MtGox2014Leak.zip

[lzp729]

Mod note: be careful with the executable, run it only on an isolated virtual machine

download here

http://blog.magicaltux.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/MtGox2014Leak.zip

Im not responsible for anything

[1714128943]

1714128943

[1714128943]

1714128943

[1714128943]

1714128943

[BitCoinDream]

Mod note: be careful with the executable, run it only on an isolated virtual machine

download here

http://blog.magicaltux.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/MtGox2014Leak.zip

Im not responsible for anything

Mod note: be careful with the executable, run it only on an isolated virtual machine
Nor am I...

http://89.248.171.30/MtGox2014Leak.zip  

[emrcan]

What's this?

[WindMaster]

What's this?

Database dumps from Gox.  Check the other thread:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=508162.0

[tkbx]

no torrent? 

[dserrano5]

no torrent? 

magnet:?xt=urn:btih:b6545ecc7db8d44c8cbc4e93989edf8221af75f5&dn=MtGox2014Leak.zip&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.openbittorrent.com%3A80&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.openbittorrent.com%3A80&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.ccc.de%3A80&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.istole.it%3A80&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.publicbt.com%3A80&ws=http%3A%2F%2Fblog.magicaltux.net%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2014%2F03%2FMtGox2014Leak.zip

[bananas]

why is it lacking december 2013, januar and febuary 2014? Those are important months. The OP in reddit said it was dumped in febuary.

[tvbcof]

OP: You should put a checksum with a file like this.  It would be an obvious ploy to replace some of the files with trojans.  If the original is though to be clean, people may execute exploits contained in a zip they thought to be real.

I downloaded a copy from:

  [http]://blog.magicaltux.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/MtGox2014Leak.zip

at in the morning PST (2014.03.09) and this is the checksum I get:

  snip@snip ~> sha256 MtGox2014Leak.zip
  SHA256 (MtGox2014Leak.zip) = ffcf6742ab84d7e29ef16ca4f0829d7c4e7a4f739414d2b6d2ded52f05e75a67

Several people on a different thread get the same checksum, but I don't know if they got it from the same place or not.

Checksums are easy to check, reliable, and quite critical for data such as this.  I would be very wary of anything sensitive that I downloaded which did not come with a checksum, and I would (and do) cross-check these.

If anyone finds a file of the same name with a different checksum it would be good to report it (even worth starting a new thread) and handing it over to people who can analyze the contents.  We really don't need any more people losing money to stupid things associated with Mt. Gox...though I suspect we'll see a lot more in the weeks to come

[joesmoe2012]

OP: You should put a checksum with a file like this.  It would be an obvious ploy to replace some of the files with trojans.  If the original is though to be clean, people may execute exploits contained in a zip they thought to be real.

I downloaded a copy from:

  [http]://blog.magicaltux.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/MtGox2014Leak.zip

at in the morning PST (2014.03.09) and this is the checksum I get:

  snip@snip ~> sha256 MtGox2014Leak.zip
  SHA256 (MtGox2014Leak.zip) = ffcf6742ab84d7e29ef16ca4f0829d7c4e7a4f739414d2b6d2ded52f05e75a67

Several people on a different thread get the same checksum, but I don't know if they got it from the same place or not.

Checksums are easy to check, reliable, and quite critical for data such as this.  I would be very wary of anything sensitive that I downloaded which did not come with a checksum, and I would (and do) cross-check these.

If anyone finds a file of the same name with a different checksum it would be good to report it (even worth starting a new thread) and handing it over to people who can analyze the contents.  We really don't need any more people losing money to stupid things associated with Mt. Gox...though I suspect we'll see a lot more in the weeks to come

Yeah especially when there's exe and pdf inside.

[kostagr33k]

Not sure how a checksum helps here ... Checksums ONLY work when you trust the party that constructed the file + checksum. Did someone trusted create the file + checksum linked above?


Kosta

[joesmoe2012]

Not sure how a checksum helps here ... Checksums ONLY work when you trust the party that constructed the file + checksum. Did someone trusted create the file + checksum linked above?


Kosta

Nope an allegedly there's a trojan in one of the versions out there as well, so download with care.

[dave111223]

It contains EXEs and no useful information.

Probably the info in there is a combination of transactions taken from the API, and bullshit balance list; all put together in order to try and get you to try and run the "Backoffice" EXEs...which is no doubt a virus trying to steal your bitcoins.

Don't waste your time downloading it.

[joesmoe2012]

It contains EXEs and no useful information.

Probably the info in there is a combination of transactions taken from the API, and bullshit balance list; all put together in order to try and get you to try and run the "Backoffice" EXEs...which is no doubt a virus trying to steal your bitcoins.

Don't waste your time downloading it.

In another thread someone said they had decompiled it and had posted the code, and that there was some suspicious code. I don't know if that was here or another forum though.

[V4Vendettas]

How many new members posting this url in the last 24 hours ?

[tvbcof]

Not sure how a checksum helps here ... Checksums ONLY work when you trust the party that constructed the file + checksum. Did someone trusted create the file + checksum linked above?

Kosta

A file which does not checksum will have different contents (or be corrupt) which is a give away that someone has monkeyed with it.  Almost certainly such a thing would indicate the inclusion of contents with exploits.

When I wrote that, it was unknown whether the 'original' contained exploits or not.  Reports now seem to indicate that it is full of them.  (Who could have seen that coming?)

Checksums are basic and simple things that have been in use for decades.  For good reason.  Using checksums in a situation like this one can help identify a very likely class of theft attempts.  There is no reason but utter ignorance and laziness not to use them...except to attempt to perpetrate a theft that is.

