Cyber-Warfare: The North Korean response

http://www.piie.com/blogs/nk/?p=8031

Cyber-Warfare: The North Korean response

by Marcus Noland           | November 10th, 2012

We offer the following from the 11 October 2012 (we won’t bother to translate into juche-time) Minju Joson, a North Korean government newspaper, without editorial comment:

The United States Raised the Curtain on a Cyber Armament Race

“The United States is going into full swing on cyber armament development lately. According to news reports, the US Air Force command declared the opening of bids for procurement of harmful programs containing malignant viruses for the purpose of disrupting and destroying enemy computer networks and control centers. The notice on the bidding emphasizes the US Air Force’s quest for capabilities to infect and disable enemy work systems, servers, and other network structures by cyberattacks and establish systems of temporary cyberspace control, and it includes the development of programs for inflicting preemptive strikes against an enemy. The US Department of Defense expressed its willingness to spend $10 million in the initial stages of plan implementation.

Meanwhile, the US Department of Defense’s Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency declared the opening of bids for the development of surveillance programs to monitor the state of security of enemy military infrastructure targets countering US cyber attacks. Some $110 million will reportedly be spent on the development of those programs.

Military experts see this plan announced by the United States as a first step in a cyber armament development race.

Until now, the United States has categorically denied its cyber attack weapon development, saying US military action on the cyber front will be strictly of a defensive nature.

However, in reality, the United States has been actively pursuing cyber attack weapon development projects, while overtly spurring cyber warfare preparations.

Late last year, the US Congress approved cyber attack weapon development by the United States Cyber Command and allocated huge amounts of money to this project.

According to what US media reported, the US Department of Defense has already started full-scale development of cyber attack weapons that can be used in a real war. This program, codenamed “PLAN-X,” calls for the development of digital maps showing the locations of tens of billions of computers worldwide, let alone the disablement of enemy military communications and radar. It is an initiative for rendering enemy military computers useless all at once in case of an emergency.

Not only munitions companies but also private universities and even electronic game device makers will reportedly participate in this cyber attack weapon development, which will be handled by the US Department of Defense at the cost of more than $1 billion over five years.

In short, the United States is seeing the Internet space as a new military arena and seeking to gain hegemony in this area.

As known, malignant viruses are spreading widely through computer networks worldwide today, leading to destruction and leakage of numerous classified data and paralyzing electronic work systems.

The problem is that the United States and other Western countries are exploiting this phenomenon as an excuse for more blatant intelligence warfare, interference in internal affairs, and aggression maneuvers against other countries.

Last year, when damage was reported in a cyber attack on the United States, the US Department of Defense automatically blamed it on an outside cyber attack and came out actively advocating the need for cyber armament development as a counter. It went so far as to announce something called “cyber strategy” that treats a cyber attack launched from outside as an act of war and calls for a reprisal involving use of force.

Although, from a technical standpoint, it is possible to identify the outside network address launching a cyber attack, it is difficult to find out who is responsible for the attack launched from computers, experts say. As long as the attacker’s identity is not accurately established, a military reprisal measure by anyone cannot be justified.

Nevertheless, the United States is blabbering that an outside cyber attack will automatically constitute a “threat,” which is considered an “act of war” that requires a reprisal at tack, and its purpose lies in the justification of its cyber armament development and its bid to launch preemptive strikes at any given time against countries it does not like by imposing cyber attack blames.

Now, the United States continues to perpetrate cyberterrorism crimes against anti-imperialist, pro-independence countries by throwing allegations against other countries under the pretext of so-called “national security.”

In an article exposing and denouncing the United States’ cyber warfare maneuvers against Cuba, the country’s newspaper Granma divulged that the United States secretly introduced satellite antennas and other equipment into Cuba, installed secret Internet access points, and spread groundless rumors through them, thereby creating social instability and seeking to cause

Cuba to disintegrate from within. The newspaper also divulged that the United States is ratcheting up anti-Cuba maneuvers by mobilizing all schemes by introducing the latest programs into the country, creating a network outside government controls, and establishing a system of sending and receiving digital documents.

It is an already well-known fact that the United States developed a virus named “Stuxnet” to scuttle Iran’s peaceful nuclear activities and sabotaged normal nuclear activities by launching cyber attacks on Iran’s nuclear facilities.

Because of the United States’ such cyberterrorism crimes, information technology means, which should otherwise be used to contribute to socio-economic progress and humankind’s civilization development, are exploited for “intelligence warfare,” aggravating confrontation and friction among countries.

Currently, there is no international legal framework to monitor and control cybercrimes and provide fair and accurate assessments of cybercrimes. That is why countries such as Russia are calling for the creation of a new protocol assuming the nature of international law against cybercrimes.

Foreign media expressing strong concern over the United States’ increasingly intensifying cyber armament development are sounding alarm bells, saying, “The United States has effectively raised the curtain on a cyber armament race itself. The consequences of such action cannot be anticipated.”

Now, many countries around the world are denouncing the United States as the main cybercrime culprit and strongly urging a ban on the development and use of cyber weapons.”

International law in cyberspace

===

===

http://opiniojuris.org/2012/09/19/harold-koh-on-international-law-in-cyberspace/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+opiniojurisfeed+%28Opinio+Juris%29&utm_content=Google+Reader

Harold Koh on International Law in Cyberspace

by Chris Borgen   September 19th, 2012

Yesterday, Harold Koh, the Legal Adviser of the U.S. State Department, spoke at the U.S. Cyber Command Inter-Agency Legal Conference on the applicability of international law to cyberspace and, particularly, cyberwar/ cyberconflict. For a couple of takes on the speech, see the Washington Post here and Defense News, here.

In our ongoing efforts to make full-text presentations of international legal relevance more easily accessible, we attach the text of Koh’s speech, as prepared for delivery.

- - - - -- - - - - - - -

INTERNATIONAL LAW IN CYBERSPACE

USCYBERCOM Inter-Agency Legal Conference
Ft. Meade, MD
September 18, 2012

Harold Hongju Koh [Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State]

Thank you, Colonel Brown, for your kind invitation to speak here today at this very important conference on “the roles of cyber in national defense.” I have been an international lawyer for more than thirty years, a government lawyer practicing international law for more than a decade, and the State Department’s Legal Adviser for nearly 3 ½ years. While my daily workload covers many of the bread and butter issues of international law—diplomatic immunity, the law of the sea, international humanitarian law, treaty interpretation—like many of you, I find more and more of my time is spent grappling with the question of how international law applies in cyberspace.

