If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Wired)   Is President Obama going to declare (cyber) war on Wikileaks? It may be more likely than you think   (wired.com) divider line 52
    More: Obvious, Pirate Bay, Marc Thiessen, Afghan war, Julian Assange, Reporters Without Borders, Trust, reprisals, Humvees  
•       •       •

1972 clicks; posted to Politics » on 14 Aug 2010 at 3:39 PM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



52 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2010-08-14 02:02:17 PM
Yeah! He's gonna his Plunger of Hope(TM) to suck Wikileaks through the intertubes. That way they'll be forced to (snicker) return all the data they took.
 
2010-08-14 02:08:38 PM
Good luck with that.
 
2010-08-14 02:28:53 PM
a.imageshack.us
 
2010-08-14 02:52:24 PM
cptjeff: Good luck with that.

This.


Still, it was a stupid and counter-productive oversight to not scrub these documents for things like personally identifying information for local cooperators. Between that and Assange being intolerably flippant about the possibility, I'm not sure these are the people I want being the face of transparency and whistle-blowing. And I say that as someone who is generally glad this information was released and wants us to leave Afghanistan right-the-fark-now.
 
2010-08-14 03:43:31 PM
Going down this road would lead inevitably to Obama deploying the "Internet killswitch" -but good luck trying to un-ring that bell.

I'm not condoning WikiLeaks, but the federal gov't is fighting too many (unwinnable) wars already.

/At least finish losing the wars on drugs and poverty first
 
2010-08-14 03:45:01 PM
Is President Obama going to declare (cyber) war on Wikileaks? It may be more likely than you think

This seems to be an accurate albeit amazingly uninformative headline. There's zero chance Obama will declare a cyber war on wikileaks. But I'll admit it's possible the chances are infinitesimally higher than zero. I'm glad we established that.
 
2010-08-14 03:50:41 PM
I liked Wikileaks until they went and released the names of informants.

As a concept, it's good, but you don't go deliberately putting people in danger like that.
 
2010-08-14 03:51:48 PM
Gah where do I start smacking people down.
 
2010-08-14 03:52:32 PM
You know what? I'm beginning to suspect that it's just possible that sometimes the headlines on Fark don't represent the contents of the articles to which they link entirely accurately.
 
2010-08-14 03:57:35 PM
'Cyberwar'? Unlikely.

A renewed question of reviewing the huge range of secret/top secret clearance holders.

A Cyberwar waged upon our own privileged personnel is a better possibility.
 
2010-08-14 03:57:58 PM
Wikileaks dun goofed. I've back traced their IP address.
 
2010-08-14 03:58:16 PM
Send a drone after his ass.

Obama loves using those.
 
2010-08-14 04:00:55 PM
Good luck, I hear they're behind 7 proxies.
 
2010-08-14 04:04:41 PM
lennavan: Is President Obama going to declare (cyber) war on Wikileaks? It may be more likely than you think

This seems to be an accurate albeit amazingly uninformative headline. There's zero chance Obama will declare a cyber war on wikileaks. But I'll admit it's possible the chances are infinitesimally higher than zero. I'm glad we established that.


More likely he'd "charge him with a crime" and "have his ass thrown in jail."
 
2010-08-14 04:07:56 PM
Churchill2004: cptjeff: Good luck with that.

This.


Still, it was a stupid and counter-productive oversight to not scrub these documents for things like personally identifying information for local cooperators. Between that and Assange being intolerably flippant about the possibility, I'm not sure these are the people I want being the face of transparency and whistle-blowing. And I say that as someone who is generally glad this information was released and wants us to leave Afghanistan right-the-fark-now.


Indeed, releasing the documents unredacted was a major faux pas (to say the least) and being a dick about it is just not right. This is a big problem in general... in between the inconvenient truths they're hiding from the people, there is stuff that should in fact be secret, and it takes a lot of work to separate them. More than Wikileaks has the manpower to provide, and you can't exactly ask for help with sort of stuff.

There's no easy answer.
 
