13 ms·
> then they tried to claim that the hashes were for the decrypted files What do you mean "tried"? Even if WL didn't say it explicitly, that would be the top se
by gorhill 10y ago
> then they tried to claim that the hashes were for the decrypted files
What do you mean "tried"? Even if WL didn't say it explicitly, that would be the top sensible explanation after one find the actual hash of one of the encrypted files does not match the published one.
- rando444 10y agoMost often encrypted archives contain more than one file, so the only way this could be true is if there is an archive inside an archive. Which is totally possible.. but then the whole point of a hash is to let someone know that a file is as it was intended. So, if you're not giving a hash for the file you're sending.. you're basically setting people up for opening potentially malicious files on the hopes that the file they want is actually inside. Which to me is just ridiculous.
- gorhill 10y ago> Most often encrypted archives contain more than one file The whole cablegate archive was a single 7z file.