Why have WikiLeakS.org abandoned the use of PGP Encryption ?
The Contact page still has a link to a http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Wikileaks_PGP_key page:
Wikileaks:PGP Keys
Do not use PGP to contact us. We have found that people use it in a dangerous manner. Further one of the Wikileaks key on several key servers is FAKE.
This warning now replaces a copy of the PGP Public Encryption Key which expired on 2nd November 2007 (PGP Key ID: 0x11015F80).
Instead of publishing a new PGP Key, the WikiLeakS.org staff have, without bothering to hold any sort of discussion on the relevant wiki discussion page, arbitrarily put up this stupid warning.
It is entirely possible for the public and for journalists and for whistleblowers to use unencrypted plaintext email, or the SSL / TLS web encrypted web session submission forms for new "whistleblower document" uploads, or the Tor Hidden Service methods, or the Postal mail box methods of submission, or the Discussion pages for publishing comments and analyses, and to make technical security or anonymity errors
in a dangerous manner.
Why is PGP any different ?
Presumably because the WiklLeakS.org team have deliberately not bothered to explain its correct use - they just published a link to a PGP public key, with nothing else in the way of instructions or warning advice.
The point about the PGP keyservers is utterly irrelevant, given that WikiLeakS.org were, correctly, publishing their PGP key primarily on their own web servers
Fake PGP keys on keyservers or elsewhere are not a problem - that is what the PGP key fingerprints are designed to help with.
This outright refusal to use widely available, tried, tested, and secure PGP / GnuGP / OpenPGP etc . software. has further damaged the reputation for trustworthiness of the WikiLeakS.org project.
Some people will conclude that some of the WikiLeakS.org people must be in cahoots with some intelligence or police agency or other, which is why they do not wish to promote the option of using strong end to end encryption like PGP for protecting whistleblowers.
Presumably because the WiklLeakS.org team have deliberately not bothered to explain its correct use
I had a discussion with some people involved in Wikileaks a few months ago about this issue. We argued about this issue back then already and the main conclusion was that explaining people how-to use PGP is not as easy as how-to use a submit form correctly. It's all about usability and making it proof for the enduser to not make any unwanted mistakes.
Another major issue is time to write such a false-proof document/howto, which seems to be constantly short in the project and therefore no one can address this issue properly.
Which then in turn makes it even more sad to see that you yourself rather waste your time bragging about how bad this is and how stupid everyone else is, instead of using the time to help out creating such a document. Your time could be spent much more useful, especially as you in contrast to me seem seem to understand the topic and would be in a position to help with it.
Just a few cents.
@ roman - the WikiLeakS.org project has had plenty of reasonable suggestions but they act just like a Government propaganda department with an insulting, patronising, "We Know Best" attitude.
There is no need for WikiLeakS.org to re-write all the guides about how to use PGP securely - a few links to the existing online documentation would suffice.
PGP is not a replacement for their other document submission methods, but it does have its place as another option.
There are a few issues specific to whistleblowing, which I could write up in a few minutes, but what is the point, when they refuse to use PGP at all ?
Well, from my experience they were very eager to have people involve into the project. Very open bunch of people appreciating any help. The Wiki is open after all, why not just create a page then and write it up in a way it is sound, helpful and comprehensive. I cannot imagine it would be turned down. But I am not sure how much just some links will help to direct an unknowing user, like me for example, someplace that will ensure I have sufficient understanding of the process of using PGP.
Also I still think suggestions are not the problem but rather the doing, as everyone seems to be constantly busy with things, shuffling around priorities to address what needs to be addressed. And writing prose for an add-on instead of something of operationally critical might just be hard to address.
If its that easy, go ahead please, I would myself be interested to read more about it. What Operating Systems can you cover, for what base knowledge of readers? I would be happy to learn from it but I am not much of a technical person ...
@ roman - WikiLeakS.org is not a wiki in the usual sense, even though it does use the MediaWiki software.
You can make contributions to the Discussion pages, but unless you are one of the chosen core central team, you cannot create any new pages, or edit existing ones.
Many people, myself included, refuse to get involved directly in the WikiLeakS.org project, until they answer some of the fundamental Questions which arose as soon as they announced their plans. e.g. the lack of publication of even a high level security and anonymity architecture, the risks of their single point of failure server hosting in Stockholm, the ongoing questions about their funding, and their obvious political bias etc.
