This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Vault 7 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | A news item involving Vault 7 was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 8 March 2017. | ![]() |
![]() | This page is not a forum for general discussion about Vault 7. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Vault 7 at the Reference desk. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I don't think we need to repeat everything WikiLeaks claims in its press release, especially since they've recently started promoting conspiracy theories to promote their leaks. Accusing any organization of murder is a serious deal, and hacking a car does not automatically mean the CIA uses hacked cars to kill people. In addition, we should add more details on UMBRAGE beyond what WikiLeaks claims; so far I see the Daily Dot has examined what the documents say about the group and what they don't. Falling Gravity 22:48, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
This should be stricken out—>"This statement brought renewed attention to conspiracy theories surrounding the death of Michael Hastings." JohndanR ( talk) 03:15, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
5.2 Vehicle control systems. Until and unless Wikileaks publishes uncommented material that better substantiates CIA offensive (and defensive) interest in 'hacking' vehicles, I'd rather the whole section were mothballed for the present. The amount of press dedicated to such a tiny fraction—of uncertain motivation—of the Vault 7 corpus is already extreme, and putting such a larded entry can only exacerbate widespread media speculation and hyperbole. Wikipedia needs to maintain encyclopedic standards for entries, even if its material does not (yet) meet the level of stringency that academia would like before it permits its use more widely in marked essays, or that the media can actually rely on for quotes JohndanR ( talk) 03:15, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
We should probably add a "reactions" section. Ralph Peters was just saying on Fox News that the CIA was doing this to keep US citizens and allies safe. Zigzig20s ( talk) 20:02, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
References
Hi @ Pantherfly: Please stop re-adding your image to the article. It is of dubious relevance and seriously does not belong in the article. If you keep adding it, you could end up getting blocked from editing. So I'd recommend stopping. Thank you. - Kamran Mackey ( talk) 23:28, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
I strongly object to this revert. How should I cite the descriptions of most if not almost all of the attack payloads performing keylogging and screengrabing? 184.96.138.160 ( talk) 12:38, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Is it either "notable" or the purview of Wikipedia to be a platform for speculation on the motives of a given article subject? o_O? I know this is a "hot-button issue"/current events, but do we regularly do this for other articles, say, historical ones? The whole bottom paragraph taking quotes from Zeynep Tufekci cites no outside sources but an opinion piece (twice), which seems rather flimsy Wikipedia editing, IMO. CitationKneaded ( talk) 16:11, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
The only nominally relevant chunk out of that whole section is this:
"When WikiLeaks released its Vault 7 documents, it suggested that the CIA had the means to bypass the encryption on messaging apps such as WhatsApp and Signal and hack into iPhones. Some security experts have said that there is no evidence for that in the leaks, while others have claimed that the direct capture of user input (through keylogging and recording of the user interface) can capture the information before it is sent, and therefore before it has been encrypted by the app.[12][24][22][26][27][28][25]"— Wiki
The rest of the section contains no discussion of Vault7, so it stands or fall based on the above text. Unfortunately, this is just transparent nonsense, poorly masked by WP:CITEKILL.
Wikileaks said that the CIA can "effectively bypass encryption" apps by simply reading the data directly off the device's camera and mic by infecting the OS. They explained it further in their cover story:
The CIA's Mobile Devices Branch (MDB) developed numerous attacks to remotely hack and control popular smart phones. Infected phones can be instructed to send the CIA the user's geolocation, audio and text communications as well as covertly activate the phone's camera and microphone. (...) These techniques permit the CIA to bypass the encryption of WhatsApp, Signal, Telegram, Wiebo, Confide and Cloackman by hacking the "smart" phones that they run on and collecting audio and message traffic before encryption is applied.
Now, let's take your very first citation [12]:
That has done little to prevent confusion on the matter, something WikiLeaks itself contributed to with a carelessly worded tweet:
WikiLeaks #Vault7 confirms CIA can effectively bypass Signal + Telegram + WhatsApp + Confide encryption https://wikileaks.org/ciav7p1"
The end-to-end encryption protocols underpinning these private messaging apps protect all communications as they pass between devices. No one, not even the companies providing the service, can read or see that data while it is in transit. Nothing in the CIA leak disputes that. The underlying software remains every bit as trustworthy now as it was before WikiLeaks released the documents.
Of course, the CIA can compromise the devices sending or receiving those messages. By taking control of a so-called end point, spies can access everything on a smartphone, be it texts, videos, the camera, or the microphone. “It isn’t about ‘defeating encryption,’ despite the hype,” says Nicholas Weaver, a computer security researcher at the International Computer Science Institute. “If you compromise a target’s phone, you don’t care about encryption anymore.”
