Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

How Did Wikileaks Do It?

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the you-can-post-anonymously-y'know dept.

Encryption 973

grassy_knoll writes "Related to the Wikileaks video recently released and discussed here, the NY Times reports: 'Somehow — it will not say how — WikiLeaks found the necessary computer time to decrypt a graphic video, released Monday, of a United States Army assault in Baghdad in 2007 that left 12 people dead, including two employees of the news agency Reuters. The video has been viewed more than two million times on YouTube, and has been replayed hundreds of times in television news reports.' The article is light on details; what encryption algorithm was used? Was this a brute force attack? Did someone pass the decryption keys to Wikileaks along with the video? Something else?"

cancel ×

973 comments

First goatse (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31764872)

http://goatse.fr/ [goatse.fr]

Re:First goatse (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31764922)

At least post Na'vi Goatse, it's better, and we, the fans of Avatar, can jerk off to it:
http://tinyurl.com/navigoatse [tinyurl.com]

Re:First goatse (0, Offtopic)

spazdor (902907) | more than 4 years ago | (#31765016)

WHY DOES THAT EXIST
WHY

Re:First goatse (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31765198)

So that you would ask.

Re:First goatse (1, Informative)

biryokumaru (822262) | more than 4 years ago | (#31765264)

Rule 34.

Re:First goatse (0, Offtopic)

grayshirtninja (1242690) | more than 4 years ago | (#31765092)

Haha, well played sir, well played.

They did it for the money. (-1, Flamebait)

Leptok (1096623) | more than 4 years ago | (#31764898)

They have been good in the past, but they seem to be playing this up for donations. They must really need the money.

Re:They did it for the money. (1)

0123456789 (467085) | more than 4 years ago | (#31764926)

The question isn't why, but how.

Re:They did it for the money. (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31764970)

Uh no... The question was how...

Re:They did it for the money. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31765022)

No, you're incorrect. It's how, not why.

Re:They did it for the money. (1)

impaledsunset (1337701) | more than 4 years ago | (#31764976)

No sources say how the video was encrypted. Maybe it used weak crypto. Bad algorithm, a key based on a weak password that was easy to guess, or the key was available in some way from some source. I doubt that the story is about bruteforcing the key to AES 128 or something similar.

Re:They did it for the money. (2, Funny)

hey (83763) | more than 4 years ago | (#31765344)

Yes, password guessing is typically way faster than brute force.

Not true (5, Insightful)

spun (1352) | more than 4 years ago | (#31764936)

Wikilieaks have not been playing this up, the media has. And they should. This is what is known as 'an important news story.' The fact that wikileaks is asking for donations is irrelevant. They have always asked for donations, and they don't have control over how popular a leaked document becomes.

Re:Not true (4, Insightful)

Leptok (1096623) | more than 4 years ago | (#31765038)

The whole "Collateral Murder" website they setup is biased, from the name of the site, to the phrasing they use.

Re:Not true (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31765072)

The whole "Collateral Murder" website they setup is biased, from the name of the site, to the phrasing they use.

Reality has a well known liberal bias.

Re:Not true (5, Insightful)

Leptok (1096623) | more than 4 years ago | (#31765098)

I'm liberal, it just seems wikileaks is going out of it's way to make the military look bad and then play itself up.

Re:Not true (4, Insightful)

jdpars (1480913) | more than 4 years ago | (#31765236)

They seem to play up the soldiers admittedly unprofessional humor about the shooting. While it is atrocious, it is also one of the things that is required of a soldier. To be able to follow an order to attack, a soldier has to be able to think it isn't bad. Psychological issues arise if they don't. It's one of those things I just consider better that I don't see.

Re:Not true (1, Troll)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 4 years ago | (#31765360)

Military is all about killing other people. Are you saying that isn't bad?

Ah, so it is the bias, not the money you object to (3, Insightful)

spun (1352) | more than 4 years ago | (#31765086)

So, it is this supposed 'bias' you object to, not the appeals for money. Thanks for clearing that up, now we know your bias.