Now you had me curious. I went to the chat, asked some questions and tried some things on the Wiki.
- You can edit the Wiki, all it needs is a registered user. Registration is open, so no problem with that. Some pages are protected according to what I was told, which makes sense, like published analysis, those pages with the leaked document etc.
- There is no single point of failure hosting, Sweden is just an entrypoint I was told as Sweden has very strong protection laws for media outlets.
- Funding seems to be non-existant, at least the guy I talked to in the chat told me it is driven by people involved in the project. Sounded like another reason to get involved as there is no funding to buy manpower and it all relies on volunteers.
About the other things I dont know. I didnt feel they had a bias yet, and I think not publishing the architecture is kind of security issue. After all I assume it is quite good to create some blurry cloud around the project.
In any way, I felt questions are being answered as long as you ask them. Did not have the feeling anyone being overly secretive there but rather welcoming a potential helping hand.
@ roman - thanks for investigating this for yourself, rather than relying on just a single potentially biased source like me, however:
That has not been true for most of the time which WikiLeakS.org has been online.
Compared with the whistleblower leak document submission methods, there is almost no anonymity protection or even advice, for people who want to comment on or analyse those documents, without revealing their computer's real IP addresses, and times and dates of new comments, which could be used by libel lawyers or law enforcement or intelligence agencies to identify them, regardless of whether the WikiLeakS.org servers themselves keep log files or not.
You may be just as much at risk from the authorities if you have expert knowledge to comment on or analyse a classified document, as the original whistleblower themselves. Any "leak" investigation will assume that any of the people commenting on or analysing such a leak, might in fact be the whistleblower who they are trying to hunt down.
The PGP Key page and the important About page are both Protected, so only core insiders can edit those.
That entrypoint certainly is a Single Point of Failure - see several instances where the whole system has been unavailable for hours or days: Website Infrastructure downtime and denial of service blog category archive
Not any more they do not, at least from a whistleblower anonymity viewpoint.
Sweden's National Defence Radio Establishment - Försvarets radioanstalt (FRA), their equivalent of the USA National Security Agency or the UK GCHQ has been illegally snooping on Swedish internet and other communications for years. The Swedish Parliament has this year passed a draconian wiretapping law, which gives the FRA direct access to all internet traffic passing through Sweden, even stuff that is simply being routed on elsewhere.
See The Register for some links: World+dog ignores Sweden's Draconian wiretap bill
PRQ Internet, the hosting company in Sweden, used to host The Pirate Bay bit torrent site, and has been physically raided by the Swedish Police in the past.
I am inclined to believe that.
Count the number of US Military documents which have been leaked, and heavily promoted to the media, and compare this with the number of Russian or Chinese ones, of any sort, which have been made public.
That certainly looks like a political bias.
Publishing a high level security and anonymity architecture would not be detailed enough to compromise the security of the system at all, but it might give people who are thinking of helping out some confidence that the WikiLeakS.org team are not trying to re-invent the wheel and are not fatally compromising the individual components of the system.
Currently there is no such assurance.
All that is available at the moment is the totally inadequate and misleadingl statement on the About page, which claims:
"For the technically minded, Wikileaks integrates technologies including modified versions of MediaWiki, OpenSSL, FreeNet, Tor, PGP and software of our own design."
The emails replies I have had in the past have been been patronising and, frankly, insulting.
Hi again,
thanks for the extensive comments.
I see things still a little bit different. There are plenty of ways to connect to the Wiki staying anonymous and the Wiki its self also is anonymized. All IP addresses seem to be changed on the way to the server, so the server doesnt see a single real source IP address.
Protecting the PGP page is pretty important I would say and I hope you agree there. I dont see why you could not contribute via some Draft: page or a Talk: page and this would be merged into the Wiki by someone with appropriate access rights. From what I could observe so far thats how it works with them. At least for summaries for example.
The same goes for guidelines on howto write analysis. There is the writers kit which I am sure could use some enhancements but why not just contribute. I can only repeat, I am fully convinced that help would be appreciated with open arms.
Regarding Sweden I have read about this but it does not change the fact that journalists and their work is proteced by I think the third law of the constitution.
I am sorry to hear about your email experiences, mine have been completely different. Might depend on the attitude with which you write those mails, I dont know. In general I get along with most people though, so might just be that I am pretty easy.
Just some thoughts again.