It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

WTF Do These Wikileaks Numbers Mean?---BREAKING

page: 26
174
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 17 2016 @ 06:28 PM
link   
OP NOTE:
AGAIN...Please stay on topic...Start a thread on 'Assange Rape Allegations'...or find an existing one.
THIS thread is NOT about rape.

MODS...PLEASE deal with this.

TY.

 

MOD NOTE from previous page
www.abovetopsecret.com...
edit on Mon Oct 17 2016 by DontTreadOnMe because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 17 2016 @ 07:07 PM
link   
I've been trying to catch up to the news the last few days and I find it kinda funny Podesta was trolling Assange just a few days prior about the food at the Ecuadorian embassy and then pam brings him food a few days later.

twitter.com...



posted on Oct, 17 2016 @ 07:11 PM
link   
Quick summary of what I have gathered thus far. Will edit if needed.



Wikileaks released what looks to be decryption keys.

Shortly thereafter, Assange lost internet connectivity.

I currently have no idea if he is alive or dead, or what these decryption keys are for.

The rest of the thread is lines being drawn in the sand.



Looks like Monday, folks.



posted on Oct, 17 2016 @ 07:24 PM
link   
Most have settled on SHA256 hash values for the files.



posted on Oct, 17 2016 @ 07:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: ventian
Quick summary of what I have gathered thus far. Will edit if needed.



Wikileaks released what looks to be decryption keys.

Shortly thereafter, Assange lost internet connectivity.

I currently have no idea if he is alive or dead, or what these decryption keys are for.

The rest of the thread is lines being drawn in the sand.



Looks like Monday, folks.



===

One correction!

Wikileaks DID NOT actually release the decryption keys
themselves, but rather they released the numeric SHA256
HASH VALUE that is obtained when an iterative math
function is applied to EVERY single byte and/or integer
word in the original wikileaks insurance file.

When this "Hash Function" adds up and multiplies
various bytes/words in the original file, a cryptographically
secure value is obtained which SHOULD MATCH
what a user obtains when they run the SAME
"Hash Function" on their local copy of the
insurance file.

It is ASSUMED that the "Hash Function" applies
certain math operations in a specific order
such that if the ORIGINAL ENCRYPTED FILE is
changed in ANY WAY even on only a SMALL
part that the resulting hash value would
DIFFER in some small way to what was
distributed by the author.

If the hash value disclosed by
Wikileaks DOES NOT MATCH
what the user gets then it means
the user's file is CORRUPTED or
FAKE !!!!!

On a technical basis, hash functions
aren't TRULY TRULY secure since it
IS POSSIBLE to change certain values
in multiple places within the original
file in such a way so that the hash value
REMAINS THE SAME as what was distributed.
BUT...only a state-level actor (i.e. only a big
government with LOTS computing horsepower
could figure out WHICH bytes to change or leave
alone to ensure any given hash function algorithm
outputs the original hash value!)

There's a lot of numeric theory which I won't
get into now but hash functions and CRC
(Cycle Redundancy Check) are one of a FEW
methods to ensure a LARGE data file is proveably
kept free from corruption and modification.



edit on 2016/10/17 by StargateSG7 because: sp



posted on Oct, 17 2016 @ 07:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: ventian
Wikileaks released what looks to be decryption keys.


As roadgravel said, they're checksum hashes to verify that encrypted files are authentic and unaltered, and signs currently point to him still being alive.



posted on Oct, 17 2016 @ 07:40 PM
link   
a reply to: redmage

Shouldn't someone have checked a file by this time?

Other than the NSA.



posted on Oct, 17 2016 @ 07:45 PM
link   
a reply to: roadgravel

Yeah - no kidding...where's the decrypted file info?
edit on 17-10-2016 by coldkidc because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 17 2016 @ 07:55 PM
link   
Not decrypted but that the hashes match. The files must be available or they are of no use as a bargaining point or so called insurance.



posted on Oct, 17 2016 @ 08:18 PM
link   
WikiLeaks says someone is trying to silence its founder Julian Assange

Twitter Video Fox News


(post by jedi_hamster removed for a manners violation)

posted on Oct, 17 2016 @ 08:24 PM
link   
I gather the checksums are for those who previously received the three files named "UK FCO", "Ecuador", and "John Kerry". When they decrypt those files they will be able to discern whether or not the files in their possession have been altered by having these checksum numbers to verify the content.



posted on Oct, 17 2016 @ 08:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: ventian
Quick summary of what I have gathered thus far. Will edit if needed.



