Talk for Article "Take part: Washington blames Pyongyang for WannaCry cyberattack"

Talk about this Article

  1. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

    Where is any proof of this claim by the Trump’s aide?

    If there is no proof for such allegation, it should be stated in the article and written as only an allegations without any evidence behind it

  2. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

    I think that we need to publish articles that don’t cherry pick statements from some officials without any investigation at all, otherwise we are not that far from being another biased news source out there. The article may be named objective because it only states what the Trump’s aid said (i.e. technically we don’t lie here), but I don’t see the point to pay attention to such allegations where no proof is given whatsoever. Unless we are a local ‘US news’ network, of course, discussing all rumours.
    If we go this road, then let’s retranslate all allegations made by officials all over the world, including North Korean ones (we need to give both sides the chance, right?). Propaganda and biased news is based on such allegations and such articles only spread it.

    The article starts “North Korea was “directly responsible” for a cyberattack earlier this year that affected more that 300,000 computers across the world,…” and then adds ‘according to…’, but what’s the point of publishing articles if we don’t check the information itself and only say ‘according to…’? How are we different from other news networks then? Besides, most people will not even pay attention to that ‘according to…’ if they even have the time to read through the whole piece.

    Even if this allegation of a Trump’s aid is worth an aritcle, I think it should include an investigation in whether there are any facts supporting this statement or not. Besides, there’s nothing new to this story as we’ve heard it back in May.
    Some interesting reading might be found here:

  3. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

    Sources always should be checked and noted. Pertinent sources for this article include: Thomas P. Bossert, The Atlantic Council, The Wall Street and USA Today. Wikipedia makes interesting reading. The main public web reference seems to be the WSJ, which is behind a pay well for many people. The publicly available part of the article mostly contains heroic assertions.

  4. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

    Should something be written on the NSA’s usage of the same vulnerability? The Reuters article on the topic covers that point too, and it is related to WannaCry. It may be considered biased though.


    1. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

      That’s the EternalBlue exploit:

      Yes, I think it is worth mentioning. Along with the fact that EnternalBlue was patched prior to the WannaCry attack, to underscore the importance of not delaying software security updates.

    2. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

      I would even say it’s crucial to, like reuters, mention the vulnerability’s origins for perspective. The story has an eery unison in blaming a political enemy for the attacks, conveniently forgetting to mention it was their own NSA’s policy of keeping exploits such as EternalBlue to themselves that made it possible for the exploit to be leaked and leveraged in the first place. Especially when the main trigger of this story is the Trump administration.

      Additionally it would be really valuable if any of the security firms are able to comment on these allegations to provide a less politically charged source.

      Finally I read “based on evidence” and “very high level of confidence” but in a brief search have not found any detailed write-ups which evidence and how they reached the conclusion this is strong evidence. This sort of work is a forensic science after all, whether or not peer reviews have taken place and what their independent findings were really makes or breaks claims like these.

      1. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

        On reviews, the washington quotes Bosserts’ longest list of peer reviews:

        “Bossert said the administration’s finding of responsibility is based on evidence and confirmed by other private companies and foreign governments, including the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, New Zealand and Japan. He said Microsoft traced the attack to cyber affiliates of the North Korean government.”

        If this is all true, surely at least a few of these can support this publicly right?

    3. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

      I’ll incorporate elements from the Reuters story. Not sure why you’d imagine it were biased.

Subscribe to our newsletter

Be the first to collaborate on our developing articles

WikiTribune Open menu Close Search Like Back Next Open menu Close menu Play video RSS Feed Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Reddit Follow us on Instagram Follow us on Youtube Connect with us on Linkedin Connect with us on Discord Email us