Slashdot Mirror
Has WikiLeaks Morphed Into A Malware Hub? (backchannel.com)
Slashdot reader mirandakatz writes:
In releasing an unredacted database of emails from the Turkish party AKP, WikiLeaks exposed the public to a collection of malware -- and even after a Bulgarian security expert pointed this out publicly, the organization only removed the select pieces of malware that he identified, leaving well over a thousand malicious files on the site.
That AKP leak also included the addresses and other personal details of millions of Turkish women, not unlike the recent DNC leak, which included the personal data of many private individuals. WikiLeaks says this is all in the name of its "accuracy policy," but the organization seems to be increasingly putting the public at risk.
The article opens with the question, "What the hell happened to WikiLeaks?" then argues that "Once an inspiring effort at transparency, WikiLeaks now seems more driven by personal grudges and reckless releases of information..."
That AKP leak also included the addresses and other personal details of millions of Turkish women, not unlike the recent DNC leak, which included the personal data of many private individuals. WikiLeaks says this is all in the name of its "accuracy policy," but the organization seems to be increasingly putting the public at risk.
The article opens with the question, "What the hell happened to WikiLeaks?" then argues that "Once an inspiring effort at transparency, WikiLeaks now seems more driven by personal grudges and reckless releases of information..."
Betteridge's law of headlines is an adage that states: "Any headline that ends in a question mark can be answered by the word no." It is named after Ian Betteridge, a British technology journalist, although the principle is much older.
Betteridge's law of headlines - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Once an inspiring effort at tech news, Slashdot now seems more driven by marketing and reckless government propaganda...
I've really been trying to avoid adding to the growing cries of "Slashdot has turned into a dirty mouthpiece for the FBI/NSA/name-your-TLA," but the stream of agenda-laden hit pieces littering up the front page doesn't seem to be slowing. -PCP
Yes. Let's shut it down. And ban encryption.
There are these security agencies that do their best to protect us all from bad things. We are lucky to have them in situations like this.
Which personal grudge does Wikileaks represent?
Should Wikileaks not release information given to it because it belongs to someone that it opposes?
If Wikileaks removed malware from email then it would be editing the raw information given to it. Wikileaks's goal is to provide raw information, unlike that of mainstream journalism.
It's not Wikileaks's role to scan email for viruses or prevent us from getting the raw data given to it.
Wikileaks doesn't represent any political position aside from the push for the freedom of information. It doesn't choose what information is given to it and information given to it is released once verified to be authentic.
The question you should be asking is of the people that supply and have the potential to supply information to Wikileaks, what grudges do those people have?
If they had a grudge against you and sent information to Wikileaks, would it be Wikileaks that has the grudge or the people that send the information?
I really don't care.
Wikileaks is the only place around that still fights against corporations and governments. No one else does, and its always going to be lined up and screwed with to try and stop this from happening.
Can any headline that ends in a question mark be answered by the word no?
Blah Blah Blah...
Basically Wikileaks has nobody there who is competent enough to actually implement a security framework for the site.
So, as a result, it basically becomes a dumping ground for all this crap.
Thus, when examples are pointed out to them, all they can do is nix the examples.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
I don't suppose you've considered the possibility that there's real value in being able to review an unredacted email database from the perspective of "given the malware specimens noted in these archives, here's a possible list of other parties who may have already had access to this data weeks/months/years ago." -PCP
"Once an inspiring effort at transparency, WikiLeaks now seems more driven by personal grudges and reckless releases of information..."
Wikileaks was always about embarrassing people.
AKP is awfully close to APK.
-SR
When they leak shit about people you don't like: "...an inspiring effort at transparency..."
When they leak shit about people you support: "...driven by personal grudges and reckless releases of information..."
-Styopa
who infected slashdot with cnn
Yes, the answer to this question is no
Basically Wikileaks has nobody there who is competent enough to actually implement a security framework for the site.
So, as a result, it basically becomes a dumping ground for all this crap.
Thus, when examples are pointed out to them, all they can do is nix the examples.
Wikileaks has withstood countless efforts to get their site offline, sometime by dedicated groups and/or state sponsored actors. You may remember how all hell broke loose with cablegate, including DDOS and Senator Lieberman's call to Amazon. Calling Wikileaks incompetent at security is completely ridiculous.
