Technology Review - Published By MIT
Advertisement

The Hunt for the Wikileaks Whistle-blower

Digital encoding could catch future informants.

By David Talbot

Wednesday, July 28, 2010

smaller text tool iconmedium text tool iconlarger text tool icon

Attorney General Eric Holder's new probe into Wikileaks's posting of 91,000 war documents will likely find that tracing the path of the documents back through the Internet is next to impossible. But watermarks--if they were embedded in the files--could reveal the whistle-blower.

Credit: WikiLeaks

Wikileaks relies on a networking technology called Tor, which obscures the source of uploaded data. While Tor doesn't encrypt the underlying data--that's up to the user--it does bounce the data through multiple nodes. At each step, it encrypts the network address. The source of data can be traced to the last node (the so-called "exit node"), but that node won't bear any relationship to the original sender.

Ethan Zuckerman, cofounder of the blogging advocacy organization Global Voices, says he doubts investigators can crack Tor to find the computer from which the documents were originally sent. "There's been an enormous amount of research done on the security of the Tor network and on the basic security of encryption protocols," he says. "There are theoretical attacks on Tor that have been demonstrated to work in the lab, but no credible field reports of Tor being broken."

And while Tor's profile has been raised by its association with Wikileaks, Andrew Lewman, Tor's executive director, says he has no insights into the source of the purloined documents. "I don't know how Wikileaks got any of the information," he says. While Wikileaks gets technical help from Tor staffers, "they don't tell us anything, other than 'Did we set up the hidden service correctly?' which we'd answer for anyone," Lewman adds.

"People assume that Wikileaks is a Tor project, but I can tell you definitely there is no official relationship."

Lewman points out that many law-enforcement agencies, such as the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency, also use Tor to protect their operations.

Story continues below


One way the government could finger a leaker is through digital watermarking of the documents themselves. James Goldman, a cyber forensics expert at Purdue University, says it's not clear whether the government uses digital watermarking, "but it's certainly possible."

Such watermarks would consist of hidden digital data--or even slight alterations in the pattern of words--added to documents in ways that are hard to detect, but are readily decodable with the right software.

Comments

  • DRM and Society
    We'll I certainly hope we find new ways to crack DRM technologies, not Tor. The Afghan logs are one more example of the immeasurable need of anonymity and courageous organizations such as Wikileaks for a shot at a more transparent world, were war crimes are not cowardly hidden at some pentagon data server.
    Rate this comment: 12345

    jorgejch
    07/28/2010
    Posts:7
    Avg Rating:
    3/5
    • Re: DRM and Society
      so agreed. as jefferson said, "any government which makes a policy of long keeping secrets from its own public is no longer working in the interests of the people." and also jefferson, "onnly criminals and tyrants require secrecy." and what we have long had here in the land of fiefdom and demockery is both criminals and tyrants ruling from wall street to brainwashington.

      if i had my way, every grisly secret of every government, religio or corporation would be spread across the world and let the chips fall where they may. nothing vaporizes a vampire like exposure to sunlight!
      Rate this comment: 12345

      tazdelaney
      07/29/2010
      Posts:4
      Avg Rating:
      4/5
  • Wonderful instrument to frame a competitor
    If a document will be watermarked will be watermarked for recipient by a sender - then the system needs to be very complex to secure against local exploit for abuse (i.e. sender leaking the recipient's document to frame them).  If a document will be watermarked upon arrival then the system needs to be even more complex to secure against the local exploit for interception (i.e. receiver getting hands on a yet-to-be-watermarked copy). And complex stuff is never reliable.
    Rate this comment: 12345

    vlad_diden...
    07/28/2010
    Posts:1
    Avg Rating:
    5/5
  • ...
    ha! thats all i can really say at this point in time, i find this a bit worrisome and rather hilarious all at the same time...
    Rate this comment: 12345

    moochismoo...
    07/29/2010
    Posts:3
    Avg Rating:
    2/5
  • Not a Whistle-blower
    Mr. Talbot, the person who sent all those classified documents to Wikileaks is no simple whistle-blower.  She/he is a criminal and you shouldn't elevate him/her with a misplaced "whistle-blower" meme.  Those of us who have access to our nation's secrets have sworn an oath not to disclose those secrets and understand the penalties that go with unauthorized disclosure.  If we cheapen that oath by excusing criminal conduct as some sort of noble "whistle-blowing" we put our national security and the lives of those who defend us at risk. 
    Rate this comment: 12345

    cayojoe
    07/29/2010
    Posts:7
    Avg Rating:
    3/5
    • Re: Not a Whistle-blower
      I think you're mixing up the criminals here.  When a government lies to it's people then they are the criminals.  Perhaps you're too young to remember Vietnam and Daniel Ellsberg.  Daniel is applauding this revelation. Sam 
      Rate this comment: 12345

      ssamd
      07/29/2010
      Posts:15
      Avg Rating:
      3/5
      • Re: Not a Whistle-blower
        Yo.
        Rate this comment: 12345

        luddite
        07/29/2010
        Posts:90
        Avg Rating:
        3/5
      • Re: Not a Whistle-blower
        So you defend your assertion that the current Wikileaks disclosure is a noble deed by citing the previous seditious acts of a loony octogenarian? 

