Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Verifying Wikileaks DKIM-Signatures

solsticlipse.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 38 posts

Re: Verifying Wikileaks DKIM-Signatures

#21

Post by protomyth »

tdb7893 wrote: post #19
protomyth wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Project Veritas has waited a couple of days each time and released the whole video with no cuts. That little quote is the refrain spoken to dismiss the video, but doesn't take into account that they do release the whole run unlike major news channels as we found out with the creative editing Katie Couric did recently.

I wasn't aware of that. I'll have to look at the whole videos later

The basic tactic is release the clip, watch for the "its edited, that's not what I said" response, then release the full video with even worse stuff in it. I really think in this day and age, its a really good template for anyone doing investigative reporting. Plus, it works fine with click advertising since it creates two waves per video.

Re: Verifying Wikileaks DKIM-Signatures

#22

Post by nickpsecurity »

protomyth wrote: post #21
tdb7893 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wasn't aware of that. I'll have to look at the whole videos later

The basic tactic is release the clip, watch for the "its edited, that's not what I said" response, then release the full video with even worse stuff in it. I really think in this day and age, its a really good template for anyone doing investigative reporting. Plus, it works fine with click advertising since it creates two waves per video.

Well, with you putting it that way, I can't say too much against the tactic. :) It's actually quite similar to what I wanted to convince courts to allow as a default in the event that they don't already. That is to let me withhold a smoking gun on a case where they might get low charges or punishment due to technicalities. Let them argue their case with lies to the court. Then, show the smoking gun with a follow-up of perjury to keep them from dodging a significant punishment.

How feasible does that sound? I know people do it to themselves accidentally but not sure if judges would allow the tactic intentionally by a non-prosecutor.

Re: Verifying Wikileaks DKIM-Signatures

#23

Post by protomyth »

nickpsecurity wrote: post #22
protomyth wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The basic tactic is release the clip, watch for the "its edited, that's not what I said" response, then release the full video with even worse stuff in it. I really think in this day and age, its a really good template for anyone doing investigative reporting. Plus, it works fine with click advertising since it creates two waves per video.

Well, with you putting it that way, I can't say too much against the tactic. :) It's actually quite similar to what I wanted to convince courts to allow as a default in the event that they don't already. That is to let me withhold a smoking gun on a case where they might get low charges or punishment due to technicalities. Let them argue their case with lies to the court. Then, show the smoking gun with a follow-up o…

Not sure on the court tactic, but I get the feeling the video tactic is more a "give them the rope" style that is often used in court by lawyers during examination.

Re: Verifying Wikileaks DKIM-Signatures

#24

Post by dooglius »

gregschlom wrote: post #5
dooglius wrote: post #2

I didn't realize the signatures were leaked as well. Surprised nobody has looked at this yet, if we have cryptographic proof that certain emails are genuine, that shoots down a big counter-argument of "what if some emails are planted".

> if we have cryptographic proof that certain emails are genuine, that shoots down a big counter-argument of "what if some emails are planted". Huh, no? I don't see how that follows logically. If we have cryptographic proof that all email are genuine, then yes. Right now we already know that some (most?) email are genuine. The question is whether or not the attacker, who was obviously motivated by political purposes,…

Good point, but we know specifically which emails are genuine, and which may or may not be. Any particular email that isn't signed is questionable, but we can say for any given email whether or not it might be a fake.

Re: Verifying Wikileaks DKIM-Signatures

#26

Post by tedunangst »

nickpsecurity wrote: post #22
protomyth wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The basic tactic is release the clip, watch for the "its edited, that's not what I said" response, then release the full video with even worse stuff in it. I really think in this day and age, its a really good template for anyone doing investigative reporting. Plus, it works fine with click advertising since it creates two waves per video.

Well, with you putting it that way, I can't say too much against the tactic. :) It's actually quite similar to what I wanted to convince courts to allow as a default in the event that they don't already. That is to let me withhold a smoking gun on a case where they might get low charges or punishment due to technicalities. Let them argue their case with lies to the court. Then, show the smoking gun with a follow-up o…

As far as I know, only the prosecution has an obligation to provide exculpatory evidence. That said, if you wait to half way through your murder trial to produce the video of the one armed man stuffing the body in your trunk, that probably sets you up for interfering with a police investigation, or aiding and abetting, etc.

Re: Verifying Wikileaks DKIM-Signatures

#27

Post by agwa »

pbarnes_1 wrote: post #25

DKIM only signs headers. This is bunk. Move along.

You're wrong. As you can see on page 31 of RFC6376, the signature clearly covers a hash of the message body:

https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6376#page-31

It's possible to hash only a prefix of the body by specifying the 'l' parameter in the DKIM header field, but this is unusual and the email used as example in this blog post does not use the 'l' parameter.

Re: Verifying Wikileaks DKIM-Signatures

#28

Post by washadjeffmad »

protomyth wrote: post #10
dzdt wrote: post #3

Yes, the interesting thing would be if any emails with controversial content can be verified. I don't think there were any real bombshells in the wikileaks emails, but still...

"I don't think there were any real bombshells in the wikileaks emails, but still..." Yes, there are quite a few bombshells. There are now tags of twitter about specific e-mails. If you are a Bernie Sanders fan, then the level of betrayal and cheating is astounding. Never mind the e-mails that shows the staged violence at Trump rallies. If this was a Republican candidate, it would be criminal charge time with the Proj…

If you rely on an honest, ethical democratic process, what those fools did was astounding. Sharing values with people like Bernie Sanders is just icing on the cake.

Re: Verifying Wikileaks DKIM-Signatures

#29

Post by tdb7893 »

protomyth wrote: post #20
tdb7893 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This pretty much just shows that some people in the DNC were kinda biased and played politics. It's literally their job to do what they think is best for the party and that seems to be what they are doing (whether I agree with them is a different matter but currently besides the point).

I'm pretty sure a Bernie Sanders supporter would say this goes way beyond that. Leaking plans from one candidate to another is beyond best for the party.

That's a fair assessment, my current thought is that it was a crappy thing to do but is essentially what the party infrastructure is supposed to do (I supported Sanders by the way). What it really drives home to me is that I wish that there was a setup that allowed more than 2 parties so if they started supporting candidates I didn't like I could just switch to a party that isn't just the exact opposite of the one I am already in. It seems to me that the winner take all nature of the current system necessitates consolidation of parties.

Re: Verifying Wikileaks DKIM-Signatures

#30

Post by zardeh »

protomyth wrote: post #20
tdb7893 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This pretty much just shows that some people in the DNC were kinda biased and played politics. It's literally their job to do what they think is best for the party and that seems to be what they are doing (whether I agree with them is a different matter but currently besides the point).

I'm pretty sure a Bernie Sanders supporter would say this goes way beyond that. Leaking plans from one candidate to another is beyond best for the party.

IDK, as a bernie voter in the primary, I don't see this as surprising or problematic, at least not if I'm reading these correctly.
Post reply on HN