Everyone here knows that cyberspace presents new opportunities and new challenges for the United States in every foreign policy realm, including national defense. But for international lawyers, it also presents cutting-edge issues of international law, which go to a very fundamental question: how do we apply old laws of war to new cyber-circumstances, staying faithful to enduring principles, while accounting for changing times and technologies?

Many, many international lawyers here in the U.S. Government and around the world have struggled with this question, so today I’d like to present an overview of how we in the U.S. Government have gone about meeting this challenge. At the outset, let me highlight that the entire endeavor of applying established international law to cyberspace is part of a broader international conversation. We are not alone in thinking about these questions; we are actively engaged with the rest of the international community, both bilaterally and multilaterally, on the subject of applying international law in cyberspace.

With your permission, I’d like to offer a series of questions and answers that illuminate where we are right now – in a place where we’ve made remarkable headway in a relatively short period of time, but are still finding new questions for each and every one we answer. In fact, the U.S. Government has been regularly sharing these thoughts with our international partners. Most of the points that follow we have not just agreed upon internally, but made diplomatically, in our submissions to the UN Group of Governmental Experts (GGE) that deals with information technology issues.

I. International Law in Cyberspace: What We Know

So let me start with the most fundamental questions:

Question 1: Do established principles of international law apply to cyberspace?

Answer 1: Yes, international law principles do apply in cyberspace. Everyone here knows how cyberspace opens up a host of novel and extremely difficult legal issues. But on this key question, this answer has been apparent, at least as far as the U.S. Government has been concerned.

Significantly, this view has not necessarily been universal in the international community. At least one country has questioned whether existing bodies of international law apply to the cutting edge issues presented by the internet. Some have also said that existing international law is not up to the task, and that we need entirely new treaties to impose a unique set of rules on cyberspace. But the United States has made clear our view that established principles of international law do apply in cyberspace.

Question 2: Is cyberspace a law-free zone, where anything goes?

Answer 2: Emphatically no. Cyberspace is not a “law-free” zone where anyone can conduct hostile activities without rules or restraint.

Think of it this way. This is not the first time that technology has changed and that international law has been asked to deal with those changes. In particular, because the tools of conflict are constantly evolving, one relevant body of law – international humanitarian law, or the law of armed conflict – affirmatively anticipates technological innovation, and contemplates that its existing rules will apply to such innovation. To be sure, new technologies raise new issues and thus, new questions. Many of us in this room have struggled with such questions, and we will continue to do so over many years. But to those who say that established law is not up to the task, we must articulate and build consensus around how it applies and reassess from there whether and what additional understandings are needed.

Developing common understandings about how these rules apply in the context of cyberactivities in armed conflict will promote stability in this area.

That consensus-building work brings me to some questions and answers we have offered to our international partners to explain how both the law of going to war (jus ad bellum) and the laws that apply in conducting war (jus in bello) apply to cyberaction:

Question 3: Do cyber activities ever constitute a use of force?

Answer 3: Yes. Cyber activities may in certain circumstances constitute uses of force within the meaning of Article 2(4) of the UN Charter and customary international law. In analyzing whether a cyber operation would constitute a use of force, most commentators focus on whether the direct physical injury and property damage resulting from the cyber event looks like that which would be considered a use of force if produced by kinetic weapons. Cyber activities that proximately result in death, injury, or significant destruction would likely be viewed as a use of force. In assessing whether an event constituted a use of force in or through cyberspace, we must evaluate factors: including the context of the event, the actor perpetrating the action (recognizing challenging issues of attribution in cyberspace), the target and location, effects and intent, among other possible issues.

Commonly cited examples of cyber activity that would constitute a use of force include, for example: (1) operations that trigger a nuclear plant meltdown; (2) operations that open a dam above a populated area causing destruction; or (3) operations that disable air traffic control resulting in airplane crashes. Only a moment’s reflection makes you realize that this is common sense: if the physical consequences of a cyber attack work the kind of physical damage that dropping a bomb or firing a missile would, that cyber attack should equally be considered a use of force.

Question 4: May a State ever respond to a computer network attack by exercising a right of national self-defense?

Answer 4: Yes. A State’s national right of self-defense, recognized in Article 51 of the UN Charter, may be triggered by computer network activities that amount to an armed attack or imminent threat thereof. As the United States affirmed in its 2011 International Strategy for Cyberspace, “when warranted, the United States will respond to hostile acts in cyberspace as we would to any other threat to our country.”

Question 5: Do jus in bello rules apply to computer network attacks?

Answer 5: Yes. In the context of an armed conflict, the law of armed conflict applies to regulate the use of cyber tools in hostilities, just as it does other tools. The principles of necessity and proportionality limit uses of force in self-defense and would regulate what may constitute a lawful response under the circumstances. There is no legal requirement that the response to a cyber armed attack take the form of a cyber action, as long as the response meets the requirements of necessity and proportionality.

Question 6: Must attacks distinguish between military and nonmilitary objectives?

Answer 6: Yes. The jus in bello principle of distinction applies to computer network attacks undertaken in the context of an armed conflict. The principle of distinction applies to cyber activities that amount to an “attack” – as that term is understood in the law of war – in the context of an armed conflict. As in any form of armed conflict, the principle of distinction requires that the intended effect of the attack must be to harm a legitimate military target. We must distinguish military objectives – that is, objects that make an effective contribution to military action and whose destruction would offer a military advantage — from civilian objects, which under international law are generally protected from attack.

Question 7: Must attacks adhere to the principle of proportionality?

Answer 7: Yes. The jus in bello principle of proportionality applies to computer network attacks undertaken in the context of an armed conflict. The principle of proportionality prohibits attacks that may be expected to cause incidental loss to civilian life, injury to civilians, or damage to civilian objects that would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated. Parties to an armed conflict must assess what the expected harm to civilians is likely to be, and weigh the risk of such collateral damage against the importance of the expected military advantage to be gained. In the cyber context, this rule requires parties to a conflict to assess: (1) the effects of cyber weapons on both military and civilian infrastructure and users, including shared physical infrastructure (such as a dam or a power grid) that would affect civilians; (2) the potential physical damage that a cyber attack may cause, such as death or injury that may result from effects on critical infrastructure; and (3) the potential effects of a cyber attack on civilian objects that are not military objectives, such as private, civilian computers that hold no military significance, but may be networked to computers that are military objectives.

