Beta
×

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!

Wikileaks Releases A Massive "Insurance" File That No One Can Open

samzenpus posted about a year ago | from the just-in-case dept.

Privacy 394

An anonymous reader writes "Anti-secrecy organization WikiLeaks just released a treasure trove of files, that at least for now, you can't read. The group, which has been assisting ex-NSA contractor Edward Snowden after he leaked top-secret documents to the media, posted links for about 400 gigabytes of files on their Facebook page Saturday, and asked their fans to download and mirror them elsewhere."

cancel ×

394 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

The drones are coming.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44601527)

better run!

Re:The drones are coming.... (4, Funny)

telchine (719345) | about a year ago | (#44601575)

I know! There's no way I'm mirroring that, Michael Grunwald might launch an airstrike at me!

Assange is a loser. (-1, Troll)

mozumder (178398) | about a year ago | (#44601597)

Dipshits like Assange thinks Rand Paul is going to save America. He actually thinks Drudge Report is useful. Basically he's a Republican, like most Libertarians.

And low-IQ high-school dropouts like Edward Snowden and their supports thinks Russia, with their explicit anti-gay human rights policies, is going to afford them human rights.

That's pretty much all you need to know about these kinds of people.

Really, these nerds are so clueless on society's power structure. Not only do they think they have some imaginary right to have their metadata kept secret, which is probably seen by dozens of organizations as it travels across the internet, but they think the NSA's metadata collection has affected them in any possible way. It's still amazing that people expect their completely open, unsecure IP metadata to be private, and that it somehow violates "human rights" if government tracks that.

lol.. "human rights" because government tracks your metadata. You do know that metadata is the LEAST private thing about your communications. It is the exact opposite of private communications. It is everything except your private communications.

Sorry that you nerds are powerless and have limited rights and it gives you a sad..but you dorks are just going to have to accept that you are losers, and that the rest of America completely disregards your views, as they should. Libertarians are way too narcissistic. You actually aren't important at all, and serve no useful role in society.

Real Americans want a bigger, stronger government, not a weaker one. A bigger, stronger government provides more services, since the purpose of government is to be a giant Costco for public services. Government isn't supposed to be an invisible belief system. We actually want government to do things, not preach.

My recommendation to you geeks is to just step back from the computer. Life isn't based around the internet. Believe me, the graphics outside are much better than the graphics on your computer. Your computer is not important.

Re:Assange is a loser. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44601631)

Heh, COINTELPRO

Re: Assange is a loser. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44601785)

You're an idiot? No, really.

Re: Assange is a loser. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44601649)

Typical dumbass American here, nothing to see move along.

Re:Assange is a loser. (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44601723)

I'm as real of an American as can be done. What I want is a more focused government. I do not want the militarization of local police. I do not want decisions that affect the lives of me and others made behind closed doors. If the NSA programs were more transparent and if they did no lie about what they are doing, it would not be as much of an issue. I do not want a government that itself finds too complex to manage and uses that as an excuse to not do anything. If they can not do the job, they should give the job to states or counties or towns.

As a real American, I want to be able to trust my government. Any faith in the government is only faith that it will not collapse in on itself. There is no faith in supporting those that pay into it, us tax payers. Those that do not pay tax are paid for the security of the tax payers, so they are also included.

Re:Assange is a loser. (3, Interesting)

AK Marc (707885) | about a year ago | (#44601735)

Gay rights is not a good litmus test of human rights. I find womens rights to be a better gauge. And if he isn't gay, why should he use that as a metric for human rights? In the US, if we are better to our gays, and worse to our (something else), does that make us any better?

Re: Assange is a loser. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44601921)

If you recon that the US is better to gays than to $something, the US must be worse than hell for $something.

Hint : the US is NOT good to gays. Not at all. Striking down H8 and a part of Doma is hardly enough/sufficient. It's just a beginning. Maybe not even that.

The US is far from being gay friendly.

