- cypherpunks - lists.cpunks.org

Re: [cryptome] Re: [cryptome]
by Shelley 10 Oct '15

10 Oct '15

On October 9, 2015 4:51:44 PM Jeremy Compton <j.compton(a)outlook.com> wrote: > I am not surprised that GCHQ does what you claim it does. > Have you read about this from the beginning? If so, you'd know that Mike Best is not the one claiming that the GCHQ slide is real. He is trying to establish whether nearly anyone could have made the slide with the logs Cryptome leaked/distributed/whatever, unwittingly or otherwise. That's all, and I don't know how a researcher trying to verify data has become a giant shitstorm. -S > Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2015 19:11:50 -0400 > Subject: [cryptome] > From: themikebest(a)gmail.com > To: cryptome(a)freelists.org > > To the original point, the GCHQ Snowden slide. Cryptome accusing me of > faking the data was a diversion. Only had to verify it because of the GCHQ > slide. > From: Jeremy Compton <j.compton@xxxxxxxxxxx>To: "cryptome@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" > <cryptome@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>Date: Sat, 10 Oct 2015 12:00:48 +1300So, now you > have named and shamed Cryptome for this grievance you have, whereto > know? >

3 6

[cryptome] Re: [cryptome]
by Michael Best 10 Oct '15

10 Oct '15

> > Sorry. I had forgotten that. But once it was clear that multiple copies > were out there, I don't get the point of publishing your own copy. Maybe > by then, it was a moot point. And still, it was a bad move, if only for > you, in that you come across as imprudent. You realize John refused to acknowledge or fix the leak at that point, and would have continued to mail them out - right? And at that point, it was only clear to me since John denied it? I'd say that stubbornness was far more imprudent and damaging, and is the only thing that made posting the list necessary. Especially once John started saying I was a liar and accusing me of all sorts of things.

1 0

Re: [cryptome] Re: [cryptome]
by Michael Best 10 Oct '15

10 Oct '15

And so how should I have proved they were real, since John called it fake (either a lie of omission by refusing to check or a deliberate lie to conceal)?? On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 10:30 PM, Mirimir <mirimir(a)riseup.net> wrote: > On 10/09/2015 08:20 PM, Michael Best wrote: > >> > >> Publishing them was still unwarranted. You could have published a > >> redacted version. You could have polled this list, and verified selected > >> lines. Whatever. Yes, JYA was being a jerk. But still ... > > > > *Umm, I *did* post a redacted version first.* JYA said it was faked > > and refused to verify it until days after it had been published in its > > entirety. I even told him before hand that if he didn't verify it, I'd > > have to post it. He still called it disinfo and fake until well after > > it'd been released and confirmed as the files being un multiple > > releases, including an old torrent. > > Sorry. I had forgotten that. But once it's clear that multiple copies > are out there, I don't get the point of publishing your own copy. Maybe > by then, it's a moot point. It was still a bad move, if only for you. > > > On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 10:15 PM, Mirimir <mirimir(a)riseup.net> wrote: > > > >> On 10/09/2015 07:19 PM, Michael Best wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Maybe because Mike _published_ the fucking logs, just because JYA was > >>>> doing the mirror shades thing about whether the archive was or was not > >>>> genuine? I mean, JYA can be a very funny man. For sure. But does that > >>>> justify publishing Cryptome access logs? > >>> > >>> > >>> I published them to verify the data, *AFTER JYA publicly accused me of > >>> FAKING it.* I only raised the point of the logs because of the GCHQ > >> slide. *If > >>> *John had verified it a week earlier, or not accused me of faking data > >>> (with ZERO evidence, and the data turns out to be legit) *they never > >>> would've been published. * > >> > >> Publishing them was still unwarranted. You could have published a > >> redacted version. You could have polled this list, and verified selected > >> lines. Whatever. Yes, JYA was being a jerk. But still ... > >> > >> > > >

1 0

Re: [cryptome] Re: [cryptome] Yay: [cryptome]
by coderman 10 Oct '15

10 Oct '15

On 10/9/15, Shelley <shelley(a)misanthropia.org> wrote: > ... I don't know how a researcher trying to verify data has become a > giant shitstorm. the precariousness of life is exactly why i savor such enjoyments, such as this turd turbulence in the absurdist library... :P best regards,

