Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
'Insurance': WikiLeaks Posts Huge Encrypted File to Web
LONDON -- 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.
PENTAGON THREATENS WIKILEAKS -- Wikileaks founder Julian Assange holds up a copy of a newspaper during a press conference at the Frontline Club in central London, July 26, 2010. The Pentagon demanded on Thursday that whistle-blower web site WikiLeaks immediately hand over about 15,000 secret documents it had not yet released over the war in Afghanistan and erase material it had already put online. Bloggers have noted that it's 20 times larger than the batch of 77,000 secret U.S. military documents about Afghanistan that WikiLeaks dumped onto the Web last month. Contributors to tech sites such as CNet have speculated that the file could be a way of threatening to disclose more information if WikiLeaks' staffers were detained or if the site was attacked, although the organization itself has kept mum.
"As a matter of policy, we do not discuss security procedures," WikiLeaks said Thursday in an e-mail response to questions about the 1.4 gigabyte 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!
"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."
Assange, a former computer hacker, has expressed concern over his safety in the past, complaining of surveillance and telling interviewers that he's been warned away from visiting the United States.
Since the publication of the Afghanistan files, at least one activist associated with the site has been questioned by U.S. authorities. Programmer Jacob Appelbaum, who filled in for Assange at a conference last month, was reportedly detained and questioned about the site by officials after arriving in the U.S. on a flight from the Netherlands.
U.S. officials have had harsh words for Assange, with Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, saying he and his colleagues had disclosed potentially life-threatening information and might already have blood on their hands.
U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates has refused to rule out the possibility that Assange could be a target into the military's investigation into the leak.
Online:
Wikileaks Website: http://wikileaks.org/
Democracy Now! interview: http://bit.ly/cDw1LX
- Posted in
181 Comments so far
Show AllHmmmmm, assessing the depth of the lies and propaganda projected by the military upon the American People is important. I suspect that the lives lost resulting from Pentagon and MIC improper projection of power is greater than lives lost from exposing secret documents, although I have no proof.
The military industrial media complex (MIMC) doesn't care how many die...they just want the eternal revenue stream and eternal occupation or war assures.
Those who have threatened the MIMC's revenues in the past have been dealt with "accordingly". Julian's greatest challenge is to assure that he is not the next casualty.
I find it incredibly cynical that Adm Mullen, who probably has more "blood on his hands" than anybody at this time, has the gall to put that label on Assange of Wikileaks -- especially after the Pentagon etc pronounced the leaked information is 'outdated' in relation to what is going on in Afghanistan. Hypocricy? Doublespeak? Go figure!
I was going to say the same thing. I'm sure others will say what you said in another way.
The article doesn't explain what the new document(s) are about or how they might be related to threats against Wikileaks.
Nonetheless, it's undeniable that Assange has accomplished incalculable good by exposing truth. I hope he has associates waiting the the wings in case those who fear the truth get to him.
The file is encrypted. It's 1.5 GB, and you can download it from the Wikileaks website---find it under Afghan War Diary. When Wikileaks is attacked, or Assange messed with, the site will send a password to the world which will open the encrypted file. Everyone should download this file. It's called Insurance.
Higgs Boson August 5th, 2010 4:43 pm -- Thanks for explaining that. Evidently the file could be anything; even photographs or music videos.
I would imagine the NSA has decrypted the file by now, so the government knows what is in there. It could get interesting now.
I don't believe NSA or anyone is able to decrypt this file. Assange is a computer expert in this area; the file cannot be read without the key.
Of course NSA can decrypt it. Their computing power is measured in acres i.e. server rooms the size of football fields. And they have thousands of them.
But they don't need to brute force it since they have the world's best cryptanalysts.
On top of this, Assange wasn't trying to protect it in any meaningful way. The algorithm he used was a kind of ironic statement. Since it's the same algorithm used to encrypt all U.S. documents marked "Top Secret", the fact that they will be able to crack it means that all U.S. top secret documents are vulnerable to cryptanalysis. Why would Assange want to use a stronger form of encryptation? Presumably, wikileaks wants people to read the file eventually.
He used this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aes256#Security (256bit)
Can you provide a reference that he used the encryption explained in your link?
