Torrent promising huge amounts of leaked data is now live

[bradscoolio]

Kinda curious now if it's true... does anyone dare to try downloading it and opening it?

 

Challange accepted, won't download it but i'll snoop the file names.

 

*edit: Can't snoop it for some reason. Must be zipped :(

[Helltech]

I have 5TB free, but I totally don't give a rats about downloading it myself. I could never open it. Am curious to see what plays out from all of this though. I highly doubt he would be raided and put in jail if there wasn't real evidence against him. Its obvious he is a clever and good hacker, at the very least. 

[LAwLz]

1.7 TB = 1,740.8 GB = 1,782,580 MB

1,782,580 MB / 4MB/s = 445,645 seconds

445,645 / 60 = 7427.42 minutes

7427.42 / 60 = 123.79 hours

123.79 / 24 = 5.16 days

= 5 days

That's a bit of difference imo. By like 5-6 hours. Or about 3-4% which is noticeable.

If you are wondering why I corrected you, 1TB = 1024GB, 1GB = 1024MB and so on, which adds up if you convert more than 1 size or with large (greater than 10) numbers.

.... Grammar Nazi of the math world.

 

Well, no...

1GB = 1000MB

1GiB = 1024 MiB

 

Windows labels it wrongly, but for example some Linux distros correctly use the GiB prefix.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibibyte

 

You're not a very good grammar nazi.

[JordanMac]

wow 105 days at 1.5mbps, i don't need to know what is in there that badly.

[tom564]

Challange accepted, won't download it but i'll snoop the file names.

 

*edit: Can't snoop it for some reason. Must be zipped :(

You will not be able to see individual file names because it is an encrypted volume, and without the key it will take years to crack the encryption unless the password is short or dictionary words. The contents of the file could be nothing and just an empty volume that is why i am not wasting my time downloading it at this stage.  Although i am interested in how this pans out.  

[bradscoolio]

You will not be able to see individual file names because it is an encrypted volume, and without the key it will take years to crack the encryption unless the password is short or dictionary words. The contents of the file could be nothing and just an empty volume that is why i am not wasting my time downloading it at this stage.  Although i am interested in how this pans out.  

 

A million pictures entitled "Penis.jpeg" ^__^

[Vitalius]

Well, no...

1GB = 1000MB

1GiB = 1024 MiB

 

Windows labels it wrongly, but for example some Linux distros correctly use the GiB prefix.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibibyte

 

You're not a very good grammar nazi.

Windows measures storage in orders of 1024 and not 1000. 

http://www.howtogeek.com/123268/windows-hard-drive-wrong-capacity/

So when it comes to storing things, I do the same since it's likely done the same with whatever stores the data, and thereby, the data is larger than you might think.

[zeros]

Again, it's just a password protected archive file. As someone described it earlier, until we get the password it's like downloading a 1.7TB brick. I am not even getting good speeds (fired my client up again to check seeders, and it's currently at 15, so 1 more than before). And no, we won't be able to break the encryption. Hopefully the password will be released soon, and hopefully the archive do contains everything we think it contains.

Didn't even see you quoting me :D. If I would have the space maybe I would download it if it would download at 94Mbps, but I doubt anyone is sharing at that speed. Also, yeah until the password is out, it's useless. 

[Blade of Grass]

Windows measures storage in orders of 1024 and not 1000.

http://www.howtogeek.com/123268/windows-hard-drive-wrong-capacity/

So when it comes to storing things, I do the same since it's likely done the same with whatever stores the data, and thereby, the data is larger than you might think.

last time I checked, everything except windows measures it as 1000.

[LAwLz]

Windows measures storage in orders of 1024 and not 1000. 

http://www.howtogeek.com/123268/windows-hard-drive-wrong-capacity/

So when it comes to storing things, I do the same since it's likely done the same with whatever stores the data, and thereby, the data is larger than you might think.

Yes that's exactly what I said. Windows says it is using GB (1000MB) when it is actually using GiB (1024).

[Samdb]

Windows measures storage in orders of 1024 and not 1000. 

http://www.howtogeek.com/123268/windows-hard-drive-wrong-capacity/

So when it comes to storing things, I do the same since it's likely done the same with whatever stores the data, and thereby, the data is larger than you might think.

It isn't Windows that measures storage, it's maths that measures the storage, 1000Mb isn't 1Gb anywhere, it's just the way that it is advertised.

[Vitalius]

last time I checked, everything except windows measures it as 1000.

I've only had extensive use with Windows in regards to storage systems, so I wouldn't know that. Sorry.

