- cypherpunks@lists.ogf.org

Rabblerabblerabble! Enough rabble rousing about rabble rousing AKA STOP JTRIGing YOURSELVES
by Michael Best 12 Oct '15

12 Oct '15

Whatever you think of my motives, what's done is done and all that's left is to discuss the data and the slide. If ya'll wanna keep talking about me instead, I'm flattered that you think I'm so interesting but someone should probably setup a separate list for that. It's drowning out any chance for real discussion in the list, not just about the GCHQ slide but about anything else. Put those big beautiful brains of yours to work on the slide and other cypherpunk issues - but *I* am not one of them, AFAIK. I have a few more people I want to hear from on the slide issue, but I welcome actual constructive criticism, comments or technical input, whether for or against. Stay away from sentiments like "we can't figure that out!" You're better than that, I think, and when you reach your limits you know which experts to ping. Let's get away from witch hunts and troll bait. --Mike, who is not a troll but actually Shrek's less funny cousin

1 0

WHY might Coderman, tbiehn @ themikebest BE THE SAME PERSON
by Michael Best 12 Oct '15

12 Oct '15

You're an idiot. JOHN YOUNG and I are the same person. coderman is some other guy completely. OR IS HE? I am he As he is me And we are all together I am the eggman They are the eggmen I am the walrus Goo goo g' joob goo goo goo g' joob Expert texpert choking smokers Don't you think the joker laughs at you? (Ho ho ho! He he he! Ha ha ha!)

3 2

WHY might Coderman, tbiehn @ themikebest BE THE SAME PERSON
by Travis Biehn 12 Oct '15

12 Oct '15

Evidence: They all use gmail.com. Gmail.com allows free account creation. They COULD all be the same person. Lets prove this out once and for all. Discuss. -Travis -- Twitter <https://twitter.com/tbiehn> | LinkedIn <http://www.linkedin.com/in/travisbiehn> | GitHub <http://github.com/tbiehn> | TravisBiehn.com <http://www.travisbiehn.com> | Google Plus <https://plus.google.com/+TravisBiehn>

2 1

Re: [cryptome] Re: [cryptome]
by Michael Best 12 Oct '15

12 Oct '15

You can read through the emails for yourself, no doubt. Start with the original email about the GCHQ slide with redacted IPs, where I ask for verification/validation. On Sat, Oct 10, 2015 at 6:55 AM, Cari Machet <carimachet(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Show me the email where you called for help ... i have been traveling > heavy so missed it > > The type of work of forensics research is important and how ot is > conducted is as well > > Its not about my personal stamp of approval it is about community and > respecting of and embodiment of the community > > If anyone including john is being a fucker we need to account for that > On Oct 10, 2015 12:04 PM, "Michael Best" <themikebest(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> The list had been involved since the first post about the GCHQ slide. The >> list was no help at all. >> >> Sorry you don't approve, Cari, but what's done is done. The list was >> consulted and no help. John Young refused to acknowledge the problem - *or >> fix it. *[sarcasm] But what's terribly wrong is that I reported it - >> *not* that John leaked it or lied it about it when he kept denying it or >> anything else. [/sarcasm] >> >> >>> *Cari Machet* carimachet(a)gmail.com >>> >>> <carimachet%40gmail.com?Subject=Re%3A%20%5Bcryptome%5D%20Re%3A%20%5Bcryptome%5D&In-Reply-To=%3CCAGRDzQX8MeKa3DuwLaNpW-jfTneECwos-oXhSxo0iCb5V%2BGsHA%40mail.gmail.com%3E> >>> *Sat Oct 10 04:51:59 EDT 2015*Still michael best you could have >>> consulted the list here That someone calls you a liar therefor you act is >>> an ego based mindset Answer why you decided to not consult this list that >>> has profoundly smart >>> beings on it You could have asked this list for help we are interested >>> in helping with >>> such matters i would say and you could have done so without revealing >>> info >>> ... did this never cross your mind ? If it never even crossed your mind >>> to consult us i find there is something >>> terribly wrong >> >> >> On Sat, Oct 10, 2015 at 12:01 AM, coderman <coderman(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On 10/9/15, Michael Best <themikebest(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> > ... *they never would've been published. * >>> >>> i find it useful to think of voice. published yes, with little voice. >>> >>> now it's most certainly a loud something! >>> the published always was, however... >>> >> >>

9 18

How to go about sharing (was: one of a dozen threads about Cryptome)
by Michael Best 12 Oct '15

12 Oct '15

You deliberately took that out of context and cut out relevant text. Troll. What I meant was not having to deal with the copyright complaints myself, and you OH SO CONVENIENTLY left out the very next sentence " If it turns out there's a violation I missed, the item gets taken down - not the entire site or all the uploads. " Which referred to Cryptome getting taken down over one document (which ultimately was allowed to stay up anyway) > ------------------------------ > DUDE READ THEIR TOS! On 10/11/2015 07:11 PM, Michael Best wrote: > >* and not worry about copyright*

2 3

WHY make a fake GCHQ slide?
by Michael Best 12 Oct '15

12 Oct '15

Here's my preliminary list of potential reasons for faking a GCHQ slide. Not meant to be comprehensive, and not every possibility is highly likely. Some are included only for completeness, but I'm sure there are possibilities I missed. There have been a few incidents already where the slides have been challenged or at least partially debunked. The German prosecutor found a lack of evidence that the NSA was illegally monitoring their government and concluded that the alleged NSA order was a fake. Snowden has also accused The Independent of attributing slides to him that he never gave to them. The why depends on the who. Candidates include: - GCHQ - Snowden (included for completeness, but least likely. Why fake this particular slide among many apparently legitimate ones?) - Russian chekist agencies - Chinese intelligence agencies - The Intercept - Intel service X - If the GCHQ, then there are a few possible reasons: 1. Part of a proposal/demo 2. Disinfo to discourage visitors from going to Cryptome 3. Disinfo to create paranoia 4. Disinfo to discredit other slides (Snowden suggests something like that here http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/23/uk-government-independ… ) 5. Disinfo to convince a FIS (foreign intel service) that their capabilities are better/more complete than they are (or were better than they were at the time) If Snowden: 1. ??? 2. Makes no sense as an isolated incident, little evidence to the contrary 3. Would not necessarily recognize a fake slide, since he didn't examine all of the ones he passed on If Russian disinfo: 1. Discredit the GCHQ 2. Discredit western governments and undermine their intelligence agencies 3. Inflate the importance of Cryptome prior to attempting to use them to release disinfo If Chinese disinfo: 1. Smear British cyber operations as part of their ongoing cyberwar with the west and related cognitive warfare 2. Discredit the GCHQ 3. Discredit western governments and undermine their intelligence agencies 4. Inflate the importance of Cryptome prior to attempting to use them to release disinfo If The Intercept: 1. Fame 2. Money from being paid to publish a fake by any interested party 3. Financial compensation from media attention as suggested by Razer/Rayzer(a)riseup.net If Intel service x: 1. Any of the above *Juan* juan.g71(a)gmail.com > > <juan.g71%40gmail.com?Subject=Re%3A%20Why%20cryptome%20sold%20web%20logs%20to%20their%20paying%20customers%3F&In-Reply-To=%3C5619825d.361f8c0a.691ce.fffffe96%40mx.google.com%3E> > *Sat Oct 10 17:31:29 EDT 2015*>*I still don't get who would make such a > fake and why. *

9 28

[cryptome] Re: NatSecGeek
by Michael Best 12 Oct '15

12 Oct '15

> > His use of a sig with all his social networks is one of the reasons I > earlier said Best has some income-related motive, and that he's most > likely dealing in 'future rewards'. "All his social networks" being twitter? I have a LinkedIn somewhere, but I don't publicize that. I'm not sure what "sig" you mean. I don't have an email signature. On that1archive.neocities.org ? Yeah, I have my contact information posted. Of course, JYA also has his email and twitter posted there, but no accusations about a profit based motive against him. No double standard there.

1 0

Why cryptome sold web logs to their paying customers?
by Dr. J Feinstein 12 Oct '15

12 Oct '15

Resend–HTML email scrubbed Calling bullshit. Mirimirs right, this makes no sense. And JYA says netsol won't let him delete the logs but Netsol says logs are disabled by default[https://www.networksolutions.com/support/how-to-enable-download-the… and you have to turn them on. So how the fuckd this really happen? Mirimir <mirimir(a)riseup.net> Are you arguing that users could have found those logs? I almost can't imagine that. Logs are normally in /var/log/ somewhere, and I can't imagine making them searchable. And indeed, I can't imagine how Cryptome archives would have included anything from /var/log/, even after system restore from backups. <--SNIP--> > Should access logs be kept for that long? Absolutely not. From what I> have read in the email exchange that was posted, the log files were> included in a NetSol total restore. My guess is that John/Cryptome did> not intentionally keep these files, and did not realize these files were> included in the archive. But that's the thing. Logs should have been in /var/log/. And how would the "NetSol total restore" have changed that? > When I do incremental backups or updates on my own systems, I don't> usually go back and check the integrity of files I've already archived> in my closed system. I can see where this could be an honest mistake> that has gotten blown way out of proportion. It's a good lesson to be> more aware of these types of glitches. I still don't get how logs would have ended up in archives. Maybe JYA prepared a special set of archives for a collaborator. Maybe for someone helping him to understand what had happened. And then maybe he forgot about doing that. Hard to say.

10 33

What is the point to replying to natsecgirls when their mission is entirely clear?
by Georgi Guninski 12 Oct '15

12 Oct '15

What is the point to replying to natsecgirls when their mission is entirely clear? Except for OOBC I don't see any, though I am quite dumb.

1 0

Why cryptome sold web logs to their paying customers?
by Michael Best 12 Oct '15

12 Oct '15

You mean the Cryptome logs? John mailed them to me. And many, many other people since 2013. According to him. (Not the many, many part.) > *Razer* Rayzer(a)riseup.net > > <Rayzer%40riseup.net?Subject=Re%3A%20Why%20cryptome%20sold%20web%20logs%20to%20their%20paying%20customers%3F&In-Reply-To=%3C561BCCC2.6080501%40riseup.net%3E> > *Mon Oct 12 11:07:46 EDT 2015*What you claim to be doing is starting an > archive of dox you 'found' in > the wild, (but no one seems to know exactly knows how they went wild) > from a specific site, Cryptome, without the site owner's permission, at IA? But if you wanna pull on that thread, someone could easily do the same to JYA since he's reposted many pieces of copyrighted material on his site, without reprint permission or proper copyright notice (which cuts off any fair use claim). GASP Is that proof of this vendetta of which speak? Not the one John has against me where he's smeared me and accused me of faking disinfo, I mean the fake one I apparently have against him. (Though I do admit to being a little bit bitter since he made so many bogus accusations against me)

2 1