It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


WikiLeaks tweets 83GiB Insurance torrent link

page: 3
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in


posted on Dec, 19 2016 @ 05:17 PM
Cryptography happens to be one of my interests.

The SHA2 algorithm in this situation is used as a calculated hash to check if a file has been changed in any way ie to confirm it is the original file. The hash is unique. It is different for every single file (that is not identical).

The hash is very easy to check on the Linux command line (windows command line will be the same or similar)

For SHA256 you would type:

sha256sum path-to-file

For those that need further proof use this command to check one of your text documents. Once you have the sha256sum, open the text document and add a further line eg a few random characters or copy and paste the last sentence so the document has changed. Save the document and repeat the sha256sum command. You will see that the hash has completely different numbers.

A much better way is to provide the SHA2 hash along with the file in the form of a .txt document rather than publish it on a website. In this case you would import a signing key from the source (sha256sum.txt.gpg) which validates the SHA256 text document. Importing the SHA256 signing key from a known server rather than a Twitter page is far more secure and reliable.

Calculated hashes in this scenario has no relationship to file encryption. SHA2 can be chosen as the hash algorithm when encrypting files (SHA512 is far more secure than SHA256). The hash algorithm is one of several steps in relation to file encryption. The main algorithms in use today are AES, Serpent and Twofish. They can also be combined. AES is the most popular and US government approved. On top of this there are ciphers to chose which is subject on its own.

Slightly off topic but I would also like to mention Wikileaks using DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM) to verify the Podesta emails. DKIM means diddly-squat and it is easily spoofed.

By default, under the spec, DKIM doesn't sign or check signatures on most parts of the envelope (i.e. message header elements like these), but the sender can specify that they are signed with (for example) an 'h=From:;' in the DKIM-Signatures header. Consider this scrap of message header:

Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2013 21:44:28 -0700 (PDT)
From: Barack Obama
From: Random Spammer
Reply-To: Random Spammer
Subject: Awarded a Pulizer for "DKIM is Harmful"
To: "Joseph Shmoe"

Note the two From: fields. If such a message is sent to DKIM with 'h=From:', both fields may be included in the signature (the standard isn't clear on the matter), and the end user may see the first one. In other words, the recipient (Joe Shmoe) may see a DKIM-verified message coming from Incidentally, you can also insert multiple To: or Subject: fields and these may also result in misleading behavior.

But it's worse than that. Because DKIM only signs the specified parts of the message, the message can be forwarded on by an intermediary that inserts the extra fields, and the signature will still match. This is called a replay attack.

DKIM: Useless or just disappointing?

edit on 19-12-2016 by Morrad because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 19 2016 @ 06:35 PM
As we are all speculating as to whether he is still alive or not, is there no way someone in the UK can go to the embassy and be granted an audience, to confirm or deny?

I have never been to an embassy, so I don't know what protocol is like, but surely there must be someone who can try and find out...such as a journalist?

posted on Dec, 19 2016 @ 08:47 PM
Have some optimism folks.

Maybe his Internet is still down making his life tedious and depressing.

Depression, even for those who dont do sad it still comes on in the form lack of motivation.

Add that up with maybe its publicity stunt to keep attention of the stuff he is risking his life trying to get out.

posted on Dec, 20 2016 @ 12:49 AM
a reply to: EightAhoy

"If the password is ever released ("Whatever happens, even if there's video; it was murder"), the files are encrypted via OpenSSL file encryption. "

The Great Wizard of Leaks had been exposing the corruption of the Kings and Rulers for a long time. But one day after exposing their treasonous actions in foreign lands, they decided that he had gone too far. As a result, The Great Wizard was forced to take refuge in a castle that the Kings and Rulers did not control. The Great Wizard resided here for five years and continued to cast spells that upset the people's tyrannic rulers.