2010-08-14 04:09:48 PM
"I was not commenting and I will not comment on the wisdom of making the decision to put a mosque there," Obama said. "I was commenting very specifically on the right people have that dates back to our founding. That's what our country is about.

Like everything Obama ever says, he's always covering his ass on both sides at once.

Real committed dude.
 
2010-08-14 04:13:53 PM
I'm with basically everyone else here in agreeing that Wikileaks did a piss poor job in not carefully redacting identifying information before publishing the material. There really was no reason to endanger the lives of informants and others working with the coalition here, leaving that stuff in added nothing to the story. I hope they do a better job in the future, but I'm still happy to have them around and think they have a vital role to play.

ObTrivia: Assange is the author of strobe.c, the original TCP port scanner and Fyodor's inspiration for writing nmap.
 
2010-08-14 04:16:20 PM
When the Pirate Bay was briefly shut down someone posted a torrent on Demonoid that was the entire Pirate Bay site, and within a day there were multiple versions of the site up and running from different places around the world. Seeing as wikileaks is based on The Pirate Bays ISP, I am sure they have multiple contingency plans in case of attack. Cryptome and others have the entire Afghan War Diary mirrored already in various formats.
 
2010-08-14 04:19:34 PM
Any bets the NSA has grabbed that torrent, cracked the encryption, and already is weighing what's in there against shutting him down?
 
2010-08-14 04:21:02 PM
NYZooMan: Derp.

It's good to know they who style themselves 'defenders of the constitution' and all it stands for are all too eager to shiat upon the 1st Amendment.

Remove the word 'Mosque' from every one of your arguments and put 'Church'. If those arguments don't immediately make you sick to your stomach in a sudden and surprising fashion, congratulations, you're a bigot. Otherwise, you just hate all religions, which I can happily abide.
 
2010-08-14 04:31:21 PM
davidphogan: Any bets the NSA has grabbed that torrent, cracked the encryption, and already is weighing what's in there against shutting him down?

Cryptome mentions the possibility that it is a tracking file Wikileaks made to test the NSA's capabilities and measure their response. A lot of people think that the NSA can crack AES so releasing a file that wikileaks assumes the NSA has the key to may have other reasons. Also, shutting them down doesn't seem to be a possibility. How exactly would they do that?
 
2010-08-14 04:34:35 PM
davidphogan: Any bets the NSA has grabbed that torrent, cracked the encryption, and already is weighing what's in there against shutting him down?

betting the NSA has it. Yes.
Betting they cracked it? Maybe. [They have a lot of CPU to throw at it.]

but shutting him down, well I don't think they can. hes already sent out a massive file called "insurance" all it needs is a key to open it.
 
2010-08-14 04:45:54 PM
Cinaed: It's good to know they who style themselves 'defenders of the constitution' and all it stands for are all too eager to shiat upon the 1st Amendment.

Freedom of Speech != Freedom from consequences. I've noticed those that scream the loudest about their rights are the ones most unwilling to face the responsibilities that go with them.
 
2010-08-14 04:50:15 PM
ra-ra-raw: How exactly would they do that?

Dead men post no files.
 
2010-08-14 04:52:38 PM
FubarBDilligaf: Derp.

Yes, exercising one's freedoms can include responses.
One of those consequences, however, is not having that freedom rescinded.

Regardless, back to the topic at hand... Wikileaks isn't the problem, the problem was the 'actual' leak. Wikileaks is just a symptom of the problem, not the problem itself.
 
2010-08-14 05:04:07 PM
Ever since I saw the Assange interview on Colbert it became clear this guy has a definite agenda/a lose screw. The whole manner in which he released this documents just further proved it. He's all about the attention whoring that comes from releasing shocking material, with no care to the consequences.

My personal hope is that others will see this and he'll simply run out of sources of documents, thus rendering his site worthless. Failing at that, the CIA can deal with it.

It is kind of interesting when you think about it, in the pre internet days the crackpots had a limited mailing list at best. Now they can easily reach the entire world. Same goes for talk radio of course.
 
