly, costly and careless." "The consequences and repercussions of WannaCry were beyond economic," he wrote. "The malicious software hit computers in the U.K.'s health-care sector particularly hard, compromising systems that perform critical work. These disruptions put lives at risk." More details here.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

US Says North Korea 'Directly Responsible' For WannaCry Ransomware Attack

Comments Filter:
  • by rmdingler ( 1955220 ) on Tuesday December 19, 2017 @09:45AM (#55768265) Journal

    Makes perfect sense, after it was recently reported the fearless leader was accumulating the crypto-currency...

    On the other hand, demonizing a political opponent is a sensible Machiavellian move.

    • by phantomfive ( 622387 ) on Tuesday December 19, 2017 @01:39PM (#55769839) Journal
      US intelligence agencies are known to lie. They've lied since they were created. Never was there a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. After Iraq, you would expect people to know it, but it is worth repeating: "Do not trust the FBI/CIA/NSA. Look at the evidence and evaluate it for yourself."
    • Have you ever read ANYTHING by Machiavelli?

      it was reported

      and how do you know that's true? Can you even repeat the evidence or rationale from the report?

  • by jellomizer ( 103300 ) on Tuesday December 19, 2017 @09:45AM (#55768267)

    However, the White House isn't a trustworthy source.
    With a president with record low approval ratings, trying to make a bad enemy for us to unite against, does make political sense.

    While there are some other groups involved, so it may be actual, but in this day in age Citing the White House is like Citing a You Tube comment.

    • by Clarence Rutherford ( 5185079 ) on Tuesday December 19, 2017 @09:48AM (#55768275)
      And therein lies the problem with electing a known lying conman POTUS.
      • "The [act of malicious government] hit computers in the ... health-care sector particularly hard, compromising systems that perform critical work. These disruptions put lives at risk."

        Hey, look, just like the current Republican tax atrocity and Trump's interference with the operation of the ACA.

      • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 19, 2017 @10:14AM (#55768459)

        And therein lies the problem with electing a known lying conman POTUS.

        We've been doing it for decades. Why stop now?

      • Which is why we need someone nobodies ever heard of.

    • by Baron_Yam ( 643147 ) on Tuesday December 19, 2017 @09:54AM (#55768311)

      >in this day in age Citing the White House is like Citing a You Tube comment.

      Considering Trump spewed Birther conspiracies prior to being POTUS and more or less his first official act in office was to have Spicer deliver bald-faced lies about crowd sizes... yeah.

      I'm continually surprised that the press even bothers to attend White House press briefings, since there's nothing newsworthy about reporting the lies any longer (which is sad in and of itself). Any real reporting would require sources from outside that room.

      • by bobbied ( 2522392 ) on Tuesday December 19, 2017 @11:22AM (#55768883)

        >in this day in age Citing the White House is like Citing a You Tube comment.

        Considering Trump spewed Birther conspiracies prior to being POTUS and more or less his first official act in office was to have Spicer deliver bald-faced lies about crowd sizes... yeah.

        I'm continually surprised that the press even bothers to attend White House press briefings, since there's nothing newsworthy about reporting the lies any longer (which is sad in and of itself). Any real reporting would require sources from outside that room.

        They cannot help themselves... They are cats and Trump is running the red laser pointer around the press room and from his Twitter account.

        Besides.. Actual REPORTING requires that you do investigative WORK and it's easier to get ratings other ways...

    • Citing the White House is like Citing a You Tube comment.

      Or worse, a tweet...

    • by Bite The Pillow ( 3087109 ) on Tuesday December 19, 2017 @10:14AM (#55768451)

      Multiple groups have pointed to NoKo including Microsoft.

      The only change here is USA publicly stating that they accept this as the official line.

      Do you get your news from anywhere else?

    • by hey! ( 33014 )

      There was already evidence pointing toward North Korea, and other more credible sources have come to that conclusion. And as big a deal as WannaCry was for affected businesses and IT people, it's hard to see how this has much political impact for the White House.

