Reply With Quote
This is also a matter of journalistic protection. This guy is merely the messenger. The real culprits are the ones that breached the TS trust and handed him the do ents. Those are the guys the Pentagon should be after.
He might. That said, even thought brute-forcing lends itself well to parallelization, it would probably take shorter to analyze the cipher for a potential vector of attack or even to reduce the key search range.Figured it was 256. Still though, he might have another encryption on it past the 256 layer. (If anybody would be able to brute-force crack a password, it'd be the gov't.)
I mostly do programming these days. It's what I like doing and pays the bills to boot.
I have done extensive security research and consulting too, but that's basically all I can say since some of the NDAs that I had to sign preclude me from even commenting what I did/do. Gotta love the corporate world.
I like the field and try to keep up with it.
MiamiHeat interpreted what I meant:
Not so fast... Schneier on Security: Quantum Cryptography CrackedEh, nothing is totally untraceable.There's always the human aspect.
You want the latest and greatest in cryptography?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_cryptography
Have fun with that.
This is also a matter of journalistic protection. This guy is merely the messenger. The real culprits are the ones that breached the TS trust and handed him the do ents. Those are the guys the Pentagon should be after.
Sweden also has very strong laws that protect both journalists and whistleblowers.
They're also not the kind of country to on their own laws.
Insurance? I need to read up on this , sounds crazy awesome
If the journalist was handed the blueprint that gave detailed explanations on how to build fully functional nuclear weapons like an ICBM via american technology, do you really think it's OK to hide behind journalistic integrity?
Even the Swedes would step in and confiscate his stuff. Do you agree?
so just because it's not as "severe" or "important" doesn't make it OK to hide behind idealism.
There are some things you just don't report. Sweden is on shaky ground here. They need to help the US to stop him.
Alright, I looked into this whole "insurance" thingy and I'm calling bull . I thought it was a more wide-ranging file, like that could take down the State department or something that could have severe consequences. It's just just stuff about the Afghanistan War. *yawn*
[QUOTE=ElNono;4595887]
Like I said, nothing is uncrackable.And Schneier is awesome. Love reading articles by that guy; thanks for the find.
Did you hack into the file?
How did the Afghanistan leak harm soldiers in a direct way, though? I mean, releasing nuclear blueprints is an obvious detriment. The Afghan wikileaks mostly detailed failed military/government policies.
I'm taking the pentagon's word for it.
It has nothing to do with integrity. It has to do with protection of sources.
The guy didn't do anything wrong. His sources might, but you go into a very complicated slippery slope if you force to reveal his sources.
Here in the US, pretty much any law can be trumped by the invocation of National Security. Not so in Sweden. And I agree with their view on the matter, because once you open the door, where does it stop?
Do we treat to imprison every journalist that decides to publish something secret? Do the NY Times and Wash Post journalists that broke out the illegal NSA wiretaps need to threatened with jail time for not revealing their sources? Should they have not published?
I don't. What makes this release more notorious is the volume and the fact that it comes from a source that always has been regarded as very secure.
This has nothing to do with idealism. This has to do with very concrete information and actions related to that information.
I mean, if you want to question his integrity, at least admit that the guy delayed releasing almost 15,000 do ents because they took their time to redact the relevant names from them to protect the innocent.
I don't agree with that at all. Once the information is out, and as long it's not copyrighted by any one en y, it's fair game.
Why is Bob Lazar still alive?
No, but my experience as an agent provocateur leads me to believe that a file on that specific page, which is X times larger than all the files on that page...is only there to scare people. We know all we need to know about Afghanistan, who gives a about State Dept. cables about THAT war or the Iraq War (which, honestly, would be the only things he's got to put out as far as I can tell)? Not me, and certainly not those with an interest in protecting the US or those wanting to bring the US down. Nobody gives a at this point.Did you hack into the file?
If he had anything worthy of being "insurance," he wouldn't tease it like that and it certainly wouldn't be in such a massive file unless it was a movie.
::flashfoward to the demise of Wikileaks and Mr. Assange::
WE FOUND OUT WHAT'S IN THE FILE!!!!
Sweden blotted Assange's escutcheon: now anyone can say he was indicted for sex crimes in Sweden, and is therefore a plausible sex fiend.
Last edited by Winehole23; 08-26-2010 at 01:12 AM. Reason: glossed
Even though the charges against him were withdrawn with great swiftness, the stain will remain.
Last edited by Winehole23; 08-26-2010 at 01:15 AM. Reason: SAT word, 86ed
Of course the Pentagon is going to say that; the do ents damage their credibility. What REAL WORLD impact does it have on soldiers right now? I mean, did the docs release any classified locations, troop movements, mission plans, etc etc?
I expect worse, TBH. If he's not going to get gunned down outright, then at least I expect the powers that be to try everything else in the book.
It would be great if it is just his recipe for brownies. Tell the US Govt about this insurance file, get the best encryption on the planet, let the US Govt sweat about what it is. Then when you die the whole world can delight in your carefully honed culinary discoveries.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions