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: 27
174
<< 24  25  26    28  29 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 17 2016 @ 09:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Tempter
Tell me, how are hash values and checksums different?


The same way cars and automobiles are different. Different terms, same concept.




posted on Oct, 17 2016 @ 09:21 PM
link   
a reply to: ventian

There is an 88 GB zipped file out there that these keys may open.

Ecuador has been pressured to cut off his internet. Think about that for a second.

What's in the coming leaks is kryptonite to the entire (democratic) govt and HRC.



posted on Oct, 17 2016 @ 09:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Tempter

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?


he sounds like. doesn't mean he knows.

checksums are just a specific kind of hashes. hashes, like SHA-based ones, are designed to prevent so called collisions - which occur when two different files produce the same hash.



posted on Oct, 17 2016 @ 09:25 PM
link   
a reply to: redmage

Yes, I understand all the details. Just questioning the hash release timeline.

I would think a person would want many people to have the files as soon as possible and therefore verified also. No telling what could happen over time to the store location(s). If the powers were indeed worried, the files could be a target.



posted on Oct, 17 2016 @ 09:27 PM
link   
a reply to: jadedANDcynical

There is plenty of information on hashes and cryptography on the web.



posted on Oct, 17 2016 @ 09:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: redmage

originally posted by: Tempter
Tell me, how are hash values and checksums different?


The same way cars and automobiles are different. Different terms, same concept.


i would argue. hashes have their use in cryptography, hash tables and so on, where hash collision prevention is important. checksums, while technically hashes, can be simpler, because they're merely used for error correction, not for data authenticity verification.

so one may say that, in general, checksum and cryptographic hash function are the same thing, but it's the design goal that makes the difference. SHA256 is light years away from CRC32.



posted on Oct, 17 2016 @ 10:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: jedi_hamster

originally posted by: Tempter

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?


he sounds like. doesn't mean he knows.

checksums are just a specific kind of hashes. hashes, like SHA-based ones, are designed to prevent so called collisions - which occur when two different files produce the same hash.


===

Interestingly, Jedi_hamster WOULD PROBABLY KNOW much better than I do
as to what the differences are between CRC (Cycle Redundancy Check)
and Cryptographically-secure Hash functions, since my math is more on
the side of graphics programming rather than cryptographic functions
that go beyond nothing more than making a Delphi Pascal version of
AES-256 and Lattice-based cryptography...!!!

CRC's are designed to QUICKLY determine whether a given block
of data has been ACCIDENTALLY modified through hardware or
software-based corruption of individual bits within a small
fixed-length or arbitrary-length stream of digital data.

The key issue is speed and reversabilty which allows the
CRC value to be "Untwisted" back through the algorithm
to find out whether or not small amounts of data are
still correct and unchanged from the original.

Cryptographically Secure hash functions are designed
to be ONE-WAY which involve using a complex iterative
mathematical formula which is applied to all bytes or
Blocks of bytes in a specified sequence so as to give
an output that is a numerical representation of the
much larger original data stream.

The fixed size-hash value when "untwisted", should
NEVER represent MULTIPLE and/or DIFFERENT messages
or plaintext. One key issue between CRC and hash functions
is that just by having the hash value, I WILL NOT BE ABLE to
use fancy math or reverse the hash algorithm to get the
ACTUAL CONTENTS OF THE DATA STREAM that the hash
value represents....this is called ONE WAY FUNCTIONALITY !!!

With CRC, I can RECOVER the actual original value from the
CRC values and some other localized data for error correction
purposes. One-Way Hashes ARE NOT supposed to allow me to
get the original data from the final output value.

It is the Encryption Algorithm itself (i.e. AES-256) that
does the actual scrambling of the data! The SECURE HASH
FUNCTION VALUE merely represents a publicly disclosed
digital signature that can MATHEMATICALLY PROVE that
the AES-256 scrambled data has been left unchanged
from the original author's distribution.

