Support NeoGAF

[FStop7]

if that's true then this person is going to jail for a long time for those bomb threats.

 

[Fixed2BeBroken]

If you don't want people to deconstruct arguments you make, you shouldn't be on a discussion forum.

I dont think I stated that, you are stating that. I stated what I had to say and made it fairly clear, we are the point where Im just repeating a very simple concept and you just keep rehashing it for no reason other than to try to have the last word.

smh

 

[MIMIC]

Let's break it down:

* The FBI concludes that it was North Korea who did it.
* The FBI explains why they think North Korea did it



Now, again, what I'm saying is, if anyone wants to disprove or have found evidence that can overturn any of this, they can go right ahead and do so. That's not on the FBI though. Coming up with excuses and presenting flimsy "evidence" is not gonna cut it.

That "evidence" itself has already been shown to be flimsy:

The FBI says the attack came from IP addresses — unique computer addresses — that trace back to North Korea.

But Scott Petry, a network security analyst with the firm Authentic8 says, you can spoof an IP address from anywhere in the world.

"The fact that data was relayed through IPs associated with North Korea is not a smoking gun," Petry says. "There are products today that will route traffic through IP addresses around the world."

Meaning traffic that appears to come from Pyongyang could have originated in Moscow or Baltimore.

The FBI also says the hackers used malicious software that North Korea has used in other cyberattacks.

Petry counters that, in the world of cyberattacks, criminals constantly are recycling code. A well-known attack against banks called the Zeus Trojan went open source a few years ago — so when a financial institution gets hit, the same malware often shows up.

NPR

First off, we have to say that attribution in breaches is difficult. Assertions about who is behind any attack should be treated with a hefty dose of skepticism. Skilled hackers use proxy machines and false IP addresses to cover their tracks or plant false clues inside their malware to throw investigators off their trail. When hackers are identified and apprehended, it’s generally because they’ve made mistakes or because a cohort got arrested and turned informant.

Wired

 

[Fixed2BeBroken]

That "evidence" itself has already been shown to be flimsy:


NPR

Wired

well apparently since they aren't the FBI, we are not allowed to speculate and just need to Believe the FBI only being that their evidence is superior even tho it isn't?, at least that's what I'm being told in this very thread.

 

[Amir0x]

smh

smh

smh.

smh

smh

smh

So failing movement of Fixed2BeBroken's empty arguments, I present actual evidence (unlike the OP) of how many times he used "smh" in this topic to bolster his posts.

at least that's what I'm being told in this very thread.

Nobody told you that, learn to read.

 

[Patapwn]

based on the link provided, provided by the FBI, there were 3 bullet points, and all 3 just essentially stated "this hack seems similar to that hack"
that's literally the tl:dr version and to argue otherwise is silly.

not a Ton of evidence. and definitely not definitive.

It's not definitive but it is a ton of evidence. The thing that convinces me is that the attack software was so similar to other attacks by NK right down to lines of code.

How could a disgruntled ex sony pictures employee get a hold of that?

As for the hackers having knowledge of American culture and English, anyone can obtain this. If NK worked with outside agents (which they most likely did) they could have been the ones with this kind of information. There's no problem here for the 'NK is the perpetrator" theory

 

[Fixed2BeBroken]

How could a disgruntled ex sony pictures employee get a hold of that?

you'd be surprised

Nobody told you that, learn to read.

 

[Patapwn]

you'd be surprised

Surprise me

 

[kmax]

That "evidence" itself has already been shown to be flimsy:


NPR

Wired

And alas, we are where we are. There will always be doubt in situations like these, and that's only natural.

With that said, I think I'm going to trust the Cyber division of The FBI rather than experts who want to take a crack at them without actually presenting evidence that shows that it wasn't North Korea.

 

[Fixed2BeBroken]

Surprise me

why don't you surprise me? why could they not?

 

[MIMIC]

1. We (the western world) didn't like them before. This didn't change our opinions.
2. So what? This in no way explains why we would use them as a scapegoat now.
3. So what? Did this cyber attack have any affect on those relations? We're not attacking them for either offence as well.
4. & 5. The US already sanctions NK and the west doesn't need more reasons to add more.