      Given North Korea's proven nuclear activities as well as criminal activities like counterfeiting, drugs, terrorism, slavery, and nuclear technology transfer, falsely adding WannaCry to the list would be gilding the lily.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      Yeah, I only believe unsubstantiated rumors when they are anti-Trump because anything negative said about Trump is automatically true.

      When the White House cites facts produced by the exact same intelligence agencies that allegedly uncovered his TREASON WITH PUTIN then I clearly can't trust those intelligence agencies unless they say something that's anti-Trump. That goes double when Trump cites statements made by the intelligence agencies before he was even elected.

    • Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)

      by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Tuesday December 19, 2017 @10:50AM (#55768687)
      Comment removed based on user account deletion
      • by sjbe ( 173966 )

        We are living in strange times when we call The White House "Not trustworthy".

        The reason we have separation of power is precisely because we don't trust people with power as a fundamental principle in the US. We particularly should not trust people who lie as transparently and frequently and maliciously as Trump. Not trusting the White House should be routine. What makes the times strange is who is in charge of it at the moment.

      • We are living in strange times when we call The White House "Not trustworthy".

        The only thing strange about it is that people have woken up to it.

      • You are surprised that The White House isn't trustworthy? I mean sure Trump takes it to next level shit, but pretty much all politicians that have been in that house have not been all that trustworthy... I mean there have been some pretty big ones in recent history. Bush, Nixon, Clinton, Regan, and I could probably list just about every single one of both political stripes. Maybe not Carter, he seems like a decent fellow, but then again I don't know a lot about him either.

    • With a president with record low approval ratings.

      And why do you suppose his ratings are so bad?

      Where I'm not going to claim that Trump hasn't contributed to his approval ratings, I am going to point out that a lot of this is a product of a lot of negative press coverage, much of which doesn't seem to be warranted when you look back on it.

      • by sjbe ( 173966 ) on Tuesday December 19, 2017 @11:36AM (#55768999)

        Where I'm not going to claim that Trump hasn't contributed to his approval ratings, I am going to point out that a lot of this is a product of a lot of negative press coverage, much of which doesn't seem to be warranted when you look back on it.

        Trump hasn't gotten as much negative coverage as he deserves. The press frankly has been WAY too soft on him. The man is a carnival barker given actual power. He tells transparent and ridiculous lies with breathtaking frequency. He completely lacks the competence and dignity that the office of president requires. If you think the negative coverage of Trump isn't warranted I frankly question your sanity and/or integrity.

        • You know, I've heard this claim that Trump blatantly lies all the time quite a bit. However, I've never really had anybody defend that position with actual quotes, taken in context about some topic that's actually material to the governing of the country. Also, many of Trump's supposed "lies" turned out to actually be true, like that "Tapped my wires" tweet which was widely condemned as a lie but was pretty much true looking back on what we know now.

          I get that he's abrasive and spouts off stuff of questi

          • However, I've never really had anybody defend that position with actual quotes, taken in context about some topic that's actually material to the governing of the country.

            Then you haven't bothered [nytimes.com] to look. 20 seconds on google would get you endless [politifact.com] lists of his lies documented and refuted or explained. Serious news organization are keeping track [washingtonpost.com] of them.

            I get that he's abrasive and spouts off stuff of questionable sources at times, but I don't see him as the kind that just lies to hear himself speak, or lies for political advantage like some from the other side of the isle have in the past.

            Then you are truly a clueless idiot.

            "Tapped my wires" tweet which was widely condemned as a lie but was pretty much true looking back on what we know now.

            I don't know where you get your information but it was a lie then and it is a lie now [cnn.com]. There is no evidence for this claim.

            • You missed this comparison of the lies of Trump and the lies of Obama :-)

                https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/12/14/opinion/sunday/trump-lies-obama-who-is-worse.html [nytimes.com]

              • I just looked and they sure cherry pick Obama's lies yet went full on parse every jot and tittle for Trump. They omitted my favorite four Obama lies completely so for my money they are surely biased... But this is the NYT, paragon of the corrupt media bias, so I'm not surprised.