I bet that the whole thing went down like this: author of this backchannel article wanted to rag on Wikileaks for their dissemination of personal details, and wanted to bring up email #117 as prime example (medical bill!!) and got infected herself for lack of security competence. Author then contacted some security outfit to perform a security evaluation, security outfit performed a simple virus scan. Author then cooked up a click bait article, how Wikileaks is out there to recklessly infect everyone with malware.
Let's face it: Wikileaks is plenty competent securitywise, as evidenced by their very presence for so many years. They expect their readers, especially professional journalists scouring their site to bring at least a moderate skill set to the table, and Mrs. Upson apparently failed miserably.
The sources of the leaks are agenda driven. If wikileaks does not release the leak, is is evil. If wikileaks edits the leak before release, it is evil. If wikileaks does not edit the leak before release, it is evil.
The only possible conclusion is that Wikileaks is supporting agendas, and is evil.
Discuss.
It's been a long while since Wikileaks was a scruffy little band of freedom fighters. Unfortunately, they've become an outfit used by oligarchs, intelligence services and dictators to settle scores, gain advantage and destroy enemies. And this happened partially because Julian Assange understandably developed something of a martyrdom complex while he was hiding from rape charges and allowed his self-regard to run out of control and is now easily manipulated. It's all pretty predictable if you look at the dramatic arc of the story.
Wikileaks changed the world, and changed along with it, trivializing their mission and becoming what they were trying to defeat. They've been co-opted and are now they're a joke that posts online polls of the US presidential race. They've become Breitbart. They've become Gawker without the accountability. They're just another organization of online trolls.
https://twitter.com/wikileaks/...
You are welcome on my lawn.
Please tell me which kind of general public will download and open any kind of leaked information from Wikileaks, and then I'll worry.
On second thoughts, if that happened, it would mean that the public had started going to the source of the news to build their own opinions. So a couple of viruses would be a small price to pay for such a positive development.
Rome taught me patience and assiduous application to detail. Virtues which temper the boldness of great, general views.
if you cant understand why wikileaks did that then you need to ask yourself why some of us already knew of these exploits and never sad anything as well...
you ask whom watches the watchers ...WE DO...
APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-4 32/64-bit https://www.google.com/search?...
Ads rob speed, security (malvertising), privacy (tracking).
Hosts add speed (hardcodes/adblocks), security (bad sites/poisoned dns), reliability (dns down), & anonymity (dns requestlogs/trackers) natively.
Works vs. caps & PUSH ads.
Avg. page = big as Doom http://www.theregister.co.uk/2... & ads = 40% of it.
Hosts != ClarityRay blockable (vs. souled-out to admen inferior wasteful redundant slow usermode addons)
Less power/cpu/ram + IO use vs. DNS/routers/addons/antivirus (slows you) + less security issues/complexity.
Compliments firewalls (blocking less used IP addys vs. hosts blocking more used domains) & DNS (lightens dns load).
Gets data via 10 security sites.
APK
P.S. - Safe https://www.virustotal.com/en/... (Verified by Malwarebytes' S. Burn "seen the code & it's safe" http://forum.hosts-file.net/vi... )
When it comes to accuracy of published information, Wikileaks record is perfect. In contrast, what we get from (almost) all of western media is mostly crap and propaganda - latest DNC leaks debacle is perfect example of how western media operates. Including slashdot which also joined chorus of propaganda that was intended to shift DNC leaks debacle from its content to 'mysterious hacker who works for Russia'. Slashdot's parent corporation seems to be fully in the pockets of american estabullshitment these days. What next ? Will slashshit be pushing for war with Russia in concert with other mainstream media ?
Good does come out of Wikileaks. But Assange's primary purpose is to make Assange feel important and keep him in the news.
Is that something we care about?
You could say that about anyone doing good or trying to change the world. Hell, you could say that about Jesus.
The implication is that "he's not all that great", when in fact he's changed the political landscape a little, and for the better.
Yeah, right. He's not all that great, let's pick any complicated edifice anywhere and consider it from any one of myriad points of view and we'll come up with at least one thing that paints it in a negative light.
You weigh the good with the bad and if things come out overall good you say it's an improvement, not point out how it misses some sublime point of perfection.
Basically Wikileaks has nobody there who is competent enough to actually implement a security framework for the site.
Quick question: When you say that there is no security framework on the wikileaks site, what are you referring to?
Come on guys - Wikileaks seems to have morphed into just another media outlet for Putin and his cronies. Are you guys so blind to not understand that everybody seems only to blame America and it's allies for all the bad in the world? This is no longer political hacktivism - Wikileaks actively supports the agenda of foreign governments. This is supposed to make the world a better place? Thanks - but no thanks.
What personal information. Only the last four digits of credit card numbers. Or, are you more concerned with their hit on the DNC...
It's a data dump.. as it always has been.. and you should be careful when examining unknown data? I don't know, just a hunch.
The best thing about wikileaks is that normal people don't read it. Normal people read news headlines, from generic news sources, which eventually have resources to filter out the REAL news from leak websites. I expect those to do some sort of filtering. Now why you have to go and blame wikileaks from something they state, from the very start, they want to do on purpose... Snowden is definitely a good example of a guy who wanted stuff outted cleanlu, filtered out and redacted where it effectively didn't help anyone might hurt innocent or even hamper stuff that he didn't deem needed hampering. Since he knew he was not capable of it, he went to decent publications like the Guardian and asked for help, and decided to out stuff periodically. Wikileaks decides not to do so this way, and that is their prerrogative. There are benefits and consequences for both ways.
Doubt wiki leaks would get this kind of flack for releasing similar insights on Republicans - that the establishment is a bunch of people selling out the US constitution and democratic processes to the highest bidders. But given how mobocracy works, it's no surprise to see wiki leaks being so impugned .
Which is fascinating. On the one hand, a theory could be that wikileaks was kind of a bad idea from the start, which is why there have been no more competent competitors or alternatives in that space. On the other hand, a theory could be that a massive conspiracy of targeted corrupt judicial persecution has resulted in the present situation of Assange holed up in an embassy for years, and that the absence of more competent alternatives is a direct result of a well reasoned fear of massive scale political persecution, including entrapment and containment amongst other political bloodsport.
By reading the information about turkish women, para medics had thought I had slipped into a coma. I'm cured!
Turkey? Look no further than the DNC for anyone trying to destroy Wikileaks reputation. Julian Assange basically just took a big dump on Hillary Clinton's front door and set it on fire. Suddenly Wikileaks suddenly becomes a malware hub right afterward. What a strange coincidence.
See subject: It's enough for me to know I've done right by others giving them more speed, security, reliability & anonymity online doing FAR more for FAR less + more than ANY other SINGLE "so-called 'solution'" that's either crippled by default "souled-out" to advetisers (e.g. almostALLadsblocked) OR full of security holes (antivirus) & yes, even firewalls (that are generally mostly limited to IP address blocks, which is far less used in attacks than host-domain names that most threats utilize).
YES even for advertisers - whose creations ARE truly the root of all evil for their personal gain motivated by the REAL root of all evil (money)... they can also use hosts for the same benefits (they do, for testing usually)
* That's good enough for me...
APK
P.S.=> I invite you all to do the same OR BETTER (when you have abilities you have the opportunity to do good things with them (or not)) - imo, it's your duty as a human being! apk
So, you're saying they turned into Anonymous?
Beware of Sales Reps bearing gifts.
What happened is Assange embarrassed Clinton and the DNC. Suddenly, wikileaks' searchable content is declared to be full of malware, so voters musn't look at it.
"That AKP leak also included the addresses and other personal details of millions of Turkish women, not unlike the recent DNC leak, which included the personal data of many private individuals."
That APK guy really gets around!
It's obvious he/she/it doesn't use Luddite apps to moo at cows.
Like the truth? So it comes with malware, does it make the information less true?
Over-entitled privileged idiots, and Snowden, et al who were eventually shown to be just like them. The solution is the elimination of so called "open" forums and their replacement with those tied to real identities because real laws are just as applicable to online actions, yet the illusion of anonymity prevents all restraint.
It'd be pretty easy to organize a release to WikiLeaks with tons of malware. It's pretty obvious that these organizations are not necessarily operating with the best interest of the public in mind, and do not want any oversight.
So, they hopped into bed with that great lover of libertarian freedom, Vlad Putin, and suddenly their releases contain a lot of malware . . .
If I were a fascist dictator I would love to have a location where a lot of journalists and security researchers would be drawn to and DL from. I could find out who was interested in what and maybe even gain access to a bunch of their PCs. Nice work boys!