Wikileaks released what looks to be decryption keys.

Shortly thereafter, Assange lost internet connectivity.

I currently have no idea if he is alive or dead, or what these decryption keys are for.

The rest of the thread is lines being drawn in the sand.



Looks like Monday, folks.

Didn't this happen a while back?

I clearly remember the same scenario a year or more ago?

Is this something that happens on occasion, or is this something different?



posted on Oct, 17 2016 @ 08:36 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Oct, 17 2016 @ 08:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Trillium

I am not even trying. But someone must have.

Back to my drama suggestion - if it's been 3 years since file release, why the hashes now, other than to get attention. They should have been released back then.



posted on Oct, 17 2016 @ 08:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: roadgravel
a reply to: Trillium

I am not even trying. But someone must have.

Back to my drama suggestion - if it's been 3 years since file release, why the hashes now, other than to get attention. They should have been released back then.


The 3 hashes number are a warning shot to let them know the file are real

Then next time they they may just give the real KEY to decryp



posted on Oct, 17 2016 @ 09:00 PM
link   
It doesn't make them "real", info wise. The files could be grandma's recipes. It's whether those said to be damaged in the future believe it to be real or a bluff.



posted on Oct, 17 2016 @ 09:10 PM
link   
a reply to: roadgravel

It's simply a way for those who have downloaded the files to verify that what they have are the actual files Wikileaks released, and that they have not been corrupted or altered somewhere along the way.

The hashes are a "pre-commitment", thus they're the final step before releasing the actual passwords. A warning shot across-the-bow if you will.

If you have the 3 files, and the checksums don't match, then you know the files are either corrupted, or that you've downloaded something like honeypot/imposter files.
edit on 10/17/16 by redmage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 17 2016 @ 09:10 PM
link   
a reply to: VelaDeDrick

Fantastic and in depth analysis. It is much appreciated.

I have but one response at the moment, and that is, "paragraphs!"

Love what you're saying, just break it up a bit.



posted on Oct, 17 2016 @ 09:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: StargateSG7

originally posted by: ventian
Quick summary of what I have gathered thus far. Will edit if needed.



Wikileaks released what looks to be decryption keys.

Shortly thereafter, Assange lost internet connectivity.

I currently have no idea if he is alive or dead, or what these decryption keys are for.

The rest of the thread is lines being drawn in the sand.



Looks like Monday, folks.



===

One correction!

Wikileaks DID NOT actually release the decryption keys
themselves, but rather they released the numeric SHA256
HASH VALUE that is obtained when an iterative math
function is applied to EVERY single byte and/or integer
word in the original wikileaks insurance file.

When this "Hash Function" adds up and multiplies
various bytes/words in the original file, a cryptographically
secure value is obtained which SHOULD MATCH
what a user obtains when they run the SAME
"Hash Function" on their local copy of the
insurance file.

It is ASSUMED that the "Hash Function" applies
certain math operations in a specific order
such that if the ORIGINAL ENCRYPTED FILE is
changed in ANY WAY even on only a SMALL
part that the resulting hash value would
DIFFER in some small way to what was
distributed by the author.

If the hash value disclosed by
Wikileaks DOES NOT MATCH
what the user gets then it means
the user's file is CORRUPTED or
FAKE !!!!!

On a technical basis, hash functions
aren't TRULY TRULY secure since it
IS POSSIBLE to change certain values
in multiple places within the original
file in such a way so that the hash value
REMAINS THE SAME as what was distributed.
BUT...only a state-level actor (i.e. only a big
government with LOTS computing horsepower
could figure out WHICH bytes to change or leave
alone to ensure any given hash function algorithm
outputs the original hash value!)

There's a lot of numeric theory which I won't
get into now but hash functions and CRC
(Cycle Redundancy Check) are one of a FEW
methods to ensure a LARGE data file is proveably
kept free from corruption and modification.


you sound like you know what you are talking about. Tell me, how are hash values and checksums different?



new topics

top topics



 
174
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join