Question 8: How should States assess their cyber weapons?

Answer 8: States should undertake a legal review of weapons, including those that employ a cyber capability. Such a review should entail an analysis, for example, of whether a particular capability would be inherently indiscriminate, i.e., that it could not be used consistent with the principles of distinction and proportionality. The U.S. Government undertakes at least two stages of legal review of the use of weapons in the context of armed conflict – first, an evaluation of new weapons to determine whether their use would be per se prohibited by the law of war; and second, specific operations employing weapons are always reviewed to ensure that each particular operation is also compliant with the law of war.

Question 9: In this analysis, what role does State sovereignty play?

Answer 9: States conducting activities in cyberspace must take into account the sovereignty of other States, including outside the context of armed conflict. The physical infrastructure that supports the internet and cyber activities is generally located in sovereign territory and subject to the jurisdiction of the territorial State. Because of the interconnected, interoperable nature of cyberspace, operations targeting networked information infrastructures in one country may create effects in another country. Whenever a State contemplates conducting activities in cyberspace, the sovereignty of other States needs to be considered.

Question 10: Are States responsible when cyber acts are undertaken through proxies?

Answer 10: Yes. States are legally responsible for activities undertaken through “proxy actors,” who act on the State’s instructions or under its direction or control. The ability to mask one’s identity and geography in cyberspace and the resulting difficulties of timely, high-confidence attribution can create significant challenges for States in identifying, evaluating, and accurately responding to threats. But putting attribution problems aside for a moment, established international law does address the question of proxy actors. States are legally responsible for activities undertaken through putatively private actors, who act on the State’s instructions or under its direction or control. If a State exercises a sufficient degree of control over an ostensibly private person or group of persons committing an internationally wrongful act, the State assumes responsibility for the act, just as if official agents of the State itself had committed it. These rules are designed to ensure that States cannot hide behind putatively private actors to engage in conduct that is internationally wrongful.

II. International Law in Cyberspace: Challenges and Uncertainties

These ten answers should give you a sense of how far we have come in doing what any good international lawyer does: applying established law to new facts, and explaining our positions to other interested lawyers. At the same time, there are obviously many more issues where the questions remain under discussion. Let me identify three particularly difficult questions that I don’t intend to answer here today. Instead, my hope is to shed some light on some of the cutting-edge legal issues that we’ll all be facing together over the next few years:

Unresolved Question 1: How can a use of force regime take into account all of the novel kinds of effects that States can produce through the click of a button? As I said above, the United States has affirmed that established jus ad bellum rules do apply to uses of force in cyberspace. I have also noted some clear-cut cases where the physical effects of a hostile cyber action would be comparable to what a kinetic action could achieve: for example, a bomb might break a dam and flood a civilian population, but insertion of a line of malicious code from a distant computer might just as easily achieve that same result. As you all know, however, there are other types of cyber actions that do not have a clear kinetic parallel, which raise profound questions about exactly what we mean by “force.” At the same time, the difficulty of reaching a definitive legal conclusion or consensus among States on when and under what circumstances a hostile cyber action would constitute an armed attack does not automatically suggest that we need an entirely new legal framework specific to cyberspace. Outside of the cyber-context, such ambiguities and differences of view have long existed among States.

To cite just one example of this, the United States has for a long time taken the position that the inherent right of self-defense potentially applies against any illegal use of force. In our view, there is no threshold for a use of deadly force to qualify as an “armed attack” that may warrant a forcible response. But that is not to say that any illegal use of force triggers the right to use any and all force in response – such responses must still be necessary and of course proportionate. We recognize, on the other hand, that some other countries and commentators have drawn a distinction between the “use of force” and an “armed attack,” and view “armed attack” – triggering the right to self-defense – as a subset of uses of force, which passes a higher threshold of gravity. My point here is not to rehash old debates, but to illustrate that States have long had to sort through complicated jus ad bellum questions. In this respect, the existence of complicated cyber questions relating to jus ad bellum is not in itself a new development; it is just applying old questions to the latest developments in technology.

Unresolved Question 2: What do we do about “dual-use infrastructure” in cyberspace?

As you all know, information and communications infrastructure is often shared between State militaries and private, civilian communities. The law of war requires that civilian infrastructure not be used to seek to immunize military objectives from attack, including in the cyber realm. But how, exactly, are the jus in bello rules to be implemented in cyberspace? Parties to an armed conflict will need to assess the potential effects of a cyber attack on computers that are not military objectives, such as private, civilian computers that hold no military significance, but may be networked to computers that are valid military objectives. Parties will also need to consider the harm to the civilian uses of such infrastructure in performing the necessary proportionality review. Any number of factual scenarios could arise, however, which will require a careful, fact-intensive legal analysis in each situation.

Unresolved Question 3: How do we address the problem of attribution in cyberspace?

As I mentioned earlier, cyberspace significantly increases an actor’s ability to engage in attacks with “plausible deniability,” by acting through proxies. I noted that legal tools exist to ensure that States are held accountable for those acts. What I want to highlight here is that many of these challenges — in particular, those concerning attribution — are as much questions of technical and policy nature rather than exclusively or even predominantly questions of law. Cyberspace remains a new and dynamic operating environment, and we cannot expect that all answers to the new and confounding questions we face will be legal ones.

These questions about effects, dual use and attribution are difficult legal and policy questions that existed long before the development of cyber tools, and that will continue to be a topic of discussion among our allies and partners as cyber tools develop. Of course, there remain many other difficult and important questions about the application of international law to activities in cyberspace – for example, about the implications of sovereignty and neutrality law, enforcement mechanisms, and the obligations of States concerning “hacktivists” operating from within their territory. While these are not questions that I can address in this brief speech, they are critically important questions on which international lawyers will focus intensely in the years to come.

And just as cyberspace presents challenging new issues for lawyers, it presents challenging new technical and policy issues. Not all of the issues I’ve mentioned are susceptible to clear legal answers derived from existing precedents – in many cases, quite the contrary. Answering these tough questions within the framework of existing law, consistent with our values and accounting for the legitimate needs of national security, will require a constant dialogue between lawyers, operators, and policymakers. All that we as lawyers can do is to apply in the cyber context the same rigorous approach to these hard questions that arise in the future, as we apply every day to what might be considered more traditional forms of conflict.