Re:Ah, so it is the bias, not the money you object (1)

Leptok (1096623) | more than 4 years ago | (#31765228)

In the run up to the release, they posted some stuff to make it seem like they uncovered a secret plot to target and murder journalists. Instead it was a mistake made in wartime.

Re:Ah, so it is the bias, not the money you object (2, Interesting)

spun (1352) | more than 4 years ago | (#31765332)

What run up to the release? This was posted months before there was any kind of media frenzy. Rather than leave yourself open to charges of 'making shit up' or 'spreading misinformation,' you could post links to these sources.

And to be clear, what I saw on those tapes was not 'a mistake made in wartime' any more than My Lai was. It was a deliberate massacre of civilians.

Re:Ah, so it is the bias, not the money you object (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31765348)

It was a deliberate massacre of civilians.

How many civilians do you know that carry RPGs around with them around town?

Re:Not true (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31765216)

I agree. I've always thought that, if WikiLeaks had a bias, it would be an editorial one along the lines of "We'll publish this, not that". By coming out and saying "This is what this video is showing, it was murder," WikiLeaks is telling us how to interpret the video. I thought the whole point of "leaks" were to get information out there, and let us decide what it means.

Re:Not true (1, Troll)

Wonko the Sane (25252) | more than 4 years ago | (#31765256)

I thought the whole point of "leaks" were to get information out there, and let us decide what it means.

That all goes out the window when you selectively edit the video to gloss over the fact that the "innocent civilians" were packing RPGs

Re:Not true (3, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | more than 4 years ago | (#31765066)

Unfortunately, it seems that the angle most of the media has been playing up is "Wikileaks pwns DoD", not "US military massacres unarmed civilians and reporters".

Re:Not true (1, Insightful)

spun (1352) | more than 4 years ago | (#31765258)

I don't think we have to omit details, I think we could go with "Soldiers laugh while massacring innocents and then cover it up." I really feel for the soldiers, though. Anyone whose empathy has been so destroyed that they can laugh at another person's mortal suffering is too messed up to fit into normal society. These guys are going to be tomorrow's homeless vets who can neither forget nor forgive themselves for what they have done. And neither the military nor the government will shed a tear for the lives they have ruined.

Re:Not true (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31765300)

Unfortunately, it seems that the angle most of the media has been playing up is "Wikileaks pwns DoD", not "US military massacres unarmed civilians and reporters".

I guess that's a good thing, then, since even the main mouthpiece at Wikileaks acknowledges that the video shows guys with AK's and RPGs walking around, and that the average people who would be on the street weren't there - because they knew that armed insurgents were on the scene. They also know that armed insurgents in the immediate area had been shooting RPGs at military personnel throughout the day, and that there was an ongoing string of fights right in the area. Which is why the gunship was there in the first place, and why they presumed (understandibly) that the guys on the ground with RPGs and machine guns were likely just the guys there were looking for.

And of course it didn't help that the two reporters involved hadn't bothered to mention they were in the area, and weren't wearing vests or any other gear to help identify themselves as journalists... even while they were standing in the street with armed insurgents.

So, yeah, the story is that Wikileaks go their hands on video. And the details of that are interesting. The story you'd seem to prefer hearing would be lacking rather a lot of context, and would thus be highly misleading. Which is just what you seem to oppose. Right?

However they did it and for whatever reason.... (1)

rwade (131726) | more than 4 years ago | (#31765358)

Thank freaking christ they did do it. It is extremely important for us to understand what exactly our guys are doing/did over there. In a democracy, it is incumbent that the voting citizenry understand the impact of the decisions it makes.

Re:Not true (1)

johnlcallaway (165670) | more than 4 years ago | (#31765366)

It's also an important story when the video emphasizes news cameras by slowing the film down, but doesn't give the same emphasis to the frames showing the RPGs and AK47s being carried and laying around so that the video can be sensationalized.

Re:They did it for the money. (3, Interesting)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 4 years ago | (#31764952)

It's not why they did anything, but how they did it. They have employees, need to pay for servers and other services. If some organization in the world should get donations, it's Wikileaks. Even democratic nations should support them, but I can clearly see why not. Instead even US tries to shut them down and have been spying and interrogating their workers.

