News WikiLeaks reveals sites critical to US security

[Galteeth]

You expect me to believe that beyond this overview, Assange has read the vast number of documents described as being in this file? You can't go around assuming that every gun isn't loaded, so the 'cats' concept is probably wishful thinking. Here is what is claimed to be in the file, at least:

The military papers on Guantanamo Bay, yet to be published, believed to have been supplied by Bradley Manning, who was arrested in May. Other documents that Assange is confirmed to possesses include an aerial video of a US airstrike in Afghanistan that killed civilians, BP files and Bank of America documents.

I'm sure he watched the video and read some of it, but unless he's smuggling HD movies in the original 720-1080 he could have a LOT of pictures of cats in a compressed file of that size.

No, that is stuff that he has either already released or is planning to release. The insurance file wouldn't be that.

 

[nismaratwork]

No, that is stuff that he has either already released or is planning to release. The insurance file wouldn't be that.

That was a quote from the NY Post, and represents the only CONFIRMED files that he has. Given however that he hasn't bluffed yet I'm shocked that you feel you can predict his behaviour so confidently.

 

[Galteeth]

That was a quote from the NY Post, and represents the only CONFIRMED files that he has. Given however that he hasn't bluffed yet I'm shocked that you feel you can predict his behaviour so confidently.

I'm not saying he's bluffing. I think you misunderstood my post. People were asking what the point of the insurance file was. It probably is something damaging. I was explaining why he hasn't explicitly stated what's in it. The video of the civilian deaths has already been released, and the other stuff the NY post mentioned wikileaks has said they are going to release. It wouldn't make sense for the insurance file to contain stuff he already released or was planning on releasing (unless it was a bluff).
The idea of an insurance file is you don't know who might be after you. It could be a government of some country or a corporation or criminal organization who thinks you have info they don't want to get out. If they think killing you may cause a release of that info, it is disincentive to kill you. Hence insurance. I wasn't seriously suggesting it was a bluff. The point is, as you accurately realized, people can't assume he's bluffing, so the threat of an "insurance file" seems to serve its purpose.
Pointing out that it could be a bluff was only to illustrate the psychology behind its purpose.

 

[nismaratwork]

I'm not saying he's bluffing. I think you misunderstood my post. People were asking what the point of the insurance file was. It probably is something damaging. I was explaining why he hasn't explicitly stated what's in it. The video of the civilian deaths has already been released, and the other stuff the NY post mentioned wikileaks has said they are going to release. It wouldn't make sense for the insurance file to contain stuff he already released or was planning on releasing (unless it was a bluff).
The idea of an insurance file is you don't know who might be after you. It could be a government of some country or a corporation or criminal organization who thinks you have info they don't want to get out. If they think killing you may cause a release of that info, it is disincentive to kill you. Hence insurance. I wasn't seriously suggesting it was a bluff. The point is, as you accurately realized, people can't assume he's bluffing, so the threat of an "insurance file" seems to serve its purpose.
Pointing out that it could be a bluff was only to illustrate the psychology behind its purpose.

Yes, that's exactly why I initially referred to this file as a 'fail-deadly device', which it is! Whether it's Semtex or soap, if a guy claiming to be wearing a bomb has a dead-man's switch, it's a very difficult situation.

There is a flaw here however, which is that Assange seems very intent upon maintaining a particular image in the media, an that one doesn't fit with such a blatant threat. He can claim self-defense, but he also wants to release the truth right? If there is something in that file that 'the world needs to know' under the Wikileaks philosophy, then using it as a fail-deadly is counter to that philosophy. Really, this only works if they're UNEDITED versions of documents already released, or if he just took a chunk of what he believed to be meaty material, compressed and encrypted it without ever having the time to look through it.

A bluff or not, the people who love him and this site (who are now the keepers of this file!) are going to want to know what's in it, don't you think? How is it going to look for Assange's crusade when he uses secrets that important as a means of blackmail to save his rear, and that such secrets could die with him! No, I think he just took a chunk of unfiltered or edited cables that would be damaging, but not necessarily interesting or "criminal" in the way he feels the air-strike was. Anything else, and he'll have no friends left at all, and file or not he'll be a dead man.