Re:Assange is a loser. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44601745)

Yes, as this person types on a website for "dorks", using a computer designed by a bunch of dorks, using a global telecommunication network made by a bunch of dorks, with the freedom to do so because some dorks pushed for a free and open Internet... Yeah, unimportant.... Moron.

Re: Assange is a loser. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44601915)

Not sure if trolling or stupid, either way your comment made me laugh. Stupid is as stupid does.

Re:Assange is a loser. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44601933)

Do tell us, what does DIck Cheney's cock taste like ?

Because it is obvious you have sucked it.

Re:Assange is a loser. (1)

Macchendra (2919537) | about a year ago | (#44601945)

Real Americans want a bigger, stronger government, not a weaker one. A bigger, stronger government provides more services...

Hey, the American government is the one being the little bitch baby about crying over its spilt secrets. Waaaa... Waaaa... How very tough.

Re:The drones are coming.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44601775)

LOL. :-) And you think someone is running a program that maps IP addresses to Lat/Long/Alt; Oh, wait - Chances are you are in USA and are terrified of the government.

Re:The drones are coming.... (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about a year ago | (#44601941)

better urn!

Hey look at us, we are still relevant! (0, Flamebait)

hsmith (818216) | about a year ago | (#44601533)

If their "mission" is openness - and the info is that damning - shouldn't they be publishing it? I mean, isn't that sort of the point of Wikileaks? Or just attention whoring?

Re:Hey look at us, we are still relevant! (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44601567)

The idea (I think) is that these files will be released in time, but releasing them all at once, but encrypted, is to discourage governments from arresting or killing the high-ups of WikiLeaks. The info will come out, just like it did last time (wasn't the last insurance file the bulk of cables that was eventually released?), but this is a mechanism for doing that while protecting themselves.

Re:Hey look at us, we are still relevant! (5, Interesting)

shentino (1139071) | about a year ago | (#44601701)

The last insurance file was spoiled by a news agency that screwed up handling the private key, and so wikileaks mitigated danger by making the leak obvious so that anyone on it could protect themselves.

It's basically an "oh shit, someone spilled blood in the water and the sharks are on their way, sound the alarm so people can get the hell out of the water."

And personally, I think it was an inside job from an intelligence agency that wished to ruin wikileaks by painting it as reckless, probably figuring that even leaking it to the news under seal was damaging enough that there was nothing more to be lost smearing wikileaks.

Re:Hey look at us, we are still relevant! (1)

murdocj (543661) | about a year ago | (#44601843)

O please... not everything is the fault of the CIA / NSA / etc. If there was ANY evidence of that, Wikileaks would happily be spreading the news. I

Re:Hey look at us, we are still relevant! (2)

MacGyver2210 (1053110) | about a year ago | (#44602029)

Well, how do you know that's not what's in one of these insurance files?

Re:Hey look at us, we are still relevant! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44601877)

So wikileaks is only incapable of keeping their private keys private. I guess being totally incompetent makes them more trustworthy then being reckless?

Re:Hey look at us, we are still relevant! (5, Interesting)

icebike (68054) | about a year ago | (#44601903)

The idea (I think) is that these files will be released in time, but releasing them all at once, but encrypted, is to discourage governments from arresting or killing the high-ups of WikiLeaks. The info will come out, just like it did last time (wasn't the last insurance file the bulk of cables that was eventually released?), but this is a mechanism for doing that while protecting themselves.

In this case I believe Snowden holds the final encryption key, not Wikileaks.
He has stated he doesn't want to harm the US, and hopes the people or congress steps in and stops the NSA abuse without having to release the most damning evidence. Its not attention whoring, its a pretty good understanding of human nature. The whole discussion would be yesterdays news had he released it all at once. Amazingly, for a young man, he understands that short sharp shocks are easily put to bed by demonizing the source and burying the issue, and a drum beat of news has more effect.

You can see this going on today.
After a few political hacks attempting to cast him as a traitor were met with an equal amount of push-back calling him a hero, the administration abruptly changed tactics.