1 0

[cryptome] Cryptome has been leaking its user logs for over a year
by Michael Best 09 Oct '15

09 Oct '15

Writing this at 01:23 AM, please forgive any typos or editing errors. I'm updating the page to clarify that coderman is not bandmon. Thank you for clarifying, coderman. The piratebay torrent is, I believe, made from the zoinks torrent listed in places like https://mailman.stanford.edu/pipermail/liberationtech/2014-September/014344… http://liberationtech.stanford.narkive.com/arhyVT9j/data-mine-the-snowden-f… and https://www.reddit.com/r/onions/comments/2afpmi/how_to_obtain_a_cryptome_ar… If that torrent isn't based on your release, with a hash of F5763EB5C5FFD8B40B9047CF72350D320A59BDAC <https://zoink.it/torrent/F5763EB5C5FFD8B40B9047CF72350D320A59BDAC.torrent>, then it may be a different release from yours. If you can check that and let me know, I'll update the post to make sure that it's accurate as far as involving you. (If possible, please check for the files in your own copy of the Cryptome archive. /USB-1.rar/Disk 2/07-Cryptome-org-13-0702-cartome-directory.zip/awstats) Thanks for correcting my mistake, coderman - sorry for incorrectly assuming that you were bandmon. *coderman* coderman(a)gmail.com <coderman%40gmail.com?Subject=Re%3A%20%5Bcryptome%5D%20Cryptome%20has%20been%20leaking%20its%20user%20logs%20for%20over%20a%20year&In-Reply-To=%3CCAJVRA1TAeEfByH4n%3DOUyBVQZJT%2BgBK4yENjjtTBwmxGN_wbH4A%40mail.gmail.com%3E> *Thu Oct 8 21:42:07 EDT 2015* >* It's important to note that the logs were not just found in the USBs > John *>* Young/Cryptome sent to me, but in the ones sent to "bandmon", > who unless *>* I'm mistaken is coderman(a)gmail.com <coderman(a)gmail.com> * > i'm not sure who bandmon is, but they're not coderman(a)gmail.com. i > would however be amenable to uploading a list of sha-256 digests to > verify components of similarity between the torrent and origin. >* > https://thepiratebay.mn/torrent/11113511/Cryptome_archive_2014-06-02 > <https://thepiratebay.mn/torrent/11113511/Cryptome_archive_2014-06-02> * >* > It was my strong preference **not** to post this, but since Cryptome has * > >* refused to validate the data, there is no other way to authenticate it > than *>* to release it to the public along with how to find that > information in the *>* Cryptome USBs/CDs and their various mirrors. * > actually one may cross reference with their own requests and circuits, > for high confidence of legitimacy. i find it apropos to now quote the > original disclaimer in full: > ''' > This is a trap, witting and unwitting. > Do not use it or use at own risk. > Source and this host is out to pwon and phuck you in complicity > with global Internet authorities. > ... > Signed Batshit Cryptome and Host, 9 July 2014, 12:16ET." > - cypherpunks/2014-July/005020.html, and true for FY-2014, too. > ''' best regards,

2 3

Cryptome admits they leaked their logs (WAS: [cryptome] Cryptome has been leaking its user logs for over a year)
by Michael Best 09 Oct '15