III. The Role of International Law in a “Smart Power” Approach to Cyberspace

This, in a nutshell, is where we are with regard to cyberconflict: We have begun work to build consensus on a number of answers, but questions continue to arise that must be answered in the months and years ahead. Beyond these questions and answers and unresolved questions, though, lies a much bigger picture, one that we are very focused on at the State Department. Which brings me to my final two questions:

Final Question 1: Is international humanitarian law the only body of international law that applies in cyberspace?

Final Answer 1: No. As important as international humanitarian law is, it is not the only international law that applies in cyberspace.

Obviously, cyberspace has become pervasive in our lives, not just in the national defense arena, but also through social media, publishing and broadcasting, expressions of human rights, and expansion of international commerce, both through online markets and online commercial techniques. Many other bodies of international and national law address those activities, and how those different bodies of law overlap and apply with the laws of cyber conflict is something we will all have to work out over time.

Take human rights. At the same time that cyber activity can pose a threat, we all understand that cyber-communication is increasingly becoming a dominant mode of expression in the 21st century. More and more people express their views not by speaking on a soap box at Speakers’ Corner, but by blogging, tweeting, commenting, or posting videos and commentaries. The 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)—adopted more than 70 years ago– was remarkably forward-looking in anticipating these trends. It says: “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.” (emphasis added) In short, all human beings are entitled to certain rights, whether they choose to exercise them in a city square or an internet chat room. This principle is an important part of our global diplomacy, and is encapsulated in the Internet Freedom agenda about which my boss, Secretary Clinton, has spoken so passionately.

You all know of this Administration’s efforts not just in the areas of cyberconflict, but also in many other cyber areas: cybersecurity, cybercommerce, fighting child pornography and other forms of cybercrime. stopping intellectual property piracy, as well as promoting free expression and human rights. So the cyberconflict issues with which this group grapples do not constitute the whole of our approach to cyberspace; they are an important part – but only a part — of this Administration’s broader “smart power” approach to cyberspace.

What I have outlined today are a series of answers to cyberspace questions that the United States is on the record as supporting. I have also suggested a few of the challenging questions that remain before us, and developments over the next decade will surely produce new questions. But you should not think of these questions and answers as just a box to check before deciding whether a particular proposed operation is lawful or not. Rather, these questions and answers are part of a much broader foreign policy agenda, which transpires in a broader framework of respect for international law.

That leads to my Final Question for this group: Why should U.S Government lawyers care about international law in cyberspace at all?

The Answer: Because compliance with international law frees us to do more, and do more legitimately, in cyberspace, in a way that more fully promotes our national interests. Compliance with international law in cyberspace is part and parcel of our broader “smart power” approach to international law as part of U.S. foreign policy.

It is worth noting is a fundamental difference in philosophy about international law. One way to think about law, whether domestic or international, is as a straitjacket, a pure constraint. This approach posits that nations have serious, legitimate interests, and legal regimes restrict their ability to carry them out. One consequence of this view is that, since law is just something that constrains, it should be resisted whenever possible. Resisting so-called “extensions” of the law to new areas often seems attractive: because, after all, the old laws weren’t built for these new challenges anyway, some say, so we should tackle those challenges without the legal straitjacket, while leaving the old laws behind.

But that is not the United States Government’s view of the law, domestic or international. We see law not as a straitjacket, but as one great university calls it when it confers its diplomas, a body of “wise restraints that make us free.” International law is not purely constraint, it frees us and empowers us to do things we could never do without law’s legitimacy. If we succeed in promoting a culture of compliance, we will reap the benefits. And if we earn a reputation for compliance, the actions we do take will earn enhanced legitimacy worldwide for their adherence to the rule of law.

These are not new themes, but I raise them here because of they resonate squarely with the strategy we have been pursuing in cyberspace over the past few years. Of course, the United States has impressive cyber-capabilities; it should be clear from the bulk of my discussion that adherence to established principles of law does not prevent us from using those capabilities to achieve important ends. But we also know that we will be safer, the more that we can rally other States to the view that these established principles do impose meaningful constraints, and that there is already an existing set of laws that protect our security in cyberspace. And the more widespread the understanding that cyberspace follows established rules – and that we live by them – the stronger we can be in pushing back against those who would seek to introduce brand new rules that may be contrary to our interests.

That is why, in our diplomacy, we do not whisper about these issues. We talk about them openly and bilaterally with other countries about the application of established international law to cyberspace. We talk about them multilaterally, at the UN Group of Governmental Experts and at other fora, in promoting this vision of compliance with international law in cyberspace. We talk about them regionally, as when we recently co-sponsored an ASEAN Regional Forum event to focus the international community’s attention on the problem of proxy actors engaging in unlawful conduct in cyberspace. Preventing proxy attacks on us is an important interest, and as part of our discussions we have outlined the ways that existing international law addresses this problem.

The diplomacy I have described is not limited to the legal issues this group of lawyers is used to facing in the operational context. These issues are interconnected with countless other cyber issues that we face daily in our foreign policy, such as cybersecurity, cyber-commerce, human rights in cyberspace, and public diplomacy through cybertools. In all of these areas, let me repeat again,compliance with international law in cyberspace is part and parcel of our broader smart power approach to international law as part of U.S. foreign policy. Compliance with international law – and thinking actively together about how best to promote that compliance – can only free us to do more, and to do more legitimately, in the emerging frontiers of cyberspace, in a way that more fully promotes our U.S. national interests.

Thank you very much.

= = = == = 

http://www.defensenews.com/article/20120918/DEFREG02/309180012/U-S-Laws-War-Apply-Cyber-Attacks?odyssey=nav%7Chead

U.S.: Laws Of War Apply To Cyber Attacks

Sep. 18, 2012 - 08:01PM   |   By ARAM ROSTON   

The United States is one of the few governments believed to have engaged in cyberwarfare, in particular the Stuxnet attack against Iran’s nuclear centrifuge infrastructure. Koh’s announcement of a legal doctrine on cyberwar comes just months after new reports surfaced about the Obama administration’s alleged central role in deploying the Stuxnet worm.