1) They stopped talking about Snowden.
2) They have started trying to prove that the spying is actually good for America. (Essentially owning the spying in the hopes the public will go along.)
3) They rushed to close embassies on the slimmest of evidence and are hoping desperately that there will in fact be some actual attacks.

So far the terrorists don't seem willing to play along. (In fact I believe the so-called intercepted "conference call" was made up of whole cloth, or was simply the terrorists "playing" the NSA. Since when to terrorists hold conference calls?. The attacks were supposed to happen last week, yet nothing at all is happening that wasn't already in progress in Egypt and Syria).

So its about time for a couple more of Snowden's Shoes to drop.

Re: Hey look at us, we are still relevant! (4, Informative)

jimpop (27817) | about a year ago | (#44601571)

Wikileaks has always stated they desire responsible disclosure.

Re: Hey look at us, we are still relevant! (3, Interesting)

AK Marc (707885) | about a year ago | (#44601761)

But the government has worked hard to make sure it doesn't happen. Because "responsible disclosure" would require the governments involved to work with and support wikileaks, and they don't want to be seen to have done that.

Re: Hey look at us, we are still relevant! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44602059)

And yet they fail to behave as if that's their goal.

Just like Bill Clinton always stated he never had sexual relations with that woman.

Just like Anthony Weiner always stated that he stopped sending explicit messages to random women.

Just like George Bush always stated that there were WMD in Iraq.

At some point, when there is a massive disconnect between "what you say" and "what you do," the general public has to start viewing "what you do" as more important.

Re:Hey look at us, we are still relevant! (5, Informative)

reve_etrange (2377702) | about a year ago | (#44601573)

They publish individual documents, usually with conscious timing, after redacting names and potentially other information. The diplomatic cables were released by accident.

Re:Hey look at us, we are still relevant! (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44601729)

I wouldn't call it an accident, it was more incompetence and negligence on part of Guardian journalists.

Re:Hey look at us, we are still relevant! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44601763)

If it is "incompetence and negligence" then it would have definitely been an accident, or do you not know what the term "accident" means FFS?

Re:Hey look at us, we are still relevant! (1)

GreyWolf3000 (468618) | about a year ago | (#44601807)

It's not that he doesn't know what the term "accident" means, it was more an incorrect understanding of its' meaning.

Re:Hey look at us, we are still relevant! (1)

shentino (1139071) | about a year ago | (#44601781)

I suspect that a spook got it leaked on purpose to ruin wikileaks and stop future leaks.

Re:Hey look at us, we are still relevant! (0, Troll)

cold fjord (826450) | about a year ago | (#44601803)

That's not quite right.

WikiLeaks Secret Diplomatic Cables Released In Full [huffingtonpost.com]

WikiLeaks said it decided to publish the entire collection after about half of the documents, also without redactions, were discovered to be available on a public server earlier in the week.

WikiLeaks has disavowed responsibility for that release, which consisted of about 100,000 secret cables, but said that as criticism of the group mounted, they were left with no alternative "rational action" but to release the entire collection....

For months WikiLeaks has found itself increasingly at odds with some of the media companies they had previously partnered with. Their ties with The New York Times strained after an unflattering profile of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange appeared in the paper.

But this week's discovery of the 100,000 unredacted cables -- in which the names of government sources and other sensitive details were not obscured -- seemed to offer the final word on any effort to continue filtering the files through the mainstream media.

Leak at WikiLeaks: A Dispatch Disaster in Six Acts [spiegel.de]

Some 250,000 diplomatic dispatches from the US State Department have accidentally been made completely public. The files include the names of informants who now must fear for their lives. It is the result of a series of blunders by WikiLeaks and its supporters.

Re:Hey look at us, we are still relevant! (2, Interesting)

Richard_at_work (517087) | about a year ago | (#44601827)

Have they security vetted everyone who does their redaction for them? If not, then what's the point in doing the redaction other than public relations theatre?

