4 ms·

David Leigh publishes Cablegate password in his book

10 points by charlieok 15y ago

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
robhu 15y ago
The blame shouldn't be laid at the Guardian's door. Yes, they intentionally released the password - but they released the password to a file they were told only they had a copy. It's the fault of Wikileaks for releasing a copy of this file in to the wild, and for (as might be implied by the article linked to) using the same passwords repeatedly.
- charlieok 15y ago
  You raise good points. As the events demonstrate, it is extremely unwise to take such an over-the-top unnecessary risk with such a critical password.
- mentat 15y ago
  Assuming you have the only copy of any file that has been exposed on the Internet is unwise. If you got a copy of it over the network using an unsecured protocol then there's a significant chance others did too.
Jamiecon 15y ago
I believe that they also told the Guardian that the password was "time limited", whatever that means. There was probably some melodramatic chat about it self destructing in 10 seconds. I don't see The Guardian as being on the hook for this.
- charlieok 15y ago
  I'd guess Assange meant that the download link he was providing was "time limited". I don't know how you'd time limit the password itself. It isn't as if I could send you an encrypted file, with a key that will only decrypt that file for that day. Even if Assange had made absolutely sure to destroy any copy he had of the file which used that key (which would have been a Good Idea), he could not guarantee that some router on the internet didn't store a copy of the entire download session. Regardless of how the blame is distributed, the decision to publish such a sensitive password in such a public manner still stands out to me as the most boneheaded single action in the entire saga.
  - Jamiecon 15y ago
    Yeah, when you put it like that I see your point. Publishing the password was a silly thing to do. But I can't get angry about the reporter being non-technical. Most people are non-technical. To me, it was the responsibility of Wikileaks to secure the information, and to guide the Guardian to do the same. It seems they failed in that respect which, given their record of disorganisation and technical failures, doesn't surprise me.
    - charlieok 15y ago
      Well, Assange did try to drive home the importance of protecting the password. He wrote down most of it and made Leigh memorize the rest, creating a "something you have" factor and a separate "something you know" factor. Assange didn't want to give them access to the cables at all, but relented when they demanded it in negotiations with him. He then made them sign a contract to protect the information [1]. Clearly this wasn't enough though. [1] http://wikileaks.org/IMG/pdf/Guardian_Letter_for_Package_3.pdf http://wikileaks.org/IMG/pdf/Guardian_Letter_for_Package_3.p...
Jamiecon 15y ago
A minor nitpick, but the author also breathlessly describes how he realises he was one of the "few people in the world" to have access to this information, in spite of the whole reason it is available in the first place being the breadth of its distribution within the US military. It seems that no one can avoid getting drawn in to the Le Carré-esque intrigue and excitement that seems to infest this whole saga.
- charlieok 15y ago
  True, that does detract from it
tzs 15y ago
Maybe someone should explain to Wikileaks how to use GPG. The failure here is that Wilileaks used a single password to protect a file that was distributed to multiple parties, meaning that multiple people had to maintain a shared secret.

10 points by charlieok 15y ago

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

robhu 15y ago

The blame shouldn't be laid at the Guardian's door. Yes, they intentionally released the password - but they released the password to a file they were told only they had a copy. It's the fault of Wikileaks for releasing a copy of this file in to the wild, and for (as might be implied by the article linked to) using the same passwords repeatedly.

charlieok 15y ago
You raise good points. As the events demonstrate, it is extremely unwise to take such an over-the-top unnecessary risk with such a critical password.
mentat 15y ago
Assuming you have the only copy of any file that has been exposed on the Internet is unwise. If you got a copy of it over the network using an unsecured protocol then there's a significant chance others did too.

Jamiecon 15y ago

I believe that they also told the Guardian that the password was "time limited", whatever that means. There was probably some melodramatic chat about it self destructing in 10 seconds. I don't see The Guardian as being on the hook for this.

charlieok 15y ago
I'd guess Assange meant that the download link he was providing was "time limited". I don't know how you'd time limit the password itself. It isn't as if I could send you an encrypted file, with a key that will only decrypt that file for that day. Even if Assange had made absolutely sure to destroy any copy he had of the file which used that key (which would have been a Good Idea), he could not guarantee that some router on the internet didn't store a copy of the entire download session. Regardless of how the blame is distributed, the decision to publish such a sensitive password in such a public manner still stands out to me as the most boneheaded single action in the entire saga.
- Jamiecon 15y ago
  Yeah, when you put it like that I see your point. Publishing the password was a silly thing to do. But I can't get angry about the reporter being non-technical. Most people are non-technical. To me, it was the responsibility of Wikileaks to secure the information, and to guide the Guardian to do the same. It seems they failed in that respect which, given their record of disorganisation and technical failures, doesn't surprise me.
  - charlieok 15y ago
    Well, Assange did try to drive home the importance of protecting the password. He wrote down most of it and made Leigh memorize the rest, creating a "something you have" factor and a separate "something you know" factor. Assange didn't want to give them access to the cables at all, but relented when they demanded it in negotiations with him. He then made them sign a contract to protect the information [1]. Clearly this wasn't enough though. [1] http://wikileaks.org/IMG/pdf/Guardian_Letter_for_Package_3.pdf http://wikileaks.org/IMG/pdf/Guardian_Letter_for_Package_3.p...

Jamiecon 15y ago

A minor nitpick, but the author also breathlessly describes how he realises he was one of the "few people in the world" to have access to this information, in spite of the whole reason it is available in the first place being the breadth of its distribution within the US military. It seems that no one can avoid getting drawn in to the Le Carré-esque intrigue and excitement that seems to infest this whole saga.

charlieok 15y ago
True, that does detract from it

tzs 15y ago

Maybe someone should explain to Wikileaks how to use GPG. The failure here is that Wilileaks used a single password to protect a file that was distributed to multiple parties, meaning that multiple people had to maintain a shared secret.