Connect with us

Business

North Korea may have agents inside your company. 6 signs to look for

Published

on



Michael Barnhart is an investigator at DTEX Systems focused on North Korea.

They showed up on time, crushed deadlines, asked no questions.

It was a bit weird they never turned their camera on, but not a deal breaker.

Then they were gone.

No notice. No forwarding details. Just silence.

Across industries, some of the highest-performing remote workers are vanishing without a trace. For many companies, it’s not a burnout issue—it’s a breach of trust. And in more cases than you’d think, the root cause traces back to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK).

On June 30, the FBI and Department of Justice announced one of the largest crackdowns yet on North Korea’s remote IT worker scheme, designed to covertly fund the regime. Nearly 30 “laptop farms” across 16 U.S. states were raided for their suspected role. The coordinated action included three indictments, one arrest, the seizure of 29 financial accounts, and the takedown of 21 websites, part of a sweeping effort to disrupt covert operations and stop sanctioned workers from infiltrating global companies under false identities.

The bust marks a rare and direct strike against one of the world’s most evasive cyber adversaries.

North Korea’s shadow IT workforce isn’t just a sanctions workaround. It’s a global, for-profit operation embedding operatives inside major companies under false identities funneling money, access, and opportunity back to the regime. And if you think you’d spot it, you probably won’t. These workers are quiet by design, skilled by necessity, and trained to exploit the blind spots in modern remote work.

The scale of this infiltration is greater than many realize—and the indictments are unlikely to be the last. For now, every company should be asking: Could this be us?

Six red flags you hired a North Korean IT worker

Evading detection and blending into the background is DPRK tradecraft 101. But with the right behavioral analytics and cross-functional vigilance, patterns emerge. Here’s what to watch for:

  1. Run known DPRK-linked IOCs against your systems
    Start with what’s public. Known Indicators of Compromise (IOCs) tied to DPRK operations are readily available. Cross-reference them with your email logs, ticketing systems, and access records. If you find a hit, you might already be compromised.
  2. Odd working hours for alleged U.S.-based staff
    A remote dev claiming to be in Austin but pushing commits at 3 a.m. local time? That’s not hustle—that’s a time zone mismatch. DPRK operatives often work from China or Russia and adjust their hours to avoid detection. Look for strange bursts of late-week activity or unnatural work cadences.
  3. Use of remote access tools and anonymizers
    IP-KVM switches. Mouse automation tools. Anonymizing VPNs and remote desktop protocols. These aren’t just IT oddities—they’re DPRK staples. If you’re seeing remote access patterns that don’t match declared user behavior, or tooling that simulates presence, investigate.
  4. Unusually low communication engagement
    Camera always off. Silent in Slack. No questions, no friction. In many organizations, that’s seen as a plus. But low engagement, especially from critical roles, is a tell. DPRK operatives play invisible. That silence is often the signal. DPRK operatives are trained to stay invisible. In some cases, that quiet isn’t just disengagement—it’s operational cover. Several fake workers recently vanished not because they quit, but because their devices were seized in international stings. When someone goes dark, it may not be ghosting—law enforcement might be calling next about your company’s compromised systems.
  5. Resume or referral patterns that feel too familiar
    Look closer at your hiring pipeline. Reused resumes. Recycled phrasing. Overlapping career timelines. These are signs of templated personas. DPRK operatives often enter via fake recruiters or refer other DPRK workers in their group. When candidates start to blur together, it’s time to dig deeper.
  6. Discrepancy between interview and on-the-job performance
    Crushed the interview. Fell flat on day one. It happens, but when the person in the job doesn’t match the person who interviewed, that’s a problem. Voice changers, stand-ins, and deepfakes have all been used to slip through screenings. Even a quick follow-up can surface inconsistencies.

I hired a DPRK worker. Now what?

Step one: Don’t panic. Step two: Move fast.

When sensitive customer data or intellectual property may have been exposed, your response must be immediate, coordinated, and comprehensive.