The article states they posted this three months ago:
“Have encrypted videos of U.S. bomb strikes on civilians. We need super computer time,"

Re:They did it for the money. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31764996)

I loaned them my quantum computer that can crack 1024 bit RSA in 12 hours.

Good (4, Insightful)

LockeOnLogic (723968) | more than 4 years ago | (#31764990)

They need it. They should get attention and money for trying to investigate and report much needed transparency in government. As opposed to most news outlets which have turned into spineless shadows of journalism. I hope this sparks demand for the rebirth of investigatory journalism.

maybe (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31764912)

they got it unencrypted

Re:maybe (1, Informative)

Jazz-Masta (240659) | more than 4 years ago | (#31765010)

they got it unencrypted

Or, like every password in the world, the decryption keys were on a post-it note that the submitter passed along with the video.

It's the digital equivalent of putting your car keys in the visor.

Re:maybe (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31765192)

You almost lost me. Thanks for the car analogy!

Re:maybe (5, Informative)

pixelpusher220 (529617) | more than 4 years ago | (#31765050)

exactly.

It was in December [slashdot.org] when we learned that much of US Military video is actually not encrypted at all.

Re:maybe (1)

ThePangolino (1756190) | more than 4 years ago | (#31765132)

Thank you Captain Obvious! (Note that this doesn't deserve a rock this time)

Wikileaks = Enemy (-1, Flamebait)

ThreeE (786934) | more than 4 years ago | (#31764972)

"WikiLeaks has released a classified US military video..."

I hope they find out who leaked this and put them in a locked cell. Releasing classified material puts all of our American soldiers in danger -- not to mention our country.

Re:Wikileaks = Enemy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31764998)

You can't be serious - you're that short sighted?

Re:Wikileaks = Enemy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31765074)

Apparently you can't be serious either, because your posting anon.

Re:Wikileaks = Enemy (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31765190)

You're posting anonymous too. And it's "you're", as in "you are" ... not "your"... this is grade 2 stuff, seriously.

Re:Wikileaks = Enemy (4, Insightful)

MyLongNickName (822545) | more than 4 years ago | (#31765032)

I hope they find who did it and erect a statue in his honor. Sometime breaking the law is the only way to get justice. This video was not classified for any legitimate reason except to cover someone's ass.

Re:Wikileaks = Enemy (-1, Troll)

ThreeE (786934) | more than 4 years ago | (#31765316)

You have no idea why it was classified. Wikileaks edited out 17 minutes of the video, didn't show what happened before the video was shot, and put our men and women at risk.

They will find the perpetrator and lock him up -- as is perfectly appropriate.

Re:Wikileaks = Enemy (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31765034)

Going to war in Iraq is what's putting our soldiers in danger, not exposing their subsequent war crimes.

Re:Wikileaks = Enemy (2, Insightful)

mellon85 (1723140) | more than 4 years ago | (#31765048)

Who kills people (even if at war if it is done without any reason) must be be punished by the law as the law states. Especially if you are a soldier and think that's funny to kill everything you see

Re:Wikileaks = Enemy (2, Insightful)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 4 years ago | (#31765070)

No, shooting up a country we don't belong in puts all of our American soldiers in danger. They wouldn't be in danger if we weren't playing "we have the biggest cock in the world."

Re:Wikileaks = Enemy (1)

spazdor (902907) | more than 4 years ago | (#31765078)

If you understood just how gratuitously censor-happy our document-classifying authorities are, you might revise that position.

It matters what the document is, and why it was classified.

You == I haz think of the chidlern! (4, Insightful)

elnyka (803306) | more than 4 years ago | (#31765154)

"WikiLeaks has released a classified US military video..."

I hope they find out who leaked this and put them in a locked cell. Releasing classified material puts all of our American soldiers in danger -- not to mention our country.

