5 ms·

Wikileaks creates misleading summaries and narratives of the documents they release and then uses various techniques to encourage the media to follow that narra

by eli 10y ago

Wikileaks creates misleading summaries and narratives of the documents they release and then uses various techniques to encourage the media to follow that narrative. For example, they dump an unreadably large cache at the same time as a sexed-up summary and then tell news orgs that if they cover the story quickly and favorably, they'll be rewarded with early access to future leaks. The "CIA uses your smart TV to spy on you" story is more myth than reality and it was completely created by Wikileaks. (When your threat model is "CIA agents enter your home to plant bugs" then getting rid of your Smart TV isn't much protection.)

elif 10y ago
I'm not sure i follow your reasoning. I follow all of their leaks, but i'm not aware of these "summaries" you are referring to. It sounds like perhaps your interaction with wikileaks is mediated by the media, and your problem is with the media. For instance, this link we are commenting on is directly to a primary document, with no summary provided. The only "summaries" i am aware of, would be their tweets, which are inherently oversimplified. I recommend the wikileaks subreddit for navigating the "unreadably large cache" if that is an issue you are facing.
- 112-123 10y ago
  https://wikileaks.org/vault7/#Marble https://wikileaks.org/vault7/#Marble Framework > The source code shows that Marble has test examples not just in English but also in Chinese, Russian, Korean, Arabic and Farsi. This would permit a forensic attribution double game, for example by pretending that the spoken language of the malware creator was not American English, but Chinese, but then showing attempts to conceal the use of Chinese, drawing forensic investigators even more strongly to the wrong conclusion There's no evidence the CIA has ever done this. This is pure conjecture based on the fact that there's demo code showing that the library supports Unicode. They're pretty obviously trying to push the idea that attribution of hacks (such as the DNC hack) can be really easily spoofed, and you shouldn't trust them. And it's working: https://www.rt.com/news/382940-wikileaks-vault7-marble-framework/ https://www.rt.com/news/382940-wikileaks-vault7-marble-frame... http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/-wikileaks-vault-7-marble-cia-10132482 http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/-wikileaks-vault-7-m... http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4367746/WikiLeaks-says-CIA-disguised-hacking-Russian-activity.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4367746/WikiLeaks-sa...
  - xienze 10y ago
    > They're pretty obviously trying to push the idea that attribution of hacks (such as the DNC hack) can be really easily spoofed, and you shouldn't trust them. OK, and? Is it incorrect that they can spoofed? If not, doesn't that necessarily mean that you can't take "the Russians did this" at face value?
    - 112-123 10y ago
      It's entirely irrelevant to this release. The attribution to Russia has nothing to do with the language of strings embedded in the malware. It's based on the re-use of the same exact techniques, including command-and-control server addresses and encryption keys that have been used in many, many other attacks that align extremely closely with Russian interests. Successfully hacking, over the course of about a decade, American government interests, Eastern Ukrainian militias, Russian dissidents, the Olympic anti-doping committee investigating Russia's wide-spread doping scandal, journalists investigating the downing of MH17, etc. would be a very convoluted and expensive way to spoof attribution of this one attack.
      - parineum 10y ago
        > It's based on the re-use of the same exact techniques, including command-and-control server addresses and encryption keys that have been used in many, many other attacks that align extremely closely with Russian interests. Is there an official source that actually breaks down the similarities to which attacks? I have my doubts about the attribution of the DNC hack to _state_ agents. The only specific I've read was the Gucifer 2.0 windows language being set to Russian. Every other attribution has been a "trust us, we've seen this before" but I am very skeptical of intelligence and law enforcement agencies unattributed claims and I think they've earned that distrust.
        112-123 10y ago
        This testimony given yesterday is an excellent overview, and has citations you can follow for more specifics: https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/os-trid-033017.pdf https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/docu... You are correct that the publicly available evidence doesn't point directly to the GRU, but rather merely to an anonymous extremely well-resourced group whose interests align extremely well with Russian military interests. While the GRU is the most reasonable conclusion, this would leave open, for example, the possibility that some contractor to the Russian military is operating with independence, not actually under direct order from the Kremlin. The intelligence community claims to have knowledge, through conventional intelligence rather than forensics, that this was done by the GRU themselves, under order from the highest levels of leadership. This presumably means they know who the hackers actually are, whom they report to, and the general structure of the agency. They claim they have multiple, strong, independent sources confirming this, but they can't reveal their intelligence publicly without compromising those sources.
- aljones 10y ago
  If you read the articles published in the media they often contain phrases like "according to WikiLeaks" or "Wikileaks said". That is because Wikileaks gives summaries and comments. For a taste of how they mislead journalists, you can follow the wikileaks twitter account.

