More pictures of the Bahnhof datacenter, from the pingdom blog. http://royal.pingdom.com/2008/11/14/the-worlds-most-super-de...
Inside the Fortified, Nuke-Proof Bunker that's Now Hosting Wikileaks
31–40 of 55 posts
Re: Inside the Fortified, Nuke-Proof Bunker that's Now Hosting Wikileaks
#32Earlier quoted context omitted.
They get an easy pass. The idea of this ever going to Amazon in the first place just seems extraordinarily ill-conceived: There was no way it was going to stay up. Wikileaks is pursuing a remarkably old-school method of releasing these, with the whole centralized distribution point. They should release the entire set via P2P with collections symmetrically encrypted. They could then -- via the most rudimentary methods…
I wonder why they're not doing that.
There was a insurance.zip floating around a while ago. I don't think they've released the keys yet...
Re: Inside the Fortified, Nuke-Proof Bunker that's Now Hosting Wikileaks
#33Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wonder why they're not doing that.
Even better, they should encrypt with a method that is reasonably, large-scale crackable around the window of their planned release. That would bring a lot of attention to cryptography (and the vulnerability of the same) as every media organization rents out massive AWS GPU clusters to try to crack it. That would be pretty entertaining. And if something happened to them...well it's going to be discovered anyways.
> the vulnerability of [cryptography]
Well, no. Competently done crypto is uncrackable for all practical purposes without side-channel attacks. Or, maybe, quantum computers (RSA; but why would you use RSA for this?)
Re: Inside the Fortified, Nuke-Proof Bunker that's Now Hosting Wikileaks
#34Can anyone with more technical knowledge comment on this facility's connectivity to the internet, and how damage-resistant that is? If someone were to forcibly take Wikileaks offline, I would think internet connectivity would be the easiest attack vector, especially if they're located in a remote bunker which probably limits their options.
We're not quite at the level where anyone is going to risk war by throwing cruise missiles into a major metropolis just to shut down Wikileaks...
Re: Inside the Fortified, Nuke-Proof Bunker that's Now Hosting Wikileaks
#35"...one wonders why Swedish Bahnhof would take on the challenge of hosting a site that will probably be under permanent attack for the foreseeable future. Unless it's for the PR value" That's a good example of allowing one's imagination of possibilities to wander over very short distances. Is it that inconceivable that a company might be motivated by something other than the bottom line? Arvinjoar commented earlier o…
In the reception area of that particular server hall, they have a small, wall-mounted box labeled "FRA collaboration point" (FRA being the Swedish equivalent of NSA, more or less). From that box, two cut cables are sticking out. :-)
Re: Inside the Fortified, Nuke-Proof Bunker that's Now Hosting Wikileaks
#36Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think you were referring to these, but there are actually a few windowless, fortified concrete skyscrapers in New York that were built as telephone switching centers. Here's one in Lower Manhattan that is 29 stories: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/33_Thomas_Street They were likewise designed to withstand nuclear fallout. Because telephone switching equipment has shrunken over the years they now rent out some of…
That building looks like something right out of blade runner.
The article calls it 'extreme brutalism'
Re: Inside the Fortified, Nuke-Proof Bunker that's Now Hosting Wikileaks
#37I think now is an appropriate time to mention "When Sysadmins Ruled the Earth": http://baens-universe.com/articles/when_sysadmins_ruled_the_...
Re: Inside the Fortified, Nuke-Proof Bunker that's Now Hosting Wikileaks
#38No bunker is really completely nuke-proof - even Cheyenne mountain had multiple SS-18s with single 25 megaton warheads targeted at it - it would not have survived.
You might survive a near miss or fallout in a bunker - but in the age of precision delivered and/or high yield bombs nowhere is 100% safe.
Re: Inside the Fortified, Nuke-Proof Bunker that's Now Hosting Wikileaks
#39Is this a black eye for Amazon, or do they get a pass due to the pressure that we assume was applied to them as a company domiciled in the USA?
Arguably some of the material on Wikileaks violates Amazon's acceptable use policy. For example, you can't use Amazon services to host things that are violations of privacy.
It's also possible that some of the materials violate copyright, and so hosting it would violate Amazon's AUP. Works authored by government employees within the scope of their employment will be public domain so most of the material is probably OK, but is all of it?
Finally, under the law on the books, I believe it is illegal to make much of the material available, and hosting illegal content violates the AUP. (And could get Amazon in trouble). It is possible that under the Supreme Court decision in the Pentagon Papers case that the First Amendment would override that.
I say "possible" because it doesn't seem at all certain to me. That case was largely, I seem to recall, about prior restraint, and it was kind of a fuzzy decision.
Amazon just wants to host stuff. If there is some serious question over whether it is legal or not, I don't think they want (or should be expected to want) to be the ones to deal with that fight--that's for whoever wants to actually publish the documents.
Re: Inside the Fortified, Nuke-Proof Bunker that's Now Hosting Wikileaks
#40Back in the late 1960s, and early 1970s, AT&T built a series of nuke resistant bunkers. The typical specs were concrete walls 36" thick, self contained turbine generators, water and air purification, plus rations to last up to 6 months. Some of those facilities are still around and operating (including one not far from me). I would expect that the switching gear of todays vintage takes up much less space and power th…
I don't know about now, but my father spent Y2K in an AT&T bunker as "essential personnel." So my guess is they are probably still in use. Not necessarily because of the nuke resistant part so much as self contained with generators and on-site security measures.