09 Oct '15

Most up to date version: http://that1archive.neocities.org/subfolder1/cryptome-admits-leak.html Before reading this, I recommend reading my first post raising concerns that the alleged GCHQ Cryptome slide from could be a mockup <http://that1archive.neocities.org/subfolder1/gchq-cryptome-slide.html>, followed by my disclosure of Cryptome's leaked user logs <http://that1archive.neocities.org/subfolder1/cryptome-leaked-logs.html>. After refusing to comment <http://web.archive.org/web/20151009170831/https:/twitter.com/Cryptomeorg/st…>, denying it, accusing it of being disinfo <http://web.archive.org/web/20151009170829/https:/twitter.com/Cryptomeorg/st…>, accusing me of stealing data <http://web.archive.org/web/20151007134316/https:/twitter.com/Cryptomeorg/st…>, accusing me of being a newbie advertising for a spy job <http://web.archive.org/web/20151009170826/https:/twitter.com/Cryptomeorg/st…>, declaring that it was "a campaign" against them <https://cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/2015-October/009681.html>, accusing me of faking data <http://web.archive.org/web/20151008125804/https:/twitter.com/Cryptomeorg/st…>, declaring that all logs leak and they pay for the internet <http://web.archive.org/web/20151009170824/https:/twitter.com/Cryptomeorg/st…>, and deleting my post <https://twitter.com/NatSecGeek/status/651907692081115137> to the Cryptome mailing list <https://cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/2015-October/009684.html> alerting them to the leak, Cryptome has acknowledged that the leaked logs I found were legitimate. John Young/Cryptome then thanked me, which is apology enough for all the accusations. Date: Fri, 09 Oct 2015 11:54:05 -0400 To: Michael Best From: John Young Subject: Cartome AWStats *You were right about AWStats data. Not the stats for Cryptome itself but for the Cartome sub-directory, for four months, November 2009-February 2010. Included in a full site restoration by ISP NetSol after a full shutdown in June 2013.The stats have been deleted from the Cryptome archive. Probably best to not expose visitors' data further but then nothing can be fully deleted or hidden.Thanks for discovering and reporting in this.Publish this message if you like.Regards,John* Immediately after receiving his email, I deleted the stat files from my website. They were only published to force verification and public disclosure about the leak. Now that it has been acknowledged, there's no point in continuing to distribute them. If John provides a new cryptographically signed Cryptome archive file without those logs, I will replace the one hosted on Archive.org with the new, sanitized version. Note that .7z may be best to prevent the archive's deriving process (it makes individual files within the zip viewable) from making changes to the .zip file which can cause it to no longer match the hash/cryptographic signature. What does this mean for the slide that seems to show GCHQ spying on Cryptome.org? According to John Young's email, the leak is limited to the Cartome sub-directory which would not include the Eyeball directory. However, the time frame matches up perfectly and does include the time period the slide appears to show. Determining whether or not the leak ever included the Eyeball directory, and why NetSol's glitch only restored those four months of the Cartome's stats to the Cryptome archive while trying to view a random selection of the leaked files on the online server failed, requires more information from NetSol, Cryptome's ISP. Inquiring about those details from NetSol and disclosing them falls entirely to John Young and Deborah Natsios. Presumably, John Young would have disclosed if a similar leak had been found relating to the Eyeball directory, but it remains possible that the information might have been deleted from the Cryptome archive prior to 2014-06-02 <https://thepiratebay.se/torrent/11113511/Cryptome_archive_2014-06-02> without John realizing it had already leaked. More information will be required before those possibilities can be excluded. As of the time of this posting (13:45 Eastern October 9, 2015), John Young has not added anything to his website, twitter account, or mailing lists disclosing the now confirmed leak to his users. He did remove the graphic advising his users that the GCHQ was/is allegedly monitoring them. <http://web.archive.org/web/20151007140432/https:/twitter.com/Cryptomeorg/st…>

2 4

Cryptome flip flops then edits their Wikipedia page. Again. (WAS Re: Cryptome admits they leaked their logs)
by Michael Best 09 Oct '15

