Wikileaks under dos attack

[Obelix]

They actually provide a signature of a set length. It basically just adds the numeric values of the data in a cascading one way fashion. But is separate to the data (file) in question.

 

I don't actually think that's what he meant - there is a comma there...

[spooky3]

I don't actually think that's what he meant - there is a comma there...

 

But neither methods do!

 

Encrypting them would, but that's not been suggested or would do the job!

[Lotusflower]

My father would turn over in his grave if he knew that as he also served in the Signals and he was a loyal Englishman along with it

 

That is precisely the sort of response I have come to expect of you Harleyman. :hihi:

[Harleyman]

I was only obeying orders....

 

That's right obeying orders. What's complicated about that? No one is forced to join the army these days. If one has some problem with that then stay out

 

Personally I have no problem with gays in the military and when i served with the british army as far back as 1960-62 there were three known in my unit

 

On one occasion I was left back at base during a unit field exerecise. Each barrack room housed 8 soldiers but myself and a cook in the Catering Corps were the only ones left in the room.

Sometime during the night a soldier from another barrack room came into our room and he, whoever he was and the gay cook starting to go at it hammer and tongs in the darkness.

I was enraged at their obvious indifference to my feelings and mulled over either getting up, putting the lights on and kicking both their asses out of the room or instead notifying the sergeant of the guard and getting them tossed in the guard house. In the end I decided on neither course of action due to the fact that I had a very short time left to serve and didnt want to be held back from returning to UK and instead being called as a witness at a court martial.

 

I should be prejudiced because of that but I'm not probably because it happened so long ago.

[Harleyman]

That is precisely the sort of response I have come to expect of you Harleyman. :hihi:

 

I try not to let you down Swami

[Lotusflower]

I try not to let you down Swami

 

But you do Harleyman...consistently.

 

For nigh on 3 years I have endeavoured to engage in a reasonable and "grown-up" debate with you on a variety of issues. All you can do is don your "Captain America" uniform and wave your flag in my face and indulge in puerile insults. :hihi:

[taxman]

That's right obeying orders. What's complicated about that?

 

That all depends on what the order is. If you think blind obedience is better than individual conscience or moral integrity then you would have done well in Mai Lai.

[Obelix]

But neither methods do!

 

Encrypting them would, but that's not been suggested or would do the job!

 

A message digest with somehting like RIPE-160 or SHA256 will easily show if the messages have been changed - that's what hash functions are for.

[spooky3]

A message digest with somehting like RIPE-160 or SHA256 will easily show if the messages have been changed - that's what hash functions are for.

 

Yes, but it doesn't indicate when the hash was made, who made it, or who will ultimately verify it or verify them even.

 

When I dl a linux distro, I dl it from one source and get the hash from another source.

 

 

It's why web browsers have public keys of providers installed, because the weakness is when exchanging keys, because of man in the middle attacks, same applies to hashes, if I intercepted the data I could change it, make a new hash and just pass it on...

 

A hash on it's own is not security!

[Phanerothyme]

Yes, but it doesn't indicate when the hash was made, who made it, or who will ultimately verify it or verify them even.

 

When I dl a linux distro, I dl it from one source and get the hash from another source.

 

 

It's why web browsers have public keys of providers installed, because the weakness is when exchanging keys, because of man in the middle attacks, same applies to hashes, if I intercepted the data I could change it, make a new hash and just pass it on...

 

A hash on it's own is not security!

 

No this is a much more complex and subtle system designed to trace the point source of a security leak.

 

It involves each document being altered using sophisticated linguistic techniques so that each edition is unique, yet carries no apparent trace of a signature or identifying mark.

 

The document can be part transcribed, read over the phone, scribbled on the back of a napkin and dictated to a computer, and you'd still be able to tell whose copy the leaks originated from.

 

Obviously the longer the document the easier it is. And it only works on human readable plaintext.

 

I'm not suggesting that this has been used in the WL cables, nor indeed do I think that the DoD uses PKC on a sytematic level, otherwise Pfc Manning would have been caught after his first leaks back in 2007.