Wikileaks has been officially compromised

>Reddit thread
>reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/5n58sm/i_am_julian_assange_founder_of_wikileaks_ask_me/

Julian Assange, founder of Wikileaks, had an AMA on Reddit. Out of 15000+ questions, he replied only to 6, and wrote a total of 13 sentences. Many people asked him questions such as "Have you been compromised" or "Why doesn't the last hash you posted match the encrypted file?"

Assange never directly answered "Have you been compromised" (but he acknowledged the question by replying to a child post), and he refused to sign a post with the private Wikileaks key. This means Wikileaks have been compromised and Assange does not have direct control of Wikileaks any longer.

He also said the hash didn't match because it was the hash of the decrypted file, not the encrypted one.

Overall, Assange gave very vague responses and didn't answer the real questions. It almost seems like the point of this AMA was to indirectly tell people "I am being threatened: you can no longer trust Wikileaks".

Keep in mind that he also never replied to questions about why he didn't release the intel he had on Russian government, or Trump.

t. turkroach

to many assumptions.. I agree its weird, but to pick that out as meaning he was saying "wikileaks is comrpomised, dont trust them" is a stretch

t. aussiefag

>Assange never directly answered "Have you been compromised"
A compromiser could have easily said "no", not an argument.

As for OP, are you a fucking autismotron or what? He answered most of the questions in a livestream you cockroach

FSB has video of him with two Chilean whores shitting on each other.

t. aussiefag

assange cant say anything, he's dead

Some questions he didn't reply to:

>How are you able to state broad properties about who a source is or isn't?
(How can you tell your sources aren't Russian?)
>In your interview with Sean Hannity he tried a couple times to get you to deny that "anybody associated with Russia" was the source, but you repeatedly stop short at "not the Russian government or a state party." or at "the answer for our interactions is 'no'," which leaves the door open that Russian intelligence used a cut-out.
(You strictly said your sources weren't related to the Russian government. Is it possible that they were using a proxy?)
> Do you believe sources at the highest levels of government are leaking private conversations to TruePundit?
(Why do you advocate blatantly fake news?)
>Do you have any evidence that Podesta's password for whatever account was hacked was actually 'password' (or a similar phonetic version)?
(Why did you lie on an interview and said Podesta's password was "password"?)
>Assuming your August statement was correct and you had something [about the republican campaign] that you decided was below some threshold of interestingness, how do you justify releasing every DNC email and not just the ones that contained interesting stuff?
(You said you had info on Trump, but you didn't release them because they were boring. Why didn't you do the same on Democrats?)
>Answer these:
>1) State that you are alive and well, and in no serious harm.
>2) The current date and time.
>3) Something unique that happened in the news yesterday, January 9th, 2017.
>4) This nonce value: 8059e91804efbe266c8e324b52de605f829eca993d4c7020bc8a34db337fabd5

Most of the question that asked "Are you compromised" also wanted a signed response. Assange never signed anything, but he did claim that "if I were compromised, I would ask for a signature from the people who had compromised us. so a signature would mean nothing".

He has a point, but it is possible that he avoided the question because receiving a signature from the ""compromisers"" would take too much time and would look awfully suspicious.

After all, if he did still have the Wikileaks key, there would be no reason to simply toss in a signature. But he refused to.

The headline today is Trump allegedly gets pissed on my Russian whores. No one cares if one of the most truthful mediamen in the world is dead or not when there is a guy that likes piss running my country.

Nice proxy NSA. Trying to distract from the Golden Showers fuckup?

He did answer the last one. Watch a record of the livesteam.
He addressed his situation and proof of life at length. Watch the livestream. Don't just read the text answers.

Assange has been dead since mid October.

Concern troll.

MEH

honestly If I was assange I would have transferred control to someone who wasn't at risk of being black bagged at any given time

if you have any brains, you leak the old school way
putting something in the letterbox of a two bit journalist and letting him submit via TOR

he publishes MSM while the fed tries to uncover the leak
by the time they find out it's too late and files are clear

>666

I had figured this, but it hurts to get the news from Satan.

Also keep in mind that Assange is known for subtly-not subtly saying things that he can't verbalize through other means.

told you

...

Damn if satan getting in this it's got to be good

Day Assange Killed

why bother using tor? endpoints are compromised.

technically it's a great deal more complex than I can itterate, but my understanding is as follows:

TOR works by passing the data through multiple points, to an "exit node", the exit node sends the data to the destination

if an exit node is compromised this can be used to a number of ends

1. the recipient can be identified, but this doesn't necessarily mean much because the content of the message can be end-to-end encrypted

2. the point where the compromised node received the encrpted data can be identified (but they change by the second, and pop up like daisies, so this is not that big of an issue either)

3. the compromised node could simply not deliver the data to the recipient, but this is obvious and simply required a reset and re-send (this can be done in minutes)

if by "endpoints" you mean the computers that are sending/reciving the original file, this may or may not be true; or even an issue

in my scenario, nobody can know what the journalist is about to leak until he tries to do so
if the journalist is caught; hacking his computer will yield nothing but the leak
one would provide the journalist some protection, like a hard drive with tails, TOR, VNP information etc
now this could be an issue if the leak implicitly revels it's source, and the source is not ready for the heat

hacking the recipient?
I'm not sure wikileaks server has been hacked, it could be but there is nothing to sujest this

tl;dr: hacking can't stop a leak, only block it's publication
compromising the system internally is resource intensive, and isn't guaranteed to do more than provide a temporary delay

Uhhh he did an hour live stream

During which he twice said he's not sending any secret messages - double negative, check mate drumpfets, WL is compromised

praise kek