Wikileaks: Julian Assange's internet access 'cut'

Re:Wikileaks: Julian Assange's internet access 'cut' by countingteeth on Monday October 17, 2016 @03:48AM (#12723302)

"Bluffing." It takes zero effort to distribute a a few hundred gigabytes of encrypted random data, relative to the amount of investigation and speculation as to what if anything is in those files. They are called "insurance." Assange/Wikileaks wanted to deter actions being taken against him.

Seems to me as likely as not that there is nothing really there.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Wikileaks: Julian Assange's internet access 'cut' by appleflaxen on Monday October 17, 2016 @05:11AM (#12723576)

the good news is that you don't even need to encrypt your data, if they are random to start with.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Wikileaks: Julian Assange's internet access 'cut' by amelius on Monday October 17, 2016 @05:43AM (#12723700)

That might be tricky. An encrypted file may have some properties a random file does not have in general.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Wikileaks: Julian Assange's internet access 'cut' by Ao7bei3s on Monday October 17, 2016 @07:56AM (#12724238)

No, unless the algorithm is broken.

Ciphertext indistiguishability[1] is a basic requirement for any encryption scheme. All modern ciphers are designed to make that hard.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distinguishing_attack

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Wikileaks: Julian Assange's internet access 'cut' by amelius on Monday October 17, 2016 @08:18AM (#12724346)

Yes, but you remove that attack vector simply by encrypting a random file instead.

[ Parent | on HN ]