WIkileaks Release 16

It's a game of chess and a good one , plus we all know when the game ends ,
In poker we have only seen the flop .

Turn card in the next few days ,
Than the river card !

Let's see who comes up trumps ?a reply to: StarsInDust

a reply to: StarsInDust

I've had the same suspicion. Wikileaks integrity relies on their information being accurate. One, just one false leak and they are through. It's no secret and surely the weakest link. The weakness would be exposed given the opportunity.

originally posted by: StarsInDust

I would disregard any of the new emails as not being valid at this point in time. Wikileaks has been acting strange in their twitter and website responses.

a reply to: digital01anarchy


I have had this fear myself. I would be very cautious about what is coming out right now. Until I see an image of Julian with today’s newspaper. I think everything now could be suspect. Our own government may have even been the ones pretending to be Julian the other day during the cyber -attacks telling everyone to stop attacking our internet. So sad...

or you could be on CTR payroll.

unless you have some proof, keep it out of threads like this, focused on the leaks.

...or our own government could have been behind the attacks the other day...
Interesting battle going on HERE--NOW: twitter.com...

a reply to: IAMTAT

not that stupid kid again. i thought twitter has banned him already.

let's stay on topic, shall we?

originally posted by: jedi_hamster
a reply to: IAMTAT

not that stupid kid again. i thought twitter has banned him already.

let's stay on topic, shall we?

0HOUR1 vs. JESTER...in a hacker battle to 'out' one or the other? I think it is germane to the topic.

a reply to: IAMTAT

0HOUR1 runs his mouth too much. From what I know of hackers, the serious ones anyway, tend not to talk so much.

It is an interesting back and forth, and at this point I'm not sure, but I don't pay much attention to what 0HOUR1 has to say. He's gone of the reservation too many times.

Reminds me of the 80s or 90s film wargames

This article from the Daily Caller, in regards to the authenticity of the Wikileaks email pertaining to Donna Brazille, claims that through cryptography, it was determined to be authentic..

Now what they discuss in the article is WAY over my head, I was wondering if any more proficient in knowledge could verify, confirm or deny what is claimed in the article? If it is confirmed to be a tool to authenticate the WL emails, wouldn't that be of help?

dailycaller.com...

a reply to: JacKatMtn

I have heard my son talking about this not long ago, but given it went over my head I had to go searching...

Digital signatures are the public-key primitives of message authentication. In the physical world, it is common to use handwritten signatures on handwritten or typed messages. They are used to bind signatory to the message. Similarly, a digital signature is a technique that binds a person/entity to the digital data. This binding can be independently verified by receiver as well as any third party. Digital signature is a cryptographic value that is calculated from the data and a secret key known only by the signer. In real world, the receiver of message needs assurance that the message belongs to the sender and he should not be able to repudiate the origination of that message. This requirement is very crucial in business applications, since likelihood of a dispute over exchanged data is very high.

www.tutorialspoint.com...

Still a bit over my head. But ya....she's caught.

originally posted by: JacKatMtn
This article from the Daily Caller, in regards to the authenticity of the Wikileaks email pertaining to Donna Brazille, claims that through cryptography, it was determined to be authentic..

Now what they discuss in the article is WAY over my head, I was wondering if any more proficient in knowledge could verify, confirm or deny what is claimed in the article? If it is confirmed to be a tool to authenticate the WL emails, wouldn't that be of help?

dailycaller.com...

It's also not Brazile's first time getting in trouble...Dukakis fired her in 1988. She is a real piece of work....making false accusations about Bush having an affair during the Dukakis campaign but not a peep about HRC and Billy Boy's bed adventures with others.

Brazile Dukakis 1988

Well I hope that this can be confirmed as a TOOL for folks with the skill, to authenticate any of the leaked emails that are important.. I have been a bit wary of WL since that 1hour twitter person surfaced, and perhaps this tool could be a hedge against any attempt to push FAKE/HOAX documents out of WL, should it be compromised by outside actors..

a reply to: JacKatMtn

Wikileaks already does this as does most law enforcement. Wikileaks calls it a forensic analysis here..

WikiLeaks staff examine all documents and label any suspicions of inauthenticity based on a forensic analysis of the document, means, motive and opportunity, cost of forgery, what the authoring organization claims and so on. We have become world leaders in this and have an enviable record: as far as can be determined, we have yet to make a mistake. This does not mean we will never make a mistake, but so far, our method is working and we have a reputation to protect.

https://__._/wiki/WikiLeaks:About

Imagine the work load that this very small organization has.

originally posted by: JacKatMtn
Well I hope that this can be confirmed as a TOOL for folks with the skill, to authenticate any of the leaked emails that are important.. I have been a bit wary of WL since that 1hour twitter person surfaced, and perhaps this tool could be a hedge against any attempt to push FAKE/HOAX documents out of WL, should it be compromised by outside actors..

signature is a signature. it couldn't be faked, unless someone had access to Hillary's server and stole the key.

so no. those emails were not modified.

a reply to: JacKatMtn
Gmail using DKIM is legit. If it helps, you can learn a bit more about public-key cryptography here. On a quick search there are at least two Python packages related to that.

Here's a bit more about how verify DKIM with Python.

Yeah, looks legit.

a reply to: Socrato

You have to know that if he turns himself in, they are going to kill him. Trump won't even get a chance to pardon him which brings me to my next point. Hillary will win. Dude, I HATE HER but either she will actually be voted in or the DNC will steal the election. They took notes from W's "win", dontchaknow. So no. I don't see Julian trusing anyone and rightfully so.

a reply to: jedi_hamster

That "stupid" kid knew Assange was safe 48 hours before the press did.

a reply to: Denoli

It was the eighties and I agree.

a reply to: Steak

Why are you posting pictures of a reptile in a wikileaks thread?