Posted by notmine1337 6 days ago
Classic elitist take ignoring that this this space where "all are alike" can only work for certain kinds of people.
Tangentially, my problem with this phrase post is that I am struggling to get past all the obvious falsehoods when it comes to the non technical part of the writing.
It starts off the bat with using terminology like “Advanced Persistent Threat” and conflates what it already identified as a North Korean group as Chinese in this sentence
> It shows a glimpse how openly "Kimsuky" cooperates with other Chinese APTs and shares their tools and techniques.
And then gives some flowery speech about how the Koreans are bad and political but this author who opposes them is good and not political.
This reads to me like the ravings of some crazy person with advanced skills who thinks everyone else is the crazy one while wearing a tinfoil hat, or a federal group leaking a no longer useful technical hack surrounded in language pushing propaganda
<< Kimsuky, you are not a hacker. You are driven by financial greed, to enrich
your leaders, and to fulfill their political agenda. You steal from others
and favour your own. You value yourself above the others: You are morally
perverted. >>
Are they off the hook because they "choose" to participate in mass murder?
"Cool? It's not cool. It's commie bullshit!"
its always just some cheesy hacker words put to seem mysterious or whatever -_-.
we are legion, we are one etc. anything like that fall apart quickly if you attach identity to something doesnt it.
i guess by being anonymous online some forget they are not anonymous irl. a lot of being alone with the terminal ^^>
gotta read between all the fluff tho.
I was with you right up until this bit
The agencies concerned tend to recruit people that have demonstrated ability in that field, and they've usually got it with "self-directed" training :)
The one hacker I met in my life went to West Point and had no experience they didn't gain from being placed in their program after graduating with decent test scores.
The fact is there were only around 40 unique hacks ever invented, and people simply adapt these into new zero day exploits. Notably, this is now mostly a fully automated process.
If people want in, they will get in eventually. =3
x C62=:K6 J@F 2C6 AC66>AE:G6=J 5:D28C66:?8 H:E9 E96 DFCAC:D:?8=J =@H 6DE:>2E6 @7 6IA=@:E E2I@?@>J[ 3FE 9F>2? DE2E:DE:42= 3692G:@C :D 2=D@ ?@E 2D 4@>A=6I 2D >2?J 36=:6G6]
If robots want in, they will get in eventually too, apparently.
If you don't see repeating symbols, it could be a running key, like a Vigenèr cipher.
CyberChef did it fully locally with a ready-made recipe :D
If you are ever unsure of someones motives, than politely ask for context. Have a wonderful day =3
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases#Causa...
> If you are ever unsure of someones motives, than politely ask for context.
Asking for context.
Exploits are boring, and thus have questionable utility in a proper business context. Don't worry about it... =3
Why? They’re intelligent, crafty and able to make trade-offs.
Empirically, ex-spies have a solid history in reaching commanding positions in politics and business.
Have a great day. =3
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Kohlberg's_stages_of_...
But also gives hope. I mean, it’s rare that adults fail to advance from pre-conventional phases, so it must be super rare to have such a confluence of factors that puts someone like that in the given job.
They’re starting from a position of duty. Given the stakes the questions they’re tasked with operate at, I’d guess they tend to be in the postconventional regime more than most people.
But it's not because someone wants them there. It's because they can demand the position they want.
Zero evidence of this. And if they can demand that position from one, they can demand favors from others. I would count a background in espionage to be a net positive in a hiring process, provided dismissal was on good terms.
The only examples I can think of are Putin and George HW Bush.
"North Korean hackers are sent vocationally to Shenyang, China for special training. They are trained to deploy malware of all types onto computers, computer networks, and servers."[3][4]
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koreans_in_China#North_Koreans...
2: https://web.archive.org/web/20090114201016/http://news.xinhu...
3: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lazarus_Group#Education
4: https://web.archive.org/web/20180621134306/https://www.scmp....
The brightest students of most nations are often sent abroad to enrich their countries with knowledge from the great universities. NK is almost unique in its inability to do this at non-Chinese great universities, so that is the only viable route.
Why does this surprise you? As you said, selecting capable people is not a problem. And then these capable people get the best possible motivation. I would say it is expected to get qualified hackers in such conditions, who are proficient in all latest technologies.