You asked for a motive to lie about North Korea. You were given 5. WORSENING the situation was not the argument.

 

[Oersted]

● Technical analysis of the data deletion malware used in this attack revealed links to other malware that the FBI knows North Korean actors previously developed.
● There were similarities in specific lines of code.
● There were similarities in encryption algorithms.
● There were similarities in data deletion methods.

They claimed it was North Korea behind these attacks, yes. This is not knowing, it is actual still disputed in the infosec community.
Reusing code is not a exception, it is standard on the black market. You can guess why. The softwares in question have been leaked years ago.

● There were similarities in compromised networks.
● The FBI also observed significant overlap between the infrastructure used in this attack and other malicious cyber activity the U.S. government has previously linked directly to North Korea.
● In one example given, the FBI discovered that several Internet protocol (IP) addresses associated with known North Korean infrastructure communicated with IP addresses that were hardcoded into the data deletion malware used in this attack.

The similarities are based on the IP adress found. IPs, as you may know, can be permanent or change within seconds. Furthermore, they are public Tor IPs, used for all kinds of malwares in the past, by a variety of cybercriminals. This is, like reusing the publically available malware, a standard practice.

 

[whatever77]

Why-not-both.jpg

Apparently the methods were incredibly similar to a previous NK hack.

What's the chance of 2 groups of robbers rob the same bank at the same time?

 

[BobLoblaw]

Hmm...securityledger.com vs the FBI/President. I think I'll give the FBI/President the benefit of the doubt.

 

[Patapwn]

why don't you surprise me? why could they not?

The hackers used a particular kind of software unique to previous attacks by NK. How could some ex sony employee get their grubby hands on this? That's a fair question no?

It seems highly implausible to get a hold of this kind of north korean software without the direct aid of NK therefore NK must have had a hand in this attack. Thats the logic I'm using to make my conclusion. But If you can show how it's not highly implausible I'm willing to here you out

 

[Fenderputty]

You asked for a motive to lie about North Korea. You were given 5. WORSENING the situation was not the argument.

Those 5 motives make all of ZERO sense. That's what I was saying.

 

[Fixed2BeBroken]

How can I prove a negative?

The hackers used a particular kind of software unique to previous attacks by NK. How could some ex sony employee get their grubby hands on this? That's a fair question no?

It seems highly implausible without the direct aid of NK therefore NK must have had a hand in this attack. Thats the logic I'm using to make my conclusion. But If you can show how it's not highly implausible I'm willing to here you out

did you just ignore Oersted's post completely?

 

[Amir0x]

They claimed it was North Korea behind these attacks, yes. This is not knowing, it is actual still disputed in the infosec community.
Reusing code is not a exception, it is standard on the black market. You can guess why. The softwares in question have been leaked years ago.

The similarities are based on the IP adress found. IPs, as you may know, can be permanent or change within seconds. Furthermore, they are public Tor IPs, used for all kinds of malwares in the past, by a variety of cybercriminals. This is, like reusing the publically available malware, a standard practice.

The argument is not 'whether or not the FBI's case is fullproof', it's 'whether or not the theory in the OP is a plausible alternative.'

The 'evidence' in the OP is, as presented, infinitely weaker than what the FBI has showed us. So even if you think the FBI's case is weak, the OP's theory has evidence still far weaker yet.

So, it's not about the FBI potentially being wrong or not. It's about which theory is currently the most plausible based on evidence presented. The FBI wins so far.

 

[MIMIC]

And alas, we are where we are. There will always be doubt in situations like these, and that's only natural.

With that said, I think I'm going to trust the Cyber division of The FBI rather than experts who want to take a crack at them without actually presenting evidence that shows that it wasn't North Korea.

So in other words, do the FBI's job and prove who it REALLY was? That's not how it works. The burden of proof rests with the accuser. And most security experts agree the accuser's proof is flimsy. The evidence is so far is circumstantial.

Those 5 motives make all of ZERO sense. That's what I was saying.

