SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Multiple reports suggest that Impact Team has leaked around 9.6 to 10 gigabytes of data from the "cheating/affair website" Ashley Madison onto Tor sites (now available via BitTorrent). According to Ars Technica:
A 10-gigabyte file purportedly containing e-mails, member profiles, credit-card transactions and other sensitive Ashley Madison information became available as a BitTorrent download in the past few hours. Ars downloaded the massive file and it appeared to contain a trove of details taken from a clandestine dating site, but so far there is nothing definitively linking it to Ashley Madison. User data included e-mail addresses, profile descriptions, addresses provided by users, weight, and height. A separate file containing credit card transaction data didn't include full payment card numbers or billing addresses.
Rob Graham, CEO of Errata Security, said the dump also included user passwords that were cryptographically protected using the bcrypt hashing algorithm. That's among the most secure ways to store passwords, because bcrypt is extremely slow, a trait that requires crackers to devote vast amounts of time and computing resources. Still, it's highly likely a large percentage of the hashes will be cracked, given rampant use of weak passwords.
Ashley Madison officials have stopped short of confirming the published information was extracted from the breach.
"We have now learned that the individual or individuals responsible for this attack claim to have released more of the stolen data," they wrote in an e-mail to Ars. "We are actively monitoring and investigating this situation to determine the validity of any information posted online and will continue to devote significant resources to this effort. Furthermore, we will continue to put forth substantial efforts into removing any information unlawfully released to the public, as well as continuing to operate our business."
Previously: Adult 'Extracurricular Activity' Website AshleyMadison.com Hacked
(Score: 2) by pkrasimirov on Wednesday August 19 2015, @06:12AM
> Hackers Reportedly Leak Nearly 10 GB [...] Files
...and all I'm doing is sitting here and trying to imagine what exactly data is in it. Wikipedia says AM has "Users: More than 37 million (as of July 2015)" so that mean ~270 bytes per user. That's enough for name, password hash, email address, card number(s) and maybe some more. But no pictures or actual message content. Unless "10 GB [...] Files" mean compressed files, then it is more. But still not enough to contain actual text messages.
So the hack proves some people has a registration there. IANAL but I think this information is not enough reason in court for a divorce.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 19 2015, @06:34AM
> So the hack proves some people has a registration there. IANAL but I think this information is not enough reason in court for a divorce.
Hack also proves they paid for premium access. But in most of the western world the only 'reason' needed for divorce is one person wanting to get one - its called no-fault divorce and in the USA some states have gone so far as to practically eliminate fault divorce. If this data confirms a person's suspicions, even if it isn't rigorous proof, that's enough.
(Score: 2) by pkrasimirov on Wednesday August 19 2015, @10:45AM
Thanks for the information. Nowadays divorce basically means "let's split the money and the children". If someone wants a divorce in USA I suppose they get half of the money. But are they still forced to pay ("support") to the ex-partner every month if it was no-fault divorce?
(Score: 2, Informative) by Atatsu on Wednesday August 19 2015, @03:02PM
Paying to support the other ex-partner usually depends on whether or not you have children together. And in the event you do have children together it isn't as simple as just "splitting" the kids. If the parents can't agree on custody (and I seriously doubt most people agree on that shit) then you have to go to trial and a judge decides what the custody arrangement will be.
I went through a divorce that took a few years and was merely fighting for dual custody. My ex-wife was fighting for full custody. I eventually won and we both have 50/50 custody. However, due to my salary being significantly more than hers I still have to pay her nearly $600 a month for child support. When the court does their calculations they take your current salary into account. As in, the divorce is now final, how much do both of you make? I find it quite disgusting. The rationale behind it is that both partners need to maintain the same quality of life as when they were married for the sake of the children. On the surface that makes sense. But in my case my salary was vastly greater when our divorce was finalized than when we were married. In addition her salary his a great deal higher now than when we were married. The end effect is that she has a better quality of life (in terms of money) now that we're divorced than when we were married (I do, too). In addition to the child support I have to pay for 63% of all child-related expenses. Day care, medical bills, school shit, you name it.
And even though I think she's a cunt I don't blame her for that. It's our fucking court system.
If you don't have children there is alimony. But my attorney informed me that alimony doesn't even come into play unless you've been married for much longer than 10 years (at least in my state, SD).