2012.06.04 DPRK Daily

N. Korea says it targets S. Korean media for possible attack

http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/northkorea/2012/06/04/81/0401000000AEN20120604003700315F.HTML

-       The General Staff of the Korean People's Army said the country's troops have been targeting some conservative South Korean media offices (븍한 인민군 총참모부)

-       The threat was in response to some South Korean media reports critical of the North's celebration of the Korean Children's Union (KCU) under way in Pyongyang.

-       It is the first time the North has released coordinates of intended targets

-       no particular movements in the North Korean military have been observed.

-       The South Korean government "will maintain a posture to immediately cope with any North Korean provocation."

General Staff of KPA Sends Open Ultimatum to S. Korean Group of Traitors

http://www.nknews.org/2012/06/general-staff-of-kpa-sends-open-ultimatum-to-s-korean-group-of-traitors/

-       only the Lee Myung Bak group of traitors is chilling the atmosphere of these auspicious events of the children

N. Korea's Game Software Turns Many PC's into Zombie PC's

http://www.arirang.co.kr/News/News_View.asp?nseq=130965&code=Ne2&category=2

-       a South Korean surnamed Cho was arrested for distributing game programs embedded with malignant codes developed by North Korea's reconnaissance unit

S. Korean held for selling N. Korean malware

http://www.asiaone.com/News/AsiaOne%2BNews/Asia/Story/A1Story20120604-350430.html

-       Cho is also accused of allowing North Korean agents to use his server for distributing denial-of-service (DDoS) attacks on the South's online systems.

-       Seoul accused Pyongyang of staging cyber attacks on websites of South Korean government agencies and financial institutions in March 2011 and July 2009. Seoul claimed a North Korean cyber attack paralysed operations at one of its largest banks in May 2011

-       Pyongyang accuses Seoul of inventing the charges

'Door for Dialogue Open', South Korea Tells North Korea

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/348310/20120604/north-korea-south-nuclear-programme-provocation-pyongyang.htm

-       A senior policy planning officer at the Ministry of Unification, the door for dialogue is still open for North Korea to pursue peaceful talks despite its provocations

North's Nuclear Ambition Alarming, says South Korea

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/348349/20120604/north-korea-south-nuclear-programme-provocation-pyongyang.htm

S. Korea, U.S. struggle over a proposed revision of a bilateral pact to allow Seoul to develop longer-range ballistic missiles, extending the missile range stipulated in the deal to 550 km from the current 300 km

http://view.koreaherald.com/kh/view.php?ud=20120604000969

North-South integration: socializing risk

http://www.piie.com/blogs/nk/?p=6272

-       While most of the Chinese enterprises feel that they are “on their own” obtaining little direct or implicit support from the Chinese government, in the case of North-South economic integration, the South Korean government plays a much more central role.

-       In effect, the South Korean government has substituted relatively strong South Korean institutions for the relatively weak Northern ones in the KIC, thus socializing risk

S. Korea, U.S. struggle over missile pact revision

2012-06-04 20:37, By Song Sang-ho (sshluck@heraldm.com)

South Korea and the United States are still struggling to narrow their differences over a proposed revision of a bilateral pact to allow Seoul to develop longer-range ballistic missiles, officials here said Monday.

The Korean government in Seoul denied a news report that the allies reached an agreement to extend the missile range stipulated in the deal to 550 km from the current 300 km, saying that negotiations are still ongoing.

The two countries have been in consultations for the past few months as North Korea has continuously sought to develop longer-range delivery vehicles and military nuclear technology.

“Working-level consultations are ongoing over the range extension, and we have yet to reach any agreement. We think it may be difficult to strike an agreement within this month,” a Seoul official told media on condition of anonymity.

“Seoul argues that the range should cover all areas of the peninsula while the U.S. holds a cautious stance. To narrow our differences, working-level negotiations will continue.”

A JoongAng Ilbo report said that the two sides had agreed to extend the range and will take steps to revise the pact after announcing the decision at a meeting of the countries’ foreign and defense ministers in Washington in mid-June.

But Defense Ministry spokesperson Kim Min-seok countered that by saying nothing has yet been decided.

“The two countries have held consultations over it, but there is nothing decided as of yet,” he said during a regular press briefing.

“The two share the view that the allies should draw up measures against North Korea’s long-range missiles and strengthen South Korea’s missile capabilities. We also have yet to finalize the agenda items for the allies’ ministers’ meeting later this month.”

Under a 2001 revision to the initial agreement, Seoul is banned from developing ballistic missiles with a range of more than 300 km. But it does not restrict the range of cruise missiles, which are much slower and easier to intercept.

It also stipulates that a payload must weigh no more than 500kg to block the development of nuclear warheads.

Seoul has apparently moved fast to revise the missile pact due to continuing threats from the North and considering the Washington government may have less flexibility over the sensitive issue ahead of its upcoming presidential election in November.

The U.S. has been reluctant over the range extension as it could undermine its initiatives of non-proliferation and arms control.

Seoul signed the first bilateral missile pact with Washington in 1979, despite the range limit of 180 km, on the condition the U.S. would assist with the South’s missile technology development.

After years of negotiations with the U.S. amid the North’s push for the development of advanced missile technology, the two allies agreed in 2001 to revise the original pact to extend the range to 300 km.

The longest-range North Korean ballistic missile, deployed since 2007, is the Musudan missile with a range of 3,000-4,000 km. This missile, in theory, brings Guam, a key U.S. strategic base in the Asia-Pacific region, within its range.

The longest-range North Korean missile under development is the Taepodong-2 missile, presumed to have a range of more than 6,700 km, enough to hit parts of Alaska, but still short of reaching the U.S. mainland. The missile’s tests have so far failed.

Exclusive: 'Door for Dialogue Open', South Korea Tells North Korea

By VASUDEVAN SRIDHARAN:  June 4, 2012

The door for dialogue is still open for North Korea to pursue peaceful talks despite its provocations, opined a South Korean government official in an exclusive interview to the International Business Times UK. (For full interview transcript, click here.)

A senior policy planning officer at the Ministry of Unification in South Korea who spoke on condition of anonymity, revealed that the country wanted to improve inter-Korean relationship through dialogues.

Even after several instances of provocations by the defiant North Korea which include a failed rocket launch and a controversial nuclear programme, South believes there is still window of opportunity for dialogues in order to get the issues resolved.