So it makes zero sense for two countries that hate each other to lie about the other one? OK.

 

[Fixed2BeBroken]

The argument is not 'whether or not the FBI's case is fullproof', it's 'whether or not the theory in the OP is a plausible alternative.'

The 'evidence' in the OP is, as presented, infinitely weaker than what the FBI has showed us. So even if you think the FBI's case is weak, the OP's theory has evidence still far weaker yet.

surely other discussions that branch off from OP in regards to the OP can be had and discussed in a thread can it not?

 

[Patapwn]

did you just ignore Oersted's post completely?

Where can I get this kind of software on the black market?

 

[dramatis]

based on the link provided, provided by the FBI, there were 3 bullet points, and all 3 just essentially stated "this hack seems similar to that hack"
that's literally the tl:dr version and to argue otherwise is silly.

not a Ton of evidence. and definitely not definitive.

At what point do you determine when enough evidence is a TON of evidence?

The FBI may not have provided definitive evidence, but I think they did provide a significant amount of evidence and explanation for why that evidence would link the hack to NK.

I feel like you're perpetually hammering on your "not a ton of evidence" argument when the FBI had provided the rough equivalent of airline tickets, hotel reservations, and gas station receipts leading between travel points, and you're still claiming it's not enough evidence of travel.

 

[Fixed2BeBroken]

At what point do you determine when enough evidence is a TON of evidence?

The FBI may not have provided definitive evidence, but I think they did provide a significant amount of evidence and explanation for why that evidence would link the hack to NK.

I feel like you're perpetually hammering on your "not a ton of evidence" argument when the FBI had provided the rough equivalent of airline tickets, hotel reservations, and gas station receipts leading between travel points, and you're still claiming it's not enough evidence of travel.

when I think a TON...

I think like more bullet points than 3. Probably like 10 or more.

I mean, when we throw around the word "TON" I'm usually thinking more than triple.

 

[kmax]

So in other words, do the FBI's job and prove who it REALLY was? That's not how it works. The burden of proof rests with the accuser. And most security experts agree the accuser's proof is flimsy. The evidence is so far is circumstantial.

If these experts got a better explanation, we're all ears.

 

[Amir0x]

surely other discussions that branch off from OP in regards to the OP can be had and discussed in a thread can it not?

Do you just like come up with an idea of what you wish people were posting, and then respond to them? Because reading clearly isn't what you're doing. Nothing in this post is even tangentially related to what I said.

 

[Fixed2BeBroken]

Do you just like come up with an idea of what you wish people were posting, and then respond to them? Because reading clearly isn't what you're doing. Nothing in this post is even tangentially related to what I said.

oh it is, but you want to continue to insult me. but I can take it so go ahead. get it all out

 

[Patapwn]

If these experts got a better explanation, we're all ears.

1. Sony employee got fired for taking a big dump and not flushing the toilet

2. Proceeds to buy the north korean special on the hacker black market

3. somehow uses ip addresses that NK coincidentally used in previous attacks

4. lets the 'lulz' ensue

 

[Amir0x]

oh it is, but you want to continue to insult me. but I can take it so go ahead. get it all out

No, it isn't. It's not an insult to call a spade a spade. You are not reading at all and you're just making shit up. THAT should insult your own sensibilities.

Please, point to the -precise- lines in what you quoted that says anything about other discussions that branch off from the OP can't be discussed? Since you've read it and all.

 

[Busty]

I've never been convinced by the North Korea hypothesis. While I'm no conspiracy theorist, it seemed too easy to be true and didn't look like the DPRC's style.

Agreed. I always assumed that this North Korea narrative was adopted by the media in 'monkey see, monkey do' (The Interview is set in North Korea.., GO!) thinking and then hackers simply 'leaned into it' in an effort to steer an accusations away from themselves.

I also feel that at this point the hackers will never really be caught or will be brought to justice 12 months or more from now when the media has turned their spotlight onto something else and no one cares anymore.

 

[Fixed2BeBroken]

No, it isn't. It's not an insult to call a spade a spade. You are not reading at all and you're just making shit up. THAT should insult your own sensibilities.

