Online whistle-blower WikiLeaks has posted a huge encrypted file named "Insurance" to its website, sparking speculation that those behind the organization may be prepared to release more classified information if authorities interfere with them.
At 1.4 gigabytes, the file is 20 times larger than the batch of 77,000 secret U.S. military documents about Afghanistan that WikiLeaks dumped onto the Web last month, and cryptographers say that the file is virtually impossible to crack – unless WikiLeaks releases the key used to encode the material.
"There's no way that anyone has any chance of figuring out what's in there," Paul Kocher, president of US-based Cryptography Research, said Thursday.
That hasn't stopped bloggers and journalists from speculating. Some say the files could be the 15,000 or so intelligence reports which WikiLeaks says it's held back for vetting. Others, pointing to its enormous size, say it could be a compilation of the 260,000 classified diplomatic cables allegedly accessed by Army intelligence analyst Bradley Manning.
State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley acknowledged Thursday that the government suspects that WikiLeaks is sitting on at least some of its message traffic. The organization itself is keeping mum, at least in public.
"We do not discuss security procedures," WikiLeaks said in an e-mail response to questions about the file.
Editor-in-chief Julian Assange was a bit more expansive – if equally cryptic – in his response to the same line of questioning in a television interview with independent U.S. news network Democracy Now! earlier this week.
"I think it's better that we don't comment on that," Assange said, according to the network's transcript of the interview. "But, you know, one could imagine in a similar situation that it might be worth ensuring that important parts of history do not disappear."
Cryptographers say that the file was likely made using a 256-bit encryption standard known as AES256, which the U.S. government and others employ to mask some of their most sensitive data.
ADVERTISEMENT
"It is widely viewed as extremely strong," said crypotgraphy pioneer Whitfield Diffie, of Britain's Royal Holloway College. He said there were no known instances of anyone being able to beat the standard.
Kocher, of Cryptography Research, agreed, saying that the only conceivable way anyone outside of WikiLeaks could decode "Insurance" was if Assange and his colleagues had used a blatantly obvious password or experienced some kind of "catastrophic algorithm error."
"We're not going to find out what's in that file unless somebody reveals the key," Kocher said.
It's not clear when – if ever – that might happen. WikiLeaks has so far refused to discuss the file, its contents, or when they might be released. And while the group has boasted about sitting on a huge wealth of leaked data from all over the world, Assange has declined to answer questions about whether WikiLeaks has the State Department cables, and, if it does, whether and when it plans to publish them.
Manning, currently jailed on suspicion of leaking classified material to WikiLeaks in a previous case, has been quoted as saying that the cables would expose "almost criminal political back dealings" and that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton would "have a heart attack" when the files went public.
Both Diffie and Kocher said that the size of the file indicated that there was a huge amount of data being encrypted, although what the original file actually contains is anyone's guess.
"The question is," Kocher said, "is it a bluff or is it something more substantial?"
Sunday, October 24, 2010
WikiLeaks Founder, “Constantly Annoyed that People Are Distracted by False Conspiracies Such as 9/11″
People often ask me if I think this source or that source is disinfo…
My response is always: TREAT EVERY SOURCE AS DISINFO.
You’ll avoid disappointment when the thing starts serving up rat poison—which, unfortunately, happens a lot.
I haven’t shared this before, but in early 2008, someone from WikiLeaks wrote to me. This person wondered why I hadn’t mentioned WikiLeaks on Cryptogon. He wondered if maybe I hadn’t heard of it, or had concerns that it was a front of some sort.
I simply wrote back that I was aware of WikiLeaks, and that I was hopeful and skeptical at the same time.
That remains my stance today; on WikiLeaks and every other source.
So, who knows… I’ve read interesting things on WikiLeaks, many of which I have linked to from here. Does that mean that I’m sure it’s not some kind of front or honeypot? Not at all. How could I know for sure, given what’s knowable in the public domain about WikiLeaks?
Julian Assange’s recent comment in the Belfast Telegraph about 9/11, however, may be a more tangible source of concern for me. I know Assange isn’t an idiot, so I see three other possibilities:
1. He is profoundly ignorant of the vast body of material that demonstrates that the 9/11 spectacle was a false flag operation.
