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.
Kim's securing Bitcoin to subvert embargoes (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Kim's securing Bitcoin to subvert embargoes (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
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?
Re:Kim's securing Bitcoin to subvert embargoes (Score:5, Insightful)
Where have you been the past year to think that "sensible" has anything to do with the current administration?
Re: (Score:1)
the current administration
What exactly have they done that another administration wouldn't have done?
Honestly, you people blame the specific administration for the flaws in the system. Your attention span is far too low and you are far too susceptible to media influence.
Instead of asserting your interests you blame and whine, enabling such administrations to come to power again because of all the people who get sick of your self-righteous, unjust, and unproductive whining and get especially sick of the people who take advantage of i
Re: (Score:2)
the current administration
What exactly have they done that another administration wouldn't have done?
How many former presidents have openly insulted [usatoday.com] the North Korean leader?
Re: (Score:1)
ok and how does that effect you
why is that significant to anything
that's half of an open insult to be objective
so that is the best example you can come up with? he engaged in insult with some one else who insulted him? that's why he's making your life difficult?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Unemployment means jack shit, allow me to buy and work slaves and I'll show you an unemployment rate of 0%.
GDP is nice, but means little without knowing how that GDP is distributed. I'm sorry, but I don't see the big advantage of someone buying another ivory back scratcher when I can't even buy a decent meal.
Look past your lying media. I mean it's so blatant that even a cave man can see through it lately.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, since you like GDPs so much... Here [wikipedia.org] is a graphic of GDP per capita and state. Let's ignore DC for a moment and take a look at the real states.
Well.... yeah. Aside of Alaska, which is kinda a special case with lots of oil and few people to split the GDP between, I'd have to say that from top to bottom I can't help but notice a certain ... how should I put it, "red-shift".
But I'm sure you can explain this.
Re: (Score:2)
Not everything in the US politics is about Trump, and the GOP ain't Trump alone. Actually, an increasingly large portion of it wishes he wasn't.
What this is about is states and their state governments.
Re:Kim's securing Bitcoin to subvert embargoes (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
There's nothing sensible about poking the North Korean bear.
That depends on why you are poking at it. If it's getting out of it's cage because the door is unlocked, it might be a good idea to poke a bit until the door can get locked.
In the case of poking at DPRK, it must be understood that this bear is actively perusing weapons of mass destruction and the means to use them on the US mainland. Their propaganda is clearly threatening the USA and it's allies. They have, or will soon have the means to attack the USA mainland and are saying they will.
So the problem here is that nobody can guarantee that DPRK won't do what they are threatening. We used to be able to just laugh it off because we KNEW they didn't have the means. Now they apparently have developed the means and continue to threaten to use it.
What would you do? It's one thing for some obviously unarmed guy on the street to yell at law enforcement that he's going to shoot and kill them but quite another when an armed guy does the same thing. One gets arrested, the other gets shot.
You can thank the United States (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I seem to recall that Sadam was fine until he either invaded another country to take their oil (Gulf War #1) OR chose to be uncooperative about harboring extremists within his country and then started talking about having chemical weapons... Sadam's issue was he was threatening those around him. Hindsight is 20/20 so looking back the Iraq war might have been unnecessary and the given reasons to starting it might have been less than accurate, but we cannot know what "would have been" had another course been
And I seem to recall (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And you are just peachy with Kim's totalitarian dictatorship and how his people suffer because he "wont' play nice" with others?
I don't get the liberal mind sometimes. First it's all "#saveourgirls" twitter campaigns because we "care" about the kidnapping of young women half a world away, but when you look at the likes of the Kim dynasty it's all the USA's fault for being the aggressor? It's like you have selective memory and double standards to uphold. Historically the USA was NOT the aggressor in Kore
Talk to me when we overthrow the Saudis (Score:2)
You're argument is all over the place and filled to the brim with right wing talking points, Straw men, non sequiturs and just plain meanness. I know you're trolling, at least I hope you are. Because the alternative is that you're getting paid to spew that stuff by right wing propagandists trying to get us into war.
