Originally posted by HunkaHunka
Hold on just a second....
Forged the hash?
You just got dropped in the bit bucket for you know not of what you speak...
There are md5 collisions... But not anything remotely usable....

I am a layman who knows how to use Encryption, when to trust it, and when not to. Admittedly my knowledge of modern cryptography stops at about the Steganographia of Johannes Trithemius.

This file is using SHA rather than the insecure MD5, but I understand what you are getting at. Hashes on Public-Key encrypted files prevent 3 things: preimage attacks, weak collision resistance, and birthday attacks. Replacing the contents would change at least one property of the Hash, if not all three checks.

However, all of that assumes a Total Break through either Brute Force or possessing the Secret Key. Although it may be uber-paranoia, could it not be feasible that a "backdoor" could have been designed into the AES algorithm that allowed the changing of the digest Hash to match while changing the contents through padding without affecting decryption? Granted, this is outside the means of any street hacker or script-kiddie, but is it really beyond the capabilities of the NSA?

I don't presume to understand the intimate details, however as such is open to public scrutiny by those who do understand those details and these concerns have been raised elsewhere as hypothetically possible, then that's enough for me to raise the flag of uncertainty and doubt.

BTW, you didn't catch my obvious typo where I said "Tempest" instead of "Enigma".

Wouldn't the 1.3 gigabyte size of the insurance file be an adequate amount for 400,000 worth of Iraq documents?

I know it doesn't make sense as they've been saying that they're still sifting through the information and this file has been up for a while, but its something to keep in mind.

still have the 'insurance' file in at least 5 different places. lol
actually more like 6 or 7 I think.
better safe, than file-less.

Originally posted by Fractured.Facade


Edit, found it, but the source?

edit on 19-10-2010 by Fractured.Facade because: (no reason given)

Source? Scroll down to the audio clip. The guy is Webster Tarley, not sure who he is, supposedly authored a book about President Bush. He discusses wikileaks, Iran, Obama; and he likens the wikileak documents to the infamous "Pentagon Papers".

The site is Gerald Calente, whom I do respect and like.

Just trying to connect the dots, like who may be funding the 'leaks' and whether this could have something to do with the upcoming elections. I'd like to think of Assange as being non-partison, but I just get a funny feeling that he is connected to the White House and Pentagon, in more ways than the 400,000 page 'insurance' file will reveal.

I smell October Surprise!

Heh. What if Wikileaks was a honey trap from day one, to lure in leaky people with access?

Maybe Assange is nothing more than a Kabuki player, posturing and grimacing for you guys, and the wouldbe leakers, and the entire thing is a sham?

And now, now you've downloaded it, and they're sitting back logging your IPs, and for the ones that are tricky at all, they're going to wait a while, then Assange will give you the password.

After it prints out "Don't forget to drink your Ovaltine", it'll read all your personal info, including your macs and the REAL (not spoofed) IP you're behind, and it'll report you as soon as it gets a chance.

It's the sort of think I would have done, back in the day. Sure it's secret info. Sure it is.

Don't forget your Ovaltine, guys.

Originally posted by Ui_Niall
...and the excitement builds! Does anyone think that the insurance could include anything related to government coverup of alien/ufo information? There again, that could just be my wishful thinking...

I think this is probably the least-likely scenario.
The people behind wikileaks aren't naive or stupid and wouldn't release something like that without giving people some sort of warning or leaking it out really slowly. The World trusts Wikileaks' information and so if they were to release proof of ET's or UFOs it would be major news and probably shake everything up in a bad way.

The truth (if any) about ET's and UFOs has to be released slowly and by an organization that has put a lot of thought into how to do it and whom would have ties with governments around the world and news stations. (almost sounds like wikileaks, but not quite).

There would be a set of objectives and an order in which the truth was to be revealed. It wouldn't just "come out" in a leak from a website.