Wikileaks Glimpse pt 2.

[blue32]

and for Barfo:



Oh and stay tuned.... there's more.

 

[The Professional Fan]

Can someone explain to me why wikileaks is only targeting Hillary?

 

[bodyman5000 and 1]

Can someone explain to me why wikileaks is only targeting Hillary?

Maybe because Trump's emails are already out there for the world to see. It's called every porn site on the net.

 

[riverman]

Can someone explain to me why wikileaks is only targeting Hillary?

They've been hacked

 

[SlyPokerDog]

So that lady steals children and Hillary eats them.

It's finally starting to make sense!

 

[riverman]

So that lady steals children and Hillary eats them.

It's finally starting to make sense!

but the real question is were the children citizens!!!!!

 

[SlyPokerDog]

but the real question is were the children citizens!!!!!

Everyone knows Americans are the sweetest of all the human meats.

 

[blue32]

So that lady steals children and Hillary eats them.

It's finally starting to make sense!

Nah, it's more about her supporting criminals, yet another strike against her.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Nah, it's more about her supporting criminals, yet another strike against her.

We already knew that.

 

[riverman]

Everyone knows Americans are the sweetest of all the human meats.

High is carbs and sodium

 

[Nikolokolus]

Can someone explain to me why wikileaks is only targeting Hillary?

I think that's an excellent question.

Are wiki leaks motives simply about transparency or more about destabilising our country?

I suspect there's a lot of rooting interests against US hegemony and this could be part of a coordinated effort to tip the balance of power.

Granted, Hillary did this to herself and the Deep State is grossly undemocratic and opaque and is harmful to the long term health of the republic. Trouble is Trump might destroy us completely. There's plenty of historic precedent.

 

[Chris Craig]

They've been hacked

Your telling me they couldn't hack Trump? But, then I guess Trump is already attacking himself...I thought Assange got his internet taken away

 

[blue32]

Lol just better and better...

 

[blue32]

I think that's an excellent question.

Are wiki leaks motives simply about transparency or more about destabilising our country?

I suspect there's a lot of rooting interests against US hegemony and this could be part of a coordinated effort to tip the balance of power.

Granted, Hillary did this to herself and the Deep State is grossly undemocratic and opaque and is harmful to the long term health of the republic. Trouble is Trump might destroy us completely. There's plenty of historic precedent.

They simply want transparency. They are not targeting her and only her. You should visit their site and see the data they have on other things.

 

[Chris Craig]

They simply want transparency. They are not targeting her and only her. You should visit their site and see the data they have on other things.

They aren't targeting Trump...im sure he has some bad stuff in the closet too

 

[blue32]

They aren't targeting Trump...im sure he has some bad stuff in the closet too

I don't think you understand how WikiLeaks works.

They don't target anyone. They simply offer the information that is given to them.

And before you say "RUSSIANS", they've already went on record and said their information for this Clinton fiasco was not from Russia.

 

[riverman]

They simply want transparency. They are not targeting her and only her. You should visit their site and see the data they have on other things.

They've been proven to not be quite as transparent as folks think....WikiLeaks is not the supreme court of world govt.....if you can hack internet info they're sure on the internet. I've visited their page and they list links to periodicals and jouranlist's articles....so because they're on their site, they aren't corruptible? All Hail WikiLeaks......the supreme council of internet law enforcement!!!!! right......

 

[riverman]

I don't think you understand how WikiLeaks works.

They don't target anyone. They simply offer the information that is given to them.

And before you say "RUSSIANS", they've already went on record and said their information for this Clinton fiasco was not from Russia.

you choose to believe them....and that they can't be corrupted...ok....I personally don't give WikiLeaks that much credit....and what did you think the Russians would say?

 

[blue32]

They've been proven to not be quite as transparent as folks think....WikiLeaks is not the supreme court of world govt.....if you can hack internet info they're sure on the internet. I've visited their page and they list links to periodicals and jouranlist's articles....so because they're on their site, they aren't corruptible? All Hail WikiLeaks......the supreme council of internet law enforcement!!!!! right......

You have no idea what you're rambling on about.


Each email contains a unique digital key, which is actually a unique number so huge that it is almost impossible to guess, fake, or copy. The key, which is automatically created by the email server at Clinton’s organization, is added to each email as it is first sent, so that if the message is later altered, the key will show other email servers that the original message did not come from the claimed server, or that it has been altered.
The proper name of the process is “DomainKeys Identified Mail,” which is shortened to DKIM.

DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM) lets an organization take responsibility for a message that is in transit. The organization is a handler of the message, either as its originator or as an intermediary. Their reputation is the basis for evaluating whether to trust the message for further handling, such as delivery. Technically DKIM provides a method for validating a domain name identity that is associated with a message through cryptographic authentication.

The digital keys in the messages fit into a widely used encryption system that is not controlled by Wikileaks or any other group.

When security experts test the Wikileaks’ email keys against the shared encryption system, they find that the emails are unmodified.

