6 ms·

Source or object code? The article doesn't specify.

by rw 16y ago

steveklabnik 16y ago
Upvoted: I thought I specifically saw 'source' in there, but going back, it just says 'a copy.' There are also things like this: http://anonleaks.ru/email1.html http://anonleaks.ru/email1.html
- gwern 16y ago
  Almost surely. Who has the source to Stuxnet? Whatever American or Israeli agency commissioned it. Anon has no connection to them. Their sole connection is to a small security company, which has no connection to the unknown agency either. All they would have is access to is whatever is in the wild - the compiled binary.
- adrianwaj 16y ago
  Am I wrong, but are most leaks on Wikileaks US-centric information, or are they the only leaks that get press? We're talking about leaks that don't do much for freedom. Leaks that are a small part of a bigger political game. Can Anonleaks or Anon people actually get and publish information about oppressive regimes, atrocities and cover-ups (maybe publish on wikileaks itself)... stuff that is unlikely to leak by whistle blowing attempts alone? Maybe content from the UN HRC, which they don't do anything about, and instead focus on Israel. Ugly corporate activities would be interesting: environmental and human catastrophes in mining, arms, energy and pharmaceutical businesses. Imagine all the shit going on in China right now, or conspired manipulation of global financial markets, or rigged elections in supposed democracies: to me this is much more important than Aaron Barr's emails or the Stuxnet source. It is clear that Anonymous are potent, but how can that be directed so that the Anon mind can be a powerful force for good: white-hat hacking with less ego and more conscience.
  - perokreco 16y ago
    Wikileaks publishes what people send it. There has been a bunch of non US stuff in the past.
joe_the_user 16y ago
The article pretty much specifies that it's just a Stuxnet copy. There seems to be no basis for HN headline.

Source or object code? The article doesn't specify.

by rw 16y ago

Source or object code? The article doesn't specify.

Upvoted: I thought I specifically saw 'source' in there, but going back, it just says 'a copy.' There are also things like this: http://anonleaks.ru/email1.html http://anonleaks.ru/email1.html

gwern 16y ago
Almost surely. Who has the source to Stuxnet? Whatever American or Israeli agency commissioned it. Anon has no connection to them. Their sole connection is to a small security company, which has no connection to the unknown agency either. All they would have is access to is whatever is in the wild - the compiled binary.
adrianwaj 16y ago
Am I wrong, but are most leaks on Wikileaks US-centric information, or are they the only leaks that get press? We're talking about leaks that don't do much for freedom. Leaks that are a small part of a bigger political game. Can Anonleaks or Anon people actually get and publish information about oppressive regimes, atrocities and cover-ups (maybe publish on wikileaks itself)... stuff that is unlikely to leak by whistle blowing attempts alone? Maybe content from the UN HRC, which they don't do anything about, and instead focus on Israel. Ugly corporate activities would be interesting: environmental and human catastrophes in mining, arms, energy and pharmaceutical businesses. Imagine all the shit going on in China right now, or conspired manipulation of global financial markets, or rigged elections in supposed democracies: to me this is much more important than Aaron Barr's emails or the Stuxnet source. It is clear that Anonymous are potent, but how can that be directed so that the Anon mind can be a powerful force for good: white-hat hacking with less ego and more conscience.
- perokreco 16y ago
  Wikileaks publishes what people send it. There has been a bunch of non US stuff in the past.

joe_the_user 16y ago

The article pretty much specifies that it's just a Stuxnet copy. There seems to be no basis for HN headline.