The North Korean fake IT worker problem is ubiquitous

Reality of the “North Korean IT worker” threat

• Some argue the article is content marketing from vendors selling anti-fraud tools and that “North Korean applicants” has become a meme applied to any suspicious remote candidate.
• Others counter that there is now substantial evidence: FBI/DOJ wanted notices and recent prosecutions, seized laptop farms, and details about specific hardware setups.
• Several commenters say they have personally interviewed or almost hired such candidates, or been contacted by intermediaries offering to “rent” their identity or LinkedIn to an offshore team.

How the schemes reportedly work

• Common pattern: a US-based “front” with valid ID and work authorization receives the laptop, passes I‑9/E‑Verify, then hands off access to a foreign worker.
• Remote KVM-over-IP devices are used so activity looks like a local keyboard/monitor, avoiding detection by endpoint security and remote-access monitoring.
• Lures include paying US residents per laptop, or paying them to let others use their identity for interviews and payroll.
• Evidence of prior compromises appears in candidate portfolios containing internal screenshots from unreleased products at other companies.

Limitations of current hiring and identity checks

• Many US firms do minimal vetting: shallow reference checks, little identity verification beyond basic forms, overreliance on LinkedIn, and no in‑person steps.
• I‑9/E‑Verify confirm authorization, not true identity, and can be bypassed with stolen/borrowed SSNs or genuine US accomplices.
• Smaller 10–50 person companies are seen as prime targets: not tightly run like big enterprises, but large enough to be lucrative.

Proposed countermeasures

• In‑person steps: final interview on-site, mandatory in‑person onboarding, or collecting hardware in person. Concerns: travel cost, remote/distributed teams, accessibility, and erosion of “fully remote.”
• Third‑party verification: testing/“interview centers,” identity services, or even professional licensing. Skeptics point out these add gatekeepers and can themselves be corrupted.
• Process fixes: stricter background checks (including past employers), video interviews with unscripted technical discussion, courier-based ID verification, and more robust reference practices.

Broader impacts and tensions

• Some note this further hurts already-struggling legitimate devs and may push companies toward more intrusive vetting, credit checks, and political or ethnic profiling.
• Debate over whether North Korean workers are “deserving” labor vs inherently high-risk state agents; tied to arguments about sanctions, poverty, and US foreign policy.
• Underneath is a larger discussion about remote work/offshoring, outsourcing fraud, overemployment, and how much paranoia vs practicality is appropriate in hiring.