Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

North Korea hacked him, so he took down its internet

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 256 posts

Re: North Korea hacked him, so he took down its internet

#141

Post by enkid »

x3n0ph3n3 wrote: post #133
Shank wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The 2nd amendment already has interpretation questions around the first half -- the "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," clause. It could go in any number of directions, from expanding "arms" to include "digital arms" to reducing the right only to "as part of a well regulated militia." See: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/second_amendment But I wouldn't bet money on the right e…

"A healthy breakfast, being necessary for a productive day, the right to eat eggs shall not be infringed" Would you interpret _that_ as meaning we could only eat eggs for breakfast?

It could be interpreted that it'd be ok to ban eggs in other circumstances, certainly. The problem is that it's meaning is so ambiguous that you can't properly tell, especially when considering the arms they had at the time of writing were completely different from what we consider arms these days. If the founders said the right to eat eggs is not to be infringes, would that mean the government would be unable to regulate genetically modified eggs? I don't think so.

Re: North Korea hacked him, so he took down its internet

#142

Post by snowwrestler »

cobookman wrote: post #105
snowwrestler wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The 2nd Amendment says the government can’t infringe your right to possess arms. It does not say that it’s legal for you to use your arms against others to make a point. “Digital arms” are legal to possess in the U.S. as far as I know. Again, that is not the same thing as legalizing any use of them.

Would the castle doctrine apply to your digital residency?

Seems like an imperfect analogy. If you find malware running on your computing systems, it is legal to disable and delete it. But it’s not like the bad guys are physically present within your computer, like in a real life home invasion.

Re: North Korea hacked him, so he took down its internet

#143

Post by wongarsu »

mlyle wrote: post #112
capableweb wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> North Korea is in the state of war with the United States I'm not sure where this comes from, but you're now the second person I see on HN to say this ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29896969 ). Is this "common knowledge" in the US or something? Here is what I said the last time: >> The US and KP are technically still at war (the Korean war stopped with a cease fire, not a treaty) and the US and its allies l…

None of the US wars since WWII have been formally declared wars. They're still wars. The conflict with North Korea ended with an armistice, not a formal treaty. The armistice intended for peace treaty discussions to start 3 months later... and they never really did. The US, UN Command, and North Korea are still operating under a temporary cease-fire that's now basically 70 years old. (I don't think South Korea even s…

If you're technically not at war then you can't at the same time be technically still at war. Neither side declared war against the other or is currently acting like they are at war, thus they aren't at war.

Re: North Korea hacked him, so he took down its internet

#144

Post by reaperducer »

arbitrage wrote: post #50
sudobash1 wrote: post #3

> So after a year of letting his resentment simmer, P4x has taken matters into his own hands. “It felt like the right thing to do here. If they don’t see we have teeth, it’s just going to keep coming,” says the hacker. Frankly, I feel that international relations are going poorly enough without vigilantes poking the bear. And also, I doubt that bringing down their network infrastructure will have the desired effect o…

NK's capabilities are vastly overblown. Calling it a "bear" is part of their disinformation strategy, just like Russia. You're amplifying their propaganda.

NK's capabilities are vastly overblown. Calling it a "bear" is part of their disinformation strategy, just like Russia.

Calling it a "bear" is utilizing the common expression "Don't poke the bear," not an assessment of North Korea's abilities.

Re: North Korea hacked him, so he took down its internet

#145

Post by [deleted] »

gowld wrote: post #100
TedDoesntTalk wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed. This is immensely foolish on his part. And he can rest assured that his identity is known. One crime does not justify another.

NK committed a sovereign act of war, not a crime. NK is not under common jurisdiction as the victim.