[joesmoe2012]

Not sure how a checksum helps here ... Checksums ONLY work when you trust the party that constructed the file + checksum. Did someone trusted create the file + checksum linked above?

Kosta

A file which does not checksum will have different contents (or be corrupt) which is a give away that someone has monkeyed with it.  Almost certainly such a thing would indicate the inclusion of contents with exploits.

When I wrote that, it was unknown whether the 'original' contained exploits or not.  Reports now seem to indicate that it is full of them.  (Who could have seen that coming?)

Checksums are basic and simple things that have been in use for decades.  For good reason.  Using checksums in a situation like this one can help identify a very likely class of theft attempts.  There is no reason but utter ignorance and laziness not to use them...except to attempt to perpetrate a theft that is.

But we would need a checksum from the 'hacker' in order to ensure integrity.

[tvbcof]

Not sure how a checksum helps here ... Checksums ONLY work when you trust the party that constructed the file + checksum. Did someone trusted create the file + checksum linked above?

Kosta

A file which does not checksum will have different contents (or be corrupt) which is a give away that someone has monkeyed with it.  Almost certainly such a thing would indicate the inclusion of contents with exploits.

When I wrote that, it was unknown whether the 'original' contained exploits or not.  Reports now seem to indicate that it is full of them.  (Who could have seen that coming?)

Checksums are basic and simple things that have been in use for decades.  For good reason.  Using checksums in a situation like this one can help identify a very likely class of theft attempts.  There is no reason but utter ignorance and laziness not to use them...except to attempt to perpetrate a theft that is.

But we would need a checksum from the 'hacker' in order to ensure integrity.

Huh?  No, the goal is simply to see if different zip archives are being passed around, and potentially leveraging some level of confidence that might have been associated with the 'original'.  It dawned on my right away that a good way for a thief to distribute trojans would be to  replace some of the dangerous files (specifically .exe and .pdf files) with one's own variant of them.  This whether the 'original' was trojan free or not.

We are not measuring absolute values here but rather looking for differential information.  The latter can be as valuable as the former in many cases.  Even more so since the 'original' would not have provided any information about safety anyway.

[itsunderstood]

It is well known by those who know things, that PDF are absolute crapware destruction vector.  See the Aurora hacks of three years ago.

This whole exploit is another sad reality: Abused little shitbags grow up into thieving adult high-tech shitbags.

[Phinnaeus Gage]

OP: You should put a checksum with a file like this.  It would be an obvious ploy to replace some of the files with trojans.  If the original is though to be clean, people may execute exploits contained in a zip they thought to be real.

I downloaded a copy from:

  [http]://blog.magicaltux.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/MtGox2014Leak.zip

at in the morning PST (2014.03.09) and this is the checksum I get:

  snip@snip ~> sha256 MtGox2014Leak.zip
  SHA256 (MtGox2014Leak.zip) = ffcf6742ab84d7e29ef16ca4f0829d7c4e7a4f739414d2b6d2ded52f05e75a67

Several people on a different thread get the same checksum, but I don't know if they got it from the same place or not.

Checksums are easy to check, reliable, and quite critical for data such as this.  I would be very wary of anything sensitive that I downloaded which did not come with a checksum, and I would (and do) cross-check these.

If anyone finds a file of the same name with a different checksum it would be good to report it (even worth starting a new thread) and handing it over to people who can analyze the contents.  We really don't need any more people losing money to stupid things associated with Mt. Gox...though I suspect we'll see a lot more in the weeks to come

This is fucking nuts! First, I had to get up to speed as to what the hell a motiff[sic] is in BFL's thread back in the day, now I need to learn what the heck a checksum is, then learn how to use it.

To show you what type of noob I am, although I know quite a bit about HTML and CSS, for the life of me I couldn't tell you what those acronyms stand for sans looking them up first. I know just enough about PHP as it applies to Wordpress that caused me all kinds of problems till I finally learnt to do backups of any codes I'm altering.

[tvbcof]

This is fucking nuts! First, I had to get up to speed as to what the hell a motiff[sic] is in BFL's thread back in the day, now I need to learn what the heck a checksum is, then learn how to use it.

To show you what type of noob I am, although I know quite a bit about HTML and CSS, for the life of me I couldn't tell you what those acronyms stand for sans looking them up first. I know just enough about PHP as it applies to Wordpress that caused me all kinds of problems till I finally learnt to do backups of any codes I'm altering.

Knowing how to use a simple md5 or sha256 checksum should be pretty much mandatory for anyone messing around with Bitcoin in my opinion.  What a checksum is is pretty easy to understand and it should be pretty simple to use them on all platforms.

Anyone doing any coding really owes it to themselves to use a revision control system of some sort.  Keeping a local subversion repository one one's hard drive is a really a relatively simply operation and a getting the hang of a few command line options is all one really needs to do in order to use it effectively.  The comfort of knowing that you can easily snapshot anything and see changes expedites development.  I probably would not have gotten around to learning how nice this is if it were not a factor for my professional work, but I'd have been much the worse for it.

I find SVN to be really useful for remote admin/dev and deployment as well in conjunction with gmake, but that's beyond the scope of what most people need.

For routine system admin tasks I habitually use RCS which is built into most of the systems I use.  This lets me quickly see all of the stuff I've done on my system (and what I might be forgetting when I build another system and so on.)  RCS has some gotchas though.

The thought of Mt. Gox not using a revision control system is so absurd that I find it hard to believe.  I'm inclined to think that this is another bullshit story and feeble attempt to make people believe that they are more incompetent than they actually are.