NORTH KOREA LINKED TO ATTACKS ON BANKS Security researchers have tied several online breaches at Asian banks to North Korea, Nicole Perlroth and Michael Corkery report in DealBook. The digital security firm Symantec said that in three recent attacks, the thieves used a rare piece of code that had been seen in only two previous cases - the hacking attack on Sony Pictures in 2014 and attacks on banks and media companies in South Korea the year before.
Symantec researchers said the evidence linked an attack at a bank in the Philippines last October with attacks on Tien Phong Bank in Vietnam in December and another in February that resulted in the theft of $81 million from the central bank of Bangladesh.
Eric Chien, a security researcher at Symantec who found the code used across the attacks, said it was the first time that a nation had used online attacks for financial gain.
Symantec researchers said the evidence linked an attack at a bank in the Philippines last October with attacks on Tien Phong Bank in Vietnam in December and another in February that resulted in the theft of $81 million from the central bank of Bangladesh.
Eric Chien, a security researcher at Symantec who found the code used across the attacks, said it was the first time that a nation had used online attacks for financial gain.
The attacks raised alarm bells because the thieves gained access to Swift, which is considered the world's most secure payment messaging system. It is used by 11,000 banks and companies to move money between countries, making it a tempting target. Swift itself had warned of a coordinated assault on banks, although it stressed that it was the banks' connections to its networks, rather than the network itself, that were breached.
The possibility that Pyongyang had turned to digital theft was not surprising. North Korea's economy has been ravaged by sanctions and food shortages. Its gross domestic product was estimated to be $12 billion to $40 billion, compared with South Korea's $1.4 trillion.
"If you presume it's North Korea, $1 billion is almost 10 percent of their G.D.P.," Mr. Chien said. "This is not small change for them."
There is no evidence to date that the thieves have gone after large American or European banks, though new possible attacks are being reported weekly. Last week, evidence emerged that Banco del Austro, an Ecuadorean bank, was infiltrated by hackers who were able to sneak into the Swift network.
FireEye, the security firm investigating the intrusion on Bangladesh's central bank, is looking at several more undisclosed cases where banks' systems were compromised, The Wall Street Journal reports, citing a person familiar with the matter. The suspected attacks involved eight other banks, all of which are in Asia.
Analysts worry that the breaches could hold back global finance; larger banks may become reluctant or even refuse to transact with smaller banks in the developing world unless they have assurances that their networks would not be compromised.
GOOGLE WINS COPYRIGHT DISPUTE WITH ORACLE A judged ruled in Google's favor in a legal dispute with Oracle over software used to power most of the world's smartphones, Nick Wingfield and Quentin Hardy report in The New York Times.
Oracle contended that Google used copyrighted material in the software code for the Android mobile phone operating system. Oracle asked for $9 billion from Google. Google said it had made fair use of that code and owed nothing.
Software developers, who operate in the same way Google did when it comes to open-source software, cheered the victory. Open-source products are released, often with some restrictions, for anyone to use and modify.
Chris Dixon, a technology investor with Andreessen Horowitz, called it "great news for progress and innovation."
Android relies in part on Java, an open-source software language the Oracle acquired when it bought Sun Microsystems for $7.4 billion in 2010.Oracle accused Google executives of violating Oracle's copyright by using aspects of Java without permission.
The courtroom fight could offer clarity on legal rules surrounding open-source technology, which is used in everything from smartphones and digital recording devices to the software that runs many of the world's biggest data centers. People who worked with open-source technology had feared that a victory for Oracle would lead to other similar demands.
Dorian Daley, Oracle's general counsel, said the company planned to appeal. "We strongly believe that Google developed Android by illegally copying core Java technology to rush into the mobile device market," she said in a statement.
Some lawyers cautioned against viewing the verdict as a green light for the type of software development that Google practiced, saying that an earlier federal appeals court decision validated the idea that A.P.I.s can be copyrighted.
"I think what you're still going to see is a lot more attention paid to securing approval to use other copyrights before the fact," said Christopher Carani, a lawyer at McAndrews, Held & Malloy.