Explain to me how the release of this particular video puts all of our American soldiers in danger. Do you understand the difference between classified and 'military sensitive'? Do you realize that some (not all) things marked as 'classified' are done so just to cover some ass?

I can understand the difference between leaking, for example, the engineering details (and possible achille's heel) of one of our military pieces of equipment, or security details regarding the protection of our nuclear plants and leaking a video that has no security value beyond PR damage control.

You are just sensationalizing a logical fallacy, in a very highschoolish fashion. Pure hand waving. Not buying it.

Re:Wikileaks = Enemy (4, Insightful)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 4 years ago | (#31765312)

I hope they find out who leaked this and put them in a locked cell. Releasing classified material puts all of our American soldiers in danger -- not to mention our country.

How? Were we counting on the terrorists thinking they would be completely safe, on base if you will, if they were unarmed, in a van with kids? Or are you implying the bad guys didn't know we had helicopters with guns?

Re:Wikileaks = Enemy (2, Insightful)

viridari (1138635) | more than 4 years ago | (#31765320)

After watching this video, I can think of a few soldiers (and officers) who probably could use some more risk & danger in their lives.

It was leaked. (4, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | more than 4 years ago | (#31764974)

It seems to me that whoever leaked the video must have been able to view it, since they knew what was on it. So they would have had the video, as well as the decryption keys. If they're going to leak the video, why not leak the keys too?

Re:It was leaked. (2, Insightful)

rsborg (111459) | more than 4 years ago | (#31765028)

If they're going to leak the video, why not leak the keys too?

Because they're not traitors, that's why.

Whistleblowers are some of the most patriotic people in the government because they see the evil that is done in the name of the people and expose it. That doesn't mean they hate the government, quite the opposite.

Re:It was leaked. (4, Insightful)

Applekid (993327) | more than 4 years ago | (#31765166)

If you look at the Wikipedia article [wikipedia.org] 's sources section, there was an investigation conducted by United States Central Command, days after the event occurred. It's entirely possible the video was pulled for review, but while the investigation's contents may have been encrypted and not visible, the index would explain what was on it.

I could see how someone charged with filing and safeguarding the actual data would not possess the actual decryption keys.

Re:It was leaked. (5, Interesting)

fm6 (162816) | more than 4 years ago | (#31765206)

You're assuming the keys were in a form that could be easily shared. I very much doubt that military encryption works that way. Having your keys in a file on your PC my be adequate for you and me, but when Blofeld is out to steal your plans for invading Normandy, you need to make it a little harder for him to steal access.

And of course, it wasn't brute force. That approach was obsolete even back in Turing's day.

Re:It was leaked. (1)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#31765364)

That approach was obsolete even back in Turing's day.

What made it obsolete? The amount of time it took? Could that be why this organization takes so long to leak these videos?

How ironic... (4, Insightful)

Tenek (738297) | more than 4 years ago | (#31764982)

Judge White said at the time, “We live in an age when people can do some good things and people can do some terrible things without accountability necessarily in a court of law.”

Obviously, the ability to do some terrible things without accountability should be reserved for the government.

Re:How ironic... (1)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 4 years ago | (#31765030)

Obviously, the ability to do some terrible things without accountability should be reserved for the government.

You've never been on a date have you? ;)

Re:How ironic... (1, Funny)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 4 years ago | (#31765246)

>>>>>the ability to do some terrible things without accountability should be reserved for the government.
>>
>>You've never been on a date have you? ;)

"How do you write women so well?" - receptionist. "I think of a man, and I take away reason and accountability." - Jack Nicholson. - As Good As It Gets

Re:How ironic... (1)

spazdor (902907) | more than 4 years ago | (#31765104)

Hey, you know what would really improve this post about Wikileaks?

Beating the libertarianism drum!

Re:How ironic... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31765148)

Wow! Now that is a rather jaded viewpoint of human behavior. The idea that everything is liable by law, or should be. This judge has some serious blinders on.

This seems so obvious. (2, Insightful)

ElectricTurtle (1171201) | more than 4 years ago | (#31764984)

Whoever was willing to leak them the video either unencrypted it for them or was probably willing to leak the key too. In for a penny in for a pound.