Please, point to the -precise- lines in what you quoted that says anything about other discussions that branch off from the OP can't be discussed?

he stated what he wanted to state in regards to your post. regardless of your argument, he is responding with he feels is an appropriate response. you are trying to nullify what he says as if it doesn't matter because you feel your argument is "this" and the only way to counter the argument is in the way you want it to be countered, and your way and your terms. but that's not how conversations work.

just because your argument might be about one thing, his response to part of your argument can and may state something else.

 

[MIMIC]

If these experts got a better explanation, we're all ears.

Nobody has a better explanation of who exactly it was. It's just that jumping the gun and outright accusing someone based on circumstantial evidence is premature. "We don't know and are still looking" is still a good answer.

 

[Fixed2BeBroken]

Nobody has a better explanation of who exactly it was. It's just that jumping the gun and outright accusing someone based on circumstantial evidence is premature. "We don't know and are still looking" is still a good answer.

agreed

 

[Oersted]

The hackers used a particular kind of software unique to previous attacks by NK. How could some ex sony employee get their grubby hands on this? That's a fair question no?

It seems highly implausible to get a hold of this kind of north korean software without the direct aid of NK therefore NK must have had a hand in this attack. Thats the logic I'm using to make my conclusion. But If you can show how it's not highly implausible I'm willing to here you out

Edit: Forgive me, fixed url

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shamoon

Give it a read, you might be surprised how far this software unique to North Korea is widespread.

So, it's not about the FBI potentially being wrong or not. It's about which theory is currently the most plausible based on evidence presented. The FBI wins so far.

For you it is not about FBI being potentially wrong, yes. Still,you provided the claims by the FBI and I explained why their "evidence" is circumstantial at best. Thats all.

 

[Amir0x]

he stated what he wanted to state in regards to your post. regardless of your argument, he is responding with he feels is an appropriate response. you are trying to nullify what he says as if it doesn't matter because you feel your argument is "this" and the only way to counter the argument is in the way you want it to be countered, and your way and your terms. but that's not how conversations work.

just because your argument might be about one thing, his response to part of your argument can and may state something else.

This is some truly next level bullshit. No wonder you believe in conspiracy nonsense.

My argument is indisputably one thing. If he wants to prove my argument wrong, he has to address the argument, not some other random point that has nothing to do with what I said. Not prop up a strawman and then attack it.

He is free to RESPOND any way he chooses, and I am free to rightfully say he is not actually addressing the arguments. A surefire way to not get your point across is to try to argue against shit nobody is even saying.

 

[kmax]

Nobody has a better explanation of who exactly it was. It's just that jumping the gun and outright accusing someone based on circumstantial evidence is premature. "We don't know and are still looking" is still a good answer.

I'm sure The FBI made a thorough investigation and had the information available to them to conclude their findings, considering that they had direct access and cooperated with Sony and all.

 

[Fixed2BeBroken]

This is some truly next level bullshit. No wonder you believe in conspiracy nonsense.

My argument is indisputably one thing. If he wants to prove my argument wrong, he has to address the argument, not some other random point that has nothing to do with what I said. Not prop up a strawman and then attack it.

He is free to RESPOND any way he chooses, and I am free to rightfully say he is not actually addressing the arguments. A surefire way to not get your point across is to try to argue against shit nobody is even saying.

his argument did have to do with something you said tho, and to claim otherwise is just silly.

His response is valid, cause he is countering your argument, with a different argument. that is possible you know.

 

[kamorra]

Might as well open a new thread. This one is now about Amir0x and Fixed2BeBroken. Too bad since the topic is pretty interesting.

 

[Patapwn]

http://en.www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shamoon

Give it a read, you might be surprised how far this software unique to North Korea is widespread.

dead link

Edit: I know what the problem is

 

[Amir0x]

his argument did have to do with something you said tho, and to claim otherwise is just silly.

His response is valid, cause he is countering your argument, with a different argument. that is possible you know.