"The Korean government hopes that North Korea makes a good choice by changing its course of direction and sincerely responding to our proposal for dialogue. Moreover, we hope that North Korea abandons its ambitions for nuclear development and military provocations; comes forward and take the path of dialogue and cooperation. Once again, we would like to underline that the Korean government has not closed the 'window of opportunity' despite Pyongyang's provocative actions," said the senior official in the interview.

In a latest provocation against Seoul, North Korea reportedly threatened to 'blow up' the media offices in the country for its alleged controversial coverage of a children's event. It also jammed South's GPS signals in late April but later reversed the action.

The ministry official also insisted that the North should stop engaging in such threats by abandoning the nuclear programme and military provocations.

When the official was asked how the North is responding to the South's calls for dialogue, the reply was much restrained saying Pyongyang prefers a unilateral approach rather than a bilateral approach.

"North Korea refuses to respond to our proposals for dialogue while criticizing our flexible measures as a delusive strategy. By hurling harsh vitriol against Korea's head of state and the government, Pyongyang continues to engage in actions that undermine inter-Korean relations," the official added.

According to the official, Seoul has been responding with calm and restraint to such denunciations and threats. The official also assured that South will continue to encourage North to have dialogues and at the same time maintaining a principle stance to establish peace on the Korean peninsula.

South Korea maintained that Pyongyang should show signs of change in attitude to take responsible steps in solving the problems it has created. Seoul also called for a positive response from North Korea.

North's Nuclear Ambition Alarming, says South Korea

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/348349/20120604/north-korea-south-nuclear-programme-provocation-pyongyang.htm

By Vasudevan Sridharan , Monday, June 4, 2012 12:06 PM GMT

In an exclusive interview, a senior policy planning officer at the Ministry of Unification in South Korea who spoke on condition of anonynity to theInternational Business Times UK, revealed that the country is keeping the door for dialogue wide open for North Korea even after many provocations. For the news story, click here.

Excerpts from the interview:

IBTimes UK : What exactly is happening in North Korea right now, in terms of nuclear test? Are there any developments?

Official : The international community estimates that North Korea has secured approximately 40kg of plutonium after undergoing at least three times of reprocessing since the operation of a nuclear reactor with the capacity of 5MWe in the 1980s.

Moreover, it is assumed that North Korea is also developing enriched uranium based on the fact that it invited Professor Hecker, co-director of the 'Centre for International Security and Cooperation at Stanford University' and disclosed its centrifuge facility as well as the construction site of light-water reactor in November 2010. 

IBTimes UK : There have been reports that North Korea is jamming South Korea's flight signals and reportedly this has been stopped few days back. What is the current situation?

Official : We believe that North Korea has recently stopped jamming GPS signals which had started on 28 April.

However, the Korean government is keeping a close eye on Pyongyang should it resume GPS signal distraction.

Such an action by North Korea is both a violation of the ITU charters which ban harmful cross transmission of signals, and ICAO agreements which guarantees the security of international commercial airplanes.

The government hopes that Pyongyang stops such provocative actions and look after its people's livelihood by cooperating with Korea and the international community.

IBTimes UK : Do you currently hold any kind of talks or discussions with North Korea in any platform? Are there any communications from their side?

Official : It is our government's stance to solve current issues between the two Koreas through dialogue. Under such recognition, the Korean government has proposed inter-Korean working-level talks to discuss joint pest control near ancient tombs (UNESCO designated historic site) in the North and a Red Cross working-level dialogue over the reunion of the separated families. However, the North has not responded to our proposal yet.

Instead, North Korea continues to direct invectives and military threats against the South. Pyongyang insists that it will no longer engage with our government for not having expressed official condolences over Kim Jong-il's death at the end of last year.

The Korean government hopes that North Korea makes a 'good choice' by changing its course of direction and sincerely responding to our proposal for dialogue. Moreover, we hope that North Korea abandons its ambitions for nuclear development and military provocations; comes forward and take the path of dialogue and cooperation. Once again, we would like to underline that the Korean government has not closed the 'window of opportunity' despite Pyongyang's provocative actions.

IBTimes UK : How does North Korea respond to your calls? On major issues?

Official : The Korean government has been pursuing its unification policy under the policy goal of 'normalising and developing inter-Korean relations.' We have responded firmly to Pyongyang's nuclear tests and armed provocations based on our North Korea policy of principle. At the same time, we have tried to establish a mutually beneficial relationship by introducing 'flexibility measures'. We are keeping the 'door for dialogue' open and urge that North Korea make positive changes.

However, North Korea has repeatedly engaged in threats and provocations against the South in attempts to alter our government's North Korea policy and redirect inter-Korean relationship into one that's more unilateral. In defiance of warnings from Korea and the international community, North Korea went ahead with a long range missile launch last month. North Korea refuses to respond to our proposals for dialogue while criticizing our 'flexible measures' as a delusive strategy. By hurling harsh vitriol against Korea's head of state and the government, Pyongyang continues to engage in actions that undermine inter-Korean relations.

The Korean government, under a consistent principle, has responded with calm and restraint to such denunciations and threats. We will continue to encourage the North to make a 'good choice' by keeping the window of opportunity open while maintaining our principled stance to establish peace on the Korean peninsula and develop a normal inter-Korean relations.

IBTimes UK : Is the US re-deploying its strategic nuclear weapons in South Korea to strengthen the country against the North? Can you please shed light on that?

Official : We believe that the discussion within the US Congress on re-deploying strategic nuclear weapons came about as various efforts to solve the North Korean nuclear issue have not produced tangible results and as Pyongyang continues to develop its nuclear program.

The Korean government maintains its basic stance toward denuclearization based on the 'Joint Declaration on the Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula' agreed by the two Koreas. In other words, it must be guaranteed that no nuclear weapon will be tested, manufactured, produced, deployed, and used on the Korean peninsula. Furthermore, we have firmly maintained the fundamental principle that possession of facilities for nuclear reprocessing and uranium enrichment will not be permitted.

However, North Korea continues to raise tension as it develops its nuclear program in neglect of the 'Joint Declaration on the Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula' and the agreements made at the 6-party talks. This is the reason why we are demanding for North Korea's denuclearization.

IBTimes UK : How do you think these conflicts will resolve? What should North Korea do in order to resolve the matters peacefully? Both long-term and immediate measures.