What's the rationale for allowing the development of offensive tooling on github? Is this a free-speech thing, or are these repositories relevant for scientific research in some way?
Same with even doing packet sniffing. It can be detected when using wireshark because it does reverse DNS lookups for each ip it sees in its default configuration.
I had legit reasons for it at work so I always mentioned it to the network guys before ding stuff like this. We also had a firewalled lab network. We did get some pushback once when some scans leaked out to the office network. But it was their fault for having the firewall open.
It was just a summer internship and FB was like 'only' 80 engineers back then. But they still took it seriously.
Otoh nmap isn't a privacy problem for users of Facebook (or any other tech company).
I've departed early at least twice over this. Draconian IT serves nobody. Been doing this long enough I deliberately poke any new employer; see what's in store.
Nobody cares, though. EDR appliances sell without careful administration. The industry will outlive us all.
https://docs.github.com/en/site-policy/other-site-policies/g...
https://docs.github.com/en/site-policy/other-site-policies/g...
> GitHub now has a license from OFAC to provide cloud services to developers located or otherwise resident in Iran. This includes all public and private services for individuals and organizations, both free and paid.
> GitHub cloud services, both free and paid, are also generally available to developers located in Cuba.You could hypothetically make it work, but it would mean an extremely different Internet and device landscape than exists today. (And even then I doubt it stops a nation-state level attacker, they can always use old fashioned espionage to get someone in meat space and get around any technical barrier)
https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_stgb/englisch_st...
Surely that must be wrong, are security certs not a thing in Germany?
As in, it requires “preparing the commission of an offense”. Does acquiring the tool for other uses like learning or professional training help?
Or even better, shouldn’t lack of proof that the user had malicious intent be enough?
> 2. computer programs for the purpose of the commission of such an offence
Big huge emphasis on "for the purpose of", meaning there must be clear intent to cause harm or break the law, especially for a criminal case. This assumes the purpose of the program is not inherently for hacking/criminal purposes, which I do not believe would be hard to argue that nmap is not designed as a "hacking tool".
Germany appears to have a similar standard to US criminal cases where you are presumed innocent until proven guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt": https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/40966/innocent-until...
How do they even enforce it? Or is it just an extra law to throw at someone already convicted of something?
Basically Linux itself would be classified as a "hacking tool".
And if you think that doesn't matter, look at the Monroe Doctrine [1].
Taken further, the so-called Cuban Missile Crisis should really be called the Turkey Missile Crisis. The US (through NATO) placed Jupiter nuclear MRBMs in Turkey, only hunddreds of miles from Moscow. The USSR responded by doing the exact same thing, by placing nuclear weapons in Cuba. And the US almost started World War 3 over it.
It was the USSR who stepped back from the brink and, as a result of a secret agreement, the Jupiter MRBMs were quietly removed from Turkey [2].
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monroe_Doctrine
[2]: https://www.wilsoncenter.org/blog-post/jupiter-missiles-and-...
This paints it as tit for tat, but to advert invasion the Cubans asked for the missiles over a year later than the missiles were placed in Turkey. The resolution combined these separate issues.
I haven’t heard about the disarming stuff. I don’t think that part happened.
Those are all closely related topics in geopolitics.
It's more that Cuba requested nukes first, the USSR opportunistically took, then they to resolve the crisis they took that opportunity to remove Turkish missiles. It wasn't really a tit for tat on part of the USSR's intentions, Cuba was the primary agent here.
Not that it really mattered later on once ICBMs are developed.
> Your missiles are located in Britain, are located in Italy, and are aimed against us. Your missiles are located in Turkey.
> You are disturbed over Cuba. You say that this disturbs you because it is 90 miles by sea from the coast of the United States of America. But Turkey adjoins us; our sentries patrol back and forth and see each other. Do you consider, then, that you have the right to demand security for your own country and the removal of the weapons you call offensive, but do not accord the same right to us? You have placed destructive missile weapons, which you call offensive, in Turkey, literally next to us. How then can recognition of our equal military capacities be reconciled with such unequal relations between our great states? This is irreconcilable.