It's the file name extension. This is not something anyone is disputing.
There are some "fun facts" about this. One is that WikiLeaks has given NSA the key so that NSA knows what WikiLeaks has.
Your request was "Can you provide a reference to Assange using a standard top secret algorithm?"
I provided it.
I dont know whether they can decrypt at will. And we may never find that out. There is a history of encryption going back to Julius Caesar, and there IS GOOD REASON for speculation. It would be an historical anomaly if they could not decrypt it. It would also be an anomaly if they admitted that they could decrypt it.
Governments throughout history have taken steps to deny the fact that they are able to decrypt messages, in the hope that the flow of information will continue. There are plenty of examples to choose from, but during the 2nd world war, the Brits simply allowed London to be bombed, rather than have the Germans figure out that their "enigma" unbreakable encryption was in fact, broken.
Throughout history, people have believed that their encryption was unbreakable, when in fact rival government "cabinet noir" have been decrypting their every message. There are plenty of examples, but we may cite the Germans in both the first and the second world war (as above) and also the Japanese in the second world war.
Another more recent and perfect example is that of AES's predecessor, DES. IBM’s proposed algorithm originally used a 128 bit key, but the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA) convinced IBM to reduce the key size to 56 bits. The US government allowed only a 40 bit key version of the encryption to be exported. It is thought that the NSA’s reason was to allow an easier brute force attack, possibly by means of specially crafted electronic hardware.
The NSA and the US Justice Department insisted that DES was unbreakable even as late as 1997. The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), however, believed that the 56 bit key version of the algorithm could be rapidly cracked, but saying so earned them the tag of “conspiracy theorists”. To prove their point the EFF started to design their own DES cracking hardware in 1997. The EFF completed the DES cracker in July 1998 at a cost of cost of $250,000.oo. It can test 254 * 10^9 keys per second. It can break 56 bit DES encryption in less than 3 days by brute force. True to historical precedent, the Justice department and the NSA had been lying to us.
If you read this far, then by now you should have noticed a pattern. Major governments generally can decrypt, and they make sacrifices to hide the fact that they can do so. Fort Meade in Maryland USA houses a 10 acre multi story subterranean communications monitoring facility that is claimed to employ 40,000 people. Half of the worlds cryptologist mathematicians are employed there.
Now in 1997, the NSA to chose Rijndael to become the AES (American Encryption Standard). And I just dont think that they would do that, if they did not already know that they would be able to break it.
yeah it might be the latest 'youtube' video of 'abba'.......
or the 'futuristic' words of 'norwegian wood' by the 'beatles': 'swedish wood'..........
Perhaps some rock-solid evidence of The Bush Crime Family illegal activities since World War 2.
it takes a long time to download...............
and then what do you have???..............
I couldn't find the file on Wikileaks. I searched for "insurance". Can I buy a clue from someone here? Thanks.
Go here: http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Afghan_War_Diary,_2004-2010
Look down the page, toward the bottom. It's 1.4 GB
Thank you, downloading now. Verizon ftp for this particular file is moving at an agonizingly slow rate, much, much, much slower than any other files I've downloaded. Anyone else notice anything like this from Verizon?
You have something they don't want you to have. You have a small piece of the protection surrounding Assange. You are helping him, because the more this is out there, the less they will mess with him. Insurance only works if you spread the risk among the many.
Target...
And we know that the USA reserves the "right" to murder anyone they choose in the name of "national security." They've already set up their alibi. the danger of "potentially life-threatening information" having been released, and the vague allegation that Wikileaks may "already have blood on their hands."
One imagines that the "insurance" can be released by the publication of a key, since the glop of data has doubtless been copied many times over, all around the world, even if a physical assault attempts to take down known servers.
What an astonishingly courageous stand Assange is taking against the impulse of every government towards tyranny.
I'm not sure about every government's impulse toward tyranny. The government of Iceland is quite proud to be have Wikileaks in their homeland, and has offered protection for Assange. A couple other European governments have too.
i think you'll find it's sweden, not iceland.............
http://www.cryptome.org has numerous background documents on Wikileaks, which if you haven't read them, you should.
As usual with this sort of cloak-and-dagger business, nothing is as it appears.