Here’s what to do next:

  1. Immediate containment and isolation
    Suspend all access immediately—VPNs, cloud platforms, code repos, and email. Quarantine devices and preserve them for forensic analysis; don’t wipe or reset anything. Reset all related credentials to prevent further access. Fast action here matters. Every minute counts in preventing data theft or sabotage.
  2. Comprehensive forensic investigation
    Bring in experts experienced with insider threats and DPRK tactics. Analyze logs from networks, cloud, endpoints, and code repositories to uncover unusual access or data exfiltration. What did they touch? Where did the data flow? Look for covert data transfers or attempts to hide activity.
  3. Assess the scope of exposure
    Did they access customer data, IP, source code, or regulated content? Evaluate compliance exposure under GDPR, HIPAA, or CCPA. Risk isn’t limited to theft—think extortion, ransomware, or deeper compromise.
  4. Coordinate cross-functional response
    Bring in legal, PR, and HR. Legal advises on disclosure; PR preps messaging; HR manages internal fallout. The faster you coordinate, the more control you maintain.
  5. Engage external authorities
    Loop in law enforcement, including the Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3) and the Department of Defense Cyber Crime Center (DC3). These aren’t just corporate risks; they’re geopolitical ones. Sharing intelligence strengthens your position and may help prevent future breaches.

Prevention beyond cyber and HR

Running known IOCs is a start—and a clean report is good news. But DPRK ops move fast. Prevention requires behavior-based visibility and tight cross-team alignment.

Pre-hire protective measures:

  • Conduct live, on-camera interviews with IP/geolocation validation
  • Independently verify references and past employment
  • Use unscripted, technical Q&A to gauge real expertise
  • Involve HR and legal early in security awareness and hiring processes

Post-hire protective measures:

  • Flag re-applications using recycled data or aliases
  • Monitor for unusual access times, remote tool use, and VPN spikes
  • Track engagement levels—silence is a signal
  • Watch for early signs of extortion, evasion, or data misuse

By fostering close collaboration across internal and external security, HR, risk, and legal teams, organizations can build a resilient insider risk program that detects and mitigates threats before they escalate. Prevention is a team effort, and behavior is the strongest signal.

North Korea—what’s next

The latest and ongoing government actions have pushed the DPRK’s shadow workforce into the spotlight. But exposure isn’t elimination. The playbook will evolve—new names, new tools, new countries.

The modern insider won’t always look suspicious. They’ll look perfect. Until they disappear.

Knowing what to look for is step one. Shutting it down for good is the mission ahead.

The opinions expressed in Fortune.com commentary pieces are solely the views of their authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and beliefs of Fortune.

Read more:



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

AI labs like Meta, Deepseek, and Xai earned worst grades possible on an existential safety index

Published

on



A recent report card from an AI safety watchdog isn’t one that tech companies will want to stick on the fridge.

The Future of Life Institute’s latest AI safety index found that major AI labs fell short on most measures of AI responsibility, with few letter grades rising above a C. The org graded eight companies across categories like safety frameworks, risk assessment, and current harms.

Perhaps most glaring was the “existential safety” line, where companies scored Ds and Fs across the board. While many of these companies are explicitly chasing superintelligence, they lack a plan for safely managing it, according to Max Tegmark, MIT professor and president of the Future of Life Institute.

“Reviewers found this kind of jarring,” Tegmark told us.

The reviewers in question were a panel of AI academics and governance experts who examined publicly available material as well as survey responses submitted by five of the eight companies.

Anthropic, OpenAI, and GoogleDeepMind took the top three spots with an overall grade of C+ or C. Then came, in order, Elon Musk’s Xai, Z.ai, Meta, DeepSeek, and Alibaba, all of which got Ds or a D-.

Tegmark blames a lack of regulation that has meant the cutthroat competition of the AI race trumps safety precautions. California recently passed the first law that requires frontier AI companies to disclose safety information around catastrophic risks, and New York is currently within spitting distance as well. Hopes for federal legislation are dim, however.

“Companies have an incentive, even if they have the best intentions, to always rush out new products before the competitor does, as opposed to necessarily putting in a lot of time to make it safe,” Tegmark said.