09 Oct '15

After denying the leaked logs, then acknowleding them, then denying them again, Cryptome edits their own Wikipedia page. *Again.* https://twitter.com/NatSecGeek/status/652593111881908224 Next time, raise issues on the article's talk page with sources. This isn't the first time and it's a major breach of protocol for Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest This is the first time Wikipedia's watchlist has caught an edit I found interesting. --Mike On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 4:51 PM, Michael Best <themikebest(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Here is Cryptome's full set (so far) of post-admission replies. I'm unable > to make anything consistent out of it. > > "Admission of leaked logs" is rather generously overstated of what we > specifically understated. > https://twitter.com/Cryptomeorg/status/652581186036989953 > Me: You understated things? As in, left something(s) out?? > Cryptome: Told what was needed to defuse your exaggeration and resist > your demands to auth visitors. > https://twitter.com/Cryptomeorg/status/652585088912355328 > > Note that Cryptome doesn't dispute the email that I quoted, which was copy > and pasted in it's entirety. > > > Rigged and disinfo remain valid. You overstated the disclosure. Leaking is > press exaggeration. > https://twitter.com/Cryptomeorg/status/652581918215684096 > > Nothing is ever deleted, that is subterfuge to escape culpability. You > ratted Cryptome visitors. Not the first or last. > https://twitter.com/Cryptomeorg/status/652582251805474816 > *Note that Cryptome is definitely NOT using subterfuge to escape > culpability or advising users of the data leak/breach/compromise/whatever > spin word Cryptome wants to use. > > Still refusing to validate what you faked, rigged and released. And will > not, it's your story, run with it. > https://twitter.com/Cryptomeorg/status/652583921352355840 > > Our claims remain valid despite the biased cherry-picking so beloved of > childish argumentum ad hominem -- Cicero's bitch. > https://twitter.com/Cryptomeorg/status/652579919340421120 > > > On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 4:45 PM, coderman <coderman(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 10/9/15, Michael Best <themikebest(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> > ... >> > Not sure how I was right AND the info is rigged and disinfo... >> >> QUANTUMSQUIRREL casts suspicion, just like shade, too. >> > >

1 0

Re: The GCHQ Cryptome slide could be a mockup/disinfo
by Michael Best 09 Oct '15

09 Oct '15

I don't know but if I had to guess, it's because they have no reason to get into more specific and lesser charges until/unless it looks like he might be coming to trial. Then again, it's not the first time a slide has been challenged: http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/12/11/us-germany-usa-spying-idUSKBN0JP1… Germany's top public prosecutor said an investigation into suspected > tapping of Chancellor Angela Merkel's mobile phone by U.S. spies had so far > failed to find any concrete evidence. > Revelations by former National Security Agency employee Edward Snowden > that Washington carried out large-scale electronic espionage in Germany > provoked widespread outrage -- particularly the allegation that the NSA had > bugged Merkel's phone. > Harald Range launched an official investigation in June, believing there > was enough preliminary evidence to show unknown U.S. intelligence officers > had tapped the phone, although there was not enough clarity on the issue to > bring charges. > On Wednesday he said however, > *"the document presented in public as proof of an actual tapping of the > mobile phone is not an authentic surveillance order by the NSA. It does not > come from the NSA database."There is no proof at the moment which could > lead to charges that Chancellor Merkel's phone connection data was > collected or her calls tapped."* > Range said neither a reporter for German news magazine Spiegel who > presented the document, nor Germany's BND foreign intelligence agency, nor > Snowden had provided further details to his office. >From the German prosecutor, not an NSA spokesperson. *Plus*, as I said in the post - *Snowden didn't see all the materials he leaked*. If the document was forged and not legitimate or a mockup produced by GCHQ for proposal purposes, etc., it could have been modified or fabricated *after* Snowden gave up his trove. Did you read the entire post, or just decide that "If he's not a Snowden-ite, he's probably a liar or a bad man"?? *Georgi Guninski* guninski(a)guninski.com <guninski%40guninski.com?Subject=Re%3A%20The%20GCHQ%20Cryptome%20slide%20could%20be%20a%20mockup/disinfo&In-Reply-To=%3C20151009134945.GA2643%40sivokote.iziade.m%24%3E> *Fri Oct 9 09:49:45 EDT 2015* > Why they don't charge Snowden for fabricating/photoshoping?

1 0

Snowden on the Twitters
by grarpamp 09 Oct '15

09 Oct '15

https://twitter.com/Snowden

18 98

[cryptome] Re: Cryptome has been leaking its user logs for over a year
by Michael Best 09 Oct '15

09 Oct '15

Done. If only the headache could be find-replaced as easily! ;)*From*: Shelley <shelley@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> - *To*: <cryptome@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> - *Date*: Thu, 08 Oct 2015 22:59:48 -0700 Mike, While you're updating the post, you might want to change the urls to be all lowercase (there are still DNS issues with caps; links aren't working.)

1 0