Re:This seems so obvious. (1)

MozeeToby (1163751) | more than 4 years ago | (#31765290)

Encrypted document: Classified Secret.
Encryption keys: Classified Top Secret, Crypto.

There is a big difference between those two things. Secret is things that the powers that be would rather aren't publicly available. Top Secret is things that would significantly impact the armed forces abilities to do their job. You don't leak encryption keys... you just don't do it.

GPU Parallel processing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31764986)

GPU parallel processing power is how I would do it, 14 GPU's on one motherboard is currently possible and provides the brute force cracking power of server farm with 14,000 CPU's!!!!!! and about 1000 times more affordable

Encryption is far behind the current power of hardware these days.

Re:GPU Parallel processing (4, Insightful)

scovetta (632629) | more than 4 years ago | (#31765116)

I disagree. It's really easy to increase key sizes (2048-bit, 4096-bit...) making brute forcing exponentially harder. Adding more GPUs in linear, same as increased speed.

Weak encryption (e.g. 512-bit RSA) can be cracked, and 1024-bit in theory (last I heard), but 2048-bit is still in the "not in the forseeable future".

The only way to change this is to create better algorithms, not faster hardware.

Re:GPU Parallel processing (1)

Second_Derivative (257815) | more than 4 years ago | (#31765122)

Brute-forcing problems are exponential in key size, though. Add a few more bits to your key, and even if you could turn the entire mass of the sun into Tesla blades, cool it, and power it, then that still wouldn't help you. It's true that the last few years have seen the emergence of commodity hardware with some truly terrifying amounts of compute power, but these security standards are engineered against "turn-the-solar-system-into-a-supercomputer" assuptions of adersarial compute power just to account for semi-unexpected revolutions such as these.

Something else is probably afoot here.

Re:GPU Parallel processing (1)

kgo (1741558) | more than 4 years ago | (#31765230)

But as usual, are they brute-forcing the key, or the passphrase? If it's a passphrase, that's almost always weaker than the key. Even if it's twenty ascii chars, that might not translate to 140 bits entropy depending on how strong and complex the passphrase is.

Re:GPU Parallel processing (3, Insightful)

nneonneo (911150) | more than 4 years ago | (#31765134)

Yeah...get back to me when you manage to bruteforce a 128-bit AES key on your GPU farm. Only then can you claim that "Encryption is far behind the current power of hardware these days."

Re:GPU Parallel processing (1)

Xipe66 (587528) | more than 4 years ago | (#31765170)

14,000 CPUs haven't cracked RC5-72 in over 2 600 days. http://distributed.net/ [distributed.net]

Why ask? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31765000)

You know they can't... Or at least shouldn't release their sources.

That being said, it's amazing that they were able to pull this off. I was skeptical when I first heard of it on twitter but each day more and more official sources seem to be acknowledging it as true and legit.

If I had the power, I'd nominate them for a pulitzer, or whatever the equivalent is.

supercomputer (5, Interesting)

spectrokid (660550) | more than 4 years ago | (#31765006)

maybe this [twitter.com] has something to do with it?

Re:supercomputer (5, Insightful)

PakProtector (115173) | more than 4 years ago | (#31765220)

Whoever gave them that time, if they are an American, is a Patriot. If they are not, they are a true friend of Freedom and Truth and Justice.

And if it was the Intelligence Arm of either Russia or China, it's fucking hilarious.

Not just "how", but "if" they did it (3, Insightful)

Stradivarius (7490) | more than 4 years ago | (#31765024)

WikiLeaks claims they decrypted the material. While that's certainly possible, we have no way to know if this is true. They might have received it unencrypted, but made these assertions (including the Internet posts requesting supercomputer time) to throw investigators off-track.

Re:Not just "how", but "if" they did it (2, Informative)

phantomcircuit (938963) | more than 4 years ago | (#31765124)

I cannot imagine that they actually decrypted the video. If it was encrypted it would have been FIPS-140-2 compliant. None of the approved ciphers on the FIPS-140-2 could be cracked in the four months since the twitter post.