Re:Hey look at us, we are still relevant! (1)

morcego (260031) | about a year ago | (#44601605)

If their "mission" is openness - and the info is that damning - shouldn't they be publishing it? I mean, isn't that sort of the point of Wikileaks? Or just attention whoring?

Or they are worried about responsible disclosure?
It is one thing to show the USA is spying. It is another thing to provide names e description of the spies themselves.

Re:Hey look at us, we are still relevant! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44601885)

its one thing to show elites running criminal enterprises and their crimes against the constitution; it is another thing to expect the system which they run to hold them accountable for their crimes...

FTFYMF

Re:Hey look at us, we are still relevant! (1)

PhrostyMcByte (589271) | about a year ago | (#44601615)

First, Wikileaks isn't just about making information open. They are about giving that information the most impact possible. If they release 400GB of damning stuff, do you think news organizations around the world will be able to stay on point, or will the primary story just be an unhelpful "Wikileaks releases 400GB of information"? It will eventually all get out, but in smaller, focused chunks. They also like to scrub information first so they don't end up blowing military or covert ops that could result in lives lost.

Because they release it in small chunks, they don't want anybody deciding to raid Wikileaks to prevent whatever is coming next. This way, there are copies all over the place. Presumable a number of trusted people have the key and would be able to let it all loose in such a major event.

Re:Hey look at us, we are still relevant! (4, Informative)

icebike (68054) | about a year ago | (#44601929)

Snowden holds the keys, not Wikeleaks. Your have your story muddled.

All wikeleaks is doing is making sure the file can't be destroyed at one source.
We can only hope that Snowden has the keys escrow-ed such that simply killing him prevents disclosure.

Re:Hey look at us, we are still relevant! (4, Insightful)

mysidia (191772) | about a year ago | (#44601627)

If their "mission" is openness - and the info is that damning - shouldn't they be publishing it? I mean, isn't that sort of the point of Wikileaks? Or just attention whoring?

I suspect they will expend a lot of hours working with outside entities to redact the documents of information that would threaten their sources or private citizens or anyone's life before releasing them, and getting their fans to mirror encrypted files is an "Insurance policy" ---- where powerful forces working against Wikileaks may become aware of the leak; Wikileaks folks have probably designed some elaborate scheme, contingency plan, or something strange of that nature to get the keys released in case of emergency: corporate or government interference, coercion, arrest, or kidnapping of the Wikileaks folks working to release redacted documents.

Getting 400 gigabytes of data uploaded to the internet in a pinch is no easy task.

But posting a 100 KB key far and wide to unlock 400 gigabytes of pre-distributed data, is a trivial thing.

Re:Hey look at us, we are still relevant! (1)

Zocalo (252965) | about a year ago | (#44601629)

Depends on the nature of the data and the reason for the safeguarding. The implication they are probably trying to make based on recent events is that Wikileaks has ~400GB of data that was obtained by Edward Snowden, all of which is being widely mirrored as we discuss it, and could become public knowledge via the simple means releasing a password or key file. At the very least, that's potentially a pretty big incentive for the US and its allies not to mess with any attempt at relocation that Edward Snowden or Julian Assange might be about to make.

Of course, the flip side of that is that it's also a pretty big incentive for the enemies of the US to mess with any such relocation attempt in an effort to cause further embarrassment to the US and maybe learn a few interesting things about the US' surveillance programmes into the bargain.

Re:Hey look at us, we are still relevant! (1)

murdocj (543661) | about a year ago | (#44601855)

Blackmailing the USA is probably not their best move at this point.

Re:Hey look at us, we are still relevant! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44601643)

You do realize the definition of insurance right?
a means of guaranteeing protection or safety
Calling wikileaks an attention whore is pretty obvious you are just a plant though :) Way to go NSA! You can spin on slashdot almost as well as you can lie to congress!

Re:Hey look at us, we are still relevant! (3, Funny)

Motard (1553251) | about a year ago | (#44601927)

It's a 42 megapixel nude Assange selfie. Please, in the name of all that is blessed and holy, DO NOT LET THE KEY BE RELEASED! It can only bring tears.