I did check the link. You are right, everything is not as it seems, some interesting questions being asked especially about money. But does anyone expect Wikileaks to be any different than any other organization or business when someone dumps a windfall in their laps? Cryptome has been in the whistleblower business forever but never has had anything like the attention paid to it that Wikileaks does. Are some of those grapes tasting a little sour? There is risk in becoming too visible that Wikileaks apperars to be willing to take. Staying low key may extend the organization's lifespan but does it further the core mission of the project?
With major donors like the National Endowment for Democracy ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_endowment_for_democracy ), and George Soros, the whole thing just reeks of U.S. intelligence disinformation. Most other internet forums have picked up on this. But then again, the commondreams crowd was fooled (some still are fooled) by Obama back in 2008.
Ask yourself why you trust wikileaks? Is it the word "wiki"? Is it the threats by the pentagon? Is the the fact that the names of leakers are not provided? What have they leaked where you learned something you didn't already know?
A lot of documents leaked through wikileaks read like they were composed with the idea that they were going to be leaked through wikileaks.
BTW you can get the full list of donors from wikileaks itself.
...and then there is the theory that debasing the information submitted and smearing the messenger work rather well for the establishment......
So how is life in that cubicle at Langely?
Right on DD. I've been reading this poster for awhile and all his posts seem to work well for the establishment in one way or another. There are a few such posters here methinks....
Even Assange wants you to question wikileaks, and the information coming out of it. They recognized early on they have no way of telling whether they are leaking bogus documents fabricated to be leaked for intelligence purposes. And, they don't want you to take for granted their legitimacy. For my part, I'm not convinced they're legit.
They used to have a wiki to discuss these things, but for whatever reason they've taken it down, and now the discussion has to occur elsewhere.
In other words, they want you to question them and their documents. If they wanted anything else, you would have to dismiss them out of hand.
poitou,
You come here and tell us we are fools (Common Dreams crowd) to trust wikileaks. But why should we trust that from you ...who the hell are you to put us down anyway?
The truth gets out and wikileaks confirms it as official and that is something important and the videos that were never seen and more to come if they don't get eliminated and the Pentagon is trying.
It is not their name that gets attention it is what they do... What have you done?
"wikileaks confirms it as official"
They try in some cases, but really that's beyond their power. Even when you are in the thick of things as an eyewitness you know probably less than 50% of what's going on for certain.
"But why should we trust that from you ...who the hell are you to put us down anyway?"
Just an average person trying to get commondreamers not to be so susceptible to every propaganda delivery-system the establishment can think up. Did you even read Cass Sunstein's various propaganda manifestos? He is getting more and more sophisticated in ways he is trying to deceive you.
By all means, don't trust me. Investigate it yourself. Goodness knows that cryptome and wikileaks contain enough documents on it.
You were implying that Wikileaks was a CIA operation and that Common Dreams was being fooled.
Now you are back tracking a bit, implying it is just an establishment "propaganda operation".
If you have anything to prove what you are suggesting give it and then we can verify.
If you think Common Dreamers are fools, prove you are not.
duplicate.
I can't prove it either way, I said it reeks. Just go have a look at cryptome.org and see if you agree.
I do think people are being fooled, but that's based on informed intuition. Like so much in life, we can prove so little.
I understand your skepticism, and spent a full 2 days bummed out a year or two ago when I realized things were not as they seemed. The conversation on wikileaks here (unlike other forums) hasn't advanced much beyond "Go Wikileaks!", but the technically literate forums I used to read have ample discussion.
No I can't agree.
I don't see anything on this subject you are suggesting about Wikileaks.. none at all.
I see just the opposite,
Here is the latest they have on this subject
http://cryptome.org/0002
/dod080510.htm
If I missed what you are claiming, give us a link to something specific that verifies your spin of "informed intuition" here... Just one specific link.
If you don't like this site, why are you still here?
I do like this site. Obviously.
Please reread my previous comments in this thread. I don't feel like re-explaining my position.
Everyone can read your previous comments and they don't back up what you are now saying about Common Dreams and the Cryto site does not back up what you said at all.
Is it possible you are down on Wikileaks because they don't promote the "contolled demolition 9/11 theory"?
Jim, obviously you are sore I said that CD people got fooled by Obama in 2008. But it's true isn't it?
