pose

May 14 (Asia Today) — A North Korean hacking group linked to the country’s military intelligence agency has posed as police investigators, defense officials and North Korea experts in spear phishing attacks targeting South Korean security and policy figures, a cybersecurity company said Thursday.

Genians, a South Korean information security company, said it detected cyberattacks suspected of being linked to APT37, a North Korea-backed hacking group associated with the Reconnaissance General Bureau.

The group is known for cyber espionage targeting people involved in North Korea affairs and for hacking operations aimed at financial gain.

The latest attacks targeted people working in defense, national security and North Korea-related fields. Spear phishing is a targeted hacking method that uses customized messages and information to trick specific individuals, rather than sending generic malicious emails to large groups.

Hackers used personal details to build trust

According to Genians, the hackers used a range of impersonation tactics to lower victims’ guard, including posing as police officers, defense officials, airline ticket issuers and North Korea research groups.

In one message, the hackers claimed they had obtained North Korean nuclear power plant materials and were preparing a program to help researchers better understand the subject.

In another, a person claiming to be a police investigator said a hacking case had uncovered the recipient’s email address on a suspicious server.

The attackers also used publicly available information and personal data obtained through previous hacking attempts to make their messages appear credible.

In some cases, they used actual names, affiliations and background information before creating emotional rapport, such as claiming to be a defense official approaching retirement who wanted to work on meaningful projects with others in the same field.

Genians said the attacks continued through last month. The final save time of one malicious file was identified as the morning of April 17.

The document was linked to an account named “Lailey,” which Genians said was also used in 2022 attacks impersonating the National Unification Advisory Council and the U.N. human rights office in Seoul.

North Korea seen strengthening cyber operations

The report comes after North Korea reorganized and renamed several intelligence bodies.

In March, North Korea changed the name of its Ministry of State Security to the State Intelligence Bureau. Last September, it expanded and renamed the Reconnaissance General Bureau as the Reconnaissance Intelligence General Bureau.

The Reconnaissance Intelligence General Bureau is believed to be the organization behind APT37.

Genians said the use of the word “intelligence” in both agencies’ names suggests North Korea is seeking to strengthen its external information collection, analysis and cyber operations.

Cybersecurity experts warned that ordinary cryptocurrency holders could also become targets because North Korea uses hacking to generate foreign currency.

South Korea’s National Intelligence Service has said North Korea stole more than 2 trillion won, or about $1.4 billion, through cryptocurrency and other hacking operations targeting South Koreans and foreign virtual assets last year. The agency said it was the largest amount ever stolen by North Korean hackers.

North Korea is also believed to use cyberattacks to steal defense, information technology and other industrial technologies.

— Reported by Asia Today; translated by UPI

© Asia Today. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution prohibited.

Original Korean report: https://www.asiatoday.co.kr/kn/view.php?key=20260514010003935

Their Spanish coach is the mastermind of this new PSG, built from the ashes of the superstar era which saw Lionel Messi, Kylian Mbappe and Neymar the centrepieces of a dysfunctional, ego-ridden outfit who never resembled a team.

Luis Enrique, who also won the Champions League with Barcelona in 2015, ordered his players to park egos at the door – or jettisoned those who would not.

In their place is the perfect combination of brilliant individual skill bolted on to a savage work ethic and defensive solidity that will make them a formidable hurdle for Arsenal to overcome.

And the leader is Marquinhos.

The Brazil centre-half arrived at PSG from Roma in 2013, surviving Luis Enrique’s cull of big names because the coach is wise enough to see a consummate professional and world-class defender when he sees one.

He has formed a superb partnership with the formidable Willian Pacho, who played a key role in keeping Kane under wraps until the England captain’s strike in the dying seconds.

Kvaratskhelia and Dembele combined for the game’s defining moment, while 20-year-old Desire Doue – the young face of the new PSG – tormented Vincent Kompany’s side, coming close on several occasions in the second half.

And yet the glue that held it all together was Marquinhos, still peerless at 31, and with the uncanny knack of being in the right place at the right time while exuding calm authority.

To complete the picture, PSG’s midfield of Vitinha, Fabian Ruiz and Joao Neves is the well-oiled engine room linking it all together.

Ruiz’s pass in the build-up to Dembele’s goal was a thing of beauty – but he then reverted to doing the defensive dirty work Luis Enrique demands and which his team seems only too happy to deliver.

