Re: [cryptome] Re: [cryptome]

newer
Re: Introduce randommess in...

older
[cryptome] Re: [cryptome]

Shelley

10 Oct 2015 10 Oct '15

12:22 a.m.

On October 9, 2015 4:51:44 PM Jeremy Compton 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@gmail.com To: cryptome@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 To: "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?

Show replies by date

Mirimir

10 Oct 10 Oct

1:10 a.m.

New subject: [cryptome] Re: [cryptome]

On 10/09/2015 06:22 PM, Shelley wrote:

...

On October 9, 2015 4:51:44 PM Jeremy Compton 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.

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?

...

-S

...
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2015 19:11:50 -0400 Subject: [cryptome] From: themikebest@gmail.com To: cryptome@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 To: "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?

Shelley

1:21 a.m.

New subject: [cryptome] Re: [cryptome]

On October 9, 2015 6:16:10 PM Mirimir 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?

When the logs have been distributed by Cryptome via USB and torrents as part of the archive for over a year? Yeah, it's fair game. Note that he removed those files once JY finally gave an explanation.

Mirimir

2:24 a.m.

New subject: [cryptome] Re: [cryptome]

On 10/09/2015 07:21 PM, Shelley wrote:

...

On October 9, 2015 6:16:10 PM Mirimir 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?

When the logs have been distributed by Cryptome via USB and torrents as part of the archive for over a year? Yeah, it's fair game.

If that's true, JYA was being either unimaginably stupid, or unimaginably weird. Still, there was no need to publish the logs just to make a point. Redacted excerpts and hashes of the files would have been enough, no?

...

Note that he removed those files once JY finally gave an explanation.

True. But publishing them was still unwarranted.

Shelley

2:38 a.m.

New subject: [cryptome] Re: [cryptome]

On October 9, 2015 7:30:28 PM Mirimir wrote:

...

On 10/09/2015 07:21 PM, Shelley wrote:

...
On October 9, 2015 6:16:10 PM Mirimir 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?

When the logs have been distributed by Cryptome via USB and torrents as part of the archive for over a year? Yeah, it's fair game.

If that's true, JYA was being either unimaginably stupid, or unimaginably weird. Still, there was no need to publish the logs just to make a point. Redacted excerpts and hashes of the files would have been enough, no?

He did post a redacted version. Then JYA accused him of everything from faking the data to being a spy. When we post about vulns on FD/ wherever, we follow the process of notifying and following up before posting publicly - which we only do when devs or corps refuse to acknowledge or outright deny. Right? That's exactly how he went about it, and then was attacked in a most nonsensical manner (we didn't even get a notorious JYA poetic diatribe!) In addition, as previously mentioned, these datasets have been in the wild for > 1yr. As someone who may have found my own data in the access logs, I still say he did the right thing.

...

...
Note that he removed those files once JY finally gave an explanation.

True. But publishing them was still unwarranted.

coderman

4:05 a.m.

New subject: [cryptome] Re: [cryptome]

On 10/9/15, Mirimir wrote:

...

... hashes of the files would have been enough, no?

to bring this full circle, and almost on topic, "... as long as they're not SHA-1 hashes!!" [0] ♬ ♪♪ CYBER `DUBSTUB` MUSIC PLAYS ♪♪ ♬♬♬ (•_•) ( •_•)>⌐■-■ (⌐■_■) 0. "The SHAppening: freestart collisions for SHA-1" - https://sites.google.com/site/itstheshappening/

coderman

3:58 a.m.

New subject: [cryptome] Re: [cryptome]

On 10/9/15, Mirimir 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?

JYA's mirror shades are motivating, for sure :P

...

I mean, JYA can be a very funny man. For sure. But does that justify publishing Cryptome access logs?

access logs existing is reason enough to publish them. i enjoyed publishing them in the summer 2013; fine vintage. also publishing them in 2014 bigsun corpus, still aged nicely. that said, i too would publish for more JYA funny! best regards,

3268

Age (days ago)

3268

Last active (days ago)

List overview

Download

6 comments

3 participants

participants (3)

coderman
Mirimir
Shelley