I wish you well in your uncritical acceptance of wikileaks.
You avoided my question on the 9/11 Demolition Theory.
You say "CD people got fooled by Obama in 2008".
Common Dreams people were and are very critical of Obama before and after the election.
There was great support for Nader and other 3rd party candidates here on Common Dreams and CD published most of their articles.
So now you criticize Common Dreamers for Obama and wikileaks but you haven't given facts for Common Dreamers being "Fooled" or your suggestion that wikileaks is somehow fooling us.
You just lack true facts in your criticism here.
But, I wish you well anyway.
There are many problems with your comments Jim.
First, they seem to be motivated by the suggestion that common dreamers were fooled by Obama. It causes great anger for you apparently. "who the hell are you to put us down anyway?", you wrote. I suppose it's admirable to stand up for your fellow forum mates, even guys like Shawn Berry and Birdie. And it is true that many other forums have discussed wikileaks to death and many of those have serious questions about it. You can find that using a tool called google if you care to.
Second, is the mistaken notion that I have to prove things. You write: "If you think Common Dreamers are fools, prove you are not." There is an error in logic here. Namely, if I prove I am not, it won't mean that Common Dreamers are. But never mind this.
My goal was not to prove something one way or the other, but to suggest questions and point to resources that could help you make up your own mind as I explained: "By all means, don't trust me. Investigate it yourself. Goodness knows that cryptome and wikileaks contain enough documents on it." That requires a certain amount of intellectual maturity (making up one's own mind and investigating for one's self) and critical thinking skill, and I apologize if you're still in grade school. I have no idea how old you are.
Of course, I also expressed my own opinion, but apparently it is sometimes claimed that the U.S. is a free country, so I think I'm safe in expressing it on a U.S. message board.
Third, there was this hypertechnical parsing of my words like when you say "Now you are back tracking a bit, implying it is just an establishment "propaganda operation"." This is so pointless as to not even be worth discussing.
Fourth, you looked at only one document (that I know of). If you're an adult, I suppose you have the right to remain ignorant--some would say the duty. I am not some research service that you can order around to find you exactly the documents you are looking for. Maybe ask a reference librarian to search for you? Someone else to adduce proofs for your amusement?
Fifth, you use all manner of insulting language calling what my informed intuition "spin", and implying that I am a 911 crackpot. I suppose you feel it's warranted, but most people would think it was rude, but I'm sure you knew that.
Sorry to butt in, but I rise to protest your unfounded assumption that CD'ers were Obamabots from the first. It is simply not true and your contention that it is truth when it is simply not colors your post and makes less credible the rest of your argument.
poitou is spot on about CD's take on obama, if you go by the articles CD published in the run up to the election. the comments are a different matter. CD is a solidly Democrat site. They publish Nader et al but they sure as hell don't want someone like him or anyone else busting up this Rep v. Dem party going on. In fact, CD *still* supports Obama, in their orientation to the Ass Party. CD makes it money (a pittance, i know) from this false dichotomy.
But poitou's notion that Assange/Wikileaks are CIA plants (or whatever) is monstrously ludicrous. Bradley Manning stands to spend the rest of his life in jail for what he did. Assange damn well knows he's a target for assassination/rendition. The release of the docs has caused support for the AfPak war to plunge. etc., etc.
by their fruits you know them. Poitou's just talking out his ass on this one. until he's willing to make a comparable sacrifice, he should shut his fucking mouth.
"Poitou's just talking out his ass on this one."
You seem to be obsessed with the scatological, "rush limbaughs taint."
One more time: the next Nobel Peace Prize should go to WikiLeaks. Would make up for the last Peace Prize . . .
Wikileaks deserve something of honor, they give Nobels to anyone.
Sadly, you have a point. But I'm sure WikiLeaks could use the money.
The truth will set you free. Laughable! In Julian Assange's case the truth could get you killed. Even befor wikkileaks the truth about our killing spree in the middle east was visible to anyone with eyes open. Who will read it? not many. Will it change foreign policy? doubtful. Does anyone even care? a scant few. Will the spin doctors villify the messenger? of course. It is unfortunate our selfish way of life has spawned pessemism and cynicism such as mine.