Either that or someone royally fucked up the encryption...

Re:Not just "how", but "if" they did it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31765252)

Yes, just the same way as the predator drones control channel was made to be FIPS 140-2 compliant.. using a type 1 encryption method.. yes, surely yes.

Re:Not just "how", but "if" they did it (4, Funny)

The MAZZTer (911996) | more than 4 years ago | (#31765138)

If someone finds out how they did it, would they it as a WikiLeak?!?!

Re:Not just "how", but "if" they did it (2, Informative)

The MAZZTer (911996) | more than 4 years ago | (#31765156)

There should be a "submit" in there somewhere.

Drone Video (1)

vwjeff (709903) | more than 4 years ago | (#31765244)

If the transmission of the video from the helicopters is similar to systems used on the drones then getting the video may have been trivial: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126102247889095011.html [wsj.com]

They also left out a good deal of context (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31765042)

such as, the FACT that the "civilians" were actually enemy combatants. For more details:
http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/201878.php

Re:They also left out a good deal of context (3, Insightful)

stewbacca (1033764) | more than 4 years ago | (#31765240)

Interesting. The only thing I'd disagree with at that linked site is that journalists are fair game if they are embedded with enemy forces. You can't shoot journalists just because you don't like the side they are reporting from.

Re:They also left out a good deal of context (1)

jollyreaper (513215) | more than 4 years ago | (#31765254)

such as, the FACT that the "civilians" were actually enemy combatants. For more details:
http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/201878.php [mypetjawa.mu.nu]

So Reuters is now considered to be the journalistic branch of Al Qaeda?

Re:They also left out a good deal of context (5, Interesting)

ZekoMal (1404259) | more than 4 years ago | (#31765276)

This is plus five INFORMATIVE? mypetjawa is a site dedicated to catching Muslim terrorists that it calls "Jawa" (aka, a racial slur). Their decision that the video was a hoax was because someone had an AK-47, therefore the soldiers were totally justified. Are there really 5 conservatives that couldn't RTFA linked by this AC? Jesus Christ people.

Re:They also left out a good deal of context (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31765356)

such as, the FACT that the "civilians" were actually enemy combatants. For more details:
http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/201878.php

From your stupid link: "A crowd of men surround at least two armed insurgents. " Yeah, armed with CAMERAS.

Honeypot? (1)

jambay (531064) | more than 4 years ago | (#31765082)

This entire post seems suspiciously like a honeypot to me! Don't post the real answer unless you want to get caught!

Re:Honeypot? (1)

HeckRuler (1369601) | more than 4 years ago | (#31765260)

But I'm wearing my tinfoil! I'm safe, right?

Bruteforce (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31765096)

Wikileak Editor said clearly that they did it via bruteforce password guessing here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QEdAykXxoM [youtube.com]

Presumably someone was able to grab a copy of the encrypted file, but didn't know the password?

Perhaps it's best not to know (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31765100)

It's because of what Wikileaks offers to those submitters that lets Wikileaks do what it does. I think the decision to reveal how it was done should not just be Wikileak's but also the particular video's submitter. It's interesting that the FOIA wasn't enough for Reuters to get the same video.

Here's an honestly genuine question: At what point should documents/videos be posted, and at what point does posting such items really do more hurt than good?

It *was* a bruce force attack (5, Funny)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | more than 4 years ago | (#31765112)

Was this a brute force attack?

I have seen the video and I can positively confirm that it was indeed a brute force attack.

Conspriacy theories (5, Funny)

vmxeo (173325) | more than 4 years ago | (#31765118)

They used a farm of PS3s running Linux to crack the encryption. This is why Sony, acting in behalf of the US DOD, removed the "Other OS" installation option and randomly bricked consoles through last week's firmware update, (albeit too late to prevent the video from being released). Also, as documented in FCC filings, Apple's iPad has a secret built-in front camera used to spy on the American people to find the person who leaked the data. That's why the wifi connection is so poor, most of it is saturated sending live video to DHS. Finally. Microsoft is also involved somehow. I'm not sure how, but I'm sure the OOXML file format is somehow involved.

