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.

 

Julian Assange arrested at the Ecuadorian embassy in London.

page: 26
103
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 12 2019 @ 02:48 PM
link   
a reply to: CriticalStinker

They have chat logs of Manning asking Assange if he could crack a password, and Assange told him yes, they have rainbow tables to hack that type of password.




posted on Apr, 12 2019 @ 02:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero


Were they involved in gathering the information or did Snowden just provide it to them. As example, if they went to Snowden and asked him to gather for them then yes they are part of the crime. If Snowden came to them with the information then they are not part of the crime.


From what I've read, Assange didn't do as much breaching as we are lead to believe.... We'll have to let the facts come out and I could be wrong.

As it stands I'm operating off of the assumption he did provide some assistance to Manning just like journalists have in the past as far as protecting them from being discovered.

Greenwald and Scahill still stand as an acceptable analogy in this scenario as they have done that with sources before.

When it comes to Government vs (real) journalists, I'm going to side with journalists 99% of the time.



posted on Apr, 12 2019 @ 02:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: PokeyJoe
a reply to: CriticalStinker

They have chat logs of Manning asking Assange if he could crack a password, and Assange told him yes, they have rainbow tables to hack that type of password.


Could you provide me with that source? Not questioning you, I'm just curious.

And if that's the case, I'll certainly have to re-evaluate my position... Though more from how I approach the subject and not how I feel about it all....

I'm bias but at least I'm honest about that, and I always try to be



posted on Apr, 12 2019 @ 03:03 PM
link   
a reply to: CriticalStinker

Here you go.

www.wired.com...



posted on Apr, 12 2019 @ 03:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: PokeyJoe
a reply to: CriticalStinker

They have chat logs of Manning asking Assange if he could crack a password, and Assange told him yes, they have rainbow tables to hack that type of password.


Makes it seem as though he had the password hashes since he mentioned rainbow table.



posted on Apr, 12 2019 @ 03:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: roadgravel

originally posted by: PokeyJoe
a reply to: CriticalStinker

They have chat logs of Manning asking Assange if he could crack a password, and Assange told him yes, they have rainbow tables to hack that type of password.


Makes it seem as though he had the password hashes since he mentioned rainbow table.



Quick question, I'm not as fluent in this realm of computing as I'd like to be, so I'll ask you....

The hashes they spoke of could have been to verify the file rather than a password, correct?



posted on Apr, 12 2019 @ 03:27 PM
link   
a reply to: roadgravel



Most journalists today never leave their desks. They go to sources in the pic and create their narratives from there.



posted on Apr, 12 2019 @ 04:00 PM
link   
a reply to: CriticalStinker

If they are talking about the data Manning is to supply then I would believe the database he has access to has the user id and password hashes in them. This would explain the talk about help to login as a different user.

It a common method for finding passwords.

Manning wouldn't have anything to do with JA's insurance files, would he.
edit on 4/12/2019 by roadgravel because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 12 2019 @ 04:03 PM
link   
a reply to: roadgravel

Gotchya.

I wasn't eluding to the insurance files, rather I was wondering if manning was giving hashes to files prior to sending them so JA could verify them.

To be honest though I didn't quite understand all their jargon in the conversation.



posted on Apr, 12 2019 @ 04:08 PM
link   
a reply to: CriticalStinker

A rainbow table is a list of hashes of words or phrases using a certain hash algorithm. If the hash for a password is known then if that hash value can be found in the table, the text for the hash is then known. reverse lookup.

Password verification normally uses an algorithm that takes the plain text the user enter and hashes it. That hash is compared to a stored hash and a match indicates the correct text (password) was entered. This method stores a hash instead of the password text. Often the hash is the output of the password and an extra bit of text to make it more unique and to help protect against rainbow tables use.



posted on Apr, 12 2019 @ 04:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: roadgravel

Gotchya.

I wasn't eluding to the insurance files, rather I was wondering if manning was giving hashes to files prior to sending them so JA could verify them.

To be honest though I didn't quite understand all their jargon in the conversation.


OK, I see what you meant. That may have been done also.



posted on Apr, 12 2019 @ 04:23 PM
link   
a reply to: roadgravel

Ahhhhh.

So this was why Facebook was under scrutiny recently for storing passwords plain text, they should have done hashes.

So the symbols equate a value? If you knew one password would you be able to see the hash equivalents so that you could figure other ones out?



posted on Apr, 12 2019 @ 04:34 PM
link   
a reply to: CriticalStinker

Good hashing is designed so the output is not predictable or reversible. The way to find the text is to use the same hashing algorithm and look at the output. The text cannot be known by inspecting the hash.

edit:




If you knew one password would you be able to see the hash equivalents so that you could figure other ones out?


It would only identify the hash algorithm. It would not help with the other words other than knowing which hash algorithm to use.
edit on 4/12/2019 by roadgravel because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 12 2019 @ 04:38 PM
link   
a reply to: roadgravel


Yep, they do a lot of lying and less than ethical things.

No. At least not necessarily. Withholding information for a timely disclosure is not lying. Using connotation and compliments is not lying. Calling Kim Jong Un "Little Rocket Man" was not a lie, and calling him his best buddy is not a lie. Both were simply comments designed to elicit the desired response from Kim.

I can say "I don't hang around person A much" or "I wouldn't go around someone as mean as person A" and say the exact same thing. The connotation is completely different, though, even though both statements may be true. That's what Trump and every other successful person does: they use words to elicit desired responses. How on earth is that considered lying?

This "Trump lies!" crap is really getting out of hand. As far as I have seen every single poster who tries to start with that nonsense ends up caught in more out and out lies than Trump ever has... so as soon as someone says it, I just figure they admitted to being a compulsive liar. It saves time.

TheRedneck



posted on Apr, 12 2019 @ 04:49 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

How can anyone not see Trump saying something and then saying he didn't say it and saying something else later many times. Sometimes it might be he doesn't remember what he said and then just says something else and believe he didn't say anything before.

Either way, something is screwy.

My beef is that it make our president look poorly.

Believe what you want but so many people wouldn't bring it up if it wasn't happening.

Could be he just doens't understand the office.



posted on Apr, 12 2019 @ 04:55 PM
link   
a reply to: roadgravel

Or maybe he changed his mind? Sometimes people do that based on new information, you know.

Anyway, I would rather have a President who actually negotiates decent deals with other nations than someone who cares more about appearances than about the people.

In any case, what I referred to is simply not included in any reasonable person's definition of lying. If you want to cal it such and appear to be ignorant over it, that's your business.

TheRedneck



posted on Apr, 12 2019 @ 05:00 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Denial can be a wonderful thing, for a while.



posted on Apr, 12 2019 @ 05:05 PM
link   
a reply to: roadgravel

5d4c62e20076bf374b2f2d0d9cbf847f

Might be interesting to see what resources people find?

Hashing goes way back to the 50's when we were more concerned about fixed field lengths.
It used to make short passwords a little less vulnerable to "dictionary" attacks.

There is a lot of redundancy, the MD5 hash of JulianAssange starts out dcdc20..


edit on 12-4-2019 by Slichter because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 12 2019 @ 05:09 PM
link   
a reply to: roadgravel

You should know.

TheRedneck



posted on Apr, 12 2019 @ 05:57 PM
link   


It used to make short passwords a little less vulnerable to "dictionary" attacks.


A hash doesn't change that. More unique character groups do.


edit on 4/12/2019 by roadgravel because: (no reason given)







 
103
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join