However, on October 15th in the Current Year, the Rulers had had enough and decided to unplug the source of the Great Wizard's power (the Internet), thereby preventing him from interfering with their rigged election which favored the Great Witch of the West (aka: The #). Despite this, The # still lost to the Almighty Knight Sir Trumpador Maximus Decimus Meridius III, who claimed he had plans to bring peace to the Lands and "drain the swamp" that gave The # and her cronies their power. Although sensible people were not all trusting of Trumpador, most of them realized that he still represented their best hope.

Things started looking better in the West, but there were still some problems.

Well known and generally despised Gargoyle $oros was trying to sow seeds of division amongst the people in order to regain control. He had managed to split the people of the land broadly into two opposing groups, The Left and The Right, exploiting their fears by exaggerating everything unkosher that Knight Sir Trumpador Maximus Decimus Meridius III had said. The Gargoyle even went so far as to fund civil rebellions, using the same techniques of subversion that were used in other lands to the East to overthrow Governments that the Gargoyle did not like. "Divide and conquer!" he had told The # and her cronies. "It is far easier to conquer a land if the citizens are divided and cannot put up a unified resistance!"

Meanwhile, The Great Wizard may have had his own woes. Since his source of mana (Internet) was cut, the people had not heard from him and his group of apprentice wizards (belonging to a noble order known as WizardLeaks). They had become seemingly incommunicado. Rumor has it that their order was infiltrated by treasonous goons working on behalf of The # and the Gargoyle and it was entirely possible that the Great Wizard himself had been captured.

The King and his Alphabet Stooges may have been clever here though. Instead of letting the people know that the Great Wizard had been illegally abducted, they may have chopped previously unreleased interview footage to make it appear as though the Great Wizard was still alive and well. This is not confirmed, but the people have good reason to speculate.

The Great Wizard always knew that his capture was a possibility and thus dispersed gold to the people which could only be unlocked with a key that would automatically release if his Wizardly Magic was to cease.

On October 22nd in the Current Year, this may have occurred. The well-established MagiRealm known as Readit and the sensitive town of Twithurt were attacked and brought down while the keys were allegedly getting dispersed. Most mentions of the alleged keys on Readit and Twithurt were also removed.

Some citizens that frequented the horrible lair known as Forchan, believed to be the dwelling place of the notorious hacker known as Forchan, also reported that The King's Alphabet Stooges were even removing the alleged keys from there.

They started wondering where else The Great Wizard may have hidden the keys to this gold. A place where the Alphabet Stooges would have a hard time removing it.

After much thought, some citizens agreed that the most likely place was in a thing called the "Blockchain" that resided in the MagiRealm. This would be hard to for the Evil Alphabet Wizard's to censor as it is mostly controlled and determined by the people themselves.

The question is: Are you a bad enough dude to help rescue The Great Wizard?

A completely fictional timeline of events follows below.

15 October: Cut off The Great Wizard's internet access 5:00 pm GMT tate-actor

15 October: WizardLeaks chat goes silent and never comes back:

15 October At the exact same time this was taking place, Manning had a group of guys try to break her out prison. Read her statement and see how the dates and times match:

15/16 October (dawn): WizardLeaks DNS Server was suddenly pointed elsewhere (UNCONFIRMED)

edit on 20-12-2016 by deessell because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 20 2016 @ 02:12 AM
a reply to: deessell

The Ecuadorian Embassy very dicey. Then the internet is cut off, which means that all his correspondence has to be done on the phone. After a while they have located all his contacts, two people close who could act as trusted agents get "offed". With any luck their is another sleeper. The American election is over and done with so the excuse to halt his internet connection has passed. All we have seen is a virtual Julian. The talk with the Argentinians and Hannity were half a world away and their was no digital delay, in fact too perfect. Pamela Anderson is an actress married to Billy Connelly both comedians. WikiLeaks has done massive damage, perhaps terminal damage to the illusion of democracy, they had to end it, but they were to late.

posted on Dec, 20 2016 @ 07:40 AM
Looks as though the Russian network WL site is unreachable.

posted on Dec, 20 2016 @ 08:41 AM
a reply to: deessell

the files are encrypted via OpenSSL file encryption

OpenSSL is used for data stream encryption and site verification. It does not have a password on the public key. It is not used for file encryption. A file can be sent along an encrypted data stream. This means it is unreadable in transit only. I am unsure who you are quoting.

edit on 20-12-2016 by Morrad because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 20 2016 @ 09:38 AM
a reply to: Morrad

You're correct on a Hash being different on different files, but that is not what they are talking about when they say that the archives do not match.

