And as a follow-up, will you send WikiLeaks an email asking them to do
   the same with the version mirrored at
   [1]Cryptome.wikileaks.org/frontpage ? Course not - because the whole
   thing is ridiculous. Paranoia is poison when it's out of proportion,
   and the computing power needed to fake the files, hashes and
   cryptographic signatures is WAY out of proportion to any gain from it,
   which is hypothetical at best.

   Sent from my iPhone

   On Nov 28, 2015, at 5:57 PM, Michael Best <[2]themikebest@gmail.com>
   wrote:

     The archives should prominently display this disavowal and name the
     archive "Cryptome-Disavows-This-Corrupt-Archive."

   Is that how you'll label and name the files when you send them out?

   Seriously, John, this is getting a little ridiculous. Is it really that
   easy to fake a hash and sig while making thousands of files appear to
   be what it's supposed to be and still add up and hash correctly?

   Sent from my iPhone

   On Nov 28, 2015, at 5:49 PM, John Young <[3]jya@pipeline.com> wrote:

   Cryptome disavows mirrors of its archive, all of them, due to ease
   and evidence of tampering with files, hashes, signatures and insertion
   of implants by the host, platform, route, service or all.
   The archives should prominently display this disavowal and name the

     archive "Cryptome-Disavows-This-Corrupt-Archive."

   At 05:10 PM 11/28/2015, you wrote:

     cryptome-nov2015.tar.bz  76GByte Nov 28 05:58 sha256

     22572573c0538e09bf554f475f3113fbbd33920e2bf6691f65450ea8e2333edb

     [ seeding... plz wait... ]

     Content-Type: image/png; name="cryptome-nov2015.png"

     Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="cryptome-nov2015.png"

     X-Attachment-Id: f_ihjnir3o0

References

   1. http://cryptome.wikileaks.org/frontpage
   2. mailto:themikebest@gmail.com
   3. mailto:jya@pipeline.com