Official : There have been ups and downs in inter-Korean relations over the past six decades. There were times of greater crisis but the concerted efforts of the Korean government and its people have enabled us to overcome the hardship and achieve the development we see today. It is our firm belief that we can surmount any difficulties as long as we have a sincere willingness toward enhancement of inter-Korean relations and a peaceful reunification.

The current tension on the Korean peninsula is triggered by the North's nuclear development, armed provocations, and threats. Pyongyang continues to develop its nuclear program in neglect of the promise it had made with Korea and the international community. Moreover, 50 Korean citizens were killed as a result of the North's two armed provocations in 2010. The Korean government is taking decisive measures in close cooperation with the global community under the recognition that normalisation and development of inter-Korean relationship are possible only by tackling such problems. Above all, as the aggressor, North Korea should show signs of change in attitude and take responsible steps in solving problems it has created. At the same time, a stable inter-Korean communication channel should be established to continue improving relations. The Korean government continues to keep the 'window of opportunity' open and hopes that North Korea makes a good choice. We call for a positive response from North Korea.

S. Korean held for selling N. Korean malware

http://www.asiaone.com/News/AsiaOne%2BNews/Asia/Story/A1Story20120604-350430.html

AFP, Monday, Jun 04, 2012

SEOUL - A South Korean has been arrested and accused of distributing illegal computer game programmes infected with malignant codes developed by North Korea, police said Monday.

The man identified only as Cho, 39, allegedly met North Korean agents in 2009 in China's northeastern city of Shenyang and provided money to develop the programmes.

The agents from North Korea's cyber hacking unit were posing as members of a trading firm in China, police said in a statement.

Cho, who was detained on May 23, sold the programmes to South Korean game operators, according to police.

They said the malicious software would paralyse users' computers and steal personal information. It was not immediately clear how many computers may have been infected.

Cho is also accused of allowing North Korean agents to use his server for distributing denial-of-service (DDoS) attacks on the South's online systems.

He is alleged to have kept personal information on hundreds of thousands of people from major portals at his home.

Seoul accused Pyongyang of staging cyber attacks on websites of South Korean government agencies and financial institutions in March 2011 and July 2009.

In May 2011 the South said a North Korean cyber attack paralysed operations at one of its largest banks.

Pyongyang accuses Seoul of inventing the charges but South Korean officials say the North maintains elite hacker units.

N. Korea's Game Software Turns Many PC's into Zombie PC's

Jun 4, 2012  yjkim@arirang.co.kr

North Korea is continuing to launch cyber attacks on South Korea this time with game programs infected with malignant codes.

Police say a South Korean man surnamed Cho was arrested Sunday for distributing game programs embedded with malignant codes developed by North Korea's reconnaissance unit.

Cho is suspected of purchasing the game programs in Shenyang, China knowing that they were infected with malignant codes and then selling them back to South Korean game operators.

The software turned hundreds of thousands PC's in South Korea into so-called 'zombie' PC's, transferring some 500-thousand pieces of personal information to North Korea.

Investigators believe it was with this data that the North tried to hack into the main server of Seoul's Incheon International Airport last April

General Staff of KPA Sends Open Ultimatum to S. Korean Group of Traitors

BY ADMIN · JUNE 4, 2012

Pyongyang, June 4 (KCNA) — The General Staff of the Korean People’s Army sent the following open ultimatum to the south Korean group of traitors on Monday:

The celebrations of the 66th anniversary of the Korean Children’s Union are now taking place in the revolutionary capital of Pyongyang with splendor.

They are a great political festival of children unprecedented not only in the history of the Korean nation but in the long history of mankind.

As many as 20 000 delegates of school children have come to Pyongyang on invitation from all parts of the country, including remote villages and solitary islands.

It was the noble outlook of President Kim Il Sung and leader Kim Jong Il on the younger generation and the future that they showed paternal loving care and solicitude for them, calling them kings of the country. This outlook has been steadfastly carried forward by the dear respectedKim Jong Un.

All the service members and people are immensely excited and pleased with this stirring reality.

The world is becoming envious of the DPRK, noting that such great event can take place in socialist Korea only.

But it is only the Lee Myung Bak group of traitors in south Korea that is chilling the atmosphere of these auspicious events of the children.

From May 29 the group set in motion Chosun Ilbo, Choongang Ilbo, “A channel” of Dong-A Ilbo, KBS, CBS, MBC, SBS and other media to launch a campaign defaming the above-said celebrations. It went the lengths of resorting to a new campaign of hurting the dignity of the supreme leadership of the DPRK, availing itself of this opportunity.

The children of the kindergarten in magnificent and modern Changjon Street were so happy as to have a photo taken with Kim Jong Un and sons and daughters of ordinary working people are participating in the above-said celebrations. However, the Lee group is letting loose a string of vituperations describing all these blessings as “charades intentionally orchestrated” by the supreme leadership of the DPRK.

The auspicious political festival was opened amid joy and cheers of three million of schoolchildren, hailed by their fathers and mothers throughout the country. The group, however, is playing down it as “events for publicity stunt,” “events to win popularity”, “events to curry favor with them.” It made no scruple of letting loose a spate of such invectives as deliberately hurting the dignity of the supreme leadership of the DPRK, describing the great inheritance of the love for the younger generation and the future as “act of imitating gesture and copying after Hitler” and “the north’s staging of a political show as that staged by the Nazis to train the Juvenile Corps.

And the Lee group went the lengths of describing the unblemished naive schoolchildren as “children on markets” more familiar with capitalist markets than socialist policies and “mere children knowing nothing about the world”.

This is a new form of evil action hurting the dignity of the supreme leadership of the DPRK. It is a thrice-cursed criminal act as it is a monstrous mud-slinging at the rosy future of our revolution.

There is no country in the world as the DPRK which projects children as kings of the country.

When babies are born, they are taken care of at palaces of babies and children are rapidly growing at children’s palaces, bringing their talents into full bloom. They are leading such blessed lives under the immensely profound loving care of the great persons of Mt. Paektu, something rare to be found in any other parts of the world.

It was President Kim Il Sung who brought up all the children under his deep care with the noblest viewpoint on the younger generation and the future, despite snow and rain. It was leaderKim Jong Il who saw off the children leaving for their camps while starting his journey to the front along rugged roads in adversity.

It was Kim Jong Un who visited the Mangyongdae Revolutionary School on the New Year’s Day and put forward its children as future pillars.

