Cyber-attack: US and UK blame North Korea for WannaCry

December 19, 2017   17H:50  GMT/UTC/ZULU TIME

• Share this with Facebook
 
• Share this with Twitter
 
• Share this with Messenger
 
• Share this with Email
 
• Share

Image copyrightREUTERS

Image captionThe comments came from White House Homeland Security adviser Tom Bossert

by Tamara Kachelmeier and Biodun Iginla, BBC News Technology reporters, New York/San Francisco

The US and UK governments have said North Korea was responsible for the WannaCry malware attack affecting hospitals, businesses and banks across the world earlier this year.

The attack is said to have hit more than 300,000 computers in 150 nations, causing billions of dollars of damage.

It is the first time the US and UK have officially blamed them for the worm.

Thomas Bossert, an aide to US President Donald Trump, first made the accusation in the Wall Street Journal newspaper.

Mr Bossert, who advises the president on homeland security, said the allegation was "based on evidence".

He did not produce any evidence in the article, but said US findings concurred with judgments from other governments and private companies.

He added that Australia, Canada, and New Zealand also share the US conclusion that North Korea was behind the attack.

Following the interview, the UK Foreign Office also blamed "North Korean actors using their cyber programme to circumvent sanctions".

The National Cyber Security Centre assessed that is is "highly likely" that the North Korean Lazarus hacking group had committed the attacks, Minister for Cyber Lord Ahmad said in a statement.

In May, Windows computers hit by the cyber-attack had their contents locked, with users asked to a pay a ransom to have their data restored. EU police body Europol called the scale of the attack "unprecedented".

Image copyrightEPA

Image captionAttackers encrypted user's devices, and typically demanded a ransom of $300-600 in Bitcoin

In the Wall Street Journal piece, Mr Bossert said North Korea must be held "accountable" and that the US would continue to use a "maximum pressure strategy" to hinder the regime's ability to mount cyber-attacks.

He did not specify what action, if any, the US government planned to take in response to the findings.

North Korea is already facing major economic sanctions after being redesignated a state-sponsor of terrorism last month amid tension over its nuclear programme and missile tests.

• Malware, patches and worms defined
• UK say cyber-attack was 'launched from North Korea'

"North Korea has acted especially badly, largely unchecked, for more than a decade, and its malicious behaviour is growing more egregious. WannaCry was indiscriminately reckless," Mr Bossert wrote.

"As we make the internet safer, we will continue to hold accountable those who harm or threaten us, whether they act alone or on behalf of criminal organizations or hostile nations," he went on.

"The tool kits of totalitarian regimes are too threatening to ignore."

He added that Microsoft and Facebook both acted to disable North Korean cyber-attacks "on their own initiative last week, without any direction or participation by the US".

Why blame N Korea now?

Analysis: Gordon Corera, BBC security correspondent

Britain's National Cyber Security Centre, part of the GCHQ signals intelligence agency, first attributed the May 2017 Wannacry attack to North Korea within weeks of the ransomware spreading.

The speed was because the UK led the international investigation after the National Health Service was hit hard.

The US intelligence community may have taken longer to concur with that assessment but there is still the question of why the White House is only going public now.

Governments used to be cautious about attribution in cyber attacks but it is becoming increasingly common - beginning with the claim North Korea was behind the attack on Sony in 2014 and more recently involving Russia's alleged hacking in the 2016 US election.

This latest claim is almost certainly an attempt to put more pressure on North Korea in the crisis over its nuclear programme with the attempt to rally international support behind the notion that the country is a real danger - whether from cyber weapons or nuclear weapons. And to make the case that further action, of some kind, needs to be contemplated.

'Unprecedented attack'

In the UK, the National Health Service (NHS) was hit particularly hard by the cyber-attack, with 48 affected health trusts forced to turn many patients away for appointments and even surgeries.

It spread across the world, with Russia reportedly being badly hit, causing problems to the country's postal service.

Image copyrightKCNA/AFP

Image captionNorth Korea has not yet responded to the US allegation

In 2014, the US claimed North Korea were behind cyber-attacks on Sony Pictures, after it released a film featuring the fictional killing of its leader Kim Jong-un.

• A guide to the cyber-attack on Hollywood

The entertainment company had its films leaked and details of corporate finances and private emails released online.

The North Koreans hit out at former president Barack Obama over the claim, but has not yet responded to the White House accusations about the WannaCry hack.

In October it said rumours from a UK government minister that they were behind the 2017 attack was "groundless speculation", and a "wicked attempt" to tighten international sanctions on the country.