They are talking about Assange's PGP Key not matching: He uses a unique PGP to sign off on each archive as it is uploaded, the new archives do not match to his PGP Key.

posted on Dec, 20 2016 @ 12:10 PM

You're correct on a Hash being different on different files, but that is not what they are talking about when they say that the archives do not match.

There has been talk of file checksum mismatch.

1- file became corrupted when it was moved.
2- file has been recreated

Aren't there the original files somewhere from original release. They are not being recreated over and over, are they? That would create less confidence. If anything keep originals and revised versions.

Some thoughts from reddit

A lot of people are asking about the PGP key on twitter, and there seems to be a lot of misconception about what it does and what's it for. The key is used for secure communication with the WikiLeaks editorial office, it is not personal to Assange or anyone else.

0x92318DBA 2015-04-10 WikiLeaks Editorial Office High Security Communication Key (You can contact WikiLeaks at wlchatc3pjwpli5r.onion... and h ttps://__._/talk) This one is controlled by Editorial Office. PGP message signed by it doesnt mean Assange signed it. It might even been compromised if servers and assets were taken over. This key matches https://__._/#submit_wlkey (that is only public proof that this key is owned by WikiLeaks or current admin of __._)

This odd key...

0x73C81E1B 2015-04-10 WikiLeaks High Security Signing Key (The key is available to view at h ttps://__._/wl-high-security-signing-key. You can contact WikiLeaks at h ttps://wlchatc3pjwpli5r.onion and h ttps://__._/talk.) For this one we have no proof it was ever used by Assange or WL. I havent found any mention of it on internet. Its also not signed WL Editorial Office key, so they havent show they trust it. This key should not be trusted.

But because https://__._/wl-high-security-signing-key is 404, there is no way to tell which fingerprint is legit.

edit on 12/20/2016 by roadgravel because: quotes

edit on 12/20/2016 by roadgravel because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 20 2016 @ 12:36 PM

originally posted by: anonentity
a reply to: deessell

Pamela Anderson is an actress married to Billy Connelly both comedians. married to a Pamela but not Anderson. In fact he git married the year Pamela Anderson came into the public eye...

posted on Dec, 20 2016 @ 02:14 PM
a reply to: MuonToGluon

Thanks for the info. To be honest I have never looked at the file batches on WikiLeaks. I wait to read them on here.

My experience lies more in server-side encryption and file encryption. My understanding of PGP (from knowledge acquired approx 5 years ago) is that a pair of keys is generated by the user, a private key and a public key. The user (call him Fred) gives all his contacts the public key which allows them to encrypt messages and files to send to Fred who is the only one who can read these messages as he has the private key to decrypt it. For two-way encrypted communication Fred would need each contacts public key.

I recall around 2007 that Assange was criticised for trying to use PGP in a way it was not designed to be used. If I remember correctly he stopped trying to use it.

When a supposed key was published on Twitter and posted on ATS I was one of the first posters and I said it was a SHA256 hash. Can you link where the public key is please so I take a look? My server's public key is 4096 bit RSA and the characters take up nearly a third of a sheet of A4.

posted on Dec, 20 2016 @ 02:22 PM
a reply to: roadgravel

Your quotes echo what my understanding suggests.

In relation to files it does not have to be the original. If its an identical copy or even an an identical copy of an identical copy the checksum will match. If the checksum does not match it means the file has been altered or it has degraded during data transmission and thus unreliable.

edit on 20-12-2016 by Morrad because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 20 2016 @ 02:32 PM
a reply to: djz3ro

Thanks for the correction,

posted on Dec, 20 2016 @ 02:49 PM
The insurance file would most likely be symmetric encryption. That key is released to decrypt.