 

Yes that's exactly what I said. Windows says it is using GB (1000MB) when it is actually using GiB (1024).

Yes, my bad. I must've still been half asleep when responding to that. 

 

It isn't Windows that measures storage, it's maths that measures the storage, 1000Mb isn't 1Gb anywhere, it's just the way that it is advertised.

True.

[LAwLz]

It isn't Windows that measures storage, it's maths that measures the storage, 1000Mb isn't 1Gb anywhere, it's just the way that it is advertised.

Ehh, what? Mega is, according to the International System of Units, equal to 10⁶. 1000MB == 1GB. 1024MiB == 1GiB.

Again, it's just that Windows incorrectly says GB instead of GiB.

 

How many meters is one kilometer? 1000

How many bytes is one kilobyte? 1000

 

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=1+mebibyte

1 mebibyte

Unit conversions:

1024KiB (kibibytes)

 

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=1+megabyte

1 megabyte:

Unit conversions:

1000kB (kilobyte)

 

So again, 1000 Megabytes is 1 Gigabyte. 1024 Mebibytes is 1 Gibibytes.

 

Further proof:

http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/prefixes.html

http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/binary.html

 

Can we please leave this now?

[heineygoat]

So, whose going to go through and find all the good information in 1.7tb of data?

[EChondo]

Uh...if it's an archive, wouldn't the 1.7TB be more like 3TB+ uncompressed?

 

So the requirements just went a wee bit higher than expected.

[Samdb]

Uh...if it's an archive, wouldn't the 1.7TB be more like 3TB+ uncompressed?

 

So the requirements just went a wee bit higher than expected.

You had to ruin it didn't you! :)

[Guest]

Quit bickering and someone tell us all what's inside. -_-

 

 

 

:P

[GuppyTech]

I call BS on this, who's stupid enough to make an "insurance" file 1.7TB big & put a password on it -_-

 

agreed...

 

totally bogus imo

[Snickerzz]

if hes in jail hows he going to release the password? ._.

[Raj8396]

It would around 3.9 hour to download this on google fiber that's pretty cool   :o

[CapnCrunch]

removed 

[kuddlesworth9419]

Your forgetting that the first try could be the correct password.

[LAwLz]

Uh...if it's an archive, wouldn't the 1.7TB be more like 3TB+ uncompressed?

 

So the requirements just went a wee bit higher than expected.

Might not be compressed. If it is then yeah, you're gonna need 2TB+.

 

 

if hes in jail hows he going to release the password? ._.

The password might be released if he doesn't login for an even longer period of time.

 

Him: If you arrest me, I am going to release all the files I have.

Police: Yeah right...

*files are released but password protected.

Him: The password will be released if I don't get my stuff back.

 

It's like a warning shot.

 

 

Your forgetting that the first try could be the correct password.

Oh right. That huge number was just the worst case scenario. On average it will only need half as much time, which is still several magnitudes longer than the current age of the universe.

[joshuamurphy]

I don't think you understand how powerful AES-256 is. They recently discovered a flaw in AES which makes it 4 times as easy to crack. Here is a quite from the researchers who found it:

So let's assume it was an AES-128 container.

If we had 1,000,000,000,000 machines and all of them could test 1,000,000,000 keys a second, it would take 2,000,000,000 YEARS to crack.

Oh, but that's AES-128. This is AES-256... The thing with encryption algorithms is that the strength of an encryption relative to the key length is an exponential growth. Each additional bit doubles the strength of the key. So to return to our previous examples, with our trillion computers all testing a billion keys a second, it would take 8,000,000,000 years to crack AES 130, and 12,000,000,000 to crack AES 131.

 

So how much harder is AES-256 to crack than AES-128? Take AES-128, and then multiply it by this number:

340,282,366,920,938,463,463,374,607,431,768,211,456

That's over 340 undecillion times harder to crack. So unless I've made some error somewhere, it would be like this:

If we had 1,000,000,000,000 machines and all of them could test 1,000,000,000 keys a second, it would take 680,564,733,841,876,926,926,749,214,863,536,422,912,000,000,000 years to crack it.

 

680,564,733,841,876,926,926,749,214,863,536,422,912,000,000,000 - time it would take to crack with all those computers, in years.

                                                                                      13,770,000,000 - The age of the universe in years.

 

This is with the flaw by the way. Without it, it would be 4 times as long.

i know feel safe knowing my 'normal' encryption is strong

[tom564]

i know feel safe knowing my 'normal' encryption is strong

It is only as strong as the password as a weak passwords can be cracked in minutes or even seconds.