>Today, June 22nd 2017, WikiLeaks publishes documents from the Brutal Kangaroo project of the CIA. Brutal Kangaroo is a tool suite for Microsoft Windows that targets closed networks by air gap jumping using thumbdrives. Brutal Kangaroo components create a custom covert network within the target closed network and providing functionality for executing surveys, directory listings, and arbitrary executables.
Prepare for a new ransomware campaign in a few months. Thanks NSA!
Jose Gonzalez
WikiLeaks 'disarm' malware before publishing it, making them unusable. The leaks that led to the ransomware outbreak came from The Shadow Brokers, a different group that just dump deep state malware intact and functional.
Aiden Carter
Cnn is fake news The only true story comes from sean spicy and trump MAGA!!!
William Anderson
>WikiLeaks 'disarm' malware before publishing it, making them unusable. What wikileaks does with their copy is completely irrelevant.
Josiah Gray
Wikileaks is non-partisan. Stop being a retard.
Owen Reed
trump will issue a tweet and an executive order by the weekend and it will all be a better deal for America by Monday
Jose Davis
>Wikileaks > non-partisan
(you) just HAD to go Full Retard, didn't ((you))?
Nolan Wilson
Jesus, Sup Forums is politics illiterate
Nolan Ramirez
They are as non-partisan as you're going to get in media in this day and age, no ones buying your contrived "muh russian hackers" bullshit, grow up and give it up.
Brandon Brown
0.02 rubles have been deposited to you buttcoin
Austin Campbell
you're persuading literally no one faggot, get a real job
Ryder Sullivan
So how this works is that once the infected flash drive is plugged into the air-gapped network, it does recon and then uploads the gathered data when plugged back into the net? Thats the only way I can see this working
Well yeah, but automatic USB drive infection is actually a pretty important security problem. This is a security nightmare scenario, but for NORPS this isn't really anything they'd understand or care about.
Joseph Hernandez
Dont you dare talk anything bad bout my boi trump!! He will soon delete wiki leaks if he wants!!
Jack Ward
>Poutin doesn't even properly squat Pathetic.
Joseph Nelson
>Trump didn't just become a politician last November as compared to Hillary who literally brags about how she has been a politician for years >Wikileaks purpose isn't to keep public servants in check by leaking the things they do in private
Chase Sanders
Is everyone on this board too young to remember WikiLeaks drop all the anti war stuff while Bush was president? Democrats were jerking off Assange and Republicans were calling him a traitor even though he isn't American. Don't even need to wait 10 years for the narrative to reverse completely. I love US politics.
Adam Sanchez
Things Sup Forums doesn't know anything about: Politics Math Technology
Feel free to add to the list.
Dylan Johnson
Foolish for the Dems to keep trying to discredit WikiLeaks now that the election is already over, eventually they're going to leak something on Trump and the lefts base won't buy it.
Austin Russell
Programming
Xavier Garcia
>NSA =! CIA Please do not merge them in the same shit.
Alexander Nguyen
how fucking retarded are you?
Kayden Evans
Who cares? If you don't have anything to hide, there's nothing to worry about. I can't wait for the NSA and CIA to finally purge all the hackers, pedophiles, and e-criminals. They're filth and parasites.
Lucas Butler
Like one is better than the other.
Ethan Rogers
Yeah, you show them! That's how it works.
Kevin Hall
It's not like Dems or Reps are worth taking seriously. Their bullshit doesn't mean Wikileaks isn't used as Putins propaganda arm, whether directly or indirectly is the only question.
Given how their data tends to be legit it shouldn't even matter what side they are on, if the electorate were intelligent enough to read more than tweets at least.
Luis Reyes
>Their bullshit doesn't mean Wikileaks isn't used as Putins propaganda arm, whether directly or indirectly is the only question
Spoken like a true partisan. Exposing corruption within our gov't is obviously a plot by a foreign power to weaken our democracy, not to keep our politicians accountable after the multiple times that they have literally violated the US Constitution and the fact that these people ought to be accountable to those that elect them, right?
Nathaniel Smith
>Exposing corruption That's not what they do nor even claim to do. They publish restricted information, SOME of it is relevant to corruption but as Macron "leaks" or even the Podesta mails showed, sometimes it's just private documents that are irrelevant from political POV unless you sell them right, as they attempted to do. Now why would they pretend otherwise, unless they had an agenda?
Besides, it's hardly a secret that Assange hates the creepy cunt, which you can't blame him for after she "joked" about getting him murdered, just it's not the best foundation for balanced reporting.
Personally I don't mind, since transparency in politics and state affairs is important for democracy, and as long their stuff is legit, the interests behind leaking it are secondary. Just it's silly to assume that they are truly free.
John Fisher
>Macron "leaks" or even the Podesta mails showed, sometimes it's just private documents that are irrelevant from political POV unless you sell them right
So people shouldn't know your politically related actions and your dealings with major political figures, which the Macron leaks and Podesta emails did show the average citizen, aren't related to the people that should elect the person that wants to be the leader of a country? I mean, if it weren't for the Macron leaks, we wouldn't know that Macron was dealing with the Rockefeller family, a major participant in all these wars we've been waging for the past 15 years. Same thing with the Podesta emails and Hillary's dealings with Saudi Arabia and the MSM at large. So we should just be uneducated peasants that vote in our nobles to abuse us without any consequence?
Gabriel Nelson
That pic you posted as "proof" seems to have the wrong idea about some things. Primarily the line about how >homosexuals would be criminals from birth. For one thing, having homosexual desires does not magically force you to commit homosexual acts that break the law. Many people with these desires still manage to live perfectly normal lives and remain abstinent or even have heterosexual relationships. This is seen as 'oppression' because they choose not to indulge in their sinful wants, but it is not unusual for humans to suppress such urges. People are not 'oppressed' because they can't walk into the street and start shooting guns without consequences. Homosexual acts such as sodomy and other strange scatological fetishes spread disease and suffering to others, so it is right that they should be discouraged. Another false assumption they had was that people with homosexual desires have them from birth. This is just blatantly wrong. At best, you could argue that you could inherit a predisposition for it like you can for other illnesses like hypertension or diabetes, but even then it is in no way guaranteed that one will develop this condition because of their heredity, let alone that one will be born with it. In short, you cannot be born a 'homosexual' and homosexual acts such as sodomy are rightfully illegal. Criminals who actively choose to commit homosexual acts deserve to face the consequences for their actions.
Also current surveillance on your phone has more accurate data collection based on gps location history and purchase history than visual surveillance, so why would they even bother to roleplay like they're in 1984 when they can have willing participants provide all the data they could ever want?
Isaac Ward
>the average citizen, aren't related to the people that should elect the person that wants to be the leader of a country You needed leaks for that? The majority of politicians never had much in common with the citizens of the country, specially in US of A. It's common knowledge available everywhere. A look at the wiki page of them tells you that.
>we wouldn't know that Macron was dealing with the Rockefeller family He never tried to hide his old job. Attempting to make some nefarious connection out of it, is playing politics. Something a truly neutral organisation wouldn't do without actual proof.
>Hillary's dealings with Saudi Arabia and the MSM at large Hillary is part of Muricas elite and they never made a secret out of being Saudi (or Israeli) cheerleaders or sucking off to the corporations that support their party. As with Marcon, pretending that it's something extraordinary is dishonest reporting.
And once again, I am all for transparency, but it doesn't hurt to question why a certain organisation aims at certain people at certain moments, which all by chance would benefit another side. You can support the work of wikileaks AND acknowledge that they might have different goals.
Liam Moore
> The majority of politicians never had much in common with the citizens of the country, specially in US of A. It's common knowledge available everywhere. A look at the wiki page of them tells you that. So why should I elect someone who I don't know is working for the good of my country?
>He never tried to hide his old job. Yeah, but he didn't tell the people of France about his relationship with the Rockefeller family and how his campaign took money from them. So why should we trust someone who's indebted to basically a warmonger?
The same thing goes for Hillary. She told us a bout her job, but not about her fiscal relationships to states like Israel and Saudi Arabia.
That's why if you are a public servant, you can't have privacy in any of your dealings with other parties (and the same goes to Trump too by the way): because you are only going to serve the people that fund your campaign. That's why the right to complete privacy only extends to private citizens, not public officials, because the citizens of a country have a right to know what their politicians are up to at all times (in relation to the government and foreign relations). It's not an issue of whether the info disseminated benefits on side or the other, it's an issue of keeping the people informed about all the deeds their politicians have done and keeping them informed so they elect someone who represents their own best interests. Just because two warhawkish candidates have information leaked in regards to who funds their campaigns doesn't mean that there's some conspiracy against them in particular, it's just keeping the people informed about who really owns these politicians and what their goals are and they're is literally nothing wrong with what Wikileaks has been doing since this has been their modus operandi for some 10 years now.
Jaxon Torres
>So why should I elect someone who I don't know is working for the good of my country? Good fucking luck finding someone else. It's always been about the lesser evil, or simply accepting what the others want by not voting. It's a mess.
>he didn't tell the people of France about his relationship with the Rockefeller family and how his campaign took money from them. Got any link for it? I don't recall anything noteworthy about his campaign funding. (And rich people supporting centrist or right wing candidates is pretty basic since like ever and everywhere) Besides, money isn't such a big deal in French politics, it's generally in 20M range, not the crazy shit they do in the States. If you pay attention to French politics, you'd see that there was no way, Macron could've lost after the Republican Party primaries ended with Fillon. His funding could've been halved, the alternatives were simply not an option for most of the electorate.
>but not about her fiscal relationships to states like Israel and Saudi Arabia Which is surprising how? What politician from a major party sans Sanders didn't take Saudi/Israeli dick? It doesn't take a genius that money changed or will change hands. It's simply too common in American politics and you'd have a harder time finding someone clean, singling out a single candidate makes no sense, unless you try to form public opinion against them.
As for your last paragraph, I agree with pretty much everything sans a small part.
>doesn't mean that there's some conspiracy against them in particular Given the timing and the way the leaks were "marketed" as if person X got some unique dirt about them and given how silent their Twitter is about Russians while jumping on every thing Murica does ... conspiracy might be a too big word but there is clearly a bias. This doesn't mean one should disregard their information, just the opposite, pay more attention beyond headlines.
Gavin Allen
>If you pay attention to French politics, you'd see that there was no way, Macron could've lost after the Republican Party primaries ended with Fillon. His funding could've been halved, the alternatives were simply not an option for most of the electorate. That was pretty obvious since Le Pen came off as a naggy old mother just like Hillary Clinton did during the US elections. >how silent their Twitter is about Russians while jumping on every thing Murica does ... Because most of the problems in today;s world were caused by America at one point or another, not Russia surprisingly enough. Russia really only causes problems in it's Easter European and Near Eastern neighbors, as with the invasion of the Ukraine, and they haven't actually done anything worthy of criticizing since then other than Putin's continual supporting of Russian authoritarianism, but that's not our problem. our problem is that we dick around in the Middle East too much and politicians like Hillary Clinton, Obama (who supported the ousting of Gaddafi under false pretenses), George W. Bush (who invaded Iraq to oust Saddam Hussein again under false pretenses) and his father who tried to do much the same thing along with neoconservatives/neoliberals like John McCain, Mitt Romney, Nancy Pelosi and yes Bernie Sanders (his voted the same way as Clinton in Congress 93% of the time) support such moves, which ultimately make us less safe and are often illegal in terms of the actual process to go to war. So why should they be so concerned about Russia when they are putting most of it's focus is now in Syria trying to stop US trained rebels that defect to ISIS from toppling Assad and further destabilizing the region, than from the people who actively gave funds and weapons to the rebels in the first place? It's not really a bias, so much as prioritizing your targets, seeing that the US has actively been sponsoring terror for years now.
Leo Young
>That was pretty obvious since Le Pen came off as a naggy old mother just like Hillary Clinton did during the US elections. It's not like she had any chance either way. At best she could've won the first round, in the second she'd get slaughtered by whoever was left.
>Because most of the problems in today;s world were caused by America at one point or another Sure but they tend to look at internal problems too and while America beats them at hypocrisy, they are still infinitely better towards their own citizen. How many complains about treatment of activists and whistleblowers from Russia did they note, compared to US of A? As much the media in the West is a mess, journalists don't get killed left and right here.
>continual supporting of Russian authoritarianism, but that's not our problem They are a worldwide organisation and while obviously most of the people working for them and reading them are from the West, only focusing on the problems there isn't objective. It's not like it should be 50-50 coverage but they've been silent on everything Russia related for a while now. At best was a short tweet from Assange about Bogatov.
>So why should they be so concerned about Russia when they are putting most of it's focus is now in Syria The war in Ukraine is still ongoing too, as are their internal struggles and obviously still muh Chechnya. America definitely deserves the most attention due the impact of their actions but literally ignoring Russia is bit too much. It's not exactly NZ.
Connor Richardson
> As much the media in the West is a mess, journalists don't get killed left and right here. And using Tor doesn't get you arrested here, unless you literally looking at CP or the Silk Road so there's that too.
>They are a worldwide organisation and while obviously most of the people working for them and reading them are from the West, only focusing on the problems there isn't objective. Well, the US is the biggest economy in the world and is a superpower. Russia is an economic shithole and humanitarian crisis. Which one deserves more attention when it has more money and resources to cause various proxy-wars ala the 1960s while funding various intelligence agencies to overthrow governments in volatile regions of the world and cause more problems down the road for the world at large? Russia sure as hell doesn't. That isn't to say that Russia deserves no criticism at all, but to compare the influence of Russia on the world to the US and the amount of journalism that they actually deserve to a mostly Western audience of people when the US is out destroying legitimate regimes in the name of "democracy" is utter bullshit. The crimes of the political class and the intelligence agencies of the United States really ought to be put on full display for the world before we pretend that we're any better than Russia when we kill hundreds of innocent civilians on conflicts that have no place existing at all.
> ignoring Russia is bit too much. I never said we should ignore Russia. I'm saying that the current shitshow in geopolitics is all the result of American politicians.
Justin Edwards
Meant for
Benjamin Nelson
*yawn* Just read through everything and there's nothing significant. Darn. All this paranoia is exhausting. It's probably best for all of us if we just shelve this one and go on with our lives. Just get some sleep. It'll all be alright. *yawn*
Leo Brooks
What its like having a girlfriend
Justin Carter
You should convert and re-post the image to a lossless format like png or something'. Summerfags might save the image and repost it around a bit, and eventually it'll end up looking like shit an be unreadable. (I'm sure you already know this)
Jack Ross
Should've picked a different example than homosexuality, many people supporting the death of privacy, wouldn't mind faggots gone.
Alcohol during the prohibition era or masturbation (assuming bible-belt crazies would make the laws) are better examples.
Zachary Price
wikileaks is a front for russian intelligence
the CIA has done nothing wrong
William Mitchell
American politics basically has the same mentality as sports. Anything not for your team is against your team. Anything positive said about your team is true. Anything negative said about your team is false. Now you just need to justify your logic so it works within your self narrative
Is anyone here actually going to give a fuck and read the source codes? I won't, don't have time for that. Will MSFT patch the hole that allows to use this kind of usb key malware?
Jacob Myers
Personal Hygiene
Jace Garcia
>Everyone I don't like is a Russian hacker
Evan Taylor
>but it doesn't hurt to question why a certain organisation aims at certain people at certain moments, Uhhh...there's this thing called relevance. It's especially effective when a person has made claims that are easily proven false using their own words.