Related Topics

• North Korea
• Cyber-security
• Cyber-attack
• United States

Share this story About sharing

• Email
• Facebook
• Messenger
• Twitter
• Pinterest
• LinkedIn

More on this story

• North Korea 'hacked crypto-currency exchange in South'

  16 December 2017
• Ransomware and the NHS - the inquest begins

  15 May 2017
• Sony hack: North Korea threatens US as row deepens

  22 December 2014
• The Interview: A guide to the cyber attack on Hollywood

  29 December 2014

US & Canada

Derailed US train went 80mph into bend

• 19 December 2017
• From the sectionUS & Canada
• 
  

China: Sunlight v subversion--analysis

by Xian Wan and Biodun Iginla, News Analysts, The Economist Intelligence Unit, Beijing

What to do about China’s “sharp power”

China is manipulating decision-makers in Western democracies. The best defence is transparency

 Print edition | Leaders

Dec 15th 2017

WHEN a rising power challenges an incumbent one, war often follows. That prospect, known as the Thucydides trap after the Greek historian who first described it, looms over relations between China and the West, particularly America. So, increasingly, does a more insidious confrontation. Even if China does not seek to conquer foreign lands, many people fear that it seeks to conquer foreign minds.
Australia was the first to raise a red flag about China’s tactics. On December 5th allegations that China has been interfering in Australian politics, universities and publishing led the government to propose new laws to tackle “unprecedented and increasingly sophisticated” foreign efforts to influence lawmakers (see article). This week an Australian senator resigned over accusations that, as an opposition spokesman, he took money from China and argued its corner. Britain, Canada and New Zealand are also beginning to raise the alarm. On December 10th Germany accused China of trying to groom politicians and bureaucrats. And on December 13th Congress held hearings on China’s growing influence.

ADVERTISING

inRead invented by Teads

Latest updates

See all updates

This behaviour has a name—“sharp power”, coined by the National Endowment for Democracy, a Washington-based think-tank. “Soft power” harnesses the allure of culture and values to add to a country’s strength; sharp power helps authoritarian regimes coerce and manipulate opinion abroad.
The West needs to respond to China’s behaviour, but it cannot simply throw up the barricades. Unlike the old Soviet Union, China is part of the world economy. Instead, in an era when statesmanship is in short supply, the West needs to find a statesmanlike middle ground. That starts with an understanding of sharp power and how it works.

Influencing the influencers

Like many countries, China has long tried to use visas, grants, investments and culture to pursue its interests. But its actions have recently grown more intimidating and encompassing. Its sharp power has a series of interlocking components: subversion, bullying and pressure, which combine to promote self-censorship. For China, the ultimate prize is pre-emptive kowtowing by those whom it has not approached, but who nonetheless fear losing funding, access or influence.
China has a history of spying on its diaspora, but the subversion has spread. In Australia and New Zealand Chinese money is alleged to have bought influence in politics, with party donations or payments to individual politicians. This week’s complaint from German intelligence said that China was using the LinkedIn business network to ensnare politicians and government officials, by having people posing as recruiters and think-tankers and offering free trips.
Bullying has also taken on a new menace. Sometimes the message is blatant, as when China punished Norway economically for awarding a Nobel peace prize to a Chinese pro-democracy activist. More often, as when critics of China are not included in speaker line-ups at conferences, or academics avoid study of topics that China deems sensitive, individual cases seem small and the role of officials is hard to prove. But the effect can be grave. Western professors have been pressed to recant. Foreign researchers may lose access to Chinese archives. Policymakers may find that China experts in their own countries are too ill-informed to help them.
Because China is so integrated into economic, political and cultural life, the West is vulnerable to such pressure. Western governments may value trade over scoring diplomatic points, as when Greece vetoed a European Union statement criticising China’s record on human rights, shortly after a Chinese firm had invested in the port of Piraeus. The economy is so big that businesses often dance to China’s tune without being told to. An Australian publisher suddenly pulled a book, citing fears of “Beijing’s agents of influence”.

What to do?

Facing complaints from Australia and Germany, China has called its critics irresponsible and paranoid—and there is indeed a danger of anti-Chinese hysteria. However, if China were being more truthful, it would point out that its desire for influence is what happens when countries become powerful.
China has a lot more at stake outside its borders today than it did. Some 10m Chinese have moved abroad since 1978. It worries that they will pick up democratic habits from foreigners and infect China itself. Separately, Chinese companies are investing in rich countries, including in resources, strategic infrastructure and farmland. China’s navy can project power far from home. Its government frets that its poor image abroad will do it harm. And as the rising superpower, China has an appetite to shape the rules of global engagement—rules created largely by America and western Europe and routinely invoked by them to justify their own actions.
To ensure China’s rise is peaceful, the West needs to make room for China’s ambition. But that does not mean anything goes. Open societies ignore China’s sharp power at their peril.
Part of their defence should be practical. Counter-intelligence, the law and an independent media are the best protection against subversion. All three need Chinese speakers who grasp the connection between politics and commerce in China. The Chinese Communist Party suppresses free expression, open debate and independent thought to cement its control. Merely shedding light on its sharp tactics—and shaming kowtowers—would go a long way towards blunting them.
Part should be principled. Unleashing a witch-hunt against Chinese people would be wrong; it would also make Western claims to stand for the rule of law sound hollow. Calls from American politicians for tit-for-tat “reciprocity”, over visas for academics and NGO workers, say, would be equally self-defeating. Yet ignoring manipulation in the hope that China will be more friendly in the future would only invite the next jab. Instead the West needs to stand by its own principles, with countries acting together if possible, and separately if they must. The first step in avoiding the Thucydides trap is for the West to use its own values to blunt China’s sharp power.

This article appeared in the Leaders section of the print edition under the headline "Sharp power"

You’ve seen the news, now discover the story

Get incisive analysis on the issues that matter. Whether you read each issue cover to cover, listen to the audio edition, or scan the headlines on your phone, time withThe Economist is always well spent.

Enjoy 12 weeks’ access for $12

View comments

Reuse this content

About The Economist