In lieu of government-mandated standards, Tegmark said the industry has begun to take the group’s regularly released safety indexes more seriously; four of the five American companies now respond to its survey (Meta is the only holdout.) And companies have made some improvements over time, Tegmark said, mentioning Google’s transparency around its whistleblower policy as an example.

But real-life harms reported around issues like teen suicides that chatbots allegedly encouraged, inappropriate interactions with minors, and major cyberattacks have also raised the stakes of the discussion, he said.

“[They] have really made a lot of people realize that this isn’t the future we’re talking about—it’s now,” Tegmark said.

The Future of Life Institute recently enlisted public figures as diverse as Prince Harry and Meghan Markle, former Trump aide Steve Bannon, Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak, and rapper Will.i.am to sign a statement opposing work that could lead to superintelligence.

Tegmark said he would like to see something like “an FDA for AI where companies first have to convince experts that their models are safe before they can sell them.

“The AI industry is quite unique in that it’s the only industry in the US making powerful technology that’s less regulated than sandwiches—basically not regulated at all,” Tegmark said. “If someone says, ‘I want to open a new sandwich shop near Times Square,’ before you can sell the first sandwich, you need a health inspector to check your kitchen and make sure it’s not full of rats…If you instead say, ‘Oh no, I’m not going to sell any sandwiches. I’m just going to release superintelligence.’ OK! No need for any inspectors, no need to get any approvals for anything.”

“So the solution to this is very obvious,” Tegmark added. “You just stop this corporate welfare of giving AI companies exemptions that no other companies get.”

This report was originally published by Tech Brew.



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Hollywood writers say Warner takeover ‘must be blocked’

Published

on



Hollywood writers, producers, directors and theater owners voiced skepticism over Netflix Inc.’s proposed $82.7 billion takeover of Warner Bros. Discovery Inc.’s studio and streaming businesses, saying it threatens to undermine their interests.

The Writers Guild of America, which announced in October it would oppose any sale of Warner Bros., reiterated that view on Friday, saying the purchase by Netflix “must be blocked.”

“The world’s largest streaming company swallowing one of its biggest competitors is what antitrust laws were designed to prevent,” the guild said in an emailed statement. “The outcome would eliminate jobs, push down wages, worsen conditions for all entertainment workers, raise prices for consumers, and reduce the volume and diversity of content for all viewers.”

The worries raised by the movie and TV industry’s biggest trade groups come against the backdrop of falling movie and TV production, slack ticket sales and steep job cuts in Hollywood. Another legacy studio, Paramount, was sold earlier this year.

Warner Bros. accounts for about a fourth of North American ticket sales — roughly $2 billion — and is being acquired by a company that has long shunned theatrical releases for its feature films. As part of the deal, Netflix co-CEO Ted Sarandos has promised Warner Bros. will continue to release moves in theaters.

“The proposed acquisition of Warner Bros. by Netflix poses an unprecedented threat to the global exhibition business,” Michael O’Leary, chief executive officer of the theatrical trade group Cinema United, said in en emailed statement Friday. “The negative impact of this acquisition will impact theaters from the biggest circuits to one-screen independents.”

The buyout of Warner Bros. by Netflix “would be a disaster,” James Cameron, the director of some of Hollywood’s highest-grossing films in history including Titanic and Avatar, said in late November on The Town, an industry-focused podcast. “Sorry Ted, but jeez. Sarandos has gone on record saying theatrical films are dead.”

On a conference call with investors Friday, Sarandos said that his company’s resistance to releasing films in cinemas was mostly tied to “the long exclusive windows, which we don’t really think are that consumer friendly.”

The company said Friday it would “maintain Warner Bros.’ current operations and build on its strengths, including theatrical releases for films.”

On the call, Sarandos reiterated that view, saying that, “right now, you should count on everything that is planned on going to the theater through Warner Bros. will continue to go to the theaters through Warner Bros.” 

