38 ms·

"Finally cracked the encryption to US military video in which journalists, among others, are shot. Thanks to all who donated $/CPUs." http://twitter.com/wikilea

"Finally cracked the encryption to US military video in which journalists, among others, are shot. Thanks to all who donated $/CPUs." http://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/9412020034 http://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/9412020034 This may have to do with it.

waterlesscloud 17y ago
I would like to hear more about this encryption cracking, which would seem to be an impressive feat. Anyone have any background?
- there 17y ago
  related to this? http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2009-12/insurgents-hack-predator-video-feed-26-software http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2009-12/insurgents-...
  - gwern 17y ago
    If it were, why would there be any need for brute-forcing it? Isn't the point of that story the lack of encryption?
- ErrantX 17y ago
  Depends on the exact encryption but from the sounds of the tweet ("$/CPU") it sounds like it could have been just brute forced.
  - eli 17y ago
    Sure, but the obvious question: where did they find a secret military video protected by encryption that is weak enough to be bruteforced?
    - danielharan 17y ago
      With enough $/CPUs, it's all weak.
      - JeremyBanks 17y ago
        No, it's not. The amount of computing power that would be needed to break the kind of encryption we should expect them to be using would be immense. It would likely be impossible, or at least impractically expensive. This is a very interesting part of the story.
        Frazzydee 17y ago
        And, if it was distributed computing, presumably we'd have heard about it and wouldn't be having this conversation.
    - JulianMorrison 17y ago
      You're assuming that military = supersecret. This from the same military that didn't even bother encrypting transmissions from Predator drones.
crosvenir 17y ago
If this WAS it, then they should be shut down. I'm not saying the video shouldn't be released or that the contents should be covered up, but the encryption algorithms that pertain to DoD COMSEC are classified and I think they would be breaking federal law by even cracking them. I've seen many things from Wikileaks that are classified in nature and if they think that it's ok to do that they're mistaken, IMO. I do however applaud their efforts with respect to net censorship and scientology secrets.
- crosvenir 17y ago
  Oh, exactly what was it you wanted me to say (EDITED out rude comment). I at least used DH3 - Contradiction: they should be shut down. Weak yes, but I also thought I used DH4 - Counterargument: I think they would be breaking federal law by even cracking them. http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html Even went so far as to agree to other point (EDITED out rude comment). Oh well, hey at least you responded with rational discussion. Oh wait you just voted down because you disagreed.
  - Alex63 17y ago
    Agree (and voted up). Down voting should be about the quality of the post/argument, not whether you like the opinion. Having said that, I think you might want to revise your argument a little. Regardless of whether it is legal, is it always wrong to post classified information? If the government is found to use classification inappropriately, to hide something it might find embarrassing, it weakens the value of classification in general and weakens the trust of citizens. In such a case, it might be desirable to post such information, if one could be sure that doing so did not jeopardize people's safety, etc. Maybe there should be a special court where such materials could be examined and a determination made as to whether they had been appropriately classified, with the onus being on the government to prove that the classification was warranted.
    - stan_rogers 17y ago
      The thing about civil disobedience is that it is disobedient, and people ought to be willing to risk the consequences in order to bring about the changes they desire. It wasn't the concept of fundamental rights that made the human rights marches and so on work in the American south in the '60s, it was the brutality of the police response to the marchers. It is the consequences, and the willingness of people to do what is right despite those consequences, that is the agent of change. So, yes, the laws in place ought to be enforced, and if they are wrong, let the law be changed. Laws should not invite or be subject to invite arbitrary application, and in this case the matter under consideration is the very nature of what can be classified and what actually constitutes national security.
jurjenh 17y ago
Of some interest in this statement is that wikileaks managed to crack the encryption. No matter if they release the crack, the way they did it, or the actual footage, the US DoD should take very careful note that it has been cracked. This in itself is probably leak-worthy, in that quite realistically, other organisations with more at stake and more resources will likely have done the same without broadcasting the fact. And the chances are that these others will use this ability with more serious consequences [than posting the footage online].
shin_lao 17y ago
Sounds like PR at best, bullshit at worst. Sorry, but I don't buy it. Military encryption is designed to resist attacks done by enemy governmental agency. They say thank you for all the $/CPU but lately I've read they were in dire need of cash to continue running the website, yet, they spent that money on cracking some alleged secret material... Oh, and I'm pretty sure that cracking governmental material is considered an act of war, that would be pretty stupid to admit that publicly. Sorry, but all of this sounds like kids living in a paranoid delirium or people trying to get attention (to raise money?).

