4 ms·

If "Zero Day: The story of MS17-010" is meant to be an accurate report of facts regarding MS17-010, then there is at least one inaccuracy in it: > someone call

If "Zero Day: The story of MS17-010" is meant to be an accurate report of facts regarding MS17-010, then there is at least one inaccuracy in it: > someone calling themselves "the Shadow Brokers" leaks a huge trove of classified NSA documents to WikiLeaks, who in turn dump it on the internet. Shadow Brokers didn't leak to Wikileaks. Shadow Brokers uploaded the trove of NSA documents to `mega.nz`, and someone else downloaded the trove to GitHub[1]. Wikileaks merely tweeted about this after it happened.[2] Correction: As per well-sourced Wikipedia article[3], this was not the `mega.nz` leak, this was another subsequent one. The main point still stand: Wikileaks has nothing to do with publishing the MS17-010 vulnerability. Would be nice to stop pushing the false narrative that Wikileaks was involved in that one NSA leak. [1] https://github.com/x0rz/EQGRP https://github.com/x0rz/EQGRP [2] https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/850783902616625152 https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/850783902616625152 [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shadow_Brokers#Fifth_Leak:_.22Lost_in_Translation.22 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shadow_Brokers#Fifth_Leak:...

cxseven 9y ago
As someone who's somewhat neutral on the subject, it's amazing how much FUD I've noticed about Wikileaks.
- refulgentis 9y ago
  And not coincidentally, the NSA. :)
- TillE 9y ago
  It's generally people with an agenda to downplay something they've published, often by insinuating without evidence that the documents have been faked. Wikileaks has problems, but they have a surprisingly good record for a small, amateur operation.
  - celticninja 9y ago
    They used to have a very good position as an independent source of data but they have started editorialising with their releases and they certainly seem to take some political positions regarding their releases, which calls into question their impartiality. I am still a fan but not as much as I used to be.
    - tripzilch 9y ago
      You could say that but when it's impartiality to Russia or North Korea (not so much by Wikileaks, the MSM already covered that market) nobody gives a bleep, but when it's towards the USA it's suddenly questionable? Most of the world (including Wikileaks) is not the USA, and for them it's three external parties to look at from outside (and yes, hold a mirror to their own, if they're honest). Yes RU/NK are doing worse things. But the USA just elected Trump. And unlike RU or NK, who sort of keep it to themselves, the USA's election spectacle has been broadcast on worldwide media, there was no escaping seeing the USA dig its way further down through rock-bottom every week, for over half a year. Everybody has been made to look and the USA's gov doesn't really look good or even sane at all right now, from any outside point of view. Just a question, are they going to let Trump rule for these whole four years? Or will someone say "ok enough's enough, this guy is crazy as fuck, let's get rid of him"? Surely, before it's too late? How does this process work? AFAIR Clinton got impeached for way less than what Trump has already done on public record (not literally the same, but it's not far either, and frankly the other offenses--ignorance and stupidity in the light of global politics, not just a little, also not political-discourse "fake ignorance", he honestly doesn't seem to be aware of basic 20th century history facts--way worse from a political POV) Sorry that's a bit off topic cause what you refer to is not really about Trump--much (it was about the elections a little, though). The point is, one of the largest powers in the world just put a crazy person in charge. Trump's probably not really dumb, no he's very savvy, but the people should expect more from their political leaders. It's not supposed to be an easy job. I get the feeling that complaints about Wikileaks' editorialising also just contains a lot of saying what it is, and people don't like to hear that when it's about them. Because they love America. Thing is, it's not really about them, so don't worry. It's not like the people got a lot of democratic choice in the matter. Could they have done more? Maybe but the system's big and complex and controlled by other parties than the people. Even before, when it was between Hillary or Trump, you gotta wonder, out of all the population, were these the two best candidates in the country?
mysterypie 9y ago
> Correction: As per well-sourced Wikipedia article[3], this was not the `mega.nz` leak, this was another subsequent one. Is it too humiliating to write, "Oops, sorry, I just realized that this was not the `mega.nz` leak, but a subsequent one"? Why do people like to switch to passive third-person voice to avoid admitting the tiniest little error? I see this a lot with lawyers. It doesn't really fool anyone and makes the little mistake look worse.
- eequah9L 9y ago
  That "Oops, sorry, I just realized" is all implied by that "Correction:". It's more pithy like that. Your parent is not saying "mistake was made", "I was led to believe" or what not, which would be passive third-person voice, sneakily trying to shift the blame. Instead, the fact that a mistake was made is clearly communicated through an additional corrective edit. Seems appropriate for a correction of such minor point.
- parent5446 9y ago
  The entire comment is written in third-person. The correction is simply following the same pattern as the original text. I really don't think the author was trying to avoid any blame on the mistake. This is maybe reading a little too deeply into it.
angry-hacker 9y ago
The wikileaks hysteria is ridiculous, it's on par with lunatics believing Jews control the world. Since when spreading conspiracy theories became normal? The stupid American elections have ruined everything, everything is fake news, everything is fascism, everything is Kremlin.
- willstrafach 9y ago
  People do not know the history of Assange, so they'll assume there are witting RU ties, whereas in reality he just apparently hates the USA and would like to cause as much damage as possible by publishing content with no journalistic value + posting misleading analysis.
  - angry-hacker 9y ago
    You're brainwashed, Assange is more "American" in his values than any of the politicians you have had, and have provided more journalistic value, for the past 20 years.
    - willstrafach 9y ago
      > You're brainwashed Not sure I understand. Releases like Vault7 have no journalistic value, their sole use is causing damage to the government.
  - Grangar 9y ago
    Even if such a thing were true. In his position, wouldn't you?
    - willstrafach 9y ago
      To be clear, I am not saying I don't understand his motivation in that position, only pointing out that it explains the senseless disclosures more than the theory of WL doing it to benefit Russia.
stefantalpalaru 9y ago
> Shadow Brokers didn't leak to Wikileaks. No, they had no connection and no collaboration on those NSA leaks. The author might be confused by Wikileaks releasing CIA malware right now (they have their own internal NSA clone) or he just wanted an excuse to plug the "may be a front for the Kremlin" bit.