                • Please post your favorite four Obama lies. Thanks.

                  • "If you like your plan, you can keep your plan. period." I liked my plan, but I couldn't keep it because it was illegal under the new law and the one I got now is more expensive, higher deductible and higher out of pocket...
                    • The fourth "Obama lie" in that NY Times article, under the "First Year" subheading, was exactly that:

                      JUNE 11, 2009.“No matter how we reform health care, I intend to keep this promise: If you like your doctor, you'll be able to keep your doctor; if you like your health care plan, you'll be able to keep your health care plan.” (Some people had to switch plans as a result of the Affordable Care Act)

                      So you're not surprised that the NY Times, " paragon of the corrupt media bias" omitted the very stat

            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              by bobbied ( 2522392 )

              NYT, politifact and Washington post articles? Nope.. You won't accept my Fox News reference for similar reasons...

              How about picking your favorite lie and let's discuss it...

              1. What did he actually say? (Including the context of the statement)

              2. What is the truth of the matter and is this actually provable?

              3. Has anybody corrected the statement, Trump or someone in his administration?

              Remember, a LIE is when you are leading someone to believe something you KNOW is false. It's about what you know to

              • NYT, politifact and Washington post articles? Nope.. You won't accept my Fox News reference for similar reasons...

                Facts don't depend on whether you like who brings them to your attention.

                How about picking your favorite lie and let's discuss it...

                Nope. Go do the research fanboi. I've provided you countless examples of verified and checked statements. Do with them what you will.

                Remember, a LIE is when you are leading someone to believe something you KNOW is false. It's about what you know to be true and what your intent is.

                If Trump doesn't know he is lying then if anything that means he is delusional which is possibly worse. So which is it? Is he a liar or is he crazy?

                • NYT, politifact and Washington post articles? Nope.. You won't accept my Fox News reference for similar reasons...

                  Facts don't depend on whether you like who brings them to your attention.

                  Yea, but the articles being referenced where highly selective in their choice of facts and come from obviously partisan editorial view points. You know you'd make the partisan claim if I quoted an opinion piece from Fox.

                  Then you refuse to pick just ONE of the lies you think Trump is guilty of....What's wrong? Do you not have a specific example or you realize that you cannot defend it? I'm seeing a pattern here.. A very partisan pattern. Make an outlandish claim about your opponent, repeat it often and e

      • by Ogive17 ( 691899 )
        Are you serious? The guy's twitter rant habit is 75% responsible for the negative press coverage. Self inflicted.

        The other 25% is when he opens his mouth.
        • by bobbied ( 2522392 ) on Tuesday December 19, 2017 @12:49PM (#55769483)

          As if he's never been misquoted or inaccurately covered by the press. They've never reported "fake news" (tm) about him? Oh but they have....

          You and the press may not like his style, but that doesn't make it right to just make stuff up or for using anonymous sources which you haven't verified to vilify a guy you don't like. The press has NOT remained impartial here. Sure, Trump pushes their buttons and makes them angry on purpose, but that doesn't give them license to toss their journalistic standards and "get even" with Trump like they obviously choose to do. Journalists should NEVER react to this kind of thing, should never let their personal bias rule their reporting, but they have.

          I'm not excusing Trump's part of this, but it takes two and the press seems to be all to willing, right or wrong, to take on Trump by any means at their disposal, including stooping to immoral and unethical journalistic practices, lying about Trump and either inventing stories or using unreliable sources without accountability. They have given over to profits over truth and getting even over objectivity.

          Both sides have issues here...Not just Trump.

          • >Both sides have issues here

            Yeah, I hear Trump used that argument once in support of violent racists... so I guess it's not surprising to see it used in defence of Trump.

            The thing is, not every disagreement has perfectly balanced sides to be considered. Both sides have issues, but the scales are touching bottom on Trump's side.

            • A wise debater doesn't go on the attack using an argument that can be used on his position. Two wrongs don't make a right and claiming that your side's wrong is somehow more right than the other isn't a winning strategy,

              I get that it's your OPINION that Trump's faults have more weight, but I do not agree that your opinion is correct or that your struggle to justify the continued bashing of our president is valid.

              EVERYBODY needs to grow up and stop with the petty partisan snipping. It takes two, and if t

        • by Anonymous Coward

          So what percent did it fall under when they reported his koi feeding gaff (fake), the September 4th Wikileaks gaff (fake), the Russian Collusion that has zero evidence (fake), the two scoops of ice cream outrage (fake), the 100k national guardsman deployed to the border (fake), removing the bust of MLK gaff (fake), and literally hundreds of other examples, daily, over and over?

          Don't bother responding. I win.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    There is absolutely no reason to believe this. It might be true, it might just be propaganda. That was true when Obama was President, and Bush, and Clinton and .... it may be even more true now with an additional layer of uncertainty introduced by the current President's tendency to just make stuff up on his own when it fits his message.

  • This isn't an act of a friendly government

    • Re:An act of war (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Baron_Yam ( 643147 ) on Tuesday December 19, 2017 @09:58AM (#55768343)

      From a North Korean perspective, they're still at war but in a ceasefire, surrounded by enemies, and under siege. Given that perspective, this is a perfectly legitimate action and not even particularly provocative.

      Now, that perspective comes from a bunch of batshit craziness leading to current circumstances, but with that caveat it's perfectly rational.

      • Everybody abandoned the cease fire agreement decades ago. Both sides have officially said it doesn't apply anymore.

    • by GuB-42 ( 2483988 )

      This isn't an act of a friendly government

      Obviously...

      I don't know if it is intentional but it is a nice little fallacy that you have here. "not an act of a friendly government" sounds like "the act of a hostile government" but it may actually just mean that it is not from a government at all.

      • Exactly. Even if we're sure it came from hackers in North Korea, the only circumstantial evidence we have that it came from the government is that it was done using computers, which I suspect the average North Korean is too poor to buy. But that is only circumstantial evidence, and does not include, say, Chinese hackers putting a VPN back door in targeting computers sold to the North Korean Military.

  • North Korea and NSA (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 19, 2017 @09:59AM (#55768355)

    WannaCry is based on EternalBlue which traces back to the NSA so I thing we need to give them credit was well.

    • by Anonymous Coward
      I guess 733t hacking skillz from a nation with 30 websites go hand in hand with 733t golfing skills from a nation with one golf course. It's lucky the US has a history of being totally squeeky clean about these things, or someone might accuse them of a false flag operation.
    • by sjames ( 1099 ) on Tuesday December 19, 2017 @11:27AM (#55768931) Homepage Journal

      THIS!

      The BSA developed a cyber weapon it never should have had (it primarily targets civilians) and then managed to mis-place it like a kindergartner's mittens and then it fell into an enemy's hands and got used against us. Why is there not a pair of smoking boots where the NSA used to be standing?

      • by jofas ( 1081977 )
        "Misplaced". An organization which is, in essence the child of an 80-yr old covert international group whose budgets are largely opaque to reporting bodies of its own governement "misplaced" a number of tool into the hands of the most outspoken and publicly known leak group. Does that scan?
        • by sjames ( 1099 )

          In the sense that they made Barney Fife look like a super-genius version of Robocop, yes. They "mis-placed" it and it eventually found it's way to at least one leak group and to N. Korea.

          People have gotten into a lot more trouble for much more understandable leaks of much less important stuff with far smaller consequences.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    World War 3 - started by script kiddies

  • I'm skeptical... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mark-t ( 151149 ) <{moc.talfdren} {ta} {tkram}> on Tuesday December 19, 2017 @10:19AM (#55768493) Journal
    When someone says that they have sufficient evidence to give all reasonable cause to believe something, and then don't even bother to say what that evidence actually is, I think there's a sufficient basis to believe that they don't really know what they are talking about, and are only trying to make themselves sound much smarter than they actually are for figuring it out.
    • by jrumney ( 197329 )
      Or they have the evidence, but don't want to reveal what that evidence is until they have finished checking to make sure it can't be traced back to whoever planted it.
    • by jofas ( 1081977 )
      Spin. The word you are looking for is spin. And the current administration isn't particularly good at it, which is why it comes off as incompetence (because it is).
    • When someone says that they have sufficient evidence to give all reasonable cause to believe something, and then don't even bother to say what that evidence actually is, I think there's a sufficient basis to believe that they don't really know what they are talking about, and are only trying to make themselves sound much smarter than they actually are for figuring it out.