Oracle contended that Google used copyrighted material in the software code for the Android mobile phone operating system. Oracle asked for $9 billion from Google. Google said it had made fair use of that code and owed nothing.
Software developers, who operate in the same way Google did when it comes to open-source software, cheered the victory. Open-source products are released, often with some restrictions, for anyone to use and modify.
Chris Dixon, a technology investor with Andreessen Horowitz, called it "great news for progress and innovation."
Android relies in part on Java, an open-source software language the Oracle acquired when it bought Sun Microsystems for $7.4 billion in 2010.Oracle accused Google executives of violating Oracle's copyright by using aspects of Java without permission.
The courtroom fight could offer clarity on legal rules surrounding open-source technology, which is used in everything from smartphones and digital recording devices to the software that runs many of the world's biggest data centers. People who worked with open-source technology had feared that a victory for Oracle would lead to other similar demands.
Dorian Daley, Oracle's general counsel, said the company planned to appeal. "We strongly believe that Google developed Android by illegally copying core Java technology to rush into the mobile device market," she said in a statement.
Some lawyers cautioned against viewing the verdict as a green light for the type of software development that Google practiced, saying that an earlier federal appeals court decision validated the idea that A.P.I.s can be copyrighted.
"I think what you're still going to see is a lot more attention paid to securing approval to use other copyrights before the fact," said Christopher Carani, a lawyer at McAndrews, Held & Malloy.
COURT RULES AGAINST IMPOSED ARBITRATION A federal appeals court ruled the companies cannot force their employees to sign away their right to band together in legal actions, Jessica Silver-Greenberg and Noam Scheiber report in DealBook. The decision was a major victory for American workers and opened up an opportunity for the Supreme Court to weigh in.
In its opinion, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Chicago said that Epic Systems, a health care software provider in Verona, Wis., violated federal labor law when it required its workers to bring disputes individually to arbitration.
The court said that by preventing employees from joining together in a collective action, the arbitration clause ran afoul of a critical piece of the National Labor Relations Act, a landmark 1935 law that gave workers the right to unionize and engage in concerted action.
The decision directly conflicts with an earlier decision by an appeals court in Louisiana and the split could prompt the Supreme Court to wade back into the fray.
In a pair of decisions in 2011 and 2013, the Supreme Court blessed the use of arbitration in a case pushed by a group of credit card companies. The credit card companies turned to a 1925 federal law that formalized arbitration as a means for companies to hash out their disputes with one another.
Courts across the country have largely upheld arbitration clauses, deferring to the Supreme Court, which ruled that the Federal Arbitration Act beat even federal laws.
In its opinion, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Chicago said that Epic Systems, a health care software provider in Verona, Wis., violated federal labor law when it required its workers to bring disputes individually to arbitration.
The court said that by preventing employees from joining together in a collective action, the arbitration clause ran afoul of a critical piece of the National Labor Relations Act, a landmark 1935 law that gave workers the right to unionize and engage in concerted action.
The decision directly conflicts with an earlier decision by an appeals court in Louisiana and the split could prompt the Supreme Court to wade back into the fray.
In a pair of decisions in 2011 and 2013, the Supreme Court blessed the use of arbitration in a case pushed by a group of credit card companies. The credit card companies turned to a 1925 federal law that formalized arbitration as a means for companies to hash out their disputes with one another.
Courts across the country have largely upheld arbitration clauses, deferring to the Supreme Court, which ruled that the Federal Arbitration Act beat even federal laws.
ON THE AGENDA The Commerce Department will publish the first revision of its estimate for first-quarter economic growth at 8:30 a.m.Janet L. Yellen, the chairwoman of the Federal Reserve, will receive the Radcliffe Medal at Harvard in Cambridge, Mass., at 12:30 p.m. The presentation will be followed by a discussion with Gregory Mankiw, a professor of economics at Harvard.
GAWKER'S FOUNDER CRITICIZES CAMPAIGN AGAINST COMPANY Nick Denton, the founder and majority owner of Gawker, has published an open letter to Peter Thiel, calling him "thin-skinned" and a "comic book villain," Katie Rogers and Michael J. de la Merced report in DealBook. Mr. Denton challenged Mr Thiel, who this week revealed that he was funding several lawsuits against Gawker, to a public debate about the role of journalism in society.