Here's the patent on the secret built-in camera (2, Informative)

jmichaelg (148257) | more than 4 years ago | (#31765328)

http://www.google.com/patents?id=NBKaAAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4#v=onepage&q&f=false [google.com]

They had to kill Michael Uy after the patent was filed so he wouldn't tell anybody about it. RIP Michael. Excuse me, someone is knocking on my do

court of law (4, Insightful)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 4 years ago | (#31765130)

Another early attempt to shut down the site involved a United States District Court judge in California. In 2008, Judge Jeffrey S. White ordered the American version of the site shut down after it published confidential documents concerning a subsidiary of a Swiss bank. Two weeks later he reversed himself, in part recognizing that the order had little effect because the same material could be accessed on a number of other "mirror sites."

Judge White said at the time, "We live in an age when people can do some good things and people can do some terrible things without accountability necessarily in a court of law."

yes, Judge, you are obviously doing one of those terrible things without accountability in a court of law when you silence the truth.

The original encrypted file (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31765168)

Here you can find the original file

http://leaks.telecomix.org/
http://leaks.telecomix.org/cm.rda

Did not analyze

Of course there's the little problem.... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31765176)

They kind of screwed up the facts.

Here's some shots of the video with the so called "civilians" (actually armed insurgents) and shots of the Pentagon report explaining the results of the research:

http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/201878.php [mypetjawa.mu.nu]

This is a non story, a grab for attention.

Anonymous Coward (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31765222)

The entire Wikileaks site is a far left plot against the military and the US. It's headed up by Obama the muslim.

occam's razor (1, Troll)

Dan667 (564390) | more than 4 years ago | (#31765234)

Better question is why where these people killed when they were unarmed?

Who cares how? The better question is why the bias (4, Insightful)

Liquidrage (640463) | more than 4 years ago | (#31765238)

Wikileaks lost a lot of respect from me. Instead of actually, you know, leaking the video, they are using it as a campaign with bias.

I fully support the idea of wikileaks. I fully look down on them for the way they released this with an opinionated campaign. They should not be in the job of interpreting their leaks. They should not be in the job of making sites like collateralmurder.com to publicize their leaks. They should be in the business of actually leaking newsworthy items with confidentiality.

Probably not encrypted (1)

MarvLeonidasX (1785234) | more than 4 years ago | (#31765262)

What makes you think the video was encrypted in the first place? When I was deployed, I watched several aerial videos of our missions and none of them were encrypted...they were just plain old AVI's. Assuming the Unit operating the helicopters in the video used some kind of encryption, whoever leaked the video to Wikileaks probably decrypted it first.

Overpaid geeks: GIVE WIKILEAKS MONEY! (5, Insightful)

David Gerard (12369) | more than 4 years ago | (#31765296)

Overpaid geeks reading this: GIVE WIKILEAKS MONEY [wikileaks.org] .

I know Julian Assange slightly. He used to be the sysadmin at Suburbia.net [suburbia.net] . That's where my critic of Scientology [suburbia.net] website lives. He and Mark Dorset of Suburbia have assiduously defended that site against baseless legal threats from Scientology for the past fifteen years. The guy's got balls of titanium.

The newspapers whine about "who's going to do journalism without us around?" The answer is the same as who'll do it with them around, i.e. someone else. So far it's Wikileaks.

I gave 'em GBP50 (~US$100) last pay and will again this pay. So should you.

Overpaid geeks reading this: GIVE WIKILEAKS MONEY [wikileaks.org] .

Thank you.

I just read on yahoo (1)

bugs2squash (1132591) | more than 4 years ago | (#31765346)

that the military have lost their original of the video. So I assume the encryption was some kind of spooky quantum encryption that destroyed the original as a consequence of being decoded by wikileaks.

But why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31765354)

Are all the US army videos encrypted by default and only the 'good' (not making us looks bad) ones released?

Trolling for spam-> spam1net@jestais.net

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...