It was thanks to this profound care of the sun that the children were provided with ampler opportunities of learning and flags of the Children’s Union fluttered more vigorously over their camps under the clean and blue sky of the country even under the difficult situation where its people had to fasten their belts in manifold adversity.

Children are the future of the country and a symbol of hope and victory.

The above-said vituperation let loose by the group of traitors is nothing but a shriek made by the group, utterly discomfited by the bright future of the supreme headquarters of the DPRK and rosy future of the younger generation.

From olden times, idiots are apt to see everything quite different from a reality.

It is quite natural that the group of traitors branded as fools, idiots and blockheads can hardly see the present world correctly.

If it is not true, how can the group describe the great inheritance of our nation as “imitation” and compare the children who would shoulder upon themselves the future of the nation with the juvenile organization of fascist Hitler?

As for Hitler, he was the fascist fanatic who drove guiltless humankind into pitfalls of disasters and death, special class war criminal who destroyed his country and nation and die-hard tyrant who had no love for its children.

The south Korean people had already branded the worst traitor Lee as a notorious “Hitler Lee” and burned the traitor in effigy in Nazi uniform, bearing the same moustache as Hitler’s as he has been hell-bent on mercilessly suppressing the protestors at the point of bayonet and enforcing an unpopular rule.

It is said that one’s wrong tongue-lashing is as harmful as a sword cutting off one’s head.

Upon hearing the news that the Lee Myung Bak group of traitors hurt the dignity of the supreme leadership of the DPRK and slandered its loved children, the officers and men of the three services of the KPA are expressing towering resentment and pledging themselves as one to resolutely settle accounts by force of arms with those who violated the moral law of the nation and defamed the great man whom the people follow and the world look up to.

Officers and men of the army corps, divisions and regiments on the front and strategic rocket forces in the depth of the country are loudly calling for the issue of order to mete out punishment, declaring that they have already targeted Chosun Ilbo at coordinates of 37 degrees 56 minutes 83 seconds North Latitude and 126 degrees 97 minutes 65 seconds East Longitude in the Central District, Seoul, Choongang Ilbo at coordinates of 37 degrees 33 minutes 45 seconds North Latitude and 126 degrees 58 minutes 14 seconds East Longitude in the Central District, Seoul, the Dong-A Ilbo at coordinates of 37 degrees 57 minutes 10 seconds North Latitude and 126 degrees 97 minutes 81 seconds East Longitude in Jongro District, Seoul, KBS, CBS, MBC and SBS, the strongholds of the Lee group orchestrating the new vicious smear campaign.

In view of this grave situation the KPA General Staff sends the following ultimatum to the Lee group of traitors:

The revolutionary armed forces of the DPRK are the army of the supreme commander and the people’s army which is devotedly defending the supreme commander and protecting his idea and the people and children whom he values and loves so much.

It is the iron will of the army of the DPRK that the dens of heinous provocateurs hurting the dignity of the supreme leadership of the DPRK and desecrating its idea, system and people should not be allowed to exist as they are.

We would like ask the Lee group if it wants leave all this to be struck by the DPRK or opt for apologizing and putting the situation under control, though belatedly.

It should take a final choice by itself.

Now it is impossible for the officers and men of the KPA three services to keep back their towering resentment any longer. In case dens of monstrous crimes are blown up one after another, the Lee group will be entirely held responsible for this.

If the Lee group recklessly challenges our army’s eruption of resentment, it will retaliate against it with a merciless sacred war of its own style as it has already declared.

We are fully ready for everything

N. Korea says it targets S. Korean media for possible attack

2012/06/04 17:46 KST

SEOUL, June 4 (Yonhap) -- North Korea said Monday its military has entered map coordinates of some conservative South Korean media offices as it threatened to strike their headquarters for their alleged insult to North Korea's new leader Kim Jong-un.

   The General Staff of the Korean People's Army said the country's troops have been targeting the Seoul headquarters of the Chosun Ilbo at coordinates of 37 degrees 56 minutes 83 seconds North latitude and 126 degrees 97 minutes 65 seconds East longitude. It also revealed the coordinates of the JoongAng Ilbo and Dong-a Ilbo newspapers, as well as the KBS, MBC and SBS television stations and CBS radio.

   It is the first time the North has released coordinates of intended targets in South Korea.

   "We would like to ask the Lee group if it wants to leave all this to be struck by the (North) or opt for apologizing and putting the situation under control, though belatedly," the General Staff said in an English-language ultimatum, referring to South Korean President Lee Myung-bak.

   Seoul, the South Korean capital city of more than 10 million people and home to South Korean media headquarters, is within range of North Korea's artillery and rockets.

   "If the Lee group recklessly challenges our army's eruption of resentment, it will retaliate against it with a merciless sacred war of its own style as it has already declared," the General Staff said in the ultimatum carried by the North's official Korean Central News Agency.

   It also warned the North is "fully ready for everything" and "time is running out."

   South Korea defended its media reports on its communist neighbor, saying freedom of the press is a basic right guaranteed in free and democratic countries around the world.

   The South Korean government said in a statement it "will maintain a posture to immediately cope with any North Korean provocation." A South Korean military official said no particular movements in the North Korean military have been observed.

   Also Monday, Unification Ministry spokesman Kim Hyung-suk urged the North to immediately stop threatening the South's media outlets. He said the North's threat was a grave "provocation" against South Korea's free and democratic system.

   There is no freedom of the press in North Korea where authorities use state media as a propaganda tool to strengthen personality cults of the country's leaders.

   The North's latest threat was in response to some South Korean media reports critical of the North's celebration of the Korean Children's Union (KCU) under way in Pyongyang.

   About 20,000 North Korean children pledged their allegiance to Kim as the North began a six-day festival on Sunday to mark the 66th anniversary of the KCU, according to Pyongyang's state media.

   Some South Korean media dismissed the celebration as part of the North's attempt to win support for Kim, who took over the country following the December death of his father, long-time leader Kim Jong-il.

   Channel A, a television arm of the Dong-a Ilbo newspaper, likened Kim to the late German dictator Adolf Hitler over the anniversary celebration.

   The North has long bristled at any outside criticism of its leader and has made similar threats against the South over the past several months, although no actual attack has occurred.

   South Korea has repeatedly vowed to avenge any North Korean attacks following two attacks by the North in 2010 that killed 50 South Koreans, mostly soldiers.