According to General Boris Surikov [2]:
> 'Khrushchev and his Defence Minister, Rodion Malinovsky, were at Khrushchev's estate on the Black Sea. They went for a walk and Malinovsky pointed in the direction of Turkey and said: 'That's where the American rockets are pointing at us. They need only 10 minutes to reach our cities, but our rockets need 25 minutes to reach America.' Khrushchev thought for a while and then said: 'Why don't we instal our rockets in Cuba and point them at the Americans? Then we'll need only 10 minutes, too.'
This article goes on to quote the Soviet Ambassador to Cuba, Alexander Alexeyev, who was a direct witness and a go-between between Khrushchev and Castro:
> 'On 14 May 1962 I was called to a meeting of the Defence Council at the Kremlin. Khrushchev said, in effect: 'Comrades, I think it would be a good idea to instal rockets in Cuba. Do it clandestinely. I don't want it known in the US until November (after the mid-term Congressional elections). Alexander Alexeyev, how will Fidel react when we present him with our decision?'
[1]: https://microsites.jfklibrary.org/cmc/oct27/doc4.html
[2]: https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/the-cuban-missile-crisi...
That dosen't refute anything from his own words as a justification as opposed to his primary goal to provide Cuba with defence here to deter a US invasion. As others have pointed out, the USSR was annoyed by these placements in Italy and Turkey earlier, but they did not declare war or start a crisis over it beforehand. It's more that Turkey was a bargaining chip here.
>>Our aim has been and is to help Cuba, and no one can dispute the humanity of our motives, which are oriented toward enabling Cuba to live peacefully and develop in the way its people desire.
You need to place here in context that the Jupiter missiles in Turkey were already obselete but the US had the overwhelming advantage in a nuclear strike with their Atlas ICBMs in USA at the time, relying more on a fleet of intercontinental bombers that could targeted by NORAD.
Removing nukes for Turkey did little to change the strategic calculus, but it did heavily deprive the USSR of an opportunity to change that calculus with Cuban nukes at the time, which was a major factor in Kruschev's later removal from power.
Well, that's a matter of perspective isn't it? Cuba, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Colombia, Panama, Puerto Rico, Chile, El Salvador, Venezuela, the list goes on. There's a Wikipedia page dedicated to all the US backed coups since 1945 [1] it happens so often.
We've had a post-WW2 history of deposing democratically elected countries (in the Americas and elsewhere) to suit the interests of Western corporations. Who exactly are we protecting?
> ... it was a policy aimed at keeping wars between European colonial powers away from the newly independent countries in the Americas
Where is Moscow?
> ... people in the Americas shouldn't have to die in wars just because one European king insulted another.
Ok, but what about American belligerence? Pinochet and Noriega spring to mind.
Aso, I reject the contention that colonial wars were the product of European kings insulting one another. The interests were and always have been material. Even the Crusades (which were sold on Christian conflict with Islam) were fundamentally materialist in origin.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_r...
Starting at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monroe_Doctrine#Roosevelt_Coro... and further.
...so we can freely do as we please. Of course we've been preying on our neighbors. We've been invading and deposing all across the Americas to force alignment with our interests for well over a century now. We even have terrorist training camps hosted on our soil: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Hemisphere_Institute_f...
What, do you think that our invading Grenada, or Panama, is somehow in their interests? It's a flagrant violation of international law and sovereignty. To imagine that this is somehow an abnormal deviation from our "protection" of our neighbors is... well, I honestly didn't realize anyone thought that way anymore.
Furthermore, we didn't enforce this doctrine when France invaded (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capture_of_Saint_Pierre_and_Mi...), nor in the Falklands war.
Look I can understand not thinking america is "evil" or entirely machiavellian, but it seems just as absurd to take any noble intentions we claim to have at face value. The monroe doctrine is as good an example of this as any.
92% of Panamans supported the invasion to despose Noreiga and actually would have preferred the US do it earlier back during his second coup.
Truth be speaking, I would where you are getting your history, if not just from skewed leftist internet Podcasters. Not mentioning the larger context of the Cold War and the opinions of the people on the ground does look more like lying by omission.
