It’s been more than three weeks since Sony Pictures employees arrived in their offices to find threatening messages accompanied by glowing skulls placed by hackers on their computer screens, but the embattled studio is still dealing with the fallout. Terabytes of Sony’s internal data has been leaked online. Sony’s been hit with multiple ex-employee lawsuits. Ominous warnings have been issued about attacks on movie theaters that play Sony’s upcoming The Interview.
But we still don’t know a basic question: Who hacked Sony?
The person or people claiming responsibility call themselves the “Guardians of Peace,” or GOP. Early reports suggested North Korea was behind the GOP, and there’s been some evidence of that. But North Korea has denied responsibility for the hack, and it’s equally possible the assailants planted clues leading to North Korea as a distraction.
Here’s why people think North Korea was involved:
The attack looks similar to hacks previously linked to North Korea, according to cybersecurity analysts. In a hack like the one against Sony, the attackers most likely found a way to infect Sony’s systems with malware, probably through an email. Once Sony’s system was infected, the hackers could use what’s called a command-and-control server to steal data. And, as it turns out, the malware being used against Sony communicates with at least one of the same command-and-control servers used in previous attacks attributed to North Korea.
It’s improbable that’s a coincidence, experts say. And the malware itself was developed and compiled on systems set to use the Korean language, another clue pointing to North Korea.
“It’s highly unlikely to see another piece of malware that carries strong similarity characteristics and uses the same command and control server,” Kaspersky Lab analyst Kurt Baumgartner says. “It’s a very unique indicator.”
North Korea has a motive. The leaders of the reclusive nation are furious about Sony’s upcoming release of Seth Rogen and James Franco comedy The Interview, which revolves around an assassination plot against North Korean leader Kim Jong-un. North Korea has called the movie an “act of war.”
The hackers are doing whatever they can to stop people from seeing The Interview. On Tuesday, the hackers or somebody claiming to be associated with them threatened to attack movie theaters that screen The Interview. At least one theater chain has already decided not to show the movie.
But there are reasons to doubt North Korea’s involvement:
North Korea has denied the hacks. The government officially claimed it wasn’t responsible, but praised it as a “righteous deed.” American law enforcement is investigating any possible North Korea links, but so far hasn’t found evidence of one.
It’s easy enough to buy and sell malware. There’s a big black market for malware, and a lot of it is simply traded, repackaged and used again. So the similarities between the Sony attack and earlier hacks linked to North Korea may not be so telling.
The North Korea clues and theater threats could be a red herring. North Korea was making vague threats over The Interview long before Sony was hacked. If random hackers attacked Sony because they found an exploitable weak point, they might have left clues pointing to North Korea and made threats to keep attention squarely on Pyongyang.
It could just be random hackers. Sony has long been a favorite target of hackers around the world. Its PlayStation Network, for instance, has repeatedly been hit by disabling attacks. That’s at least in part because back in the mid-2000s, Sony put software on millions of music CDs that, when put in a computer, would automatically install software meant to make it harder to illegally copy those albums. Sony’s software, however, installed itself without users’ knowledge and exposed users’ machines to security vulnerabilities. Many in the hacker community have not forgiven Sony for the practice, which it ended in 2007.
The Most Controversial Films of All Time
The Interview, 2014 The James Franco-Seth Rogen movie hadn’t even been released when it made its greatest impact. The Interview, about two Americans on a mission to kill Kim Jong-un, has sparked conversations about the tastefulness -- or not -- of depicting the killing of a foreign head of state. But it also is widely seen as having sparked the Sony hacking scandal, as the hackers, known as the Guardians of Peace, have urged Sony not to release the film. The ripple effect of the email hack saw off-color remarks about Angelina Jolie, Aaron Sorkin, and President Obama between Sony executives go public.ColumbiaBirth of a Nation, 1915 Birth of a Nation is held in high esteem as one of the most ambitious and innovative early films. It has also, in the near-century since its release, been derided for its use of blackface to depict black men as sexually rapacious and its characterization of the KKK as heroes. Is it possible to admire a film’s technical excellence while acknowledging that its content is deeply offensive? Many film scholars, who point to Birth of a Nation as part of the foundation of modern film, believe so.Hulton Archive/Getty ImagesThe Great Dictator, 1940 Charlie Chaplin’s lampooning of Hitler came before the U.S. was necessarily ready to hear it -- the country hadn’t yet entered World War II yet. The Great Dictator was controversial both for its advancement of anti-Hitler rhetoric and, at the same time, its turning Hitler into a figure of comedy.