If someone downloads the Wikileaks Insurance files
and runs their own hash function on the file and its
final hash value output DOES NOT MATCH the publicly
disclosed hash value then it means the downloaded wikileaks
file is DIFFERENT or has been MODIFIED from the original disclosure!

So don't use it and get another copy of the wikileaks file from somewhere else !!!!!


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



posted on Oct, 17 2016 @ 10:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Hazardous1408

originally posted by: AdmireTheDistance

originally posted by: Hazardous1408
If it was a dead mans switch who is tweeting???

Such a dead man's switch would be scripted to send out the tweet(s) automatically; Nobody would have to be doing it. I don't think that's what's happening, though.


How is that done then?

Enlighten me because unless his twitter account is hooked to his dying heart that's an impossibility.


Quite easily. You just write a program or app that requires your password to be input by a certain time, or at certain intervals or else it automatically executes a script. Ever see "Lost"?



posted on Oct, 17 2016 @ 10:25 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



www.abovetopsecret.com...
edit on Mon Oct 17 2016 by DontTreadOnMe because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 17 2016 @ 10:39 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



www.abovetopsecret.com...
edit on Mon Oct 17 2016 by DontTreadOnMe because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 17 2016 @ 11:09 PM
link   
Well guess ATS is not letting any good info out

This where I learn most off the good info on the insurance file and how to de-cryp it last time around.

Look like a lot off the download site are gone now

Ok got 3 set off then also got the 88 Gb one (Took 4 time to download to get the hashes number to match)

guess better stay on redit now better info



posted on Oct, 17 2016 @ 11:20 PM
link   
a reply to: IAMTAT

I thought they were keys for PGP, the post they put up the night of the troll conference.



posted on Oct, 18 2016 @ 05:11 AM
link   
a reply to: Trillium

If you have a file and ran the hash function on it and got a match then that shows it was a value for the hash.



posted on Oct, 18 2016 @ 05:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: roadgravel
a reply to: Trillium

If you have a file and ran the hash function on it and got a match then that shows it was a value for the hash.



Will be doing that as soon as I get home today

A lot of the site here at work are block



posted on Oct, 18 2016 @ 06:51 AM
link   
a reply to: MamaJ

It's still not 100% confirmed he's alive. I've seen sites saying he is alive and fine but not saying how they found this out. I do find it odd that he's not made contact with the outside world yet (not that I believe he dead) so that he could put the rumor to an end. I really hope he's not doing this to gain attention.

It should be much longer till we get someone that confirms the info that was sent out.



posted on Oct, 18 2016 @ 06:54 AM
link   
I'm wondering if he was turned over to US custody.

We should probably check Guantanamo.



posted on Oct, 18 2016 @ 07:40 AM
link   
a reply to: ObjectZero

I promise if and when he is killed off the world will know.

Assange was too busy with Pamela Anderson to tweet he was "Ok". lol



posted on Oct, 18 2016 @ 07:40 AM
link   
a reply to: IAMTAT

What if the Wikileaks releases themselves contain hidden information within the sentences which can only be revealed by knowing the cypher, a message within a message!



posted on Oct, 18 2016 @ 08:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: zinc12
a reply to: IAMTAT

What if the Wikileaks releases themselves contain hidden information within the sentences which can only be revealed by knowing the cypher, a message within a message!


I think the point of the released codes is to show there has been no editing or alteration and that the emails are pristine.



posted on Oct, 18 2016 @ 09:33 AM
link   
I was just checking Yahoo News(entertainment purposes only of course)and they confirm a "state actor" has severed the internet at the embassy. This begs the question of, since that is an Embassy, and if Equador did not do it, then is that an act of war against Equador for whoever DID cut the lines?
Also, there are over 5000 comments already. The press is not anywhere close to reporting the real feelings of what is going on in the US.

www.yahoo.com...







 
174
<< 24  25  26    28  29 >>

log in

join