(Score: 2) by pkrasimirov on Wednesday August 19 2015, @06:49PM
Thank you for the thoughtful explanation. I feel for you, that's unfair situation regarding the money. Good that you are allowed to be with the child(ren). I'm glad in my country is not like this. Or maybe I should say it was not when I divorced (10+ years ago). The obligatory child support here is so small it is a joke even for poor people. Also the court cannot force someone to pay even if he gives nothing at all (yeah, "great" justice system here). Alimony (I didn't know this word, thank you) is almost non-existent, only if mutually agreed. I am not forced to pay anything besides the monthly hard amount of cash. However I do pay voluntarily mostly because I want my children to have good teeth, nice shoes etc. I don't give her the money, I just take the kids to the dentist or take her with us when going to the mall (I hate choosing shoes). In effect that makes her much more cooperative with me. I tend to doubt she would be like this if she could force me to give her the money. If I had no choice she would think it's *her* money in first place and there is nothing to be grateful.
The kids cannot maintain the same quality of life after the divorce because the love is gone. Children are much more in need of love and attention than of money. Even during puberty when it is a great deal of prestiege what clothes and phone they have, the self-esteem is best fueled with parents love and patience. Of course the courts could not care less about that, they say it's "parents choice" and the topic is closed. That's why I'm saying the divorce is "split the money and the children".
I wish all the best for you and your children.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 19 2015, @07:40PM
> Thank you for the thoughtful explanation. I feel for you, that's unfair situation regarding the money.
That guy is talking about child support as if it is spousal support. You shouldn't take him at his word, at best he's spinning it. Child support is about maintaining the quality of life the children deserve due to the economic status of their parents. It doesn't stop being calculated at the date of the break-up or even the date of the divorce because children are dependents even without full custody. Substantial changes in the economic status of either parent long after the divorce is complete can still affect the level of child support because the kids are still dependents of both parents.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 20 2015, @02:54AM
The reality is that the child support is often spent by the ex on her own living expenses and the little luxuries like weed, cigarettes and alcohol, then she will spend the minimum amount on the children. Certainly that's the case for me, I pay $500 per month and she uses it to part pay the rent. The child sees very little of it directly, and she still has the hide to ask for more when she runs short. Then I find myself in the position of having to give her money to make sure the child is not disadvantaged because I can assure you that "she comes first" (her own words). So now I buy my son stuff when he is with me rather than giving her additional money which she will only blow on herself. It's outrageous. I spent a year fighting for custody but our DHS said "children belong with their mother, doesn't matter how useless she is".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 19 2015, @07:49PM
> But are they still forced to pay ("support") to the ex-partner every month if it was no-fault divorce?
Spousal support is distinct from fault. When both spouses are able to support themselves then not so much - for example my friend is an engineer, he divorced his wife of about 13 years. She has an engineering degree but hadn't worked professionally after their first child was born - he worked for a salary, she worked supporting the family and home. The court required him to pay spousal support for a couple of years as she recovered from being out of the job market, but regardless of her success at that recovery the court imposed a hard deadline for the end of spousal support. There divorce was about 5 years ago in Boston.
A couple where one spouse never left the job market (nor taken a lesser job in order to spend their time supporting the other spouse in their career) is unlikely to have any spousal support payments.
(Score: 3, Informative) by dcollins on Wednesday August 19 2015, @06:43AM
Reuters: "Hackers dumped online personal details of more than a million users of infidelity website AshleyMadison.com, tech websites reported on Tuesday, the latest high-profile cyber attack that threatens to wreak strife in relationships across the globe... the dump was massive, according to Troy Hunt, a Microsoft security expert, who said more than 1 million unique email addresses were attached to payment records."
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/08/19/us-ashleymadison-cybersecurity-idUSKCN0QN2BN20150819 [reuters.com]
So maybe they only released a 1M-person sliver of the overall database, and held the rest back? Or it has a block of payment records with 1M unique emails?
(Score: 2) by pkrasimirov on Wednesday August 19 2015, @10:50AM
So it means the chances are 1/37 that some user get busted. That's staggering 2.7% chance! The downside is that 10GB/1M=10k which means the leak may contain the nasty sext messages.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 19 2015, @07:56PM
The payment records cover 2008 through mid 2015.
They don't appear to be radically redacted, obviously it is impossible to say if specific transactions were deleted before release.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Wednesday August 19 2015, @02:00PM
I haven't looked into it but if the files are compressed and textual, there could be several times more uncompressed data.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]