2. He’s “picking his battles” and not wanting to have to deal with the inevitable conspiracy theory stigma that could threaten his media access
3. He’s running a limited hangout/honeypot
Of these three options, I doubt that it’s number two.
Also, I’m aware of all the stuff John Young has up over at Cryptome from some anonymous mole on a private WikiLeaks list. Again, who knows.
Vet the data as you would anything else from any source. Use your skills of discernment. For me, the most worrying thing about WikiLeaks is the promotion it receives from the corporate media. Even the trash talking Wired is promoting Wikileaks by constantly mentioning it.
In the end, though, obsessing about disinfo this and disinfo that is generally a waste of time. It’s safe to assume that damn near everything we come across contains disinfo.
There is the issue of stench, however. Sources that say, categorically, that there’s nothing to see here on 9/11 smell really bad to me. As bad as anything can smell. (See my maggot bucket if you think that I don’t know what smells bad.)
We just saw the WikiLeaks release of the Afghanistan information, does Assange forget the pretext that was used for the invasion?
9/11 remains the elephant in the room.
My response is always: TREAT EVERY SOURCE AS DISINFO.
You’ll avoid disappointment when the thing starts serving up rat poison—which, unfortunately, happens a lot.
I haven’t shared this before, but in early 2008, someone from WikiLeaks wrote to me. This person wondered why I hadn’t mentioned WikiLeaks on Cryptogon. He wondered if maybe I hadn’t heard of it, or had concerns that it was a front of some sort.
I simply wrote back that I was aware of WikiLeaks, and that I was hopeful and skeptical at the same time.
That remains my stance today; on WikiLeaks and every other source.
So, who knows… I’ve read interesting things on WikiLeaks, many of which I have linked to from here. Does that mean that I’m sure it’s not some kind of front or honeypot? Not at all. How could I know for sure, given what’s knowable in the public domain about WikiLeaks?
Julian Assange’s recent comment in the Belfast Telegraph about 9/11, however, may be a more tangible source of concern for me. I know Assange isn’t an idiot, so I see three other possibilities:
1. He is profoundly ignorant of the vast body of material that demonstrates that the 9/11 spectacle was a false flag operation.
2. He’s “picking his battles” and not wanting to have to deal with the inevitable conspiracy theory stigma that could threaten his media access
3. He’s running a limited hangout/honeypot
Of these three options, I doubt that it’s number two.
Also, I’m aware of all the stuff John Young has up over at Cryptome from some anonymous mole on a private WikiLeaks list. Again, who knows.
Vet the data as you would anything else from any source. Use your skills of discernment. For me, the most worrying thing about WikiLeaks is the promotion it receives from the corporate media. Even the trash talking Wired is promoting Wikileaks by constantly mentioning it.
In the end, though, obsessing about disinfo this and disinfo that is generally a waste of time. It’s safe to assume that damn near everything we come across contains disinfo.
There is the issue of stench, however. Sources that say, categorically, that there’s nothing to see here on 9/11 smell really bad to me. As bad as anything can smell. (See my maggot bucket if you think that I don’t know what smells bad.)
We just saw the WikiLeaks release of the Afghanistan information, does Assange forget the pretext that was used for the invasion?
9/11 remains the elephant in the room.
WikiLeaks Insurance File
In the wake of strong U.S. government statements condemning WikiLeaks' recent publishing of 77,000 Afghan War documents, the secret-spilling site has posted a mysterious encrypted file labeled "insurance."
The huge file, posted on the Afghan War page at the WikiLeaks site, is 1.4 GB and is encrypted with AES256. The file's size dwarfs the size of all the other files on the page combined. The file has also been posted on a torrent download site.
It's either 1.4 Gig of embarrassing secret documents, or 1.4 Gig of random data bluffing. There's no way to know.
If WikiLeaks wanted to prove that their "insurance" was the real thing, they should have done this:
Encrypt each document with a separate AES key.
Ask someone to publicly tell them to choose a random document.
Publish the decryption key for that document only.
That would be convincing.