 

[WhoWee]

I'm not saying he's bluffing. I think you misunderstood my post. People were asking what the point of the insurance file was. It probably is something damaging. I was explaining why he hasn't explicitly stated what's in it. The video of the civilian deaths has already been released, and the other stuff the NY post mentioned wikileaks has said they are going to release. It wouldn't make sense for the insurance file to contain stuff he already released or was planning on releasing (unless it was a bluff).
The idea of an insurance file is you don't know who might be after you. It could be a government of some country or a corporation or criminal organization who thinks you have info they don't want to get out. If they think killing you may cause a release of that info, it is disincentive to kill you. Hence insurance. I wasn't seriously suggesting it was a bluff. The point is, as you accurately realized, people can't assume he's bluffing, so the threat of an "insurance file" seems to serve its purpose.
Pointing out that it could be a bluff was only to illustrate the psychology behind its purpose.

On the other hand, an enemy of someone he holds "insurance" against might kill him to trigger the release. Wouldn't that be ironic?

 

[nismaratwork]

On the other hand, an enemy of someone he holds "insurance" against might kill him to trigger the release. Wouldn't that be ironic?

You know, I hadn't considered that? Hmmmm... I could see someone obsessed by curiosity alone doing at some point in this whole mess, never mind something international!

 

[Galteeth]

Yes, that's exactly why I initially referred to this file as a 'fail-deadly device', which it is! Whether it's Semtex or soap, if a guy claiming to be wearing a bomb has a dead-man's switch, it's a very difficult situation.

There is a flaw here however, which is that Assange seems very intent upon maintaining a particular image in the media, an that one doesn't fit with such a blatant threat. He can claim self-defense, but he also wants to release the truth right? If there is something in that file that 'the world needs to know' under the Wikileaks philosophy, then using it as a fail-deadly is counter to that philosophy. Really, this only works if they're UNEDITED versions of documents already released, or if he just took a chunk of what he believed to be meaty material, compressed and encrypted it without ever having the time to look through it.

A bluff or not, the people who love him and this site (who are now the keepers of this file!) are going to want to know what's in it, don't you think? How is it going to look for Assange's crusade when he uses secrets that important as a means of blackmail to save his rear, and that such secrets could die with him! No, I think he just took a chunk of unfiltered or edited cables that would be damaging, but not necessarily interesting or "criminal" in the way he feels the air-strike was. Anything else, and he'll have no friends left at all, and file or not he'll be a dead man.

The secrets don't "die with him," the encryption key is released (a few of his wikileaks people have it) if he dies. It's pretty speculative to say what will happen to the data eventually. He seems to think of himself as a historian, so at this point it would seem like he would make some plan for its eventual release, but who knows what the years will bring?


'Anything else, and he'll have no friends left at all, and file or not he'll be a dead man" I'm still bit confused here by what you're saying. If the file is decrypted, he's already dead.(or maybe in jail for life with no possibility of parole)

 

[nismaratwork]

The secrets don't "die with him," the encryption key is released (a few of his wikileaks people have it) if he dies. It's pretty speculative to say what will happen to the data eventually. He seems to think of himself as a historian, so at this point it would seem like he would make some plan for its eventual release, but who knows what the years will bring?


'Anything else, and he'll have no friends left at all, and file or not he'll be a dead man" I'm still bit confused here by what you're saying. If the file is decrypted, he's already dead.(or maybe in jail for life with no possibility of parole)

My point is that he's in a bind... he has to have something amazingly damaging in that file, is making a HUGE bluff, or it's just a dump for random files. If it's the first then the element of blackmail using stolen material is fairly obviously criminal. No government is going to accept this kind of threat and set such a precedent, and it's pretty likely that he's going to end in a prison, if not for life then a very long time.

In the meantime, what of the file? He's likely to be in prison, not dead, so how does a site dedicated to disseminating 'truth' justify using something so potent as a secret for leverage? I'm saying that as WhoWee has pointed out, he's really screwed no matter what he does at this point, and having created and spread the file it's only a matter of time before the very people who support him demand to know what's in the file.

This file has made him LESS safe, but more notorious... that's all. Given what he's said about his love of attention I suspect that he cares more for fame than safety.

 

[Proton Soup]

if it's a bluff, i think it would never be released.

otherwise, whatever is in there would likely be released at some future date no matter what happens. that is the whole purpose of wikileaks, after all.

 

[nismaratwork]

if it's a bluff, i think it would never be released.

otherwise, whatever is in there would likely be released at some future date no matter what happens. that is the whole purpose of wikileaks, after all.

If it's going to be released anyway, how is it a deterrent? Wikileaks isn't about waiting 50 years for declassification, and neither are their followers. If this is bound to be released, why make a locked file at all, and if it isn't... how DO they square that with their purpose?

 

[Proton Soup]

If it's going to be released anyway, how is it a deterrent? Wikileaks isn't about waiting 50 years for declassification, and neither are their followers. If this is bound to be released, why make a locked file at all, and if it isn't... how DO they square that with their purpose?

i think it's about long-term survival.

not to mention it's great marketing for the brand. it's certainly interesting when people who are in IT security are themselves seeding torrents for the files.

 

[nismaratwork]

i think it's about long-term survival.

not to mention it's great marketing for the brand. it's certainly interesting when people who are in IT security are themselves seeding torrents for the files.

You may be right in the first... maybe this was the best he felt he could do? For the rest, I completely agree, although I'm not sure why IT security folks would be less suspect... in my experience (including time in that field many suns and moons ago) we were by far the most crooked to begin with.

Beyond that, if you enjoy/are good at monitoring large amounts of network traffic, drive sectors and more, then you're probably not dumb, and if this file is ever unlocked you want to be there to see what's inside.

 

[Phrak]

yeah, not really interested in that debate. and as i understand it, hacking originally had to do with hardware reverse engineering. and wasn't even a negative term i think until people started building phone "blueboxes" or whatever kind of boxen they were called. blah blah blah 2600 blah...

You're right about the term's negativity in usage today where it wasn't so before. There were a bunch of MIT AI (artificial intelligence) pin heads I worked with in the mid 80's. To them a 'hack' was the word for a clever or quickly constructed piece of code. 'Hacking' described pounding away at the keyboard.

 

[nismaratwork]

You're right about the term's negativity in usage today where it wasn't so before. There were a bunch of MIT AI (artificial intelligence) pin heads I worked with in the mid 80's. To them a 'hack' was the word for a clever or quickly constructed piece of code. 'Hacking' described pounding away at the keyboard.

Exactly... someone who could take disparate elements no matter what and get the job done. Hacking and a kludge went hand in hand... then phreaking hit, and eventually morphed into computer hacking. The road started with people just writing code though, making their own way through a pretty wild-west period, but not breaking and entering.

Now you have good or bad hackers, but mostly just curious ones. The people who do damage are generally:

"black hat" computer Hackers: People who code viruses or create and distribute scanning tools and bot-kits. In my experience, often a function of youth... younger, darker, older, kinder.

Crackers: Referring to people specializing in the removal or disruption of DRM, or in general any protective measure.

(no longer, but once) Phreakers: People who originally used something as simple as audible tones to make free long-distance calls. Evolved into something more as computers emerged, then become essentially obsolete.

Script-Kiddies: A wide term referring to the pre-written programs they tend to run, and their usual age or competence. These people may do a ton of damage, but they aren't necessarily bright... they just need some basic tools made by the real deal, scan for vulnerabilities across a wide range of IP addresses, create a bot-net and begin to run scams, spam, distribute pirated material, launch DDOS attacks, and of course... scan for more computers to add to your bot-net. This isn't new anymore, but it emerged relatively late in the game when a generation of people used to GUI's finally got their wish in tools made ostensibly to test IT security.

 

[Phrak]

Exactly... someone who could take disparate elements no matter what and get the job done. Hacking and a kludge went hand in hand... then phreaking hit, and eventually morphed into computer hacking. The road started with people just writing code though, making their own way through a pretty wild-west period, but not breaking and entering.

Now you have good or bad hackers, but mostly just curious ones. The people who do damage are generally:

"black hat" computer Hackers: People who code viruses or create and distribute scanning tools and bot-kits. In my experience, often a function of youth... younger, darker, older, kinder.

Crackers: Referring to people specializing in the removal or disruption of DRM, or in general any protective measure.

(no longer, but once) Phreakers: People who originally used something as simple as audible tones to make free long-distance calls. Evolved into something more as computers emerged, then become essentially obsolete.