The DKIM key is practically impossible to forge, Robert Graham, a principal at Errata Security told Breitbart News.

Readers can conduct the DKIM tests themselves. For example, the commercial email program Thunderbird allows a “DKIM” add-on, which automatically checks the key in each message against the shared encryption system.


http://blog.erratasec.com/2016/10/yes-we-can-validate-wikileaks-emails.html#.WBuhmH-7qHt

 

[riverman]

You have no idea what you're rambling on about.

let's just stop your rambling at "almost impossible"......that makes you think you know what you're rambling on about

 

[barfo]

I don't think you understand how WikiLeaks works.

They don't target anyone. They simply offer the information that is given to them.

And before you say "RUSSIANS", they've already went on record and said their information for this Clinton fiasco was not from Russia.

How would they even know it wasn't originally from russians? Did they do the hacking themselves?

barfo

 

[blue32]

let's just stop your rambling at "almost impossible"......that makes you think you know what you're rambling on about

Sigh, for someone that has served their country, you sure do like to keep your head in the sand.


http://blog.erratasec.com/2016/10/yes-we-can-validate-wikileaks-emails.html#.WBuhmH-7qHt

 

[riverman]

security experts test the Wikileaks’

These guys don't make mistakes eh?

 

[blue32]

These guys don't make mistakes eh?

Readers can conduct the DKIM tests themselves. For example, the commercial email program Thunderbird allows a “DKIM” add-on, which automatically checks the key in each message against the shared encryption system.

edit:

and here are some independent people testing them



Some of the messages failed some DKIM tests but passed also passed other other DKIM tests. Security experts blame the few failures on the process by which Wikileaks’s source may have copied and disseminated the emails. But they warn if a message is validated by even one test, then that message is valid and unchanged.

“There are lots of reasons” why a valid message released via Wikileaks might fail a few DKIM tests, said Graham. For example, the Wikileaks process may drop digits from buried code in the message, he said.

“DKIM is super finicky. If someone at wikileaks accidentally hit tab, or spacebar or whatever and then saved it, that’s enough for DKIM to fail,” said another person checking the emails.

This post on /r/wikileaks brings up that a number of recently released e-mails failed DKIM verification.

I can confirm that the e-mails in this post did fail DKIM verification. (And I thank the user for taking the time to check them and bring it to our attention!) However, there are a number of explanations for this.


This e-mail (25226) is one of the ones that fails DKIM verification.


Fortunately, this e-mail (600) is later in the same e-mail chain. That means everything in e-mail 25226 is included in e-mail 600.

E-mail 600 passes DKIM verification. Therefore, everything in 25226 has been verified by 600.

 

[riverman]

Sigh, for someone that has served their country, you sure do like to keep your head in the sand.


http://blog.erratasec.com/2016/10/yes-we-can-validate-wikileaks-emails.html#.WBuhmH-7qHt

no...I have seen govt corruption first hand and already explained this.....I'm reading your posts and contest your unbridled trust in the WikiLeaks info....that's a choice I make from my experience dealing with classified material during wartime....you don't need to understand why I'm pessimistic about internet leaks or whether or not computer experts can fuck with the info.....I say, more than likely they can. You don't.......so I respect your opinion, but disagree with it....

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

They aren't targeting Trump...im sure he has some bad stuff in the closet too

Trump probably doesnt use email. If he does its probably all caps convos with stewie rah rah.

 

[barfo]

Sigh, for someone that has served their country, you sure do like to keep your head in the sand.


http://blog.erratasec.com/2016/10/yes-we-can-validate-wikileaks-emails.html#.WBuhmH-7qHt

Ok, so what? Yes, Podesta did send and receive emails, and his email was hacked. That's not in dispute.

Not clear what you think DKIM proves.

barfo

 

[blue32]

no...I have seen govt corruption first hand and already explained this.....I'm reading your posts and contest your unbridled trust in the WikiLeaks info....that's a choice I make from my experience dealing with classified material during wartime....you don't need to understand why I'm pessimistic about internet leaks or whether or not computer experts can fuck with the info.....I say, more than likely they can. You don't.......so I respect your opinion, but disagree with it....

Just please read up on the way that these things can be verified, by anyone.


You can't just delete words and shit and then post these things as real. It doesn't work that way.

 

[blue32]

Ok, so what? Yes, Podesta did send and receive emails, and his email was hacked. That's not in dispute.

Not clear what you think DKIM proves.

barfo

That the emails that he sent are real. Exactly what River was suggesting they are not.

 

[riverman]

I know there's corruption in govt.......my question is why does it surprise anyone? Emails, I don't trust to be set in stone....at the bottom of your last post it says....I trust Mozilla....which is a choice...now I don't know much about computer programming or codes granted....but I know a little about classified material and corruption ....to think there's nobody who can alter info because it's been checked....well we used to say that under Nixon too. Don't worry...we've already checked it and now it's ash