Army: Manning asked Assange to help crack password

Wired’s Kim Zetter, reporting from Army Pvt. Bradley Manning’s first hearing on charges of leaking classified documents to Wikileaks: “Manning asked “Nathaniel Frank,” believed to be Assange, about help in cracking the main password on his classified SIPRnet computer so that he could log on to it anonymously. He asked “Frank” if he had experience cracking IM NT hashes (presumably it’s a mistype and he meant NTLM for the Microsoft NT LAN Manager). 'Frank' replied yes, that they had 'rainbow tables' for doing that. Manning then sent him what looked like a hash.”


  1. Has Assange ever professed to being a “hacker”?

    “Nathanial Frank” sounds more like Adrian Lamo if he knows about cracking NTLM hashes with Rainbow Tables.

    And oh yeah, if Manning was cracking classified machines, they can get him for that, let alone anything he leaked. Idiot.

    1. Adrian Lamo is hardly a hacker.  He’s just a guy that manipulates the url or string variables.  That’s not hacking, it’s tinkering.   Adrian doesn’t do (or know) cracking of hashes or encyption.

      1. Using Rainbow Tables doesn’t quite count as hacking either – there’s no cryptanalysis involved.  It’s just brute strength, but done in advance.

        I’d characterize it as script kiddie stuff

        1. of course, there is the chance that he was just an idealistic young person and then saw the classified materials in question.

          I mean, I know I was changed by what I saw on circa 2005, and my family is career military, with brass. This poor idealistic VOLUNTEER was suddenly swimming in the very harsh truth about what America does in our name.

          It made me question a lot, and I wasn’t swimming in it, and I grew up with a very realistic view of what our policies and their effects are.

          Or, you know, go for the shallow character assessment thing. Whatever keeps the torch in your hand.

      1. I work with a guy who used to work close to Assange. He is the kind of guy who when given a choice between asking for access to something and (OTH) cracking security, will take the later option.

    1. It’s still mangled. Probably some weird DoS attack to keep us from reading about his trial/hearing/whatever it is.

      1. how crafty of the government, to make it look like the CMS messed up. they know their HTML as well as their black helicopters

  2. Please stop ungendering Pvt. Manning by referring to her as “Bradley” or using male pronouns.  It’s offensive and triggering.

        1. That’s a personal choice, and you must be told what to use. Assuming he/she/ze wants it a particular way isn’t correct, either. Until Pfc Manning tells us, him/her/hirself, we can’t know.

    1. I’m not really sure about that. We’ve never heard from Private Manning…which is not to say we should necessarily use the default, I’m just not sure how comfortable I feel about declaring that we SHOULD use one set of pronouns over another to respect someone when we haven’t been able to ask. I’m all in favor of gender-neutral language until we can. I mean, it just feels a bit…..we only know about the trans stuff because of some heavily implied things that were told in confidence to third parties. That makes me uncomfortable treating it as if it were a public declaration. The poor kid deserves some privacy, you know? But I guess in this case nothing will be fair…it is already public.

      1. In Manning’s own words:
        “[I] questioned my gender for several years… sexual orientation was easy to figure out… but i started to come to terms with it during the first few months of my deployment”

        “i already got myself into minor trouble, revealing my uncertainty over my gender identity… which is causing me to lose this job… […] i wish it were as simple as “hey, go transition”… but i need to get paperwork sorted…”

        “i wouldn’t mind going to prison for the rest of my life, or being executed so much, if it wasn’t for the possibility of having pictures of me… plastered all over the world press… as [a] boy…”

        1. Yes, I’ve read the transcripts. Which were transcripts of a conversation that was had in the understanding that it was completely confidential. That’s where my discomfort comes from. What Lamo did was despicable- a violation of trust so complete that I am sick with it. This should be something that Bradley should have a say in, you know? I just wish we could ask. It’s so personal.

    2. I don’t understand why Lamo is being trusted anyway. Clearly, Manning being not straight (and especially the Lady Gaga-bit) was used to slander, just because Lamo says he’s gay himself doesn’t lower my suspicion… (he is, after all, someone who leaks private chat logs.)
      So, given this was during the DADT debate, didn’t it fit nicely that the evil traitor was also queer? (Actually this doesn’t need Lamo fabricating anything, it’s irrelevant if that narrative is based in truth or not…)

        1. Wired is joined by CNN, BBC, Reuters, The Baltimore Sun, The AP, codepink(!), HuffPo, ah, I’m tired of looking, they call treat him as male.

          1. I’m sure they’ve all been in contact with Manning and have all asked Manning what pronouns they should all use in reporting. 

            *tries not to die of laughter*

            Seriously, we had issues recently with reporting on trans people _on this very blog_ and got it wrong the first time.

          2. Pointing out that the mainstream media is referring to a person as “he” hardly indicates much about the person’s gender-identity. The mainstream media regularly refers to overtly trans people using the wrong pronouns.

      1. Hearing others be misgendered can remind a lot of folks of times they have been misgendered. For some people, those times can amount to a lifetime of being perceived and treated as someone they simply didn’t feel they were.

  3. And the misgendering of Manning by her alleged supporters continues.

    1. I think we have to go back to the point that the person we’re talking about hasn’t made a public statement regarding preferred gender usage. Could be there hasn’t been a lot of opportunity for such reflection for said person, given the circumstances.

Comments are closed.