Competition from online outfits like YouTube and Netflix has forced a reckoning in Hollywood, opening the door for takeovers like the Warner Bros. deal announced Friday. Media giants including Comcast Corp., parent of NBCUniversal, are unloading cable-TV networks like MS Now and USA, and steering resources into streaming. 

In an emailed note to Warner Bros. employees on Friday, Chief Executive Officer David Zaslav said the board’s decision to sell the company “reflects the realities of an industry undergoing generational change in how stories are financed, produced, distributed, and discovered.”

The Producers Guild of America said Friday its members are “rightfully concerned about Netflix’s intended acquisition of one of our industry’s most storied and meaningful studios,” while a spokesperson for the Directors Guild of America raised concerns about future pay at Warner Bros.

“We will be meeting with Netflix to outline our concerns and better understand their vision for the future of the company,” the Directors Guild said.

In September, the DGA appointed director Christopher Nolan as its president. Nolan has previously criticized Netflix’s model of releasing films exclusively online, or simultaneously in a small number of cinemas, and has said he won’t make movies for the company.

The Screen Actors Guild said Friday that the transaction “raises many serious questions about its impact on the future of the entertainment industry, and especially the human creative talent whose livelihoods and careers depend on it.”

Oscar winner Jane Fonda spoke out on Thursday before the deal was announced. 

“Consolidation at this scale would be catastrophic for an industry built on free expression, for the creative workers who power it, and for consumers who depend on a free, independent media ecosystem to understand the world,” the star of the Netflix series Grace and Frankie wrote on the Ankler industry news website.

Netflix and Warner Bros. obviously don’t see it that way. In his statement to employees, Zaslav said “the proposed combination of Warner Bros. and Netflix reflects complementary strengths, more choice and value for consumers, a stronger entertainment industry, increased opportunity for creative talent, and long-term value creation for shareholders.”



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

4 times in 7 seconds: Trump calls Somali immigrants ‘garbage’

Published

on



He said it four times in seven seconds: Somali immigrants in the United States are “garbage.”

It was no mistake. In fact, President Donald Trump’s rhetorical attacks on immigrants have been building since he said Mexico was sending “rapists” across the border during his presidential campaign announcement a decade ago. He’s also echoed rhetoric once used by Adolf Hitler and called the 54 nations of Africa “s—-hole countries.” But with one flourish closing a two-hour Cabinet meeting Tuesday, Trump amped up his anti-immigrant rhetoric even further and ditched any claim that his administration was only seeking to remove people in the U.S. illegally.

“We don’t want ‘em in our country,” Trump said five times of the nation’s 260,000 people of Somali descent. “Let ’em go back to where they came from and fix it.” The assembled Cabinet members cheered and applauded. Vice President JD Vance could be seen pumping a fist. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, sitting to the president’s immediate left, told Trump on-camera, “Well said.”

The two-minute finale offered a riveting display in a nation that prides itself as being founded and enriched by immigrants, alongside an ugly history of enslaving millions of them and limiting who can come in. Trump’s U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids and deportations have reignited an age-old debate — and widened the nation’s divisions — over who can be an American, with Trump telling tens of thousands of American citizens, among others, that he doesn’t want them by virtue of their family origin.

“What he has done is brought this type of language more into the everyday conversation, more into the main,” said Carl Bon Tempo, a State University of New York at Albany history professor. “He’s, in a way, legitimated this type of language that, for many Americans for a long time, was seen as outside the bounds.”

A question that cuts to the core of American identity

Some Americans have long felt that people from certain parts of the world can never really blend in. That outsider-averse sentiment has manifested during difficult periods, such as anti-Chinese fear-mongering in the late 19th century and the imprisonment of some 120,000 Japanese Americans during World War II.

Trump, reelected with more than 77 million votes last year, has launched a whole-of-government drive to limit immigration. His order to end birthright citizenship — declaring that children born to parents who are in the United States illegally or temporarily are not American citizens despite the 14th Amendment — is being considered by the Supreme Court. He has largely frozen the country’s asylum system and drastically reduced the number of refugees it is allowed to admit. And his administration this week halted immigration applications for migrants from 19 travel-ban nations.