waterlesscloud 17y ago

I would like to hear more about this encryption cracking, which would seem to be an impressive feat. Anyone have any background?

there 17y ago
related to this? http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2009-12/insurgents-hack-predator-video-feed-26-software http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2009-12/insurgents-...
- gwern 17y ago
  If it were, why would there be any need for brute-forcing it? Isn't the point of that story the lack of encryption?
ErrantX 17y ago
Depends on the exact encryption but from the sounds of the tweet ("$/CPU") it sounds like it could have been just brute forced.
- eli 17y ago
  Sure, but the obvious question: where did they find a secret military video protected by encryption that is weak enough to be bruteforced?
  - danielharan 17y ago
    With enough $/CPUs, it's all weak.
    - JeremyBanks 17y ago
      No, it's not. The amount of computing power that would be needed to break the kind of encryption we should expect them to be using would be immense. It would likely be impossible, or at least impractically expensive. This is a very interesting part of the story.
      - Frazzydee 17y ago
        And, if it was distributed computing, presumably we'd have heard about it and wouldn't be having this conversation.
  - JulianMorrison 17y ago
    You're assuming that military = supersecret. This from the same military that didn't even bother encrypting transmissions from Predator drones.

crosvenir 17y ago

If this WAS it, then they should be shut down. I'm not saying the video shouldn't be released or that the contents should be covered up, but the encryption algorithms that pertain to DoD COMSEC are classified and I think they would be breaking federal law by even cracking them. I've seen many things from Wikileaks that are classified in nature and if they think that it's ok to do that they're mistaken, IMO. I do however applaud their efforts with respect to net censorship and scientology secrets.

crosvenir 17y ago
Oh, exactly what was it you wanted me to say (EDITED out rude comment). I at least used DH3 - Contradiction: they should be shut down. Weak yes, but I also thought I used DH4 - Counterargument: I think they would be breaking federal law by even cracking them. http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html Even went so far as to agree to other point (EDITED out rude comment). Oh well, hey at least you responded with rational discussion. Oh wait you just voted down because you disagreed.
- Alex63 17y ago
  Agree (and voted up). Down voting should be about the quality of the post/argument, not whether you like the opinion. Having said that, I think you might want to revise your argument a little. Regardless of whether it is legal, is it always wrong to post classified information? If the government is found to use classification inappropriately, to hide something it might find embarrassing, it weakens the value of classification in general and weakens the trust of citizens. In such a case, it might be desirable to post such information, if one could be sure that doing so did not jeopardize people's safety, etc. Maybe there should be a special court where such materials could be examined and a determination made as to whether they had been appropriately classified, with the onus being on the government to prove that the classification was warranted.
  - stan_rogers 17y ago
    The thing about civil disobedience is that it is disobedient, and people ought to be willing to risk the consequences in order to bring about the changes they desire. It wasn't the concept of fundamental rights that made the human rights marches and so on work in the American south in the '60s, it was the brutality of the police response to the marchers. It is the consequences, and the willingness of people to do what is right despite those consequences, that is the agent of change. So, yes, the laws in place ought to be enforced, and if they are wrong, let the law be changed. Laws should not invite or be subject to invite arbitrary application, and in this case the matter under consideration is the very nature of what can be classified and what actually constitutes national security.

jurjenh 17y ago

Of some interest in this statement is that wikileaks managed to crack the encryption. No matter if they release the crack, the way they did it, or the actual footage, the US DoD should take very careful note that it has been cracked. This in itself is probably leak-worthy, in that quite realistically, other organisations with more at stake and more resources will likely have done the same without broadcasting the fact. And the chances are that these others will use this ability with more serious consequences [than posting the footage online].

shin_lao 17y ago

Sounds like PR at best, bullshit at worst. Sorry, but I don't buy it. Military encryption is designed to resist attacks done by enemy governmental agency. They say thank you for all the $/CPU but lately I've read they were in dire need of cash to continue running the website, yet, they spent that money on cracking some alleged secret material... Oh, and I'm pretty sure that cracking governmental material is considered an act of war, that would be pretty stupid to admit that publicly. Sorry, but all of this sounds like kids living in a paranoid delirium or people trying to get attention (to raise money?).