Re:Hey look at us, we are still relevant! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44602055)

Rule 35 of the internet - what can be seen cannot be unseen.

Re:Hey look at us, we are still relevant! (1)

aliquis (678370) | about a year ago | (#44601665)

Maybe this is:
1) Data not ready to be published, unless..

or they:
2) Feel it's more valuable this way if that gives them freedom to release what they think matters in the future

Re:Hey look at us, we are still relevant! (1)

shentino (1139071) | about a year ago | (#44601671)

Wikileaks is basically holding their closet skeletons hostage.

Re:Hey look at us, we are still relevant! (5, Interesting)

gorehog (534288) | about a year ago | (#44601675)

It's more likely that they've released the key for this file to the people they want insurance from. "See what we've got? All we need to do is release the key and everyone will know." They release these keys to a small set of folks around the world so they can publish the key if they need to. I bet that initial distribution list includes a senator and a head fo the CIA or something like that.

Hail Julian Assange! (2)

For a Free Internet (1594621) | about a year ago | (#44601537)

Only workers revolution will uncover the true extent of the imperialists' bloody crimes.

349GB? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44601559)

WikiLeaks insurance 20130815
A: 3.6Gb http://wlstorage.net/torrent/wlinsurance-20130815-A.aes256.torrent [wlstorage.net]
B: 49Gb http://wlstorage.net/torrent/wlinsurance-20130815-B.aes256.torrent [wlstorage.net]
C: 349GB http://wlstorage.net/torrent/wlinsurance-20130815-C.aes256.torrent [wlstorage.net]

~ $ df -h
Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on
/dev/sda1 292G 53G 225G 19% /

Hm... :|

Re:349GB? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44601801)

rm -fr /porn
df -h
Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on
/dev/sda1 292G 0G 291G 1% /

Hm. :|

Re:349GB? (2)

Phreakiture (547094) | about a year ago | (#44601923)

That would still leave him, at most, 292 GiB, which will not fit 400 GiB of files. Interesting idea, though!

Oh delicious irony (1, Funny)

Laxori666 (748529) | about a year ago | (#44601561)

An "anti-secrecy" organization using secrecy to promote its agenda.

Re:Oh delicious irony (5, Informative)

jovius (974690) | about a year ago | (#44601717)

You are wrong in your irony. Wikileaks is not an anti-secrecy organization. They are a media organization (by their own account [wikileaks.org] ). They are against secrecy when it's being used to conceal dishonesty and unjust practices by governments (often to mislead the population). Wikileaks' own leak submit system relies heavily on secrecy to protect the sources from persecution, so you are pretty late with your remark.

Re:Oh delicious irony (3, Funny)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about a year ago | (#44601731)

Astounding isn't it? The world is such a complicated place.

I miss Walter Cronkite.

Sniff.

Re:Oh delicious irony (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44601765)

I don't see any irony in there. Wikileaks has no power over the public, therefore it does not have to live up to the public's scrutiny. The information published by wikileaks pertains to governments which have tremendous power over the public and therefore must be scrutinised; and to companies which may also have some power over the public and therefore in some circumstances should answer to the public as well. That's the fundamental difference.

NSA has cribs? (3, Interesting)

reve_etrange (2377702) | about a year ago | (#44601585)

If the NSA suspects that certain of their internal documents occur in the insurance files, can't they use these as cribs to break the encryption?

How does one determine the viability of cribs for data of a certain size? E.g. if one is cracking 400GB of data encrypted with a 4096 bit RSA key, how helpful is a 4GB crib?

Re:NSA has cribs? (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a year ago | (#44601601)

You mean 'crabs', right?

Re: NSA has cribs? (1)

Sean (422) | about a year ago | (#44601611)

There's no reason to use an asymmetric algorithm.

Re:NSA has cribs? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44601623)

Because they don't know where the files are. And they don't know if the files are compressed (even, with a password), ROT13, etc.

It's not even a long shot. It's a waste of time trying to use anything they have as leverage to break the encryption.

Re:NSA has cribs? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44601633)

I don't think AES-256 has any known known-plaintext attacks.

Re:NSA has cribs? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44602025)

I don't think AES-256 has any publicly known known-plaintext attacks.

FTFY

Re:NSA has cribs? (3, Insightful)

aevan (903814) | about a year ago | (#44601639)

Right, but to what end? Leak it themselves?

I might have missed the point, but as I see it, the blackmail part of this is 'leaking to the world'. If the NSA verifies that the files they suspect stolen are in this, then sure they could try to go after wikileaks people - but with the archive widely disseminated, they'd have forfeited the game as the mirrors releases it in its entirety. The encryption just seems more to prevent premature release, as opposed to pretending the NSA has no idea what they have.

This just feels like it's moving into 'end game'.

Re:NSA has cribs? (3, Insightful)

kylemonger (686302) | about a year ago | (#44601787)

Snowden's asylum in Russia in conditioned on him not spilling more U.S. secrets. Until that condition changes or Snowden finds refuge elsewhere, then I suspect Wikileaks will hang onto those keys. If Snowden disappears into a hole, then the insurance files scattered around the globe ensure that the secrets can be released not matter what else happens to him.

Re:NSA has cribs? (1)

JavaBear (9872) | about a year ago | (#44601841)

If the file contains anything of interest, it might even be in wikileaks interest to let the NSA know what is in it.

Re:NSA has cribs? (5, Informative)

phantomcircuit (938963) | about a year ago | (#44601651)

I would assume the files are encrypted with a symmetric cipher like AES. Known plaintext attacks are not very effective against symmetric ciphers. Indeed they're designed to be resilient to chosen plaintext attacks.

Re:NSA has cribs? (5, Informative)

Fnord666 (889225) | about a year ago | (#44601733)

That's a pretty good assumption since all of the files end in .aes256.torrent.

Re:NSA has cribs? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44601757)

Or like PGP, they could encrypt the symmetric key with an RSA public key.

It's a good combo AES-256 + RSA 4096 bits for securing the AES key.

Re:NSA has cribs? (1)

Phreakiture (547094) | about a year ago | (#44601961)

That makes sense in an email context, where the objective is to reduce the computational overhead by using a fast algorithm (symmetric key) to encrypt the message, and then you only have to worry about encrypting the key with the much slower asymmetric algorithm. As a side-effect, it also lets you encrypt a message to multiple specific recipients by adding a copy of the symmetric key encrypted with different public keys for each intended recipient, also a nice touch for email.

In this case, hoever, where the idea is to be able to disclose the whole shooting match to everyone, there is no benefit in using asymmetric encryption, in any capacity that I can see.

Re:NSA has cribs? (4, Insightful)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | about a year ago | (#44601795)

If the NSA suspects that certain of their internal documents occur in the insurance files, can't they use these as cribs to break the encryption?

These files were almost certainly from the NSA in the first place - they already have the unencrypted versions.

I imagine they also have a pretty good idea which specific files Snowden had access to.

Re:NSA has cribs? (4, Insightful)

JavaBear (9872) | about a year ago | (#44601829)

Whether NSA breaks it or not is actually irrelevant, wikileaks could even send the key to them without trouble.
The question is, do they (NSA) dare risk that the rest of us get access to it.

Re:NSA has cribs? (4, Insightful)

Eivind (15695) | about a year ago | (#44602021)

Known-plaintext is helpful in cracking certain weak ciphers. One of the criteria for a cipher being strong, is that it *not* be vulnerable to a known-plaintext attack. As far as we know, aes-256 is strong.

Furthermore, cracking the files won't help the NSA. The info in them is likely already well-known to the NSA. It's however unknown to the public. Thus the NSA isn't as much concerned with cracking the encryption, as it is with -avoiding- that anyone else cracks it. (or learns of the key)

Need to change the combo on my luggage (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44601599)

The password to decrypt the files is "1234"

Re:Need to change the combo on my luggage (1)

aliquis (678370) | about a year ago | (#44601707)

dd if=Gladiator\ -\ Now\ we\ are\ free.mp3 of=key bs=1 count=4096

Clearly... (3, Funny)

luckymutt (996573) | about a year ago | (#44601609)

Wikileaks is now just a government pawn, setting up to record the ip addresses of anyone downloading this honeypot.

Re:Clearly... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44601657)

uhhh .. isnt there a threshold of "public" where the noise outweighs the signal ? It seems that effective techniques in the future must use this threshold effect.. IANASE (I am not a security expert) but thats my first response..

Weighing the other side, inaction because of "being watched" will definitely be a losing strategy.. Taken to an extreme, you would lose your ability to participate in public life with anything controversial.. a win for dark-side established forces..

Re:Clearly... (1)

luckymutt (996573) | about a year ago | (#44601865)

uhhh .. isnt there a threshold of "public" where the noise outweighs the signal ?

There's noise in bittorrent? Weird. I always thought that anyone who was on a torrent was...well...contributing to the signal. The only noise would be those using TOR or something like it, which would be trivial to filter.

Re:Clearly... (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44601663)

Yep, I'll be downloading it with my annoying co-worker's computer after he goes home for the night. Come to think of it, I'll do it again from my boss' machine.

Re:Clearly... (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about a year ago | (#44601771)

Wikileaks is now just a government pawn, setting up to record the ip addresses of anyone downloading this honeypot.

Better load up on the tin foil. Just cover your router in it and you'll be safe.

Re:Clearly... (2)

aliquis (678370) | about a year ago | (#44601823)

I always untwist my TP cables and shrink new plastic around each strand to make sure no funny business is going on.

Re:Clearly... (1)

luckymutt (996573) | about a year ago | (#44601837)

OK, I posted a bit in jest, but do you think the NSA is not jumping on this as well? with the intent to see who is getting it? Not that they're going to "go after" anyone downloading it, but I image they would at least cross reference against their databases. Whatever.
I suppose I should have said "inadvertent gov pawn."

Re:Clearly... (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about a year ago | (#44601967)

Tbey already record all internet connections, so to find out who downloads it, just query their databases.

They need help? (1)

Lohrno (670867) | about a year ago | (#44601625)

Maybe they want some of us to use a distributed computing approach to broach the key?

A field marshal’s baton? (1, Interesting)

auric_dude (610172) | about a year ago | (#44601635)

Napoleon declared to his troops that a field marshal’s baton was tucked into every soldier’s knapsack, a powerful signal to people conditioned to accept personal limits on their careers as dictated by the class system. So, is this the modern equivalent with a thousand fingers resting upon the decode button in an attempt to deflect the wrath of the NSA onto others?

Re:A field marshal’s baton? (3, Insightful)

oodaloop (1229816) | about a year ago | (#44601695)

I never heard that before, so I googled "field marshall baton napoleon" and found your first sentence, word for word, on the second link [leadership...nsider.com] . Quote your sources dude. Don't take credit for someone else's words.

Re:A field marshal’s baton? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44601727)

I'm glad I'm not the only one who saw that hahahah. I seriously think the majority of slashdot posters are now NSA plants and script bots.

Re:A field marshal’s baton? (2)

Zero__Kelvin (151819) | about a year ago | (#44601769)

Are you sure he isn't the original author?

Re:A field marshal’s baton? (1)

oodaloop (1229816) | about a year ago | (#44601857)

Are you sure I'm not?

Re:A field marshal’s baton? (1)

Zero__Kelvin (151819) | about a year ago | (#44601991)

Yes. Yes I am. In fact I am 100% certain. You see, the original author would have complained that he or she wrote it, rather than offering a detailed accounting of how they found it on some website using their "Google-Fu". I really wish Slashdot would get a filtering mechanism that allowed the setting of a SlashID threshold. I've noticed lately that most of the ridiculously brainless posts seem to come from those above about 600,000.