cxseven 9y ago

As someone who's somewhat neutral on the subject, it's amazing how much FUD I've noticed about Wikileaks.

refulgentis 9y ago
And not coincidentally, the NSA. :)
TillE 9y ago
It's generally people with an agenda to downplay something they've published, often by insinuating without evidence that the documents have been faked. Wikileaks has problems, but they have a surprisingly good record for a small, amateur operation.
- celticninja 9y ago
  They used to have a very good position as an independent source of data but they have started editorialising with their releases and they certainly seem to take some political positions regarding their releases, which calls into question their impartiality. I am still a fan but not as much as I used to be.
  - tripzilch 9y ago
    You could say that but when it's impartiality to Russia or North Korea (not so much by Wikileaks, the MSM already covered that market) nobody gives a bleep, but when it's towards the USA it's suddenly questionable? Most of the world (including Wikileaks) is not the USA, and for them it's three external parties to look at from outside (and yes, hold a mirror to their own, if they're honest). Yes RU/NK are doing worse things. But the USA just elected Trump. And unlike RU or NK, who sort of keep it to themselves, the USA's election spectacle has been broadcast on worldwide media, there was no escaping seeing the USA dig its way further down through rock-bottom every week, for over half a year. Everybody has been made to look and the USA's gov doesn't really look good or even sane at all right now, from any outside point of view. Just a question, are they going to let Trump rule for these whole four years? Or will someone say "ok enough's enough, this guy is crazy as fuck, let's get rid of him"? Surely, before it's too late? How does this process work? AFAIR Clinton got impeached for way less than what Trump has already done on public record (not literally the same, but it's not far either, and frankly the other offenses--ignorance and stupidity in the light of global politics, not just a little, also not political-discourse "fake ignorance", he honestly doesn't seem to be aware of basic 20th century history facts--way worse from a political POV) Sorry that's a bit off topic cause what you refer to is not really about Trump--much (it was about the elections a little, though). The point is, one of the largest powers in the world just put a crazy person in charge. Trump's probably not really dumb, no he's very savvy, but the people should expect more from their political leaders. It's not supposed to be an easy job. I get the feeling that complaints about Wikileaks' editorialising also just contains a lot of saying what it is, and people don't like to hear that when it's about them. Because they love America. Thing is, it's not really about them, so don't worry. It's not like the people got a lot of democratic choice in the matter. Could they have done more? Maybe but the system's big and complex and controlled by other parties than the people. Even before, when it was between Hillary or Trump, you gotta wonder, out of all the population, were these the two best candidates in the country?

mysterypie 9y ago

> Correction: As per well-sourced Wikipedia article[3], this was not the `mega.nz` leak, this was another subsequent one. Is it too humiliating to write, "Oops, sorry, I just realized that this was not the `mega.nz` leak, but a subsequent one"? Why do people like to switch to passive third-person voice to avoid admitting the tiniest little error? I see this a lot with lawyers. It doesn't really fool anyone and makes the little mistake look worse.

eequah9L 9y ago
That "Oops, sorry, I just realized" is all implied by that "Correction:". It's more pithy like that. Your parent is not saying "mistake was made", "I was led to believe" or what not, which would be passive third-person voice, sneakily trying to shift the blame. Instead, the fact that a mistake was made is clearly communicated through an additional corrective edit. Seems appropriate for a correction of such minor point.
parent5446 9y ago
The entire comment is written in third-person. The correction is simply following the same pattern as the original text. I really don't think the author was trying to avoid any blame on the mistake. This is maybe reading a little too deeply into it.

angry-hacker 9y ago

The wikileaks hysteria is ridiculous, it's on par with lunatics believing Jews control the world. Since when spreading conspiracy theories became normal? The stupid American elections have ruined everything, everything is fake news, everything is fascism, everything is Kremlin.

willstrafach 9y ago
People do not know the history of Assange, so they'll assume there are witting RU ties, whereas in reality he just apparently hates the USA and would like to cause as much damage as possible by publishing content with no journalistic value + posting misleading analysis.
- angry-hacker 9y ago
  You're brainwashed, Assange is more "American" in his values than any of the politicians you have had, and have provided more journalistic value, for the past 20 years.
  - willstrafach 9y ago
    > You're brainwashed Not sure I understand. Releases like Vault7 have no journalistic value, their sole use is causing damage to the government.
- Grangar 9y ago
  Even if such a thing were true. In his position, wouldn't you?
  - willstrafach 9y ago
    To be clear, I am not saying I don't understand his motivation in that position, only pointing out that it explains the senseless disclosures more than the theory of WL doing it to benefit Russia.

stefantalpalaru 9y ago

> Shadow Brokers didn't leak to Wikileaks. No, they had no connection and no collaboration on those NSA leaks. The author might be confused by Wikileaks releasing CIA malware right now (they have their own internal NSA clone) or he just wanted an excuse to plug the "may be a front for the Kremlin" bit.