Script-Kiddies: A wide term referring to the pre-written programs they tend to run, and their usual age or competence. These people may do a ton of damage, but they aren't necessarily bright... they just need some basic tools made by the real deal, scan for vulnerabilities across a wide range of IP addresses, create a bot-net and begin to run scams, spam, distribute pirated material, launch DDOS attacks, and of course... scan for more computers to add to your bot-net. This isn't new anymore, but it emerged relatively late in the game when a generation of people used to GUI's finally got their wish in tools made ostensibly to test IT security.

Good grief. I've abandoned the software world for a long time. Good riddance. Given the means and opportunity, we are sure to screw each other with it. I don't even want to know, or understand, what sort of predation people perpetuate on other peoplein this venue. I understood less than half of what you said.

 

[nismaratwork]

Good grief. I've abandoned the software world for a long time. Good riddance. Given the means and opportunity, we are sure to screw each other with it. I don't even want to know, or understand, what sort of predation people perpetuate on other peoplein this venue. I understood less than half of what you said.

I don't blame you, and if you want to hear the depressing part... this is current as of: 8 years ago or so. That's the last contact I had with anyone who could reliably inform me about these matters, or that I was in any way involved. I'm sure that in the intervening near-decade the screwing has become truly startling. It was that move from curious snooping to mass abuse that drove me away from everything related to software for years.

 

[Evo]

Mathnomalous pointed out an unsupported assumption that was about as plausible as the unsupported assumption Evo gave. I don't think there's any reason to feel suspense; I doubt either Evo or Mathnomalous intends to support the assumption they proffered.

And you were wrong.

Is it known that wikileaks helped him steal the info? I imagine if the government had enough evidence for that, there wouldn't be any trouble getting a warrant for his arrest.

Looks like they do.

A contradiction emerged today over WikiLeaks' relationship with one of its suspected sources, a dispute that could influence whether Julian Assange ultimately faces conspiracy charges in the United States.

The WikiLeaks editor who was released from a London prison yesterday denied knowing Bradley Manning, the Army private who is behind held in a military brig in Quantico, Va., on charges that include leaking classified material.

"I had never heard of the name Bradley Manning before it was published in the press," Assange told ABC News today.

That contradicts a chat log that appears to show Manning's conversations before his arrest--and before his name ever appeared in the media--in which he described having a close relationship with Assange as a confidential source.

Manning reportedly told ex-hacker Adrian Lamo that he had "developed a relationship with Assange" over many months, according to transcripts posted by BoingBoing and Wired.com over the summer. Lamo told CNET that the transcripts were accurate, but that he doesn't have the computer equipment on which it was saved because the FBI had taken it.

The details are crucial. Federal prosecutors are reportedly exploring filing conspiracy charges against Assange on the theory that he collaborated with Manning on transferring secret documents obtained from the Army's internal computer network.

continued...

http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20026074-281.html?tag=mncol;txt

 

[Proton Soup]

if "chat" refers to things like IRC chat, then people tend to communicate using pseudonyms.

nobody knows you're a dog, you know.

 

[Evo]

if "chat" refers to things like IRC chat, then people tend to communicate using pseudonyms.

nobody knows you're a dog, you know.

What? Oh, you think it's a chat room. No, these where private conversations between Manning and Lamo. Lamo is the hacker contacted by Manning that turned Manning in.

Do you know who Lamo is?

 

[nismaratwork]

if "chat" refers to things like IRC chat, then people tend to communicate using pseudonyms.

nobody knows you're a dog, you know.

IRC is NOT a secure means by which any hacker would communicate unless they were using a number of bouncers and proxies to shield themselves. Even then, better to use a SSL with a third party (read hacked box) computer. Adrian was just doing what he thought was right, which is exactly what it means to be grey in the first place. It's one thing to peek, it's another to betray your country and disseminate.

I would add however, that tracing someone on IRC is not exactly impossible unless they're extremely careful. You can follow packets and do the drudge work to follow proxies, which you or I would never do, but the government and other hackers sure as hell would. IRC was only a big deal when it worked to disseminate material from USEnet... now it's just people SAYING they're dogs... and then trying to cybersex yah. YECH.

 

[Proton Soup]

What? Oh, you think it's a chat room. No, these where private conversations between Manning and Lamo. Lamo is the hacker contacted by Manning that turned Manning in.