Re:A field marshal’s baton? (1, Informative)

cold fjord (826450) | about a year ago | (#44601863)

Don't take credit for someone else's words.

You may have skipped over part of his sentence: "Napoleon declared to his troops ..."

Re:A field marshal’s baton? (1)

oodaloop (1229816) | about a year ago | (#44601939)

And you may have missed the very next word, "that". It wasn't a direct quote from Napoleon. It was the same word for word paraphrasing and description from the site I linked.

Re:A field marshal’s baton? (1)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | about a year ago | (#44601917)

I never heard that before, so I googled "field marshall baton napoleon" and found your first sentence, word for word, on the second link. Quote your sources dude. Don't take credit for someone else's words.

No slashdot tenure for auric_dude! Whatever will he do?

This fundamentally a political act (4, Insightful)

sandbagger (654585) | about a year ago | (#44601685)

This is fundamentally a political act. The trouble is, there's no scaling back. Unless something happened behind the scenes that is not generally know, this'll be perceived as an escalation.

Gotta wonder why now, that idiot at Time Magazine aside.

The thing is, Western democracies have to get used to the Memory Hole, Cryptome, Wikileakeaks and the rest. You can play whack a mole with them or deal with the fact that people from now on will treat digital information in a way that nation states may not wish they would. This'll have positive and negative consequences but it needs to treated as fact.

Re:This fundamentally a political act (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44601721)

...but it'll be treated as terrorism/espionage/etc.

Re:This fundamentally a political act (4, Interesting)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about a year ago | (#44601797)

True enough, but it's simply publicizing something that likely happened a long time ago. How many people think that Wikileaks kept the file on a laptop in somebody's house? It's always been distributed (at least Wikileaks would be dumber than a politician not to do that).

They've just made it a public spectacle. That's all.

You want me to hold your stash? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44601705)

I did that once, and I know how it plays out.

when is (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44601741)

someone going to take out Snowden and Assange? i mean, really?

Re:when is (2)

aliquis (678370) | about a year ago | (#44601853)

That will solve anything?

NSA has already decided to cut 90% of their sysadmins. That will limit their exposure. Though one having access is enough. But at least then they will know who that one was =P

"Attentionwhoreleaks" doesn't roll off the tongue (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44601783)

Didn't the last batch of "insurance" files just contain unredacted versions of all those diplomatic cables? Boring. Confirmation of alien life would be news. The fact that the nations of the world don't get along and actually despise each other as much as we think they do is not.

If Wikileaks really did have so-called "nuclear" material, they would have almost certainly disclosed it back when Assange was globe-hopping and seeking asylum from those sexual assault charges, to say nothing of what happened to Manning and Snowden; they've already come under attack both financially and personally, so it's not as if there's any benefit to just sitting on the really juicy stuff. If--and it's a big if--they really have something, then what are they waiting on, for Assange to be killed outright?

Smaller chunks 400GB would transmit/store easier (1)

waterbear (190559) | about a year ago | (#44601887)

They probably need to divide that gargantuan thing, 400GB, down into smaller, more manageable, chunks before encrypting it. Then they might get more people cooperating with them. How many people can download and store 400GB in one chunk?

Also, the bigger the chunk, the more easily corrupted, and the corruption takes out the possibility of decrypting the whole thing?

Re:Smaller chunks 400GB would transmit/store easie (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44602015)

It's as three torrents, 3.6 GB, 49 GB, and 349 GB. So you could download the first two and let others pick up the third one. Also, BitTorrent has error correction... if you somehow get a few flipped bits, you will redownload the pieces.

I'm a little leery of this file... (1)

Nova Express (100383) | about a year ago | (#44601953)

Mainly because it's labeled "skynet.exe".

moDd down (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44602041)

DRIVEN OUT BY THE no matt8er 4ow Of user base for
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?