My argument is not that the FBI's evidence is fullproof. It is that the case the FBI presented is significantly stronger than this theory in the OP with essentially zero evidence. Therefore, that is the only theory that is currently plausible. A theory is only plausible when there is evidence to support it.

So, if someone wants to make an argument that tries to attack a position other than this, they are free to do it, and I will once again point out they're arguing a position I am not taking, nor are they properly addressing the whole problem people have with the OP.

 

[MoonsaultSlayer]

I'm still waiting for a conspiracy theorist to propose a motive for the conspiracy.

"While everyone was focused on the Sony hacks (plural), Obama forced another law closer to taking our guns/freedom/money"

or

"While everyone was focused on the Sony hacks, Obama forced a military couple to move their wedding so he can golf."

 

[dramatis]

when I think a TON...

I think like more bullet points than 3. Probably like 10 or more.

I mean, when we throw around the word "TON" I'm usually thinking more than triple.

• If
• my
• argument
• is
• posted
• like
• this
• is
• it
• more
• substantial?

You're overly fixated on the number of bullet points and instead fail to examine the content of the bullet points, which do provide healthy amounts of evidence.

 

[ersocaster]

I mean, that was pretty much something certain. A huge hole like this wouldnt happen without someone on the inside helping. Doesnt necessarily mean it wasnt orchestrated by NK.

Exactly. Not to mention the research makes a lot of assumptions.

 

[Fixed2BeBroken]

• If
• my
• argument
• is
• posted
• like
• this
• is
• it
• more
• substantial?

You're overly fixated on the number of bullet points and instead fail to examine the content of the bullet points, which do provide healthy amounts of evidence.

i disagree that it was a healthy amount, people have provided good reason already as to why in this thread

 

[Oersted]

I mean, that was pretty much something certain. A huge hole like this wouldnt happen without someone on the inside helping. Doesnt necessarily mean it wasnt orchestrated by NK.

As a matter of fact, it still has to be proven that only one source is behind the attacks.

 

[Dr.Acula]

I knew the Patriots were responsible.

Is this a reference to something? I've never heard of the La-li-lu-le-lo.

 

[dramatis]

i disagree that it was a healthy amount, people have provided good reason already as to why in this thread

No, what the other posters have provided is why the evidence provided is not decisive. The quantity of evidence is actually significant.

 

[Fixed2BeBroken]

No, what the other posters have provided is why the evidence provided is not decisive. The quantity of evidence is actually significant.

i disagree, what I would feel is significant is more evidence that wasn't flimsy.

having a bunch of flimsy evidence (which isnt even technicallly alot) does nothing for me and my opinion.

 

[Oersted]

• If
• my
• argument
• is
• posted
• like
• this
• is
• it
• more
• substantial?

You're overly fixated on the number of bullet points and instead fail to examine the content of the bullet points, which do provide healthy amounts of evidence.

Problem is, we still lack evidence. Reused software and reused compromised networks only proof that they access to the darkweb. And thats it.

 

[MIMIC]

I'm sure The FBI made a thorough investigation and had the information available to them to conclude their findings, considering that they had direct access and cooperated with Sony and all.

We still don't know who was behind the Target/Neiman Marcus breach and that was a year ago, but within a few days of investigating, the FBI had already pinned the Sony breach on North Korea. I doubt the investigation was thorough...and it's not surprising that all of the proof is circumstantial, given how quick they were to blame someone.

 

[Patapwn]

@Oersted

note: I have a very basic understanding of the hacking world, the only programming I've done is a visual basic class in college

So with that said, the page I read was really just a description of what the particular virus is, how it operates and a note about its use a year or so ago. There's no mention of how to get ahold of it, or of other virus that carry out the same/similar functions. My understanding is that this kind of software was a variant of an existing virus that NK seems to have come up with and used in the past.

Are you saying that any theoretical hacker can get ahold of this virus and start crafting their own variant? Is such a thing even common in the hacking world? I've read before that the malware used isn't very sophisticated, how many other kinds of viruses are out in the ether that preform the same function as the one used on sony? And would such a thing be difficult to code?