Malicious ZIP archives found in the AKP leak on the Wikileaks site

Combine that with the fact that most people don't want Trump to win, so they're automatically on Clinton's side, and with Clinton's deflection of the DNC hack documents that pointed to election rigging towards who hacked the DNC, and that anti-Wikileaks campaign is suddenly a lot more effective.

So now when other sites write about Wikileaks it's usually from the "Here's 3 more ways in which Wikileaks did something bad" angle.

I so wish the U.S. moved to a proportional representation/multi-party system sooner rather than later. I'm so sick and tired of their extremely partisan crap. It seems to make everything worse off. The partisan reality-distortion fields are getting bigger and more powerful than Apple's in the Steve Jobs era.

Because it's another example of the unconscionable lack of attention to detail that Wikileaks pays when putting out these dumps. Not quite at the level of outing gay Saudis and rape victims (putting them at risk of death), but still just very amateurish.

Because we were pro Wiki Leaks when it helped Sanders. We are now anti Wiki Leaks because it helps Trump. It boils down to that.

Because Wikileaks suggested that when browsers show(ed) a malware warning, it was some kind of conspiracy to censor them. https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/756618117875376129

https://github.com/bontchev/wlscrape/blob/master/malware.md

If a member of the public requested a copy and had their computer infected by a virus, is that the governments fault?

I doubt it was consciously sent to specific powerful figures. "Invoice attached" spam is just shotgunned to the world.

> If Obama had a public email, a large percentage of that would be either infected by something or trying to steal credentials via phishing.

It would, not because he's Obama but because it's email. I see a lot of this in my spam folder, and I'm not important at all, I'm just a reachable address.

When you add in Julian Assange's antisemitism and lack of respect for women, it all makes sense.

Seriously. What has "innocent until proven guilty" devolved into? You're bordering on libel.

Until a court has convicted Appelbaum of the crime of rape, he is not a rapist.

I personally think that the accusations may have a kernel of truth, but are greatly exaggerated by the participants. Only a criminal court is properly equipped with means (both legal and time) to resolve this matter.

If this had been flipped, and he had only published anti-Trump stuff, would you be making the same comment? (Honest question.)

  - Anti-Hillary
  - Anti-Hillary
  - Pro-Trump
  - Pro-Putin
  - Anti-Hillary
  - Opportunistic

Backtrack a few years ago, and it was the Republicans and all their supporters who wanted to tar and feather Assange for the Snowden leaks. Hannity talked about how Assange should be in jail and all the crimes he committed against the US intelligence community, got CIA people killed and on and on and on.

It's clear it depends on who's OX is being gored with Assange, which makes him a unique personality to deal with. I don't think he picks sides, he just always picks the publicity angle and doesn't really care who gets in the line of fire. The funny part is how each side treats him like a savior or some kind of patriot but then when he gets leaked documents on their side, suddenly he's the bad guy?

I just don't like him period, but he does have a flair the dramatic doesn't he?

This is the position of some of the people/groups he's embarrassed. As if to say "Yes, I've been caught, but the person who helped catch me has it out for me, let's just ignore this".

Also, as the US Army intelligence service underscored a few years ago, Wikileaks is ripe for propaganda use, since information can be provided to WL to suit political goals, and with some information removed to create a specific impression.

The US Army Intelligence analysis also suggested that an effective strategy to harm WL would be to leak materials that would reflect poorly on it and and cause people to question Assange's motives. No doubt all powerful entities (governments, people) realize this. WL has many enemies and so likely many are using both of these strategies as situations permit.

Have you read the details of the rape accusations? Sweden has a particular definition of rape that is far more encompassing of conduct that in most jurisdictions constitutes fully consensual activity. Since the claims against Assange would be considered claims of consensual sex in the US, it's hard for me to take them entirely seriously, yet the label of "Rapist" persists. This phenomenon is truly bizarre.

The question to ask is, what qualities do we most hope something like Wikileaks has, so that it can aid the process of truth, transparency, and careful investigative journalism. I'd suggest the following:

- Strong willingness to work with mainstream news outlets to create high production quality investigative journalism (Assange has done all he possibly could).

- Resilience to meddling by the many enemies one makes (Assange has done well with this).

- Reinforcing the strength and bias-free nature of the institution (Assange has made clear that he finds Trump and Hillary both despicable, yet this comment is ignored by many such as yourself).

He has always very openly had a political agenda. You just don't like the new flavor of his Koolaid.

http://cryptome.org/0002/ja-conspiracies.pdf

They're sometimes useful, and sometimes useful idiots. I think groups like wikileaks are a good thing, and it would be better if there were more of them, to prevent what seems to have happened here where they've been steered into supporting Putin's geopolitical agenda.

Is there any evidence for leaks that would have such effect but which wikileaks is not publishing?

In more seriousness. It still would be a hard problem. You never know for certain which files are safe and which harbour 0-day exploits. I guess you do know what textual contents in these emails are 'normal' and which are not (although it's in Turkish), so you could say obvious attempts at fishing-with-attachments are probably infected. Plus that not all virusscanners would recognize all infectations.

So good question, and it looks like the answer is this isn't a novel attack, just normal malware-spam and an imprecise summary.

[edit: down voting for actually answering a question factually - I would love for the open the attachment not to spread viruses - even anti-virus makers don't catch them all]

> Why not delete malware from your servers once a security researcher has located it for you?

Assange has repeatedly said that they do not filter or edit in any way the contents of their leaks. That means that they don't remove credit card information, social security numbers, or malware.

Is that a good practice?

Well, it depends on what the goal is. Wikileaks has the stated goal of increasing transparency in the government. They could release an edited version and achieve transparency, but editing the contents would mean that the documents are no longer "pristine" in the sense that they have not been altered in any way. This would make a legal process depending on these documents more difficult: A jury may ask themselves whether other things have been removed -- did Wikileaks also remove any content that would affect their decision?

Thus, refusing to edit the content fits with another goal other than just increasing transparency: to do so in a way that the documents can be used in a legal setting with no question of their veracity.