In any case, some of the details might be wrong. The file might not be encrypted with AES256. It might be Blowfish. It might be OpenSSL. It might be something else. Some more info here.
EDITED TO ADD (8/9): Weird Iranian paranoia:
An Iranian IT expert warned here on Wednesday that a mysterious download file posted by the WikiLeaks website, labeled as 'Insurance', is likely a spy software used for identifying the information centers of the United States' foes.
"The mysterious file of the WikiLeaks might be a trap for intelligence gathering," Hossein Mohammadi told FNA on Wednesday.
The expert added that the file will attract US opponents and Washington experts can identify their enemy centers by monitoring individuals' or organizations' tendency and enthusiasm for the file.
The huge file, posted on the Afghan War page at the WikiLeaks site, is 1.4 GB and is encrypted with AES256. The file's size dwarfs the size of all the other files on the page combined. The file has also been posted on a torrent download site.
It's either 1.4 Gig of embarrassing secret documents, or 1.4 Gig of random data bluffing. There's no way to know.
If WikiLeaks wanted to prove that their "insurance" was the real thing, they should have done this:
Encrypt each document with a separate AES key.
Ask someone to publicly tell them to choose a random document.
Publish the decryption key for that document only.
That would be convincing.
In any case, some of the details might be wrong. The file might not be encrypted with AES256. It might be Blowfish. It might be OpenSSL. It might be something else. Some more info here.
EDITED TO ADD (8/9): Weird Iranian paranoia:
An Iranian IT expert warned here on Wednesday that a mysterious download file posted by the WikiLeaks website, labeled as 'Insurance', is likely a spy software used for identifying the information centers of the United States' foes.
"The mysterious file of the WikiLeaks might be a trap for intelligence gathering," Hossein Mohammadi told FNA on Wednesday.
The expert added that the file will attract US opponents and Washington experts can identify their enemy centers by monitoring individuals' or organizations' tendency and enthusiasm for the file.
Wikileaks publishes encrypted 'insurance' fileAlert Print Retweet Facebook1.4GB mystery
Wikileaks, the transparency website under pressure from the US government over its disclosure of intelligence documents from Afghanistan, has published a mysterious large file labelled 'insurance'.
The 1.4GB file is encrypted with AES-256, so its contents are unknown, but it was quietly posted on the site's Afghan War Diary page on Thursday, days after it controversially disclosed tens of thousands of frontline reports.
The new file has prompted speculation, including from Cryptome's John Young, that Wikileaks would publish the passphrase to decrypt the file if the US took action against spokesman Julian Assange or others involved in the site. The insurance file's contents could include the 15,000 reports Assange said Wikileaks held back last week to protect human intelligence sources on the ground, Young suggested.
The encrypted file is much larger than one containing the more than 90,000 reports which were published, however, and Assange has already stated Wikileaks will publish the remaining documents once they have been filtered by volunteers*.
Indeed, the 15,000 unpublished files have already formed the basis of a Sunday Times story on British special forces operations, so it seems unlikely the threat of publishing them alone would be effective "insurance".
The extent of US interest in Assange and his colleagues is unclear. In a press conference last week, Defense Secretary Robert Gates played down suggestions the Department of Defense might attempt to contact Assange over the affair. "I'm not sure why we would," Gates said. "You think he's going to tell us the truth?"
But limited action has already been taken. On Thursday Jacob Appelbaum, a Wikileaks volunteer and Tor Project employee, was stopped by customs officials as he entered the US from the Netherlands to speak at the Defcon security conference, it's reported.
He was questioned by men who identified themselves as FBI agents about Wikileaks and Assange, and his laptop was examined and returned. Appelbaum's three mobile phones were seized and not returned, according to Cnet.
It's widely believed the source of the leaks has also already been arrested. Bradley Manning, a low-ranking Army intelligence officer formerly based in Iraq, is under suspicion as the source of the files. He has been in jail since June for allegedly violating regulations over Wikileaks' previous disclosure of classified footage of a 2007 helicopter strike that killed civilians in Baghdad. ®
*On publishing the initial reports, Assange claimed they had been similarly checked to avoid identifying intelligence sources. In response to news that names and even GPS coordinates of some informants were nevertheless included, he blamed the US military.