That's not an opinion that most will agree with, certainly from the USSR and the USA's own perspectives. I do wonder the kind of grades one would get if they wrote that down in a history class in any nation. And the more you understand history, both US and the USSR's actions do make perfect sense given their local contexts that most would be making the same decisions in the same position.
>I want someone to invade and liberate us doesn't mean it's not a violation of international law and sovereignty.
I tend to think more about what is the best course of action that benefits the people on the ground and the long term. The idea of sancrosanctity of "sovereignity" is better understood as a social construct to justify oppressive power structures, as it's reflection in reality is highly contentious. The same with International Law, you are taking a literalist position when International Law is better understood as gentlemen's agreements, which is irrelevant in the context of the ontological conflict between two sides that supercedes the notion of law in the first place.
Fascism was popular in the US. Henry Ford shared his thoughts by publishing The International Jew [1]. Hitler was a fan. Ford was mentioned by name in Mein Kampf. We had the Business Plot [2] in 1933. There was a Nazi rally at Madison Square Garden in 1939. The German American Bund was present until 1941.
On the other side of the Atlantic, Stalin had initially sought an anti-German alliance with Britain and France but was rebuffed, leading to the deal with Hitler.
The US had ~400,000 casulaties in the European campaign and none really until D-Day in 1944. The USSR lost somewhere between 26 and 30 million people in WW2, something only really revealed by a 1959 census. Had Germany defeated the USSR and taken MOscow in 1941-1942, we would live in a very different world.
The result of World War 2 was that Hitler lost but the fascists won. Under the guise of fighting Communism (eg the Truamn Doctrine, leading to the Korean and Vietnam wars). NATO was an imperial project. Charles De Gaulle (in the 1960s) went so far as to say Western Europe was in danger of becoming a US protectorate.
We all know about Operation Paper Clip (I hope) but less known is how Nazis found their way into NATO. Adolf Heusinger went from Hitler's Chief of the German High Command to Chairman of the NATO Military Committee. And he wasn't the only one [3].
So when that commenter called the Cold War "retarded", I suspect they're referring to how the US took up Nazi Germany's fight against Communism.
The whole Red Scare was terrible for average American citizens. It was used to dismantle the labor movement and unions and ultimately led to Nixon, Reagan and Clinton and the destruction of real wages and living conditions.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_International_Jew
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot
[3]: https://www.historynet.com/these-nato-generals-had-unusual-b...
The realpolitic of international relations very often follows the words of the British prime minister, Lord Palmerston: "We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow."
This claim doesn't appear to be true: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1k6yi1z/comm...
And by the time you managed it the falsehood already netted a few dozens/hundreds/thousands more victims in the best case scenario where the rebuttal actually managed to attach itself right next to the falsehood.
Regular folks just can't compete with professional disinformation spreaders and their horde of victims.
The lack of serious offramps to reunification, along with not as huge a delta in quality of life between north and south for a long time (aid from other countries sure helps!), allowed the DPRK to establish itself as its own nation.
Now there is the surveillance state apparatus allowing the DPRK to exist in its current form in perpetuity. And even if tomorrow they showed up and said "let's unify Korea", South Korea (even ignoring all the ideological reasons it might not want to) would likely be unwilling to absorb an extremely poor country and pay for it (see the painful experience of Germany's unification).
There is probably no off ramp that exists unless people are willing to let the elite walk away clean from the situation in one way or another, and it seems hard to imagine such a future.
And if you are a north korean elite and you are allowed to travel to northern china, you will see a place where things are running more smoothly, but you're still going to see places with massive amounts of internal controls and restrictions. So who's offering the upside to some regime change here?
I had thought that Germans from both sides were overwhelmingly supportive of re-unification, even if it would cause short-term pain??
I believe the AfD political party in Germany won significant support in those areas of Germany that were once behind the Iron Curtain.
People vote far right because they're fed up with the status quo, and perceive the far right can't be that much worse when everything is already so bad. Politicians who are not far right would do well to take this into account in their politics. Sadly, they don't, and history repeats.
And on top of that at the end of the day Germany now has this bloc that votes "the wrong way" in all of its elections. Glib analysis though.
The German split was resolved 35 years ago and is still visible. How much time would a reunified Korea take to equalize itself? If you're a person who cares only about the economics of it all, how long do you think it would take for the payoff of unification to occur? Just seems quite long.
Then those underdogs take over. They become paranoid about the possibility of being killed themselves, so they repeat the massacres they fought against. A lot of people who supported the new regime think it's just a few remaining enemies being taken out. It won't happen to them. Then the government starts laying out methods to solidify their control. The list of things seen as traitorous and against national interests grows. It becomes a frog in a boiling pot situation. By the time people realize they might be a target, the system is too complicated and widespread to take down alone, and a new generation of youths have been raised knowing only the current system. And to those youths, things are stable. The most terrifying thing to people raised in stability is the idea of losing that stability. So keeping your head down and following the law is much better than absolutely anything else.
And with the absolute control of information that NK has, a significant portion of people really don't even know a better world exists out there. And they're terrified of anyone that even talks about shaking things up.
Basically people are willing to put up with a lot if their lives are getting better (economic growth). Problem with that is what kind of system of control an authoritarian government can setup in that period of growth.
Due to the scale of their population collapse, the influx of immigrants would have to be massive. Which country does that? It would completely overtake its native ethnic population... which unlike a country built on immigration like the US, is surprisingly homogeneous.
I'm no expert, I encourage you to read on the matter. It apparently truly is something that cannot be stopped now. It surprised me as much as it (apparently) does you.
By the way, countries that are better off, like the US, are largely helped by immigration indeed. Which is why anti-immigration policies would be like shooting themselves in the foot.
Because it's not a problem yet. What's going to stop them from doing it when the birth rate becomes a problem? Almost nothing.
> Due to the scale of their population collapse, the influx of immigrants would have to be massive.
Not really. You are mistakenly extrapolating the situation in the Western world, where purposefully brought in almost only criminals and freeloaders, to Korea. If you organize immigration of labor, then not so many immigrants will be needed
> What's going to stop them from doing it when the birth rate becomes a problem? Almost nothing
Their birth rate is already a massive problem. The South Korean government already acknowledges this is a crisis, it's just that the measures that are politically/socially viable just don't cut it, and Koreans seem unwilling to consider more drastic measures. But the problem is already here, and acknowledged, and already impacting the population of South Korea (there's apparently a "loneliness epidemic" going on already).
Because of the shape the population pyramid takes (more old people than young people) once it reaches the tipping point, which in South Korea it already has, there's no going back. No matter how they try, they simply don't have enough young people to revert it anymore.
> If you organize immigration of labor, then not so many immigrants will be needed
This is not (just) about labor, it's about population decline. Even if Koreans dedicated themselves to having more children, it wouldn't be enough anymore. They are beyond the tipping point. They would need massive immigration to live there and have children there and effectively become "the new Koreans"... and this is obviously unpalatable to many.
I encourage you to read on this. Do not debate me: I'm not the expert here!
These are not experts, they are deep state propagandists.
I mean, fortunately (or unfortunately), such processes have been going on for decades, and these experts have been in business for decades. So, nothing prevents us from analyzing their early models, explanations, projections, and forecasts, and comparing them with reality in order to form an opinion about the level of their expertise
> Their birth rate is already a massive problem.
Not exactly. Low birth rate itself is not a problem. What is a problem is the future consequences of low birth rate . And these consequences generally have not yet occurred, i.e. there is no problem yet.
> Koreans seem unwilling to consider more drastic measures
Yes, because there is no problem yet
> once it reaches the tipping point
Then it will become a problem and nothing will stop them from bringing in some foreign labor to fix it.
> They would need massive immigration to live there
Not that massive. Your ideas about the required amount of immigration to fix the labor shortage problem are probably formed by extrapolating Western immigration processes. But the point is that you can’t extrapolate like that. There are no obstacles to carrying out immigration tens of times more effectively than the West does.
Just to understand how irrelevant this issue is for Korea at the moment: the twentieth century was quite a turbulent time for Koreans, and now quite a lot of ethnic Koreans live outside of Korea. Many of them know the Korean language, want to move to Korea, but even with repatriation programs, this is not such an easy process. Korea has so many Koreans inside the country that they are quite reluctant to grant residence permits even to other Koreans with foreign citizenships.