Immigration remains a signature issue for Trump, and he has slightly higher marks on it than on his overall job approval. According to a November AP-NORC poll, roughly 4 in 10 adults — 42% — approved of how the president is handling the issue, down from about half who approved in March. And Trump has pushed his agenda with near-daily crackdowns. On Wednesday, federal agents launched an immigration sweep in New Orleans,

There are some clues that Trump uses stronger anti-immigration rhetoric than many members of his own party. A study of 200,000 speeches in Congress and 5,000 presidential communications related to immigration between 1880 and 2020 found that the “most influential” words on the subject were terms like “enforce,” “terrorism” and “policy” from 1973 through Trump’s first presidential term.

The authors wrote in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that Trump is “the first president in modern American history to express sentiment toward immigration that is more negative than the average member of his own party.” And that was before he called thousands of Somalis in the U.S. “garbage.”

The U.S. president, embattled over other developments during the Cabinet meeting and discussions between Russian President Vladimir Putin and U.S. envoys, opted for harsh talk in his jam-packed closing.

Somali Americans, he said, “come from hell” and “contribute nothing.” They do “nothing but bitch” and “their country stinks.” Then Trump turned to a familiar target. Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., an outspoken and frequent Trump critic, “is garbage,” he said. “Her friends are garbage.”

His remarks on Somalia drew shock and condemnation from Minneapolis to Mogadishu.

“My view of the U.S. and living there has changed dramatically. I never thought a president, especially in his second term, would speak so harshly,” Ibrahim Hassan Hajji, a resident of Somalia’s capital city, told The Associated Press. “Because of this, I have no plans to travel to the U.S.”

Omar called Trump’s “obsession” with her and Somali-Americans “creepy and unhealthy.”

“We are not, and I am not, someone to be intimidated,” she said, “and we are not gonna be scapegoated.”

Trump’s influence on these issues is potent

But from the highest pulpit in the world’s biggest economy, Trump has had an undeniable influence on how people regard immigrants.

“Trump specializes in pushing the boundaries of what others have done before,” said César Cuauhtémoc García Hernández, a civil rights law professor at Ohio State University. “He is far from the first politician to embrace race-baiting xenophobia. But as president of the United States, he has more impact than most.” Domestically, Trump has “remarkable loyalty” among Republicans, he added. “Internationally, he embodies an aspiration for like-minded politicians and intellectuals.”

In Britain, attitudes toward migrants have hardened in the decade since Brexit, a vote driven in part by hostility toward immigrants from Eastern Europe. Nigel Farage, leader of the hard-right Reform U.K. party, has called unauthorized migration an “invasion” and warned of looming civil disorder.

France’s Marine Le Pen and her father built their political empire on anti-immigrant language decades before Trump entered politics. But the National Rally party has softened its rhetoric to win broader support. Le Pen often casts the issue as an administrative or policy matter.

In fact, what Trump said about people from Somalia would likely be illegal in France if uttered by anyone other than a head of state, because public insults based on a group’s national origin, ethnicity, race or religion are illegal under the country’s hate speech laws. But French law grants heads of state immunity.

One lawyer expressed concerns that Trump’s words will encourage other heads of state to use similar hate speech targeting people as groups.

“Comments saying that a population stinks — coming from a foreign head of state, a top world military and economic power — that’s never happened before,” said Paris lawyer Arié Alimi, who has worked on hate speech cases. “So here we are really crossing a very, very, very important threshold in terms of expressing racist … comments.”

But the “America first” president said he isn’t worried about others think of his increasingly polarizing rhetoric on immigration.

“I hear somebody say, ‘Oh, that’s not politically correct,’” Trump said, winding up his summation Tuesday. “I don’t care. I don’t want them.”

___

Contributing to this report are Associated Press writers Will Weissert and Linley Sanders in Washington, John Leicester in Paris, Jill Lawless in London, Evelyne Musambi in Nairobi, Kenya, and Omar Faruk in Mogadishu.



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © Miami Select.