4 ms·

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 de

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...

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...