"This vindictive decade-long campaign is quite out of proportion to the hurt you claim," Mr. Denton wrote. He issued a play-by-play account of past stories that drew Mr. Thiel's ire and of two defamation lawsuits currently pending against Gawker, criticizing what he characterized as an inability by Silicon Valley figures to accept criticism by journalists.
Mr. Denton assured Mr. Thiel that Gawker's journalists would be reporting on his involvement in lawsuits against the company.
Gawker also acknowledged that it had recently hired Mark Patricof, a senior banker at the firm Houlihan Lokey, to provide financial advice. Houlihan Lokey is known for its mergers and corporate restructuring expertise, but the company refused to address reports that a potential buyer had emerged.
Gawker's strategic review is in its early stages and Mr. Denton has not decided on how to proceed, according to people with direct knowledge of the plans. The company had considered potential offers this year that were as high as $350 million, said people with direct knowledge of the matter.
Questions about whether press freedom is in danger have also been raised,Ms. Rogers and John Herrman report in The New York Times.
Some journalists felt that Mr. Thiel's political views and his connection with Donald J. Trump could be worrisome as Mr. Trump has made comments about changing libel laws to make it easier to sue news outlets.
Others still debated whether it was appropriate for outside parties to fund lawsuits in the way Mr. Thiel did. Marc Andreessen, a Silicon Valley venture capitalist, wrote on Twitter that "Greenpeace and Sierra Club, among many other progressive groups, routinely fund other plaintiffs' lawsuits."
Legal experts maintained that regardless of the sources of funding, cases would still succeed or fall based on their merits, Barry Meier writes in The Times. Lawsuits financed by third parties are legal. Business groups have claimed that outside investing helps fuel frivolous litigations, but others see it as a boon for plaintiffs without resources to take on deep-pocketed defendants.
The news also raised debate among Times readers. "It sends a message to other media outlets to watch who and what they're writing stories about," Superamerickson of Minneapolis wrote. "Don't investigate rich people or you'll get shut down."
"This vindictive decade-long campaign is quite out of proportion to the hurt you claim," Mr. Denton wrote. He issued a play-by-play account of past stories that drew Mr. Thiel's ire and of two defamation lawsuits currently pending against Gawker, criticizing what he characterized as an inability by Silicon Valley figures to accept criticism by journalists.
Mr. Denton assured Mr. Thiel that Gawker's journalists would be reporting on his involvement in lawsuits against the company.
Gawker also acknowledged that it had recently hired Mark Patricof, a senior banker at the firm Houlihan Lokey, to provide financial advice. Houlihan Lokey is known for its mergers and corporate restructuring expertise, but the company refused to address reports that a potential buyer had emerged.
Gawker's strategic review is in its early stages and Mr. Denton has not decided on how to proceed, according to people with direct knowledge of the plans. The company had considered potential offers this year that were as high as $350 million, said people with direct knowledge of the matter.
Questions about whether press freedom is in danger have also been raised,Ms. Rogers and John Herrman report in The New York Times.
Some journalists felt that Mr. Thiel's political views and his connection with Donald J. Trump could be worrisome as Mr. Trump has made comments about changing libel laws to make it easier to sue news outlets.
Others still debated whether it was appropriate for outside parties to fund lawsuits in the way Mr. Thiel did. Marc Andreessen, a Silicon Valley venture capitalist, wrote on Twitter that "Greenpeace and Sierra Club, among many other progressive groups, routinely fund other plaintiffs' lawsuits."
Legal experts maintained that regardless of the sources of funding, cases would still succeed or fall based on their merits, Barry Meier writes in The Times. Lawsuits financed by third parties are legal. Business groups have claimed that outside investing helps fuel frivolous litigations, but others see it as a boon for plaintiffs without resources to take on deep-pocketed defendants.
The news also raised debate among Times readers. "It sends a message to other media outlets to watch who and what they're writing stories about," Superamerickson of Minneapolis wrote. "Don't investigate rich people or you'll get shut down."
No comments:
Post a Comment