121–130 of 256 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In fairness, the bear poked him first...
The article says he downloaded a hacking tool for a friend into a VM that had a back door. Then goes on to say he was “personally targeted”. This is ridiculous.
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…
I really like that 2nd amendment thought. Very interesting.
This is nothing to celebrate. Would we like random people sitting in say North Korea taking cyber revenge over evil regimes they don't like?
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…
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 known to be in possession of valuable tools, after all, the article says so.
Maybe P4x exists or is a fiction, but either way there's a difficult yet traversable route of information that leads to "his" network. Somewhere there's an encrypted volume that presumably holds his cherished tools and information. But P4x knows that the encryption he's using suffers from undisclosed 0day. In fact, the 0day was developed by P4x et al and released into the wild to be found and used in just this kind of situation. The tools that appear to be protected by researcher P4x are actually compromised themselves, meant to be taken. He schedules an interview with WIRED, he talks shit and trashes NK operations, and plays the cocky and justice hungry hacker trope. He chums the water.
There are countless ways that misdirection and narrative can be layered to draw your adversary into a worldview that is the creation of your own. It's not _just_ floors of camo-clad cyberoperaters phishing management types and looking for document dumps.
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…
We’ll it’s interesting in this case, because technically speaking a peace treaty was never signed and North Korea is in the state of war with the United States. So is it really a crime to attack a hostile state?
> “I want them to understand that if you come at us, it means some of your infrastructure is going down for a while.” Doing that is one thing, and certainly won't increase your personal safety. Doing that and telling the western press to embarrass them is insanely stupid. Kim Jong-un is widely believed to have ordered the assassination of his half-brother. And you want to threaten the infrastructure of his country? T…
It's not infrastructure. He attacked a few propaganda sites aimed at outside audiences. He didn't get into their internal network, which is sealed off from the Internet.
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.
Do bear in mind that the way this interpreted under US law is considered by most non-Americans to be completely bonkers, and is only sustained by strong, uncompromising activist pressure. I doubt the NRA would organize a picket to defend your right to run PGP.
I'm not American but if I was and I wanted to limit access to guns, I don't think arguing that the courts should decide the 2nd amendment doesn't actually give the right to bear arms would be the way to go. If you think Americans agree with you and don't actually want that part of the constitution, judicial activism wouldn't be needed.
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…
We’ll it’s interesting in this case, because technically speaking a peace treaty was never signed and North Korea is in the state of war with the United States. So is it really a crime to attack a hostile state?
I'd imagine it is a crime to attack a state that we are in a cease fire with regardless.