4 ms·

> No such "offer" was extended dawgnetwork@jabber.ccc.de 2010 03 08 15 55:28 any good at lm hash cracking? pressassociation@jabber.ccc.de 2010 03 08 16:00:29

> No such "offer" was extended dawgnetwork@jabber.ccc.de 2010 03 08 15 55:28 any good at lm hash cracking? pressassociation@jabber.ccc.de 2010 03 08 16:00:29 yes pressassociation@jabber.ccc.de 2010 03 08 16:02:23 we have rainbow tables for lm dawgnetwork@jabber.ccc.de 2010 03 08 16:04:14 80c11049faebf441d524fb3c4cd5351c … dawgnetwork@jabber.ccc.de 2010 03 08 16:05:07 I think its lm + lmmnt … dawgnetwork@jabber.ccc.de 2010 03 08 16:09:06 not even sure if thats the hash...l had to hexdump a SAM file,since I dont have the system file... pressassociation@jabber.ccc.de 2010 03 08 16:10:06 what makes you think its lm? pressassociation@jabber.ccc.de 2010 03 08 16:10:19 its from a SAM? dawgnetwork@jabber.ccc.de 2010 03 08 16:10:24 yeah pressassociation@jabber.ccc.de 2010 03 08 16:11:26 passed it onto our lm guy dawgnetwork@jabber.ccc.de 2010 03 08 16:11:40 thx > Cite the transcript entries where this alleged encouragement happened. dawgnetwork@jabber.ccc.de 2010 03 08 06:31:42 after this upload,thats all I really have got left pressassociation@jabber.ccc.de 2010 03 0806:32:15 curious eyes never run dry in my experience

naasking 5y ago
> No such "offer" was extended Yes I'm familiar with the exchange. I ask again, where is the offer to crack the password exactly? Assange claims an ability to crack, and claims that he passed the hash on, but notice the complete absence of promises to attempt to crack, or statements of intent to use it to compromise computer systems, or corroborating evidence that Assange actually passed it on or actually attempted to crack the password. Assange could be lying or exaggerating or any number of other things. And you think this constitutes sufficient evidence for an indictment? If so, you have really low standards of evidence. > Cite the transcript entries where this alleged encouragement happened. And where is the encouragement? All I see is you projecting an unjustified interpretation. Even if I steelman your position and we both agree that Assange was encouraging further leaks, are you suggesting that a journalist cannot ask their sources to continue feeding them information? Because if so, you are suggesting we indict every journalist with a source.
- CRConrad 5y ago
  Yeah, because neither you nor Assange have the faintest idea what "that's implied" might mean, right? "All he claims is the ability..." Yeah, and "Nice place you got here, would be a shame if anything happened to it" is just preemptive commiseration, not at all an implicit threat. Pull the other one, it's got bells on.
  - cookie_monsta 5y ago
    > "Nice place you got here, would be a shame if anything happened to it" Well of course, everybody knows for it to be a real extortion attempt first you have to fill out a 543B detailing payment options, severity of firebombing in case of failure to comply and ancillary terms & conditions. Otherwise it's just a couple of guys exploring some hypotheticals like they do on HN and Reddit all the time. Honestly, if this is what the defense is going to look like it's not hard to see why they're reluctant to try it out in front of a judge.

naasking 5y ago

> No such "offer" was extended Yes I'm familiar with the exchange. I ask again, where is the offer to crack the password exactly? Assange claims an ability to crack, and claims that he passed the hash on, but notice the complete absence of promises to attempt to crack, or statements of intent to use it to compromise computer systems, or corroborating evidence that Assange actually passed it on or actually attempted to crack the password. Assange could be lying or exaggerating or any number of other things. And you think this constitutes sufficient evidence for an indictment? If so, you have really low standards of evidence. > Cite the transcript entries where this alleged encouragement happened. And where is the encouragement? All I see is you projecting an unjustified interpretation. Even if I steelman your position and we both agree that Assange was encouraging further leaks, are you suggesting that a journalist cannot ask their sources to continue feeding them information? Because if so, you are suggesting we indict every journalist with a source.

CRConrad 5y ago
Yeah, because neither you nor Assange have the faintest idea what "that's implied" might mean, right? "All he claims is the ability..." Yeah, and "Nice place you got here, would be a shame if anything happened to it" is just preemptive commiseration, not at all an implicit threat. Pull the other one, it's got bells on.
- cookie_monsta 5y ago
  > "Nice place you got here, would be a shame if anything happened to it" Well of course, everybody knows for it to be a real extortion attempt first you have to fill out a 543B detailing payment options, severity of firebombing in case of failure to comply and ancillary terms & conditions. Otherwise it's just a couple of guys exploring some hypotheticals like they do on HN and Reddit all the time. Honestly, if this is what the defense is going to look like it's not hard to see why they're reluctant to try it out in front of a judge.