2010-08-14 05:06:37 PM
TheOther: ra-ra-raw: How exactly would they do that?

Dead men post no files.


Right, there are almost 1000 people scattered around the world, many of them in hiding and lots of them are ex-military and intelligence. You think that the US has a whole bunch of hit squads in countries like Iceland, Sweden and Belgium and that they are willing to destroy diplomatic relationships with those countries by carrying out extra-judicial executions in countries that outlaw the death penalty.

Either you're trolling or just an ITG.
 
2010-08-14 05:29:09 PM
TheOther: ra-ra-raw: How exactly would they do that?

Dead men post no files.


Great. Make Assange a "free speech" martyr. If anything happens to him, even accidental, people will flip out. We'll have wannabes and crusaders zipping out leaks a hundred times faster than they already are.
 
2010-08-14 05:36:14 PM
Il Douchey: I'm not condoning WikiLeaks

Well, I will. I have absolutely no problem with what WikiLeaks does, has done, and likely will do in the future. If anything, the best response the government can have is to feed WikiLeaks data, both covertly and overtly.
 
2010-08-14 05:43:59 PM
Well, it is obvious what the "insurance" is.

Obama's long form birth certificate.
 
2010-08-14 05:53:09 PM
I just finished re-imaging my laptop and got everything re-installed... and CraicBaby makes me spit beer all over it.

/No complaints, really.
//Beer makes everything better.
//INCOMPATIBLE FOR UPGRADE!
 
2010-08-14 06:07:38 PM
Something is going to happen. I got an email on Friday telling me that I am absolutely not authorized to view any page on the wikileaks site, and that I would be dealt with accordingly if I did.
 
2010-08-14 06:20:39 PM
davidphogan
Any bets the NSA has grabbed that torrent, cracked the encryption, and already is weighing what's in there against shutting him down?

Wouldn't wanna make that bet, personally. The interesting question is be whether they've brute forced it or used some backdoor/secret flaw in AES.
 
2010-08-14 06:45:36 PM
"61 seeders around the world"

Yeah, good luck with that, is right. The phrase "can't stop the signal" comes to mind.
 
2010-08-14 06:53:10 PM
FuturePastNow: "61 seeders around the world"

Yeah, good luck with that, is right. The phrase "can't stop the signal" comes to mind.


It's also been on usenet for 12 days with this NFO-

This is insurance, version aes256!
SHA1 cce54d3a8af370213d23fcbfe8cddc8619a0734c

This file may be password protected. If it is, I do not know the password. Do you?

We are not on EFnet, we live in the woods. We do not need you, unless you have food for us. We will eat your carrots.
And lambs. And sloths. And carp. And anchovies. And orangutans. And breakfast cereals. And fruit bats.

THE GROOMING RABBIT
 
2010-08-14 07:01:55 PM
Dalrint: I liked Wikileaks until they went and released the names of informants.

As a concept, it's good, but you don't go deliberately putting people in danger like that.


NO SECRETS, MAN!
 
2010-08-14 07:23:21 PM
Cybertron Earth after war for cybertr.. energo.. cyber war:

img833.imageshack.us
 
2010-08-14 09:38:11 PM
I think they'd utterly fail on going after Wikileaks on the grounds of national security. Breach of copyright on the other hand may have some strength to it and at $150,000 per breach over 95,000 documents puts the maximum penalty at over $14 billion.
 
2010-08-14 11:23:32 PM
simpsonfan: Suppose Assange ever leaks some documents belonging to someone else, like the KGB. (Or whatever they call themselves now)...

Having his site hacked would be the least of his worries.


Oh, really. (new window)
 
2010-08-14 11:25:43 PM
Whoops, wrong link, i meant to post this one (new window).
 
2010-08-14 11:43:14 PM
Satanic_Hamster: lennavan: Is President Obama going to declare (cyber) war on Wikileaks? It may be more likely than you think

This seems to be an accurate albeit amazingly uninformative headline. There's zero chance Obama will declare a cyber war on wikileaks. But I'll admit it's possible the chances are infinitesimally higher than zero. I'm glad we established that.