Sure but I question why the data would be re-encrypted. Just get the original encrypted file. If something is added then it's a new file and checksum and noted as such. Recreating the same file is suspicious. I imagine you see this in the same light.

posted on Dec, 20 2016 @ 04:20 PM
a reply to: roadgravel

I imagine you see this in the same light.

Yes I do. What you say makes perfect sense. It could be surreptitious or simply an amateur who does not really know what he is doing.

I really need to go and check these archives out. I will post back.

ETA. I have found the source of the info I mentioned on Assange using PGP in my previous post. It was on a discussion blog about the ethical and technical issues of the WikiLeak project. The blog post was from 2011. It is quite damning of JA.

Why have abandoned the use of PGP Encryption ?

If they had been using Public Key Cryptography last year, to encrypt correspondence or documents or files using their recipients' individual Public Keys, then there would have been no password for the incompetent activists to re-use .

Every copy of the controversial cables.csv file could have been encrypted with a different recipient's Public Key and would have had a different symmetric encryption key (which no human would could have been capable of revealing, even under torture).

Not even / Julian Assange could have decrypted a seized or intercepted or publicly leaked copy of such an encrypted file, only the recipient with access to his or her own private decryption key could have done so.

Either Julian Assange is ignorant of how to use Public Key Cryptography (hardly likely for someone who has tried to write cryptographic software himself) or he and the #wikileaks twitter feed are lying again:

Why didn't Julian Assange use PGP properly when handing over the US State Department cables.csv file to David Leigh ??

edit on 20-12-2016 by Morrad because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 20 2016 @ 05:24 PM
a reply to: Morrad

Every copy of the controversial cables.csv file could have been encrypted with a different recipient's Public Key and would have had a different symmetric encryption key

I don't get that statement. public/private key encryption is asymmetric, a different key public and private.

Not sure where the symmetric idea enters.

Anyway, it was a good point about that release. Doesn't work well for an insurance idea, wide scale distribution situation.

posted on Dec, 21 2016 @ 06:14 PM
a reply to: roadgravel

Probably a typo.

posted on Dec, 21 2016 @ 06:23 PM
a reply to: djz3ro

What's actually going on, are we to assume that Julian hasn't even got a smart phone?

posted on Dec, 21 2016 @ 06:48 PM

originally posted by: Morrad
a reply to: roadgravel

Probably a typo.

I doubt it given the media writers refer to almost everything about computers as the term "codes".

posted on Dec, 22 2016 @ 02:43 PM
a reply to: roadgravel

Hi, definitely not preaching here but sharing my understanding. I am tired tonight so apologies if it sounds slightly disjointed.

Symmetric key encryption does exist although I don't understand how it relates to PGP unless they are talking about the encryption algorithm.. I spent several hours reading today and everything I read confirms what I mentioned in a previous post, PGP is used for transferring text and files via email. PGP is used for verification of sender +/- encryption.

I have the Insurance file downloading now (2665days lol). Its has AES256 encryption (according to the title) which only requires a password to decrypt. There is no signing key verification with an AES encrypted file so I have absolutely no idea what people are using to say the signing key has changed. The signing key on the Twitter page is a public PGP key which allows you to send encrypted emails to Wikileaks . For submissions they use a Tor dropbox with 8000+ bit RSA encryption from what I remember. Its not standard 8192 bit which I though was a bit odd ie easily identified.

Files sent over email encrypted with PGP cannot be decrypted with a password, you need the private key file as well as the password. Even the sender cannot decrypt a file once they have encrypted it.

The only thing I can think of is if the insurance file is a container file with the encrypted archive and also a key file enclosed (the container file may also be encrypted). You probably know that .AES256 is not a file extension. It is fairly easy to require both a password and a key file to open and encrypted file. This is just a random key, not a signing key for verification.

Hope that makes sense.

I just found an ATS thread from 2010 which is discusses something similar. You may remember it. I am going to read through it tonight.

WikiLeaks Posts Mysterious 'Insurance' File

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in