ALEXANDRIA, Va. — Former FBI Director James Comey appeared in court on Wednesday, kick-starting a criminal case against him that legal experts say presents significant hurdles for the prosecution and will likely be a challenge for the Justice Department to win.

Comey, who didn’t enter a plea, was indicted in North Carolina on Tuesday on charges of making threats against President Trump related to a photograph he posted on social media last year of seashells arranged in the numbers “86 47.” The Justice Department contends those numbers amounted to a threat against Trump, the 47th president. Comey has said he assumed the numbers reflected a political message, not a call to violence against the Republican president, and removed the post as soon as he saw some people were interpreting it that way.

The indictment is the second against Comey, a longtime adversary of Trump dating back to his time as FBI director, over the past year. The first one, on unrelated false-statement and obstruction charges, was tossed out by a judge last year. Now prosecutors pursuing the threats case face their own challenge of proving that Comey intended to communicate a true threat or at least recklessly discounted the possibility that the statement could be understood as a threat.

The indictment accuses Comey of acting “knowingly and willfully,” but its sparse language offers no support for that assertion. Acting Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche declined to elaborate at a news conference on what evidence of intent the government has. But broad 1st Amendment protections for free speech, Supreme Court precedent and Comey’s public statements indicating that he did not intend to convey a threat will likely impose a tall burden for the government.

“Here, ‘86’ is ambiguous — it doesn’t necessarily threaten violence and the fact that it was the FBI Director posting this openly and notoriously on a public social media site suggests that he didn’t intend to convey a threat of violence,” John Keller, a former senior Justice Department official who led a task force to prosecute violent threats against election workers, wrote in a text message.

The case was charged in the Eastern District of North Carolina, the location of the beach where Comey has said he found the shells. He is set to make his first court appearance Wednesday at the federal courthouse in Alexandria, Va., the state where he lives.

What the law says on threats

The Supreme Court has held that statements are not protected by the 1st Amendment if they meet the legal threshold of a “true threat.”

That requires prosecutors to prove, at a minimum, that a defendant recklessly disregarded the risk that a statement could be perceived as threatening violence. In a 2023 Supreme Court case, the majority held that prosecutors have to show that the “defendant had some subjective understanding of the threatening nature of his statements.”

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court has found that hyperbolic political speech is protected. In a 1969 case, the justices held that a Vietnam War protester did not make a knowing and willful threat against the president when he remarked that “If they ever make me carry a rifle the first man I want to get in my sights is L.B.J,” referring to President Lyndon B. Johnson. The court noted that laughter in the crowd when the protester made the statement, among other things, showed it wasn’t a serious threat of violence.

Regarding the current case, Merriam-Webster, the dictionary used by the Associated Press, says 86 is slang meaning “to throw out,” “to get rid of” or “to refuse service to.” It notes: “Among the most recent senses adopted is a logical extension of the previous ones, with the meaning of ‘to kill.’ We do not enter this sense, due to its relative recency and sparseness of use.”

Comey deleted the post shortly after it was made, writing: “I didn’t realize some folks associate those numbers with violence” and “I oppose violence of any kind so I took the post down.”

What the government will try to prove

John Fishwick, a former U.S. attorney in the Western District of Virginia, said the government will likely try to prove that Comey should have known better as a former FBI director.

“I think they’re going to try to circumstantially say that you were head of the FBI, you knew what these terms meant and you said them out to the whole world as a threat to the president,” Fishwick said, though he noted that such an argument would be challenging in light of Comey’s obvious 1st Amendment defenses.

Comey was voluntarily interviewed by the Secret Service last year, and the fact that he was not charged with making a false statement suggests that prosecutors do not have evidence that he lied to agents, Fishwick said.

Jonathan Turley, a George Washington University law professor, wrote in an opinion piece published Tuesday that “despite being one of Comey’s longest critics, the indictment raises troubling free speech issues. In the end, it must be the Constitution, not Comey, that drives the analysis and this indictment is unlikely to withstand constitutional scrutiny.”

“If it did,” he added, “it would allow the government to criminalize a huge swath of political speech in the United States.”

Tucker, Richer and Kunzelman write for the Associated Press. Kunzelman reported from Alexandria, Va.