by eli 10y ago

elif 10y ago

I'm not sure i follow your reasoning. I follow all of their leaks, but i'm not aware of these "summaries" you are referring to. It sounds like perhaps your interaction with wikileaks is mediated by the media, and your problem is with the media. For instance, this link we are commenting on is directly to a primary document, with no summary provided. The only "summaries" i am aware of, would be their tweets, which are inherently oversimplified. I recommend the wikileaks subreddit for navigating the "unreadably large cache" if that is an issue you are facing.

112-123 10y ago
https://wikileaks.org/vault7/#Marble https://wikileaks.org/vault7/#Marble Framework > The source code shows that Marble has test examples not just in English but also in Chinese, Russian, Korean, Arabic and Farsi. This would permit a forensic attribution double game, for example by pretending that the spoken language of the malware creator was not American English, but Chinese, but then showing attempts to conceal the use of Chinese, drawing forensic investigators even more strongly to the wrong conclusion There's no evidence the CIA has ever done this. This is pure conjecture based on the fact that there's demo code showing that the library supports Unicode. They're pretty obviously trying to push the idea that attribution of hacks (such as the DNC hack) can be really easily spoofed, and you shouldn't trust them. And it's working: https://www.rt.com/news/382940-wikileaks-vault7-marble-framework/ https://www.rt.com/news/382940-wikileaks-vault7-marble-frame... http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/-wikileaks-vault-7-marble-cia-10132482 http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/-wikileaks-vault-7-m... http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4367746/WikiLeaks-says-CIA-disguised-hacking-Russian-activity.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4367746/WikiLeaks-sa...
- xienze 10y ago
  > They're pretty obviously trying to push the idea that attribution of hacks (such as the DNC hack) can be really easily spoofed, and you shouldn't trust them. OK, and? Is it incorrect that they can spoofed? If not, doesn't that necessarily mean that you can't take "the Russians did this" at face value?
  - 112-123 10y ago
    It's entirely irrelevant to this release. The attribution to Russia has nothing to do with the language of strings embedded in the malware. It's based on the re-use of the same exact techniques, including command-and-control server addresses and encryption keys that have been used in many, many other attacks that align extremely closely with Russian interests. Successfully hacking, over the course of about a decade, American government interests, Eastern Ukrainian militias, Russian dissidents, the Olympic anti-doping committee investigating Russia's wide-spread doping scandal, journalists investigating the downing of MH17, etc. would be a very convoluted and expensive way to spoof attribution of this one attack.
    - parineum 10y ago
      > It's based on the re-use of the same exact techniques, including command-and-control server addresses and encryption keys that have been used in many, many other attacks that align extremely closely with Russian interests. Is there an official source that actually breaks down the similarities to which attacks? I have my doubts about the attribution of the DNC hack to _state_ agents. The only specific I've read was the Gucifer 2.0 windows language being set to Russian. Every other attribution has been a "trust us, we've seen this before" but I am very skeptical of intelligence and law enforcement agencies unattributed claims and I think they've earned that distrust.
      - 112-123 10y ago
        This testimony given yesterday is an excellent overview, and has citations you can follow for more specifics: https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/os-trid-033017.pdf https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/docu... You are correct that the publicly available evidence doesn't point directly to the GRU, but rather merely to an anonymous extremely well-resourced group whose interests align extremely well with Russian military interests. While the GRU is the most reasonable conclusion, this would leave open, for example, the possibility that some contractor to the Russian military is operating with independence, not actually under direct order from the Kremlin. The intelligence community claims to have knowledge, through conventional intelligence rather than forensics, that this was done by the GRU themselves, under order from the highest levels of leadership. This presumably means they know who the hackers actually are, whom they report to, and the general structure of the agency. They claim they have multiple, strong, independent sources confirming this, but they can't reveal their intelligence publicly without compromising those sources.
aljones 10y ago
If you read the articles published in the media they often contain phrases like "according to WikiLeaks" or "Wikileaks said". That is because Wikileaks gives summaries and comments. For a taste of how they mislead journalists, you can follow the wikileaks twitter account.