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.
Originally posted by bikeshedding
Oh, there was once a WikiLeaks thread
That simply would not turn up dead
Each morn when I logged in
Someone posted again
Without getting what had been said.
1) There is only one Afghan War Diary "insurance" file released by WikiLeaks. One. Not two, not forty, not three thousand. Just one. It has a SHA1 hash of cce54d3a8af370213d23fcbfe8cddc8619a0734c. Any file that doesn't match that hash is not the insurance file that we're talking about or is an incompletely downloaded version of that file.
2) Just because something says "100%" doesn't necessarily mean that it is, just that the software thinks so. While you can generally rely on it to be correct (assuming that the software was well developed and tested), that doesn't mean it always will be, especially when a significant amount of data is being downloaded. As ArMaP noted, this is why hashes are typically provided. Once one has downloaded the insurance file, one should be able to generate a hash from it (using whatever software is available for his or her operating system to do checksum calculation). If the hash does not match cce54d3a8af370213d23fcbfe8cddc8619a0734c, then the file is NOT the one that WikiLeaks released.
[edit on 25-8-2010 by bikeshedding]
$ cat original.txt good_download.txt bad_download.txt
I am the complete, original source file.
I am the complete, original source file.
I am the complete, original source file
$ md5sum original.txt good_download.txt bad_download.txt
59a628b5db2671bd00ac6fc9d0389ee9 original.txt
59a628b5db2671bd00ac6fc9d0389ee9 good_download.txt
2c4de95f2566d32898479ebd7434746f bad_download.txt
$ ls -l *_*d.txt
-rw-r--r-- 1 bikeshedding bikeshedding 40 2010-08-26 11:30 bad_download.txt
-rw-r--r-- 1 bikeshedding bikeshedding 41 2010-08-26 11:29 good_download.txt
Originally posted by the.krio
Uh.. maybe we should focus on doing something useful here instead of just denying ignorance?
Or is there a taboo on that here at ATS?
Originally posted by mirageofdeceit
Close to breaking it is not breaking it. It was found that AES256 could be broken in fewer rounds than AES192 with the same particular key, but it wasn't a total break of AES256, and not if you use a strong key. You must be specific about the situation in which it was found to be weak(er).
Rijendael is publicly available and not subject to patents. Who you trust to get it from is the hard part. AES is actually Rijendael in a specific configuration.
If they chose a long, complex password that does not contain words from any language or dictionary, with current processing ability the Universe will cease to exist before you get close.
[edit on 31-7-2010 by mirageofdeceit]
Originally posted by muzzleflash
The only way someone could be giving him this is from like the NSA. Seriously this is messed up.
Originally posted by the.krio
masters degree in info warfare
Originally posted by Happyfeet
I spoke to two kids (young lads) that worked for the NSA that were really disgusted by what their agencies were doing and talked about leaking info and spilling the beans. The guys wouldnt tell me what they worked with, but it was something they refused to discuss on the grounds that I didnt have clearance. (data analysis or something like that)
I bet that if anyone at the NSA was leaking to wikileaks, it would be the likes of those guys. I should ask them next time I get to visit them.
Now is a good time to mirror this WikiLeaks 'insurance' backup