Honestly, Marc Rogers' analysis is fucking awful. It's entirely speculation - it's no different to your average Slashdot post where someone is just stating their opinion and passing it off as fact. Examples:
"1. The broken English looks deliberately bad and doesnâ(TM)t exhibit any of the classic comprehension mistakes you actually expect to see in âoeKonglishâ. i.e it reads to me like an English speaker pretending to be bad at writing English."
Really? Please expand on that. Please give examples. To me it looks like just about every other piece of broken English I've seen online. Simply declare it not such without explaining why is not an argument.
"2. The fact that the code was written on a PC with Korean locale & language actually makes it less likely to be North Korea. Not least because they donâ(TM)t speak traditional âoeKoreanâ in North Korea, they speak their own dialect and traditional Korean is forbidden."
Interesting, but hardly stone cold evidence. If it was a North Korean spy that's trained in South Korean because they were behind the past hacks on South Korea then they may find that this is the easiest configuration for them. Is the North Korean dialect even a configuration option? If not then what else could they use? English? I'd guess not given how broken their English is.
"3. Itâ(TM)s clear from the hard-coded paths and passwords in the malware that whoever wrote it had extensive knowledge of Sonyâ(TM)s internal architecture and access to key passwords. While itâ(TM)s plausible that an attacker could have built up this knowledge over time and then used it to make the malware, Occamâ(TM)s razor suggests the simpler explanation of an insider. It also fits with the pure revenge tact that this started out as."
Again, entirely just speculation, poor use of Occam's razor. Occam's razor doesn't suggest it was an insider out to get Sony any more than it suggests the attackers simply spent a bit of time surveilling their target before following through with the hack. This argument again adds nothing.
"4. Whoever did this is in it for revenge. The info and access they had could have easily been used to cash out, yet, instead, they are making every effort to burn Sony down."
Isn't this an argument FOR it being North Korea rather than against given that North Korea has vocally made it clear that they're unhappy with Sony over the film? If anything this is an argument in favour of it being North Korea.
"5. The attackers only latched onto âoeThe Interviewâ after the media did â" the film was never mentioned by GOP right at the start of their campaign."
Sure and North Korea spent a few days figuring out whether to admit responsibility or not rather than outright denying it. It's now becoming the defining point of their campaign which seemed to be something North Korea was keen on - if it was the internal employee theory then why has Rogers' now changed his mind about maximising damage? Simply making Sony cancel a $42million film is small fry damage - an inside job would focus on continuing to be far more damaging than that. But to follow on this same point:
"After all, if everyone believes itâ(TM)s a nation state, then the criminal investigation will likely die."
What? Why? The FBI will just give up if it's thought to be a nation state? No, on the contrary it'll be escalated to the CIA and NSA. This point doesn't even make sense.
"6. Whoever is doing this is VERY net and social media savvy. That, and the sophistication of the operation, do not match with the profile of DPRK up until now."
Um, you mean they can use Twitter? So can half the child population of this world. Unless there's a suggestion that North Koreans are inferior people with IQ's less than your average child and who couldn't possibly look at what's worked for other succesful hacker groups like anonymous then this point is monumentally stupid.
"7. Finally, blaming North Korea is the easy way out for a number of folks, including the security vendors and Sony management who are under the microscope for this."
How the fuck is turning this into something where it turns from a corporate problem un-associated with the US government to threats of mass terrorist attacks on US soil requiring intervention by the US government including the president an easy way out exactly? Getting the NSA/CIA et. al. involved isn't an easy way out for anyone.
"8. It probably also suits a number of political agendas to have something that justifies sabre-rattling at North Korea"
Yes because it's not like there's been any reason to sabre-rattle at North Korea up until now is there? I mean it's not like they threatened to nuke the mainland US not so long ago or anything is it.
"9. Itâ(TM)s clear from the leaked data that Sony has a culture which doesnâ(TM)t take security very seriously."
This is a valid statement of fact but I don't really see what relevance it has to whodunnit.
Honestly, I don't know why anyone is giving this guy time of day. It reads like a 9/11 conspiracy theory blog post - 99% speculation, 1% bullshit, and some of his points even just outright contradict each other.
Am I saying it's North Korea? Not for certain, I personally think it probably is with odds of maybe 60% or so, but I'm open to the idea to a reasonable degree that it's not. Posts like Rogers' don't add anything even though they purport to be great insights - his comments are no better than anything you or I can string together, he has no great insight, he's not even close to finding some groundbreaking evidence that shatters the NK theory and on the contrary, even strengthens it in some cases.
His is another perspective, and one or two bits are interesting considerations, but it really does nothing to debunk the possibility of it being NK. His case is incredibly weak, and IMO weaker than the arguments for it being NK in the first place.
Long story short, thanks for your opinion Marc, but you've not argued your case anything close to well or consistently enough.