"We are appalled that the US military was so lackadaisical with its Afghan sources. Just appalled. We are a source protection organisation that specialises in protecting sources and have a perfect record from our activities," he told The Observer yesterday.
"This material was available to every soldier and contractor in Afghanistan," he claimed, stretching the truth. However, the material was classified only as Secret, so would be relatively widely available to security-cleared individuals. As far as we know none of them published it, though.
Challenged that he had put lives at risk Assange responded: "Well, anything might happen, but nothing has happened."
The 1.4GB file is encrypted with AES-256, so its contents are unknown, but it was quietly posted on the site's Afghan War Diary page on Thursday, days after it controversially disclosed tens of thousands of frontline reports.
The new file has prompted speculation, including from Cryptome's John Young, that Wikileaks would publish the passphrase to decrypt the file if the US took action against spokesman Julian Assange or others involved in the site. The insurance file's contents could include the 15,000 reports Assange said Wikileaks held back last week to protect human intelligence sources on the ground, Young suggested.
The encrypted file is much larger than one containing the more than 90,000 reports which were published, however, and Assange has already stated Wikileaks will publish the remaining documents once they have been filtered by volunteers*.
Indeed, the 15,000 unpublished files have already formed the basis of a Sunday Times story on British special forces operations, so it seems unlikely the threat of publishing them alone would be effective "insurance".
The extent of US interest in Assange and his colleagues is unclear. In a press conference last week, Defense Secretary Robert Gates played down suggestions the Department of Defense might attempt to contact Assange over the affair. "I'm not sure why we would," Gates said. "You think he's going to tell us the truth?"
But limited action has already been taken. On Thursday Jacob Appelbaum, a Wikileaks volunteer and Tor Project employee, was stopped by customs officials as he entered the US from the Netherlands to speak at the Defcon security conference, it's reported.
He was questioned by men who identified themselves as FBI agents about Wikileaks and Assange, and his laptop was examined and returned. Appelbaum's three mobile phones were seized and not returned, according to Cnet.
It's widely believed the source of the leaks has also already been arrested. Bradley Manning, a low-ranking Army intelligence officer formerly based in Iraq, is under suspicion as the source of the files. He has been in jail since June for allegedly violating regulations over Wikileaks' previous disclosure of classified footage of a 2007 helicopter strike that killed civilians in Baghdad. ®
*On publishing the initial reports, Assange claimed they had been similarly checked to avoid identifying intelligence sources. In response to news that names and even GPS coordinates of some informants were nevertheless included, he blamed the US military.
"We are appalled that the US military was so lackadaisical with its Afghan sources. Just appalled. We are a source protection organisation that specialises in protecting sources and have a perfect record from our activities," he told The Observer yesterday.
"This material was available to every soldier and contractor in Afghanistan," he claimed, stretching the truth. However, the material was classified only as Secret, so would be relatively widely available to security-cleared individuals. As far as we know none of them published it, though.
Challenged that he had put lives at risk Assange responded: "Well, anything might happen, but nothing has happened."
WikiLeaks Posts Mysterious ‘Insurance’ File
In the wake of strong U.S. government statements condemning WikiLeaks’ recent publishing of 77,000 Afghan War documents, the secret-spilling site has posted a mysterious encrypted file labeled “insurance.”
The huge file, posted on the Afghan War page at the WikiLeaks site, is 1.4 GB and is encrypted with AES256. The file’s size dwarfs the size of all the other files on the page combined. The file has also been posted on a torrent download site.
WikiLeaks, on Sunday, posted several files containing the 77,000 Afghan war documents in a single “dump” file and in several other files containing versions of the documents in various searchable formats.
Cryptome, a separate secret-spilling site, has speculated that the new file added days later may have been posted as insurance in case something happens to the WikiLeaks website or to the organization’s founder, Julian Assange. In either scenario, WikiLeaks volunteers, under a prearranged agreement with Assange, could send out a password or passphrase to allow anyone who has downloaded the file to open it.