Re: (Score:2)
The Saudis as bad as DPRK? Who's trolling here?
The Saudis have their human rights issues, to be sure, but they generally are not out threatening the world with nuclear destruction or violating UN anti-proliferation rules for WMDs... Nor are their citizens generally starving because their dictator leader refuses to play relatively nice with the rest of the world. And one BIG thing is the Saudis don't act under the pretense that a state of war exists between it and the USA. They are not threatening us with a
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, the crazy sounding guy is pointing the weapon at you and yelling he's going to pull the trigger... Do you really think you are going to just stand there and find out for sure if he's bluffing or will you defend yourself? Tis your call..
Re: (Score:1)
Anonymous Internet tough guy? Never seen that before...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Trump gave them wanna laugh.
How did Trump help NK leverage Bitcoin?
I would like to believe that. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:I would like to believe that. (Score:5, Insightful)
Sounds familiar (Score:1)
Hey, look, just like the current Republican tax atrocity and Trump's interference with the operation of the ACA.
Re: I would like to believe that. (Score:4, Funny)
And therein lies the problem with electing a known lying conman POTUS.
We've been doing it for decades. Why stop now?
Re: (Score:2)
Which is why we need someone nobodies ever heard of.
Re:I would like to believe that. (Score:5, Insightful)
>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.
Re:I would like to believe that. (Score:5, Insightful)
>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...
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I would like to believe that. (Score:4, Insightful)
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?
Re:I would like to believe that. (Score:4, Interesting)
Wasn't Wannacry based on stolen NSA exploits?
So are they saying that NK stole US cyber weapons, or did they just buy them on the dark web like anyone else can?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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)
Trust (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Really? (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Not enough bad coverage (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Fanboi or clueless? (Score:1)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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]
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Please post your favorite four Obama lies. Thanks.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The fourth "Obama lie" in that NY Times article, under the "First Year" subheading, was exactly that:
So you're not surprised that the NY Times, " paragon of the corrupt media bias" omitted the very stat
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Liar or crazy? (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
The other 25% is when he opens his mouth.
Re:I would like to believe that. (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
>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.
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: I would like to believe that. (Score:1)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but Theo was once rude to someone on email or something.
Why believe them? (Score:1)
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.
An act of war (Score:2)
This isn't an act of a friendly government
Re:An act of war (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Everybody abandoned the cease fire agreement decades ago. Both sides have officially said it doesn't apply anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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)
WannaCry is based on EternalBlue which traces back to the NSA so I thing we need to give them credit was well.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:North Korea and NSA (Score:5, Informative)
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?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
So, this is how it ends (Score:1)
World War 3 - started by script kiddies
Re: (Score:3)
And an Annoying Orange.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm skeptical... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
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 . . .
They did something worst! (Score:3)
Trump WAR (Score:2, Insightful)
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)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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,
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
Consistency would be nice (Score:1)
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.
More than USA? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
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
who can you trust (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Wikileaks' latest batch of Vault 7 documents focuses on the CIA's anti-forensics tools"
"
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
The three questions to answer (Score:1)
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
Re: (Score:1)
wow, is it morning yet? so many grammar errors to fix :( WTB editing or time-travel.
Anyone else find it disturbing (Score:3)
28 Proofs N. Korea did not do it... (Score:2)
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" (Score:1)
Cowardly
Moralizing your failures, the strategy of champions.
I am deeply curious how... (Score:1)
...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.
Re: (Score:2)
Where have you been the last decade...
The war drums with NK have been steadily beating for two decades and only now you notice? Doesn't anybody pay attention anymore? We've been in an escalating verbal and sanctions conflict with NK since the cease fire was signed. More recently NK has been testing parts of weapon systems designed to deliver nuclear bombs to the mainland of the USA while continuing to threaten to do it.
It's been pretty clear to those paying attention that NK was a problem that was only