WikiLeaks tweets 83GiB Insurance torrent link

a reply to: EightAhoy

What could possibly need 83gb? Movies run from 700mb and low-res YT vids can be downloaded at ~100mb. Documents even less.

If you think about it, a 'smoking gun' wouldn't need anything like 83gb.

Nobody would sit on a 'smoking gun' if they were ethical and the information was significant and credible.

a reply to: Morrad

I think we are on the same page.

My understanding was that the insurance files were simply AES256 with a symmetric key. Just release the key. Isn't that what was done before when the reporter got access to one of the wikileaks files. The key was a phrase.

And PGP is asymmetric using a private/public key system. It's purpose is for people to communicate with wikileaks.

It is a separate from the insurance files, my understanding. Could also be used to submit data. Encrypt with the WL public key and they decrypt with their private key. And of course they can encrypt/sign so others can verify using the public key. That doesn't work for publishing and having it on hold unless the public key is withheld. It could be used to sign the insurance file.

The checksum was published for verifying a copy of an insurance file is the actual file released and undamaged in transit.

I haven't looked much farther, WK wise, than this since little is actually going with the whole situation.

a reply to: Kandinsky

I wondered also when I saw that size. Makes me think there is a lot fluff in there also. But then, who knows.

The size becomes prohibited for many people.

a reply to: roadgravel


Try some thing relevant from 1984. That's the sort of thing that he would use.

originally posted by: Kandinsky
Nobody would sit on a 'smoking gun' if they were ethical and the information was significant and credible.

Anyone whose life, freedom, and livlihood was at stake would certainly have reason to sit on said information and use it as a sword of Damoclese, hanging over his enemys' heads.

originally posted by: Kandinsky
a reply to: EightAhoy

What could possibly need 83gb? Movies run from 700mb and low-res YT vids can be downloaded at ~100mb. Documents even less.

If you think about it, a 'smoking gun' wouldn't need anything like 83gb.

Nobody would sit on a 'smoking gun' if they were ethical and the information was significant and credible.

I hadn't considered the size. You're right. I tend to keep a lean hard drive and don't pay attention to available capacity. I do enjoy doing screen capture video off some wild life sites, and that chews into my available storage in an impressive manner. Maybe we're talking audio/video recordings, or complete back-up of a single machine, including software.

originally posted by: anonentity
a reply to: roadgravel


Try some thing relevant from 1984. That's the sort of thing that he would use.

Not sure what you mean. Are you taking about pass phrases?

PostgreSQL databases can hold terabytes of information.

i'm pretty sure someone here asked if the original insurance file is still around, not sure if that was answered yet.

here it is.

Insurance File

Does anyone remember right around the US elections a memo or video from Wikileaks that there will be another release of documents on Christmas Eve (2016) that will be some of the most incriminating leaks they have? I tried searching google and ATS but with no luck to referencing to what I vaguely remember hearing.

originally posted by: Alchemst7
Does anyone remember right around the US elections a memo or video from Wikileaks that there will be another release of documents on Christmas Eve (2016) that will be some of the most incriminating leaks they have? I tried searching google and ATS but with no luck to referencing to what I vaguely remember hearing.

Thought I'd try asking the question again since it was 12:30 in morning

bump

originally posted by: roadgravel
a reply to: Kandinsky

I wondered also when I saw that size. Makes me think there is a lot fluff in there also. But then, who knows.

The size becomes prohibited for many people.

With a tin-foil hat on, the size of the file would make it very easy to track the IPs of those who download it. I'm not sure what to think of it as it seems like an imposition to expect people to be flagged by their ISPs and various agencies on the off-chance the file has value. I think the largest files I've torrented have been 2gb and not very often.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

Anyone whose life, freedom, and livlihood was at stake would certainly have reason to sit on said information and use it as a sword of Damoclese, hanging over his enemys' heads.

Yeah, you're right about that. If it was really important I think they'd release it out of a sense of duty. It's like there has to be credit to wikileaks and recognition too. Otherwise, as Snowden showed us, they could anonymously upload elements and watch from a distance. If it's truly damning, we might expect the targets to lose their power to retaliate. It's hard to speculate when there are no details beyond a file size and whispers.

a reply to: EightAhoy

Could be anything. Maybe JA has uploaded it to protect himself and it contains nothing of significance? A bluff.

originally posted by: Kandinsky

a reply to: EightAhoy

Could be anything. Maybe JA has uploaded it to protect himself and it contains nothing of significance? A bluff.