United Artists/Getty ImagesThe Lost Weekend, 1945 Billy Wilder’s frank depiction of alcoholism, anchored with a tragic performance from Ray Milland, was startling for its time. Though it won several Oscars and the Palme d’Or, it had been, before its release, far from a sure thing. The success of The Lost Weekend allowed for fuller depictions of social issues on film, even though it could be uncomfortable.Paramount/Getty ImagesLolita, 1962 This film was perhaps the first of director Stanley Kubrick’s to directly court controversy; the poster famously asked “How did they ever make a movie of Lolita?” and the question was very much worth asking. Lolita, the novel, is a strange and surreal look at an older man’s obsession with “nymphets,” or young girls; the film manages to carry across the same subject matter, though Lolita herself was aged up to avoid outright banning.MGM/Getty ImagesBonnie and Clyde, 1967 Arthur Penn’s depiction of the short, glamorous lives of two bank robbers kicked off the New Hollywood era and scandalized audiences with its over-the-top violence. Bonnie and Clyde made its subjects look like, well, movie stars -- and then killed them in a brutal, seemingly endless hail of gunfire.
Silver Screen Collection/Getty ImagesA Clockwork Orange, 1971 Stanley Kubrick’s adaptation of Anthony Burgess’s dystopian drama features shocking sex and violence, to the degree that the film was restricted within the U.K. for decades. Its central notion, of behavioral therapy as a force for evil, has also provoked debate since the film’s release.Michael Ochs Archives/Getty ImagesKramer vs. Kramer, 1979 This domestic drama, starring Dustin Hoffman and Meryl Streep as a couple whose marriage ends, was upfront about the challenges of raising children and the degree to which married life could be fundamentally unsatisfying.Columbia/Getty ImagesBasic Instinct, 1992 This film made Sharon Stone, for a brief time, one of the most compelling movie stars on Earth. Her role as the voracious novelist and serial killer Catherine Tramell outraged gay audiences who viewed her as a homophobic stereotype, and spooked some men who were unaccustomed to Stone’s forthright sexuality. Either way, no one could stop talking about Catherine, or about Stone.TriStar/Getty ImagesEyes Wide Shut, 1999 Stanley Kubrick’s final film was perfectly in keeping with his careerlong interest in provocation. Eyes Wide Shut depicts a seamy New York underworld in which just about everyone is looking for sex, power, or both. Though the film’s graphic sexuality (including a scene at an orgy) was shocking, it was its depiction of the act of love as a transaction that really unsettled audiences.Warner Brothers/Getty ImagesRequiem for a Dream, 2000 Darren Aronofsky’s breakthrough film, based on the work of Hubert Selby, Jr., was unabashed in its depiction of drugs’ effects. Each of the four principal characters suffers, brutally, for his or her addiction, culminating in one character’s psychotic break, another’s amputated arm, and a third’s descent into prostitution. The film’s miserabilist outlook, graphic sex, and body-horror imagery are as effective an antidrug campaign as exists.
Artisan EntertainmentFahrenheit 9/11, 2004 The 2004 presidential election was ugly to an unprecedented degree, with attacks on John Kerry’s service from the right’s Swift Boat Veterans for truth and this documentary-length Molotov cocktail tossed at George W. Bush from director Michael Moore. Moore, who’d previously been booed at the 2003 Oscars for an anti-Bush speech, mixed together insinuations about voter fraud in Florida and ties between the Bush and bin Laden families into an antiwar statement. In its sheer provocation and palpable anger, it was the perfect film for its polarized time; the fact that it was received very differently by audiences of different political persuasions seemed somehow apt.LionsgateThe Passion of the Christ, 2004 This film, depicting the torture and eventual death of Jesus, was one of the biggest hits of all time. But it hadn’t necessarily had a clear path to acclaim; pre-release, the film was pilloried for perceived anti-Semitism. As audiences flocked over the weeks preceding Easter, some criticized director Mel Gibson for an excessively violent and sadistic vision of Jesus’s death.NewmarketBorat, 2006 Sacha Baron Cohen’s depiction of a Kazakh immigrant interacting with real people stateside showed America in a terrible light; it was hilarious, painful viewing. But for months after the film’s release, questions over just how fair Borat had been to its participants persisted. And Baron Cohen’s career continued to push boundaries of taste, with subsequent movies lampooning gay men (Bruno) and Sub-Saharan African heads of state (The Dictator).20th Century Fox
