As cyber war rages against WikiLeaks' enemies, WikiLeaks itself may already have concocted...

[Renew Deal]

As cyber war rages against WikiLeaks' enemies, WikiLeaks itself may already have concocted an explosive contingency plan

Vengeful denial-of-service attacks on PayPal, MasterCard, and Visa in support WikiLeaks amount to an unprecedented cyber war. The "anonymous" vigilantes no doubt see themselves as valiant defenders of WikiLeaks and its freedom to let loose whatever it wants to disclose.

But does WikiLeaks really need help? As has been previously reported, WikiLeaks has taken out an insurance policy in the form of a 1.4GB AES-encrypted file that was originally released on various BitTorrent sites and is still available. Nobody knows what that file may contain except the creators.

This is pure speculation, but if I was planning this out, that big encrypted archive would contain several smaller encrypted archives. Each would have a different key, with inflammatory file names like "Proof of 9/11 coverup" or "Missing White House Emails, 2000-2007." There'd be little sense in making this insurance file a one-shot deal.

Then there's the method of key distribution. I imagine there are several servers socked away all over the globe, probably running services that have nothing to do with WikiLeaks, and each holding one or more decryption keys. The systems would be connected to one another via a series of heartbeats, and one or more of those servers would be able to cause the release of one or more keys -- triggered either by a direct signal, such as an email containing a passphrase, a Twitter post, or the absence of such a signal over a period of time.

I'd wager it's the latter. I wouldn't be surprised if WikiLeaks has created a dead man switch.
<snip>

http://www.infoworld.com/t/leak-prevention/does-wikileaks-need-its-defenders-or-does-it-have-its-own-cyber-insurance-828

[Recursion]

1. They've pretty much admitted to a dead man's switch

They've said they "do something" every day to keep the key from being released.

[yodermon]

2. Did they really say that? I've been assuming it but didn't know they were on record.

I also like the idea of "nested" encrypted documents, so each successive release gives them more leverage.

[Recursion]

5. It's, what, a gig and a half?

Assuming they used OpenSSL in its default settings, that means it's been Huffman compressed before it was enciphered (allow me also to express surprise that they used AES rather than, say, Twofish). Now, how big it was before depends on what it was. Most video, audio, and image formats don't get appreciably smaller (they're generally already compressed as far as the entropy will let them), but text gets much smaller after -- if these are text-based files, we're talking about a factor of five or so. But binary files are more likely, since they can be authenticated (more or less).

It's also possible the whole thing is a huge bluff.

To your question: I know I read that, but I can't find the quote this second. If I do I'll post it here or PM you.

[glinda]

3. Assange must never be turned over to the US. Never. There will

not be a fair trial, there will be no safety for him. Let alone anyways but turning him over to our Government is a death sentence.

[Newest Reality]

4. I agree. And what does that statement you made say

about all of us here? What are we subject to?

Those are rhetorical questions.

[glinda]

8. I know.

[RickFromMN]

6. Doesn't Europe oppose the death penalty?

Won't Europe refuse to extradite a person if the death penalty is a possibility?

If I do a google search: Europe death penalty extradition
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extradition
http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/EN/Treaties/Html/024.htm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jul/08/abu-hamza-human-rights-ruling

It would be a cruel twist of irony if the act of classifying Assange a terrorist,
and claiming his actions warrant the death penalty, prevents his extradition.

[glinda]

7. US will attach the word "terrorist" to Assange no matter where he is. This allows

for assassination.
No one should trust our Government's treatment of him. No one.