More likely he'd "charge him with a crime" and "have his ass thrown in jail."


And more likely than that, I'll get to have sex with two victorias secret underwear models tonight.
 
2010-08-15 12:01:51 AM
simpsonfan: Suppose Assange ever leaks some documents belonging to someone else, like the KGB. (Or whatever they call themselves now)...

Having his site hacked would be the least of his worries.


No one (side a psycho) is going to kill him in the next few years. He is too high profile right now.I'll go out on a limb though and say that he won't live longer than 10 years. When it comes it will look like a heart attack or car accident-but it won't be.

/I doubt I will be cruising fark in 10 years so you can feel free to quote me on that ;)
 
2010-08-15 01:07:38 AM
mrexcess: The interesting question is be whether they've brute forced it or used some backdoor/secret flaw in AES.

Well, the question then is whether Rijmen and Daemen secretly colluded with the NSA to make that happen. I don't think it's likely, and I like Bruce Schneier's explanation as to why his AES candidate Twofish doesn't have a backdoor:

We assert that Twofish has no trap doors. As de-
signers, we have made every effort to make Twofish
secure against all known (and unknown) cryptanal-
yses, and we have made no effort to build in a secret
way of breaking Twofish. However, there is no way
to prove this, and not much reason for anyone to
believe us. We can offer some assurances.

In this paper, we have outlined all of the design ele-
ments of Twofish and our justifications for including
them. We have explained, in great detail, how we
chose Twofish's "magic constants": the RS code, q0 ,
q1 , and the MDS matrix. There are no mysterious
design elements; everything has an explicit purpose.
Moreover, we feel that the use of key-dependent S-
boxes makes it harder to install a trap door into the
cipher. As difficult as it is to create a trap door for a
particular set of carefully constructed S-boxes, it is
much harder to create one that works with all pos-
sible S-boxes or even a reasonably useful subset of
them (of relative size 2-20 or so).

Additionally, any trap door would have to survive
16 rounds of Twofish. It would have to work even
though there is almost perfect diffusion in each
round. It would have to survive the pre- and post-
whitening. These design elements have long been
known to make any patterns difficult to detect; trap
doors would be no different.

None of this constitutes a proof. Any reasonable
proof of general security for a block cipher would
also prove P != NP. Rather than outlining the proof
here, we would likely skip the AES competition and
go collect our Fields Medal.

However, we have made headway towards a philo-
sophical proof. Assume for a moment that, despite
the difficulties listed above, we did manage to put
a trap door into Twofish. This would imply one of
two things:

One, that we have invented a powerful new cryptan-
alytic attack and have carefully crafted Twofish to
be resistant to all known attacks but vulnerable to
this new one. We cannot prove that this is not true.
However, we can point out that as cryptographers we
would achieve much more fame and glory by publish-
ing our powerful new cryptanalytic attack. In fact,
we would probably publish it along with this paper,
making sure Twofish is immune so that we can prof-
itably attack the other AES submissions.

The other possibility is that we have embedded a
trap door into the Twofish magic constants and then
transformed them by some means so that finding
them would be a statistical impossibility (see [Har96]
for some discussion of this possibility). The re-
sulting construction would seem immune to current
cryptanalytic techniques, but we as designers would
know a secret transformation rule that we could ap-
ply to facilitate cryptanalysis. Again, we cannot
prove that this is not true. However, it has been
shown that this type of cipher, called a "master-key
cryptosystem," is equivalent to a public-key cryp-
tosystem [BFL96]. Again, as cryptographers we
would achieve far greater recognition by publishing
a public-key cryptosystem that is not dependent on
factoring [RSA78] or the discrete logarithm problem
[DH76, ElG85, NIST94]. And the resulting algo-
rithm's dual capabilities as both a symmetric and
public-key algorithm would make it far more flexi-
ble than the AES competition.