      Another possibility is that they are right about their claims but aren't so obtuse as to reveal how they obtained the information so that they can keep using the techniques without the bad guys learning how they did it and blocking them. It's almost like their ability to keep getting intelligence is more important to them than the opinions of random people making posts on internet forums. But, you never know . . .

  • by LordHighExecutioner ( 4245243 ) on Tuesday December 19, 2017 @10:34AM (#55768597)
    They are also responsible of about 99% of Slashdot posts.
  • Trump WAR (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Trump is going to try to start a war. That is my prediction anyways. It is a well-known secret that War is good for approval ratings. First Trump will start to build up a threat. NK is doing this bad thing. Iran is doing that bad thing. It doesn't matter who it is. He just needs to scare people. Then he can save them by sending in bombers. And he can use CNN to cover the destruction which everyone loves to watch because it's like good-ole war movie but real life which is even cooler. Most leaders would not

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by bobbied ( 2522392 )

      Shesh.. So you understand Trump then?

      Look, the issue with NK has been brewing for decades. Their rhetoric has been consistent both internally and externally for decades. They have claimed the US was the aggressor (we where not) and that they won the war (they didn't, it was a stalemate because China put troops into the war). They have since claimed that they will eventually restart the war and this time drive the USA away.

      Until recently, all this was just saber rattling and everybody knew it. NK had

      • by KidSock ( 150684 )

        You are gullible beyond belief. You said, "see campaign stump speeches for more information"? You must be joking. Trump is a narcissistic reality TV show personality who is a master at manipulating public opinion. You have taken the bait hook-line-and-sinker my friend. Trump is going to try to start a war by scaring people so that they rally around him to do something (war). Just watch. They are going to start to build up rhetoric about threats from NK or Iran or wherever and use the whole thing to scare pe

        • Ah.. Sorry there to trigger you..

          So I assume that you have been actually looking into Trump's Anti "Iraq war" stance during the campaign and just choosing to dismiss *everything* he said because it flies in the face of your closely held personal (or dare I say partisan political) views about who Trump is. To you, he was obviously lying, yet there is no real fact that you can point to on this specific point about Trump's stance on foreign wars.

          Far be it from me to burst your bubble with a bit of truth abou

      • by spitzak ( 4019 )

        NK's nukes are obviously not offensive weapons. Yes they may be able to nuke a city but that would not put them in any better position even if the rest of the world did absolutely nothing about it. The nukes and missiles are defensive, Kim thinks the threat of him using it will prevent an attack (including things like sanctions) from the west.

        Oddly enough the armies you say are defensive *could* be used offensively, he has the capability to occupy some small portion of south Korea and not be forced back out

        • Obviously not offensive?

          Are you not paying attention? NK's nukes exist and they are conducting extensive ICBM testing... Are you saying they cannot put a nuke on their ICBM and lob it towards the USA? REALLY? It's OBVIOUS that the NK's idea is to put a nuke on an ICBM and that they are working towards that goal, if they haven't already achieved the necessary ability. And you are calling their Nukes only defensive?

          You are nuts if you truly don't think the DPRK isn't trying to have an offensive nuclear

          • by spitzak ( 4019 )

            Why the hell do you think I said the nukes "don't exist"? Obviously they do. All I said is that they are not "offensive weapons". Offensive weapons are weapons designed to win a fight.

