WikiLeaks: CIA source code leak shows agency impersonating Kaspersky
betanews.com
betanews.com
The fake certificates aren't signed by a legit CA. It's not actually clear if they're in use or just examples; the code is a mess. The idea is clearly if someone is using packet sniffing tools to monitor their network, they see Kaspersky's name in the cert of an outbound connection and assume either:
1) It's their own AV installs grabbing updates or something similar
2) They've been hacked by teh evil ruskies
Interestingly these example certs aren't in the HEAD of the repository (WikiLeaks provide the entire git repo with history). To find the certs they were talking about I had to look at the first commit. At some point these files were removed. The start of the repo is in 2013, well before the current Red Scare.
It's unclear to me that this is the CIA impersonating Russia for political reasons, as might be assumed from the headline, vs just using Kaspersky and Thawte because these happen to be companies with many customers. However, Wikileaks does say the justification is simply to hide exfiltration. We already knew that western intelligence agencies like to frame their opponents and cause confusion around attribution, like the neat trick NSA/GCHQ use where they send data they want to a server controlled by someone they don't like/some random innocent, which ignores the traffic because it's not actually compromised. They then suck the data they want off the wire as it is transferred.
All that said it is depressing how well US propaganda works. Look at all the people in this thread saying, no no, it can't be true, it's from Wikileaks - even though the code and files themselves are available to download. The analysis they post isn't misleading either. It's pretty much describing what's found in the repo.
edit: lol, just as I was writing this the story is flagged. What a big surprise. We can't have anything interfering with the official narrative, now, can we?
"Well before"? The public part of the current Red Scare started over the annexion of Crimea in March 2014 (and the preceding turmoil in all of the Ukraine). 2013 is precisely the point where I would expect an intelligence agency to start anticipating it.
There is no evidence that WikiLeaks has anything to do with Russia. None whatsoever. Whenever I've asked people why they think this, they give two reasons:
1 - WikiLeaks hasn't published leaks about the Russian government.
2 - Assange did some TV interviews on RT years ago.
These are both laughable. Assange himself gave the obvious explanation for (1) - they haven't done that because they didn't receive any. And it's equally obvious why not: WikiLeaks arose to handle leaks of material that the western press were refusing to publish for unsatisfying reasons, like the Iraq war stuff. But the western press would salivate at the opportunity to publish damaging leaks about the Russian government, assuming the original holder wanted the info to appear in the west and not in, say, Russian. So why would anyone with such material care about Wikileaks? There is no reason for them to do so.
Regardless, attempting to divine intent from things that have not happened is hardly a good standard of evidence to use when making serious accusations.
As for the TV interviews, well, RT is a large scale news channel that has interviewed tons of different people over the years. Appearing on a TV channel is hardly evidence of working for the related national government. Otherwise everyone who appears on the BBC works for the British government, anyone who appears on Al Jazeera is in the pocket of Qatar and so on.
2. They are hosted out of Russia.
3. They actively take sides in political battles. Hardly the stance of an objective "journalistic" organization.
However, I don't think it's sufficient reason to flag/dismiss anything.
http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/listeningpost/2016/04/qa...
I don't see Assange attacking any sources in that Q&A. He does criticise (not attack) the way some journalists handled it, saying they put their own spin on things and that there should have been a bulk release. Otherwise, he argues, the impact would be low. That seems like a reasonable opinion to hold.
2. I looked at their IP addresses. They appear to have three datacenters, at least being advertised to me, one in Russia, one in the Netherlands and one in Norway. From a political perspective having servers in a place unfriendly to America, given how many of their leaks are about the US establishment, seems pretty sensible to me. But saying they are "hosted out of Russia" is extremely misleading, a lie of omission.
3. How are they "actively taking sides in political battles"? They leak what they get. If they didn't, leakers would go elsewhere to get their info out, it's not like Wikileaks has a monopoly on leaking. This is just slander and smearing.
Do you know that they leak what they get? Cause there are credible accusations by former members that they do not.
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/
You can search by text, attachment filename or email ID. How is that not bulk released?
Do you know that they leak what they get?
It's common sense that they do. These leaks come in the form of digital files, not papers. People give material to WikiLeaks so it gets published. If they gave material to WikiLeaks and nothing happened they'd just find another way to leak the same material - like Snowden when he went to Greenwald and Poitras instead of Assange.
This is why the idea that WikiLeaks is somehow a part of the Russian government is so mind-bendingly stupid propaganda. How would they hold anything back? Not only is there no motive and no evidence with these allegations, there isn't even common sense!
that's an unreasonably low bar when they have done more for transparency than most conventional news organizations.
https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/717458064324964352?lang...
I'm stacking the tinfoil pretty hard but ignoring the history/politics you gotta say the technical side behaved in a weird way.
More information being available to the public is a good thing.
Because that last scenario is the one I find extraordinarily likely.
However, I think its self-deception of the highest order if you think either Wikileaks or the supplier of the Clinton emails is not also sitting on a great deal of incriminating evidence from the Trump campaign and/or the RNC.
Unless you have evidence of either of these two things happening, you will not change my opinion that they are a force for openness in a very opaque political scene.
The fact that they release more that is anti-whatever says more about who is leaking than it does about WL.
[1] https://wikileaks.org/vault8/document/repo_hive/client/ssl/C...
Don't thank me.
They try to tarnish it by associating with Soros conspiracy, which is near exclusively done by people supporting authoritarian regimes. A good marker on its own.
They present Russia as the target/victim of the Papers, despite them implicating a number of Western European politicians and Ukraine's president.
Unless one tries to be deliberately thick it's fairly clear which side they are on.
Make a thought experiment. Would you say you do not in any way support the policies and rhetoric of Orban, Putin, Trump, Assad, Chavez/Maduro? Without ifs, buts and what-about-Obamas.
Does that mean WL got Vault 7 from CIA and Vault 8 from Russian FSB?
Assange, you sad confused crackpot…