        We are a nation of laws that must be respected in order for that nation to survive.  When one person, whether it be Daniel Ellsberg or PFC Manning, decides to unilaterally disclose classified information, that person undermines all the judicial and legislative checks we, the people, have over the actions of a bad executive.  I have enough gray on my head to know that.
        Rate this comment: 12345

        cayojoe
        07/30/2010
        Posts:7
        Avg Rating:
        3/5
    • Re: Not a Whistle-blower
      there is nothing intrinsically sacred about information deemed "secret" by the government. The sprawling mess that is our system of classifying information is well documented.
      When information is deemed secret for political purposes, as might be the case with some of the leaked documents, then shooting the messenger under the rubric of "national security" and "lives are endangered" betrays what we are supposed to be about: an informed citizenry participating democratically to shape policy based on facts at hand.
      Rate this comment: 12345

      mandrews58
      07/29/2010
      Posts:2
      Avg Rating:
      4/5
      • Re: Not a Whistle-blower
        You are correct in your assessment that there is nothing particularly "sacred" about classified information -- but you miss the point altogether.  This isn't so much about what bits of data are disclosed, though in publishing something today it is instantly available to our enemies.  This is about something much more important over the long haul:  a person's sacred honor and his/her duty to keep the secrets with which they were entrusted and swore an oath to protect.  No matter whether they like the secrets or not.  A PFC (or some disillusioned hippie schmuck) is in no position to declassify or disclose our nation's secrets.  Period.

        I will not argue that there is a tendency to overclassify information in the military.  I'm certain I did my share of it during my 25-year career.  I suspect, at least on my part and from what I gathered from others, that overclassification is to some degree a response to the media and mindless fops like Julian Assange who have little or no restraint or decency in what they'll publish... and little care for the fallout from publishing it. 
        Rate this comment: 12345

        cayojoe
        07/30/2010
        Posts:7
        Avg Rating:
        3/5
        • Re: Not a Whistle-blower
          Based on the volume of materials released, it must have been mailed to WikiLeaks in a CD.  In this case watermarks and encrypted identifiers might be available to track the source.  Otherwise, Homeland Security may be storing web traffic everyday and scouring the contents for terrorist 'chatter'.  If they keep the records for over a month period then it may be very easy to track down the perpetraitor.
          Rate this comment: 12345

          doanwon
          07/30/2010
          Posts:65
          Avg Rating:
          4/5
        • Re: Not a Whistle-blower
          It is simply not that clear cut - there is more to this than just the oath the person took.
          I do understand chain of command, and the necessity to safeguard secrets - second guessing orders is always a serious problem one way or another.
          On the other hand, you have the nuremberg defense. you would be duty bound to act if the nature of the secrets you safeguard are an egregious violation of the constitutional principals we live by. I don't know how bad it is in this case - i haven't read all the dox ;-) but systematic lying to the public about how the war is going is criminal. seriously criminal.
          Maybe the leaker is a publicity whore and maybe he/she was so disturbed by the level of deception and lawbreaking that they could not keep silent - I hope we find out the truth.
          Personally, i am appalled by the lies that were the basis of, and continue to sustain, this war. We now find ourselves with nothing but bad choices to support decisions which should never have been made.
          So yes, some oath breaking is in order. Or we will get more of the same - over and over.
          It doesn't really need to be said, but just to be explicit - I'm not a liberal who thinks there is no enemy. there is - but the war in iraq/afghanistan sure as f**k isn't the answer.
          Rate this comment: 12345

          mandrews58
          07/30/2010
          Posts:2
          Avg Rating:
          4/5
  • hypocracy
    If you call your criminal conducts your national secrets, obscuring those behind your oaths, you are no less than obnoxious nations and no less than Jewish practices. Understanding the term NOBLE is way beyond your imagination then.
    Rate this comment: 12345

    sheralitiw...
    07/29/2010
    Posts:1
    Avg Rating:
    1/5
  • HiPocrates
    discovery or not, the victims of the recent Pakistani aircraft disaster won't be coming back anytime in the near future....now if cloning was understood well enough...crates full of body parts would have a chance to return a generation from now to their bereaved loved ones....a pity the offbeat spiritualists, tying laces of both shoes together...Wikitwits and Wikiwiks don't make wiki knits
    Rate this comment: 12345

    Asclaepius
    07/29/2010
    Posts:24
    Avg Rating:
    3/5
  • wikileaky
    The information leaked is already well known to those who read the newspapers.