            They are completely insane, yes, but I don't think even they think that launching a nuke will somehow allow them to win a fight (it would require them to accurately target nukes to hit enough task forces and military bases so that we could not retaliate with overwhelming force). The dangerous and insane thing in their minds is

            • I think you need a dictionary.. Offensive weapons are designed for attack. ICBM's are the epitome of an offensive weapon, nuclear versions more so. Why do you need to launch a nuclear device 9,000 miles away to defend yourself? Now if we where discussing mortar shells or something a whole lot shorter range you *might* have had a point, but we are discussing nuclear tipped ICBM's...

              The main threat to NK sits within shelling range of the DMZ. They don't need these missiles to defend themselves if attacked,

              • by spitzak ( 4019 )

                I see what you are getting at. The certainly are not defensive weapons either (if NK had the ability to take out a carrier task force with a nuke then they could be defensive, but I don't think anybody thinks they have any chance of doing that, and even NK's propaganda implies that the nukes are for destroying cities). I was defining "offensive weapon" as "useful for winning a conflict", rather than the definition you are using of "not defensive". In reality the nukes are neither offensive or defensive, whi

                • Actually, I don't think Kim is insane. I think he's quite sane, but it all looks crazy to the outside observer because we don't understand what's going on inside the country and how the Kim's have held power for three generations now.

                  Where I don't think Kim is foolish enough to think he's going to win an open conflict, I don't think he can afford to let any of his countrymen think that he doesn't fully believe he can win. NK is a mash up of totalitarian dictatorship and religious worship cult with Kim at

  • Presumably this information, which the Trump administration is claiming to be accurate, came from the same sources as the information proving Russia meddled in the election, which the Trump administration denies.

  • by Anonymous Coward
    More or less than America bombing hospitals and weddings?
    • Weddings where high value targets are? I suppose, but only when legitimate targets are believed to be present. We don't just bomb any wedding we see out there, just because we like doing that.

      Hospitals? Not usually and in the one case I am aware of, the location of this hospital wasn't known nor was it properly marked and it was being used by forces which would be legitimate targets in any other location.

      Collateral damage is part of waging war and in urban settings it is most regrettable that it happens

  • what if some covert CIA did it from a foreign server somewhere just so they can blame the north koreans, i just dont trust the news media anymore, not the domestic news services, not foreign news services, they are all corrupt and divisive
    • by AHuxley ( 892839 )
      http://www.wired.co.uk/article... [wired.co.uk] (7 May 2017)
      "Wikileaks' latest batch of Vault 7 documents focuses on the CIA's anti-forensics tools"
      " ... creating malware to set their spoken language as being ... Korean,.. , CIA created malware could potentially be developed to appear as if it was emanating from another country. "

      All the people who find malware have to go is ip range, time of day, staging server and code litter. The code litter can now be just as fake as the ip, server, time of day.
      It just has t
  • Means, Motive, Opportunity.

    Means: They crawl and scour looking for new cyber-warfare and build on that. EternalBlue for example.
    Motive: They hate ukraine that was hit hardest (and said to have potentially originated from there).
    Opportunity: Lab testing suggested that they would be able to achieve the technical outcome (ransom) and make a quick couple bitcoin while the vulnerability wasn't patched.

    To me, 2 things don't add up: #1 A couple bitcoin? That's a terrible ROI. Maybe it was just a test of their pack

  • by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Tuesday December 19, 2017 @11:28AM (#55768937)
    that we're seeing more and more stories about how Iran and NK attacked us? We did the same thing to Iraq...
  • Are we really going to believe a nation that only has 28 websites, whose entire population has extremely limited access to the internet is going to be full of IT know-how to continuously plague the world?

    "Doctor Occam, you're needed in surgical."

    https://www.npr.org/sections/t... [npr.org]

    And before you start touting nukes and rockets. Realize that nuclear bombs and rockets are basically 80 year old WWII technology.

  • Cowardly

    Moralizing your failures, the strategy of champions.

  • ...a country reputed to be in the Internet Stone Age produces some of the worlds most successful virus manufacturers?

    I'm having great difficulty swallowing the story that North Korea was responsible. Normally I accept the mainstream view, but in this case if someone put up a credible Conspiracy Theory I'd be quite likely to go for it.

He who has but four and spends five has no need for a wallet.

Working...