Deep state? I feel like I've stepped into a conspiracy theory. What does the deep state have to do with anything? Deep state from which country? The US? Korea?
> Not exactly. Low birth rate itself is not a problem. What is a problem is the future consequences of low birth rate . And these consequences generally have not yet occurred, i.e. there is no problem yet.
Why "not exactly"? It's understood by everyone that low birth rate is a problem because of its rippling effects, which are not immediate. When I say "a massive problem" I mean "already in the near future".
But apparently it's causing problems for young people today, already.
> And these consequences generally have not yet occurred, i.e. there is no problem yet.
South Korean society is already quite unhealthy, and apparently for younger generations even more so.
To be clear: the numbers alone don't tell the full story. Population density is not the important metric here, but population aging is. There could be lots of Koreans today, but if the distribution is top-heavy, it cannot help them.
Let's do something else: link me a serious (non-conspiracy) study that there is no population decline crisis in South Korea, and I'll read it with an open mind. Be forewarned though, if it's a conspiracy article I'll ignore it.
But it's going to cease to exist as it is anyway. One way or another. And the people that remain will not be staring at a wall waiting for it to end. Also, young people seem to have a radically different mindset there, which is what tends to happen when they see their parents screwing everything up.
Maybe the culture isn't there yet but it will be. Having said that, I would never be happy to live in a country with strict moral codes like Japan or South Korea. But I'm sure many people would be. In particular conservatives tend to love these societies, you often hear comments like "this is what we should do here in the US".
I'm a raging pro-lgbt polyamorous kinky progressive so for me it would be the wrong place. But there are lots of people that would love this kind of thing.
Doesn’t the fact that the people in said culture have decided it’s no longer worth reproducing, en masse, because of how their life is, imply that a lot of people wouldn’t actually like that kind of thing?
But reality shows it is happening, it is accelerating, and young people are part of the problem.
It's a real thing, and the consensus seems to be it's irreversible, however bizarre it may seem to us.
Will it disappear as we know it? Yes. But that is true everywhere. The America as you knew it in 2010 is also gone forever (and not for the better, unfortunately with its current politics). Same in Europe where the nazis are trying to take over. Change is a constant.
The South Korean population time bomb is a completely different thing to America in the 2010 changing.
Have you read what people who study demographics currently believe about South Korea. An informed opinion is really needed to discuss this, this is not about "feelings".
after all chinese is the first one that has official military cyber unit (first in the world)
north korean following suit for monetary reason and have as far as Property (Hotel etc) on china mainland to run the operation from there
as for china??? they basically have an "laundry" business that can take dollar from korea in trade of supplies
Now, non-APT actors, if they wanted to up their level of sophistication, might replicate some of these workflows for their own nefarious activities.
There's no way to only give the information to one group without the other group getting their hands on it.
Unfortunately, it quickly turns into a discussion of how bad NK and China are and how China shouldn't support NK (because, again, they're bad).
I'll offer two words to expose the hypocrisy of this: Stuxnet, Pegasus.
> Use of Korean language, OCR targeting of Korean documents, and focus on GPKI systems strongly suggest North Korean origin.
I'm don't follow how needing OCR to read Korean documents points to them being North Korean?
Could also point in the opposite direction of them needing to copy the text for translation.
The OCR still tells us more about the target than the actor, but I guess they are suggesting the choice of target itself is the indicator.
They mentioned this was a pain in the ass, and a very weird restriction since technically any member of the public can ask for a copy of their emails via FOIA.
The article itself says that 100% phishing resistance is impossible. So I stand by my arguement that if you give an idiot a Yubikey, it still doesnt save them from themselves.
>Does this technology eliminate all risk? No. As this becomes widely deployed new attacks will be developed, but it will be MUCH harder for the cyber attacker.
> FIDO is extremely resistant to phishing attacks but adopting FIDO does not mean your organization is secure against phishing.
It's puzzling why the NORC hackers didn't use a nearest neighbor hack rather than leaving a trail of bread crumbs all the way back to Pyongyang ;)
The Russians do this a lot. This kind of attack that they want everyone to know they are being without telling you they are behind it and denying it in all colours.