There is a large gap between a weakness that
is exploitable in theory and one that is ex-
ploitable in practice. Even the best attack
against DES (a linear-cryptanalysis-like attack com-
bining quadratic approximations and a multiple-
approximation method) requires just under 243
plaintext/ciphertext blocks [SK98], which is equiva-
lent to about 64 terabytes of plaintext/ciphertext en-
crypted under a single key. A useful trap door would
need to work with much less plaintext--a few thou-
sand blocks--or it would have to reduce the effec-
tive keyspace to something on the order of 272 . We
believe that, given the quality of the public crypt-
analytic research community, it would be impossible
to put a weakness of this magnitude into a block
cipher and have it remain undetected through the
AES process. And we would be foolish to even try.


All the same things probably hold true for Rijndael as well as for Twofish; but just in case, I used Twofish instead of Rijndael to encrypt my hard drives. At the time of the AES competition, Rijndael performed just a little bit better than Twofish in almost everything, so it's not much of a difference, and both are very secure. And I don't have any of the processors with AES opcodes, so that wasn't an issue.
 
2010-08-15 01:20:26 AM
It never ceases to amaze me.

The media decides that Wikileaks is bad.
They say on every new channel it's bad.

Now the people think it's bad.

Whatever the news says, it is.
 
2010-08-15 11:04:16 AM
Kazujin: It never ceases to amaze me.

The media decides that Wikileaks is bad.
They say on every new channel it's bad.

Now the people think it's bad.

Whatever the news says, it is.


Total Farkers are against this because Obama is President. If Bush was, Wikileaks would be heroes right now.
 
2010-08-15 11:21:03 AM
ra-ra-raw: TheOther: ra-ra-raw: How exactly would they do that?

Dead men post no files.

Right, there are almost 1000 people scattered around the world, many of them in hiding and lots of them are ex-military and intelligence. You think that the US has a whole bunch of hit squads in countries like Iceland, Sweden and Belgium and that they are willing to destroy diplomatic relationships with those countries by carrying out extra-judicial executions in countries that outlaw the death penalty.

Either you're trolling or just an ITG.


More of a devils advocate answering the naive question about 'How would they do that?

As far as the files they believe he already has, it would be pointless; especially since they must believe those files are irretrievably compromised anyway.

I can see them looking for 'an eye for an eye' retribution if informants have been killed; but prosecuting and jailing the man is more sensible. Or I could see them thiunking of it as a 'warning shot' to future would-be leakers - when the press screams about 'chilling effect' when the President slips away to his kid' soccer game, two in the back of the head would seem to register as an ice age. Whether it would

The ex-military/ex-intelligence personell you cite as untouchable seem to me to be the kind of people that would have contacts that would get them located...or be plants in the organization. It's the lurking paranoid basement dweller that might be hardest to find.

Isn't Iceland still part of Denmark? Either way, good luck getting those NATO countries to strain at the gnat after swallowing the wholesale pillaging of Iraq.
 
2010-08-15 03:11:45 PM
TheOther: Iceland

Recent developments on press freedom in Iceland. (new window) As far as I know Iceland was never a part of Denmark, you are thinking of Greenland.
 
2010-08-15 08:23:27 PM
FTFA: "The United States has the cyber capabilities to prevent WikiLeaks from disseminating those materials"

I seriously doubt it.
 
2010-08-16 01:16:26 AM
Fjornir: FTFA: "The United States has the cyber capabilities to prevent WikiLeaks from disseminating those materials"

I seriously doubt it.


Since when are ICBMs part of our "cyber capabilities"? Did I miss a memo?

/Oceania has always been at war with Luxembourg. ALWAYS.
//Oops, 12 minutes to 5 MINUTES OF HATE. I love that show.
 
2010-08-16 12:49:01 PM
davidphogan: Any bets the NSA has grabbed that torrent, cracked the encryption, and already is weighing what's in there against shutting him down?

Sucker's bet. They probably had a copy and cracked it before it was officially released.
 
Displayed 50 of 52 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report