I wonder if these are posted when *new* leaks arrive, and the insurance aspect is "here it is in case something happens to WL before we can disseminate, verify, and post."

a reply to: EightAhoy

That's a bloody good idea

The key is out there. Most discussions about how/where it is seem to get nuked though.

originally posted by: EightAhoy

originally posted by: Kandinsky

a reply to: EightAhoy

Could be anything. Maybe JA has uploaded it to protect himself and it contains nothing of significance? A bluff.

I wonder if these are posted when *new* leaks arrive, and the insurance aspect is "here it is in case something happens to WL before we can disseminate, verify, and post."

In any case, one interview between Assange and Google's Eric Scmidt from 2011 shined some light on the controversial storage of such sensitive information.

"We openly distribute encrypted backups of materials that we view are highly sensitive that we are to publish in the coming year," Assange said.

"Ideally, we will never reveal the key [...] redactions sometimes need to be done on this material."

www.ibtimes.co.uk...

originally posted by: Kettu
The key is out there. Most discussions about how/where it is seem to get nuked though.

2011

It looks as if the entire mass of U.S. diplomatic cables that WikiLeaks had is available online somewhere. How this came about is a good illustration of how security can go wrong in ways you don't expect.

Near as I can tell, this is what happened:

- In order to send the Guardian the cables, WikiLeaks encrypted them and put them on its website at a hidden URL.
- WikiLeaks sent the Guardian the URL.
- WikiLeaks sent the Guardian the encryption key.
- The Guardian downloaded and decrypted the file.
- WikiLeaks removed the file from their server.
- Somehow, the encrypted file ends up on BitTorrent. Perhaps someone found the hidden URL, downloaded the file, and then uploaded it to BitTorrent. Perhaps it is the "insurance file." I don't know.
- The Guardian published a book about WikiLeaks. Thinking the decryption key had no value, it published the key in the book.
- A reader used the key from the book to decrypt the archive from BitTorrent, and published the decrypted version: all the U.S. diplomatic cables in unredacted form.

Memo to the Guardian: Publishing encryption keys is almost always a bad idea. Memo to WikiLeaks: Using the same key for the Guardian and for the insurance file -- if that's what you did -- was a bad idea.

EDITED TO ADD (9/1): From pp 138-9 of WikiLeaks:

Assange wrote down on a scrap of paper: ACollectionOfHistorySince_1966_ToThe_PresentDay#. "That's the password," he said. "But you have to add one extra word when you type it in. You have to put in the word 'Diplomatic' before the word 'History'. Can you remember that?"

EDITED TO ADD (9/1): WikiLeaks says that the Guardian file and the insurance file are not encrypted with the same key. Which brings us back to the question: how did the encrypted Guardian file get loose?

www.schneier.com...

edit on 12/24/2016 by roadgravel because: (no reason given)

a reply to: roadgravel

That was 2011.

Many people are collaborating right now.

Many people probably have access to the key on the machines and don't even realize it.

And yes, torrent files do seem to play a part of it this time around. In some way. After all, there are legitimate torrents. Wikipedia often distributes its entire database dumps via P2P torrent files.

It was in response to the question about the old key and release from 2011.

This was posted in comments about the decryption despite two different files and keys.

Apparently, when Wikileaks' presence was attacked by Lieberman and his ilk, the encrypted Guardian archive made it into the mirroring kit. possibly the document collection was arranged somewhat hastily and Assange didn't even realize first what was in there.

That mirroring kit was then distributed as one big torrent, thus irrevocably distributing the encrypted guardian archive.

So once the Guardian book came out, everything was sitting there in plain sight.

And it gets worse. Apparently, at some point in time the people around Daniel Domscheidt-Berg - the disgruntled ex-Wikileaks architect - realized what had happened there - and sat on that knowledge. But when the mud slinging contest between DDB and Assange escalated they tipped off the press - namely a "Der Freitag" reporter.

"Der Freitag" is a young magazine still trying to make a name for itself. So when they got this scoop, they of course published a very thinly veiled version of the story.

Soon people started adding 2 and 2, and voilà - we have unencrypted Cablegate archives.

a reply to: roadgravel

Quotes from 1984....A cold morning in april...etc Quite a few of them have become standard quotes.