Technical opinion sought on how easy it would be to 'pull' all Wikileaks mirrors.
I read an article today on TheRawStory.com that I was going to link to here as a starting point, but as I come to write this, the article has been redacted from the site.
It was titled something like 'Professor says Net needs to be completely rebuilt'
he was advocating a peer to peer construction (Like the Borg in Star trek) rather than the centalised DNS of the current web.
The article wasn't that enlightening, but the following discussion was more so with two seemingly well informed commentors arguing about possible alternate systems and whether or not Wikileaks can be shut down at all, currently or with any other system with all the mirrors & organisation etc. Some of it was pretty technical, and I wanted to go back to digest /research their arguments.
Something said tho, was about the fact that all they did to cut off wikileaks is delete the name of the site from the DNS, but that the Ip address still remains, so that mirrors can all redirect still to the IP addresses?
This is all regurgitated now from memory,and I may have got the wrong end of the stick, so whatever they may or may not have been saying is now a mystery, but I was wondering if there is anyone here with enough know how to offer an opinion on how easy it would be for them to block the IP addresses of the thousands of mirrors. Or is it that with proxy servers they cant actually achieve this currently anyway? Someone also commented that the subsequent attacks against mastercard etc were of no significance, as administrators had ample means of dealing with it and it was completely overblown.
The reason I ask is because if they can shut down the mirrors fairly easily, and they really dont want wikileaks online why havent they done it?
They may either want the Wikileaks info out there, or the game is bigger - just shutting the wikileaks mirrors is of no interest them anyway, so could this be evidence that the whole scam is manufactured to give them new authority to shut down anything they see as a threat? Then they can tear out half the pages out of the webophone directory.
Its like the Norad standown of web security I suppose?
Anyway let me know if anyone sees anything similar.
blocking sites
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/12/rushkoff-internet-never-free/
As far as I can tell by 'rebuild the internet from scratch' Rushkoff means 'use an alternate DNS root', like OpenNIC. It's easy to change your DNS server.. at the moment it's probably set to your ISP (which probably uses the ICANN root).
It's true that removing the DNS lookup for a site's name won't stop people accessing that site through its current IP address. And although it's straightforward to block IP addresses, that won't stop people using a proxy server, 'anonymous' networks like Tor etc.
I assume the supposed reasons why WL and it's mirrors aren't blocked are that the files are out there now (even on news sites etc.), public relations, and maybe the law.. I mean I would have thought Clinton was correct that disclosing confidential information is illegal, but a lot of the 'free speech' protesters supporting WL seem to think otherwise?
Thanks for the link, for a
Thanks for the link, for a time it must have been stuck between cut from front page, and getting in the archive so nothing sinister there.-Piss poor effort at me remembering the title though!.
Interesting comments in this article, and thanks for your input too.
If you are online through a proxy,is the ip address you have, maintained the same regardless of your true ip and unable to be cut centrally, in which case how immune are the proxys from being controlled? Or can they easilly centrally remove the troublesome ip address, then you have to relocate to a new one and readvertise your new address?
What i am getting at is :
Is Wikileaks a model for how threatened sites mirror mutate and reorganise if attacked centrally, in which case it should be emulated by others if necessary?
OR,
Either through central unplugging, pressure on proxies or through the ISP's there are easy ways to cut any site already, So Wikileaks is giving a false sense of untouchability?
OR,
they need new legal powers /anti net neutrality bill or control through the ISP's or some other junction they dont already have in order to control the net, and may be using wikileaks to effect that?.
cyber patsies
"Is Wikileaks a model for how threatened sites mirror mutate and reorganise if attacked centrally, in which case it should be emulated by others if necessary?"
I would say technically it's a very bad model compared to e.g. p2p networks in terms of resilience to attack, but I guess if you need a web presence, you've got lots of people willing to provide mirrors and the support of the press, and the authorities don't seem bothered about shutting you down it works OK.
"Either through central unplugging, pressure on proxies or through the ISP's there are easy ways to cut any site already, So Wikileaks is giving a false sense of untouchability?"
I guess WL and their mirrors are still available, but that's not because they can't easily be blocked technically speaking (at least in the sense of requiring inconvenient proxies/tor etc.)
"They need new legal powers /anti net neutrality bill or control through the ISP's or some other junction they dont already have in order to control the net, and may be using wikileaks to effect that?."
I'm going for this one, but I don't know why they would need any new laws to stop WL themselves. Is there a lawyer in the house?
btw I noticed The Guardian is promoting the 'Anonymous/4chan' cyber-patsy network now (24hr democracy!!1!)..
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/11/wikileaks-backlash-cyber-war
recent bill may be relevant
"US lawmakers have introduced legislation that would allow the federal government to quickly block websites anywhere in the world if they are dedicated to sharing copyrighted music or other protected content."
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/09/21/copyright_enforcement_bill
But, I would have thought the key word there is 'quickly', i.e. they can already do this.. especially if the 'protected content' is a 'threat to national security'?
espionage act
If prosecution is needed before WL and the like can be blocked, this article seems to be saying that may be difficult under the Espionage Act because
1. It was designed for whoever who stole the documents in the first place, and WL claims to have only received them. They might go after whichever employees initially posted stuff to the site.
2. They've presented themselves as a 'responsible media outlet' interested in 'public debate and transparency' as opposed to being like 'hi, we're spies'
“It’s going to be a difficult case, and it’s going to create all kinds of new law.”
http://www.boulderweekly.com/article-4009-experts-prosecuting-wikileaks-...