[cryptome] Re: cryptome compromised?
- From: Shaun O'Connor <capricorn8159@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: cryptome@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2014 05:45:43 +0100
where you referring to bitmessage by any chance? that is pretty much
written on the back of bitcoin as are a number of similar projects.
namecoin being another prime example.
now that one although claiming to be decentralized blows itself wide
open because in order to get a dot bit tld you have to register with
some third party organization and pay them a regular fee in conventional
monetary term(credit card papal whatever) so right away threes a big
whole in that "decentralized" system. oh and even that gets stranger
because for anyone to be able to access your dot bit site they have to
get a plugin for firefox. install it and leave ff running for 5 hours
for the blockchain to be created or some such. the perfect trap tp give
the nasty guys unfettered access to your system, I just don't buy into
the namecoin thing for that reason alone.
Oh and as aside the whole of the cryptome archive has been stuck on the
bit torrent network ( spotted it on btdigg.org.) a whopping 10G file
On 10/06/2014 05:16, Aftermath wrote:
> if youre serious about secure email you can always set up your own
> pgp mail server
>
> for a while i was paying for countermail. its a disklesd webmail
> server that boots from a read-only cd rom with a public keysize of
> 4096 bits. you can also pay with bitcoin which had me sold on it.
>
> i no longer use it because they use a java applet for the pgp
> functions which i dont really like because its not at all open so iits
> not open for a security assesment by the community.
>
> after 6 months of using it i happened to find their FAQ. Turns out all
> their private keys are stored on their server. you can remove ypur
> private key and back it up to an encrypted flash drive or whatever for
> safe keeping, but i really wish they would had made that more clear
> when i signed up.
>
> theres also the posdibility that the whole thing is a honeytrap. this
> assesment, in part or whole, can be said about most suposidly secure
> webmail services. some are even worse like hushmail where encryption
> doesnt mean shit if they give up your private keys because the judge
> signed a warrant.
>
>
> i have higher hopes for new decentralized technologies. im proud that
> i can say i am founder and financial backer of the decentralized
> identity software that will be known as keyhotee when it comes out
>
> i still say that there should be an open source, multi
> platform encrypted decentralized voip program with text messaging
> that can be used over wifi. an anonymization feature would be icing on
> the cake. of course that would be a tall order, but a guy can dream.
>
>
> On Monday, June 9, 2014, <shelley@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> <mailto:shelley@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jun 9, 2014, at 08:26 PM, Jarrod B wrote:
>
> > Well this has really put me in a bad mood today. I've never
> really had
> > the
> > need for a secure email address, but I think I've been inspired
> to set
> > one
> > up,......
> >
> > Not happy and sensing something sinister going on.
> >
>
> Don't despair just yet. There may be a simpler explanation.
>
> Re: using free email: The spooks just take everything anyway (as the
> fiber optic splitters in Room 641A have shown, etc.), but one makes it
> much easier for the bastards by using google/yahoo/msft's "free" email
> (where the companies are compelled to be complicit, and *you* are the
> product), and by not using encryption. Sure, the ciphers have
> probably
> been intentionally weakened, but why make it easy for them?
>
> I've been using a non-USA email provider for many years, but it really
> makes no difference when they tap the Internet backbone and just steal
> everything. If you have need to transmit sensitive communication,
> doing
> it online is just not safe.
>
> -S
>
>
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 11:04 PM, <> wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, Jun 9, 2014, at 07:01 PM, Aftermath wrote:
> > > > yea, i think we are all curious as to the nature of the
> outage. is it
> > > > just
> > > > me or are mirrors down as well?
> > > >
> > >
> > > This is the only one that's up & has recent activity
> (akashmanews.com <http://akashmanews.com>
> > > mirror's archive is a year old):
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Monday, June 9, 2014, Maarten Billemont <> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Does cryptome provide any sort of canary?
> > > > >
> > > > > — Maarten Billemont (lhunath) —
> > > > > me: – business: –
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Jun 9, 2014, at 20:35, John Young <
> > > > > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','');>> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, down.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> > >
>
--
*_PRIVACY IS A BASIC RIGHT - NOT A CONCESSION _*
Other related posts:
