7 ms·

yes: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/23199 https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/23199

by rfrank 10y ago

misiti3780 10y ago
can you provide the link to reddit. it is hard to understand what the context is.
- rfrank 10y ago
  here's the link, largely just typical the_donald spam in comments that isn't terribly helpful haha. https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/58j7jn/gentlement_i_believe_we_found_it_diane_feinstein/ https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/58j7jn/gentleme... based on dates in the message, they're likely referring to the hearing on 10/22/15.
  - tmzt 10y ago
    A more specfic resource is /r/DNCleaks and seems to be less overtly partisan or pro-candidate.
eridius 10y ago
The fact that it's on wikileaks doesn't actually prove it's real. Russia has already been proven to have altered a few documents in a big document dump they did a while back (I actually forget the specifics of this one, but it was on HN fairly recently). And Bruce Schneier wrote an article about this very subject a month ago (https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2016/09/organizational_1.html https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2016/09/organizationa...).
- zeroer 10y ago
  While technically true, Wikileaks hasn't lied yet in their history.
  - nickpsecurity 10y ago
    They used to say they had lots of people with the ability to protect sources back when they were just a few with no such ability. That's a nice start on integrity. Far as leaks, they posted a lot of them over time that people couldn't verify if they wanted to given lack of internal access. So, my claim on them wouldn't go as far as yours.
  - eridius 10y ago
    Define "lied". Wikileaks publishes material that other people give them. I'm not saying Wikileaks would alter documents, I'm saying the people giving the documents to Wikileaks would alter them, and then Wikileaks will do its job and publish them.
- tmzt 10y ago
  Seems people are discovering DKIM. Messages are hashed and signed by a private key in the exclusive possesion of the email system, such as gmail. The public keys are published in DNS. This allows anyone to verify the messages are unaltered using widely available tools. It seems this system may have been in place on one of the Exchange servers as well, though the integrity of that key is questionable.
  - eridius 10y ago
    If you're talking about email specifically, and if the email server has DKIM, and if the keys are secure (if the hacker can break into the server to steal emails, are you sure they didn't steal the key too?), then yeah. But many document dumps include a lot of stuff that isn't just emails, and many email document dumps probably aren't fully covered by DKIM (I say probably because I haven't checked, nor am I really in a position to do so) or the DKIM key may not necessarily be secure (if the email server itself is hacked, it may not be; if the user login to the email was hacked, presumably it will be).
  - tmzt 10y ago
    Replying to the reply. Yes, which is why I consider the keys for the Exchange server questionable, as there is no way to disprove intrusion into those systems. My claim surrounds gmail.com and the set of emails that passed through gmail.com. I am not aware of an intrusion into Google's systems that would have obtained highly protected keys. This also limits the number of actors who could forge the complete collection of messages obtained from a gmail.com account. (i.e. the only thing obtained was a password, not system level access.) If the attachments are BASE64 encoded and part of the MIME source, they should also be protected by the DKIM signature. As far as any documents obtained from blogspot, I have no assertion to make reguarding the integrity of those message contents. The use a specific cracked version of Office may explain the document summary information not matching the proclaimed nationality of the publisher of the documents on blogspot. I object to the (sometimes deliberate) conflating of the multiple collections and sources and the attendant implied discrediting of all be ine. This is a forum that I hope values technical explainations and inquiry, many forums have their own version of reality. May the truth be known, whoever is damned or praised.

yes: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/23199 https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/23199

by rfrank 10y ago

yes: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/23199 https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/23199

misiti3780 10y ago

can you provide the link to reddit. it is hard to understand what the context is.

rfrank 10y ago
here's the link, largely just typical the_donald spam in comments that isn't terribly helpful haha. https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/58j7jn/gentlement_i_believe_we_found_it_diane_feinstein/ https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/58j7jn/gentleme... based on dates in the message, they're likely referring to the hearing on 10/22/15.
- tmzt 10y ago
  A more specfic resource is /r/DNCleaks and seems to be less overtly partisan or pro-candidate.

eridius 10y ago

The fact that it's on wikileaks doesn't actually prove it's real. Russia has already been proven to have altered a few documents in a big document dump they did a while back (I actually forget the specifics of this one, but it was on HN fairly recently). And Bruce Schneier wrote an article about this very subject a month ago (https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2016/09/organizational_1.html https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2016/09/organizationa...).

zeroer 10y ago
While technically true, Wikileaks hasn't lied yet in their history.
- nickpsecurity 10y ago
  They used to say they had lots of people with the ability to protect sources back when they were just a few with no such ability. That's a nice start on integrity. Far as leaks, they posted a lot of them over time that people couldn't verify if they wanted to given lack of internal access. So, my claim on them wouldn't go as far as yours.
- eridius 10y ago
  Define "lied". Wikileaks publishes material that other people give them. I'm not saying Wikileaks would alter documents, I'm saying the people giving the documents to Wikileaks would alter them, and then Wikileaks will do its job and publish them.
tmzt 10y ago
Seems people are discovering DKIM. Messages are hashed and signed by a private key in the exclusive possesion of the email system, such as gmail. The public keys are published in DNS. This allows anyone to verify the messages are unaltered using widely available tools. It seems this system may have been in place on one of the Exchange servers as well, though the integrity of that key is questionable.
- eridius 10y ago
  If you're talking about email specifically, and if the email server has DKIM, and if the keys are secure (if the hacker can break into the server to steal emails, are you sure they didn't steal the key too?), then yeah. But many document dumps include a lot of stuff that isn't just emails, and many email document dumps probably aren't fully covered by DKIM (I say probably because I haven't checked, nor am I really in a position to do so) or the DKIM key may not necessarily be secure (if the email server itself is hacked, it may not be; if the user login to the email was hacked, presumably it will be).
- tmzt 10y ago
  Replying to the reply. Yes, which is why I consider the keys for the Exchange server questionable, as there is no way to disprove intrusion into those systems. My claim surrounds gmail.com and the set of emails that passed through gmail.com. I am not aware of an intrusion into Google's systems that would have obtained highly protected keys. This also limits the number of actors who could forge the complete collection of messages obtained from a gmail.com account. (i.e. the only thing obtained was a password, not system level access.) If the attachments are BASE64 encoded and part of the MIME source, they should also be protected by the DKIM signature. As far as any documents obtained from blogspot, I have no assertion to make reguarding the integrity of those message contents. The use a specific cracked version of Office may explain the document summary information not matching the proclaimed nationality of the publisher of the documents on blogspot. I object to the (sometimes deliberate) conflating of the multiple collections and sources and the attendant implied discrediting of all be ine. This is a forum that I hope values technical explainations and inquiry, many forums have their own version of reality. May the truth be known, whoever is damned or praised.