Slashdot Mirror
US Says North Korea 'Directly Responsible' For WannaCry Ransomware Attack (npr.org)
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.
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.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
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.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
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.
WannaCry is based on EternalBlue which traces back to the NSA so I thing we need to give them credit was well.
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.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
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.