[deleted]

Re: North Korea hacked him, so he took down its internet

#146

Post by YPCrumble »

DietaryNonsense wrote: post #124
DietaryNonsense wrote: post #13

I see comments saying that he may be interfering with actual operations against NK or that now that he has done this they are more likely to patch their systems and be more secure, contradicting his own intentions. It's also entirely possible that this action, including the WIRED article and it's high visibility, is part of a broader effort and strategy. In reality we just won't know in this type of situation. Any ca…

A colleague asked me what I meant by this - what use would a WIRED article have? etc. Targets (individuals, interior or gapped networks, etc) can be difficult to identify or locate and are even more difficult to get access to. Consider that it may be easier to run an operation where you intentionally pseudo-identify a security researcher engaging in his own attack to draw attention. Better yet, this researcher is kno…

So in essence this WIRED article could be a distribution mechanism for the government to provide compromised hacking scripts to third party hackers?

Re: North Korea hacked him, so he took down its internet

#147

Post by boomboomsubban »

tehjoker wrote: post #17

So your tools get stolen and you take down possibly critical infrastructure for huge numbers of people? Terrorism. Imagine someone did that to America in response to the NSA hacking them (read, most of the world's population all the time since the Bush administration). We celebrate that when it's done to official enemies.

I'd bet that this hacker has personally been targeted by US intelligence agencies, if not before this event certainly after. Yet somehow I doubt he will attempt to take down the entire cointries internet or start a FU USA group.

Re: North Korea hacked him, so he took down its internet

#148

Post by kmeisthax »

hawski wrote: post #9
ballenf wrote: post #2

I would have advised him to stay quiet about this. Not out of fear of the North Koreans, but out of fear of our own security agencies seeing the activity as interfering in international relations. Also the vagueness of our hacking laws probably make what he did a crime. But I also am immensely proud that we have people willing to take things into their own hands when needed. Also, I feel like the 2nd amendment should…

Encryption was considered a weapon previously, which resulted in an export ban. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export_of_cryptography_from_...

...and the parent post's argument was already made by xkcd: https://xkcd.com/504/

Re: North Korea hacked him, so he took down its internet

#149

Post by mndgs »

Waterluvian wrote: post #51
ballenf wrote: post #2

I would have advised him to stay quiet about this. Not out of fear of the North Koreans, but out of fear of our own security agencies seeing the activity as interfering in international relations. Also the vagueness of our hacking laws probably make what he did a crime. But I also am immensely proud that we have people willing to take things into their own hands when needed. Also, I feel like the 2nd amendment should…

The other day I read a (possibly wrong, fictional, or dramatized) account of some private group hacking Belorussian railways to impede Russian military logistics. I'm sure this is not new, but to me it is a fascinating concept: the modern era equivalent of Partisan soldiers, conducting cyber warfare in their jammies.

It's a real thing, live and ongoing. They have a Telegram channel https://t.me/cpartisans and also a promotional video on YouTube for how to defeat Lukashenko, the only dictator in Europe: https://youtu.be/UldT78OjlvE

They did manage to induce mess on Belarus railways transporting Russian military equipment to Ukrainian border. It probably stalled, but still didn't prevent Russian military reaching the Ukrainian border through Belarus.

Re: North Korea hacked him, so he took down its internet

#150

Post by whakim »

voakbasda wrote: post #97
snowwrestler wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The 2nd Amendment says the government can’t infringe your right to possess arms. It does not say that it’s legal for you to use your arms against others to make a point. “Digital arms” are legal to possess in the U.S. as far as I know. Again, that is not the same thing as legalizing any use of them.

Not being able to use arms absolutely is an infringement of the right to bear them. I mean, how would it be different if we claimed that you can own a gun but not shoot it? One point that gets lost about the 2nd Amendment is that it should be considered an inalienable right. Meaning, it cannot be diminished by any law of man. Consequently, most of the gun laws can be viewed as fundamentally unconstitutional, and any…

> Not being able to use arms absolutely is an infringement of the right to bear them.

That doesn't follow. The right to own something does not imply the right to use it.

> One point that gets lost about the 2nd Amendment is that it should be considered an inalienable right. Meaning, it cannot be diminished by any law of man. Consequently, most of the gun laws can be viewed as fundamentally unconstitutional, and any attempts to enforce them are illegal.

The Constitution does not and cannot bestow inalienable rights.

Post reply on HN