It’s not known what the file contains but it could include the balance of data that U.S. Army intelligence analyst Bradley Manning claimed to have leaked to Assange before he was arrested in May.
In chats with former hacker Adrian Lamo, Manning disclosed that he had provided Assange with a different war log cache than the one that WikiLeaks already published. This one was said to contain 500,000 events from the Iraq War between 2004 and 2009. WikiLeaks has never commented on whether it received that cache.
Additionally, Manning said he sent Assange video showing a deadly 2009 U.S. firefight near the Garani village in Afghanistan that local authorities say killed 100 civilians, most of them children, as well as 260,000 U.S. State Department cables.
Manning never mentioned leaking the Afghan War log to WikiLeaks in his chats with Lamo, but Defense Department officials told The Wall Street Journal that investigators had found evidence on Manning’s Army computer that tied him to that leak.
U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen strongly condemned WikiLeaks’ publication of the Afghan War log at a Pentagon press briefing on Thursday.
Gates said the leak was “potentially severe and dangerous for our troops, our allies and our Afghan partners” and said that “tactics, techniques and procedures will become known to our adversaries” as a result.
Mullen was even more direct and said that WikiLeaks “might already have on their hands the blood of some young soldier” or an Afghan informant who aided the United States.
Several media outlets have found the names of Afghan informants in the documents WikiLeaks published, as well as information identifying their location in some instances. A Taliban spokesman told Britain’s Channel 4 news that the group was sifting through the WikiLeaks documents to get the names of suspected informants and would punish anyone found to have collaborated with the United States and its allies.
Wired.com has sent a message to WikiLeaks inquiring about the file.
Read More http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/07/wikileaks-insurance-file/#ixzz13Kwk7Pyv
The huge file, posted on the Afghan War page at the WikiLeaks site, is 1.4 GB and is encrypted with AES256. The file’s size dwarfs the size of all the other files on the page combined. The file has also been posted on a torrent download site.
WikiLeaks, on Sunday, posted several files containing the 77,000 Afghan war documents in a single “dump” file and in several other files containing versions of the documents in various searchable formats.
Cryptome, a separate secret-spilling site, has speculated that the new file added days later may have been posted as insurance in case something happens to the WikiLeaks website or to the organization’s founder, Julian Assange. In either scenario, WikiLeaks volunteers, under a prearranged agreement with Assange, could send out a password or passphrase to allow anyone who has downloaded the file to open it.
It’s not known what the file contains but it could include the balance of data that U.S. Army intelligence analyst Bradley Manning claimed to have leaked to Assange before he was arrested in May.
In chats with former hacker Adrian Lamo, Manning disclosed that he had provided Assange with a different war log cache than the one that WikiLeaks already published. This one was said to contain 500,000 events from the Iraq War between 2004 and 2009. WikiLeaks has never commented on whether it received that cache.
Additionally, Manning said he sent Assange video showing a deadly 2009 U.S. firefight near the Garani village in Afghanistan that local authorities say killed 100 civilians, most of them children, as well as 260,000 U.S. State Department cables.
Manning never mentioned leaking the Afghan War log to WikiLeaks in his chats with Lamo, but Defense Department officials told The Wall Street Journal that investigators had found evidence on Manning’s Army computer that tied him to that leak.
U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen strongly condemned WikiLeaks’ publication of the Afghan War log at a Pentagon press briefing on Thursday.
Gates said the leak was “potentially severe and dangerous for our troops, our allies and our Afghan partners” and said that “tactics, techniques and procedures will become known to our adversaries” as a result.
Mullen was even more direct and said that WikiLeaks “might already have on their hands the blood of some young soldier” or an Afghan informant who aided the United States.
Several media outlets have found the names of Afghan informants in the documents WikiLeaks published, as well as information identifying their location in some instances. A Taliban spokesman told Britain’s Channel 4 news that the group was sifting through the WikiLeaks documents to get the names of suspected informants and would punish anyone found to have collaborated with the United States and its allies.
Wired.com has sent a message to WikiLeaks inquiring about the file.
Read More http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/07/wikileaks-insurance-file/#ixzz13Kwk7Pyv
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)