    So, saying the usa lies, is misplaced and agenda driven, and of no value. good thing these people did not exist during WWII.

    Oh Yeah, read yesterday, 25 civilians were murdered by troops by blowing up a bus. Surely this is a hateful crime of greed, power and lust for violence....designed on purpose to kill civilians,

    We must have war crime investigations and strong penalities for those responsible. Not to mention the imperialistic leaders that propagated this crime.... the UN must investigate and immediate action is necessary...

    USA Army? Noooooo,... NO THIS ACT WAS CARRIED OUT BY THE TALIBAN.
    Rate this comment: 12345

    rhansing
    07/29/2010
    Posts:63
    Avg Rating:
    3/5
  • They are us
    People talk about the government as if it is some alien entity running the US.  The people running the government are full blooded Americans just like you and I.  They have been either elected by votes or have been promoted by the system.  They are tasked with the great responsibility to make the difficult decisions and carry out the dirty work to defend the American way of life--freedom and security.  In war, just like driving a car, there will be unintended side effects and consequences but the American system--if you believe in it--will guide those in charge to ensure that mistakes are reduced or eliminated.  But in time of war the government's task is to win a war not to appease some crybabies who can't handle the truth but keep clamoring for them.  What rights do they have for knowing every info about the war and every details about the battles?  They should consider themselves lucky to have rights that they don't have to grow beards or wear burqa if they don't want, or sing any songs they like and not limited to two.  Lets leave Aghanistan so that it could become a haven for AlQuaida and they can launch waves of attacks on Western societies.  Who will those people blame then? People's rights may be unalienable and free to some but to some others it comes from sacrifice in blood.

    The gentleman who is head of Wikileaks is an Australian amateur.  He has spoken out against the war before.  His country was not attacked and its citizens jumping out of two flaming skyscrapers to escape the flames the way it was on 9-11. He is trying to satiate his fashionable agenda by revealing these sensitive information no matter the potential cost in human lives similar to a crybaby slamming its head against the wall to gain attention.

    The internet should be doubly linked so documents can be traced to the originator.
    Rate this comment: 12345

    doanwon
    07/29/2010
    Posts:65
    Avg Rating:
    4/5
    • Re: They are us
      Sir, your well mannered tone does conceal some of the very far right policies it alludes to. I will not discourse with similar tenderness, but instead just right out point to the Fascism, as it was very skillfully, and maybe ingenuously, put by you. You have characterized an autocratic  regime, in which few must know, and have the trust of the people in fear of loosing some precious "right". You have characterized yourself as a supporting fascist, and pointed to a whole Nation basically saying "Let us not loose focus, fellow fascists, victory is at sight", now with a bit o drama. I think the questions that all Americans should be asking are "What am I really supporting, and what does that makes me?" and "How does the rest of the world sees me, as an American?" If sought with a investigative mind, the answers will shock many.
      Rate this comment: 12345

      jorgejch
      07/29/2010
      Posts:7
      Avg Rating:
      3/5
      • Re: They are us
        I went to vote for the presidential and congressional candidates in the last Presidential Election, but was too lazy to go vote for the local elections.  Now I find out that the government is really a fascist and autocratic government.  Shocking!
        Rate this comment: 12345

        doanwon
        07/29/2010
        Posts:65
        Avg Rating:
        4/5
      • Re: They are us
        Many people simply fail to understand how much effort the military puts in making as much information as possible available to the public. The problem is that many news agencies don't care about distributing informations as much as a good story. What wikileaks has done is gotten a hold of information pulled out of context, the reader has no  concept of the full story, yet believes themselves justified in drawing conclusions and distributing accusations. If you truly have a burning desire to know what is going on, and to know these secrets go down to your local enlistment office and sign up, you might gain a unique perspective.

        Also, think about this. The US military employs very expensive high tech weapons designed to minimize collateral damage. We pay a lot of money to reduce civilian casualties as much as possible. Now, do you think the people we are fighting over there do the same? No, they employ cheap weapons designed to end as many lives as possible per $. When people fail to understand the context behind information certain agencies can take significant advantage of sensitive information by portraying it in whatever way will net the biggest response from the public, regardless of where that response will lead.
        Rate this comment: 12345

        spad12
        07/31/2010
        Posts:58
        Avg Rating:
        4/5

Log In

Forgot your password?     Register »
Advertisement

Videos

How to Redesign Life
Sponsored by
More videos »
Technology Review September/October 2010

Current Issue

The TR35
Our annual selection of the world's top innovators under the age of 35.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Subscribe to Technology Review's daily e-mail update. Enter your e-mail address

TECHNOLOGY RESOURCES
Advertisement
MIT Massachusetts Institute of Technology © 2010 Technology Review. All Rights Reserved.