Do you know who Lamo is?

apparently, he's the ex-hacker that http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/08/world/08leaks.html" video decryption, but wikileaks at least doesn't reveal who is on that team.

and there is nothing in the cnet link that indicates assange knew the identity of manning, only that manning knew the identity of assange.

 

[Evo]

apparently, he's the ex-hacker that http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/08/world/08leaks.html" video decryption, but wikileaks at least doesn't reveal who is on that team.

That was divulged, did you miss that? The part about Assange being a paranoid delusional and not taking off a snowsuit and peering out of curtains?

and there is nothing in the cnet link that indicates assange knew the identity of manning, only that manning knew the identity of assange.

Yeah, the US government isn't stupid enough to say all they know.

 

[Proton Soup]

IRC is NOT a secure means by which any hacker would communicate unless they were using a number of bouncers and proxies to shield themselves. Even then, better to use a SSL with a third party (read hacked box) computer. Adrian was just doing what he thought was right, which is exactly what it means to be grey in the first place. It's one thing to peek, it's another to betray your country and disseminate.

I would add however, that tracing someone on IRC is not exactly impossible unless they're extremely careful. You can follow packets and do the drudge work to follow proxies, which you or I would never do, but the government and other hackers sure as hell would. IRC was only a big deal when it worked to disseminate material from USEnet... now it's just people SAYING they're dogs... and then trying to cybersex yah. YECH.

i'm not trying to imply that it can't be traced. simply that people tend not to use their full names. i would also find it remarkable if wikileaks had the resources to do more than verify his IP.

i don't find this news release to be anything remarkable. it doesn't contradict anything assange has said, it merely shows that manning was in contact with assange.

 

[Proton Soup]

That was divulged, did you miss that? The part about Assange being a paranoid delusional and not taking off a snowsuit and peering out of curtains?

Yeah, the US government isn't stupid enough to say all they know.

so you agree it's an unsubstantiated claim.

 

[Evo]

so you agree it's an unsubstantiated claim.

What's an unsubstantiated claim? The journalist that stayed with him in Iceland is pretty clear on Assange's mental condition.

 

[NeoDevin]

Yeah, the US government isn't stupid enough to say all they know.

Instead they just put everything they know on an under-secured network where any of thousands of people can download the whole thing without raising any flags.

 

[Evo]

Instead they just put everything they know on an under-secured network where any of thousands of people can download the whole thing without raising any flags.

Except no one knows what they currently have.

 

[Proton Soup]

What's an unsubstantiated claim? The journalist that stayed with him in Iceland is pretty clear on Assange's mental condition.

i was thinking about the claim of a contradiction in assange's statement

"I had never heard of the name Bradley Manning before it was published in the press," Assange told ABC News today. "WikiLeaks' technology [was] designed from the very beginning to make sure that we never know the identities or names of people submitting us material."

as for paranoia, it's not being paranoid if they really are out to get you.

 

[nismaratwork]

i'm not trying to imply that it can't be traced. simply that people tend not to use their full names. i would also find it remarkable if wikileaks had the resources to do more than verify his IP.

i don't find this news release to be anything remarkable. it doesn't contradict anything assange has said, it merely shows that manning was in contact with assange.

Proton, you have more resources than are needed to verify an IP address, even if you don't know how right now. You could, if you wanted to waste your time, learn VERY quickly. You're no dummy, and presumably neither are the people who work for Wikileaks... if they have access to packetstorm dotnet and other security sites, they could do more.

That said, I understand your clarification, and yes in any context I would be shocked if people didn't use disposable names (handles).

 

[Proton Soup]

Proton, you have more resources than are needed to verify an IP address, even if you don't know how right now. You could, if you wanted to waste your time, learn VERY quickly. You're no dummy, and presumably neither are the people who work for Wikileaks... if they have access to packetstorm dotnet and other security sites, they could do more.

yeah, truth is, my level of interest in doing any sort of programming for this is very limited. my level of nosiness is more or less limited to http://www.geobytes.com/iplocator.htm".

if there'd been internet when i was a teen, maybe. but as it were, my hacking activities were pretty much limited to making passkeys for school combo locks.

anyhoo, i tried looking at wikileaks to see what sort of tech they were claiming to use for submissions, but they seem to have taken it all down until they do a rework.