— Wired
Wired is simply cautioning people against the possible misunderstanding that the "CIA can read encrypted communications traffic." Wikileaks never actually claimed that, and Wired never claimed that Wikileaks claimed that. This is a FACT. You have just manufactured a controversy out thin air. In an effort to build up this fake controversy, your text further states that "Some security experts have said that there is no evidence for that in the leaks
". Who are these "some
" and what is this "that
"? This is false, misleading and needlessly vague: in reality, all security experts and Wikileaks (or anyone minimally aware of the issues) agree that Vault 7 does not demonstrate the CIA's ability to decipher encrypted traffic(from Signal, Telegram etc.) Naturally, this is wrong too: "others have claimed that the direct capture of user input (through keylogging and recording of the user interface) can capture the information before it is sent, and therefore before it has been encrypted by the app.
Again, everyone agrees that Vault 7 does showcase the CIA's ability to hack Android and IOS directly, allowing them to read data straight off the device. They do not need to break encruption to do that. One of your own sources says so right in the headline: "WikiLeaks Documents Show CIA Can Hack iOS And Android, But Not Encrypted Messaging Apps"
— Forbes. There is no debate: these two "claims" are fully compatible and completely uncontroversial. According to your own sources, these "some
" and "others
" are actually one and same.
I don't know why I had to write a whole essay explaining something so rudimentary. Guccisamsclub ( talk) 20:35, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
I suggest to include the two main purposes to part 3. Draft for discussion below.
On 31 March 2017 WikiLeaks published Vault 7 part 3 "Marble". Which contains 676 source code files. [1] According to analysts, the Marble toolkit is used as a malware with two main purposes, first to fool forensic investigators from attributing viruses, trojans, and hacking attacks to the CIA, and second as an obfuscator to avoid detection by antivirus programs. [2] [3]
References
{{
cite news}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url=
(
help)
Francewhoa ( talk) 19:22, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm not an expert in Italian or French, but I don't see where those sources say Marble is evidence that the CIA does "false flag" attacks. The second source you cite is a quote from September 2015. Here are the sources I'm looking at:
However, experts said WikiLeaks went too far in alleging this data included evidence that the CIA was performing cyberattacks intended to be blamed on other agents, also known as "false flag attacks."— TechTarget
WikiLeaks, in its news release, suggested that the obfuscation tool might be used to conduct a “forensic attribution double game” or false-flag operation because it included test samples in Chinese, Russian, Korean, Arabic and Farsi.
But Williams explained that the tests were to ensure that hacking operations using code written in those languages could be hidden. “If you’re trying to false-flag an operation as Chinese, you wouldn’t want to hide those code strings, you’d want everyone to see them,” he said. Moreover, other experts said, attribution is based on more than just malware analysis.— Washington Post
However, some experts noted that although the framework does include tools to add foreign languages to the malware code, they seem to be for obfuscation purposes rather than to mis-attribute or frame another nation or actor. Others pointed out that the Russian and Arabic sample text were essentially gibberish.— IBTimes
Many news agencies incorrectly reported that Marble allows CIA's operators to plant false flags inside the malware they create thanks to a feature that inserts code comments written in various languages such as Chinese, Russian, Korean, Arabic, and Farsi.
In reality, the Marble framework is a banal code obfuscation utility, like many other tools on the malware market.— Bleeping Computer
In its release, WikiLeaks describes the primary purpose of Marble as being to insert foreign language text into the malware to cause malware analysts to falsely attribute code to the wrong nation.
This appears to be an inaccurate description of the primary purpose of the code, however.— The Hill
I believe that presenting expert opinions are more important than regurgitating WikiLeaks's press releases. The Hill contradicts the assertion made by FranceWhoa about the purpose of the Marble framework. Falling Gravity 16:16, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Where exactly did WikiLeaks state that it was used for cyber false flags? first to fool forensic investigators from attributing viruses, trojans, and hacking attacks to the CIA
isn't saying that they're using it for such. Maybe they were implying they could be used for such but where exactly did they so far allege CIA cyber false flags getting planned or carried out? --
Fixuture (
talk)
21:15, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Regarding these edits: neither Breitbart nor RT nor "TheNewAmerican.com" is a reliable source. Breitbart is well-known for promotion of fringe conspiracy theories, RT is a Russian propaganda outlet, and "TheNewAmerican.com" is a website whose parent organization is the fringe, far-right John Birch Society. None of these three is reliable, especially on a highly contentious topic. Neutrality talk 01:56, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
On 5 May 2017 WikiLeaks published Vault 7 part 8 "Archimedes". According to U.S. SANS Institute instructor Jake Williams, who analyzed the published documents, Archimedes is a virus previously codenamed "Fulcrum". According to cyber security expert and ENISA member Pierluigi Paganini, the CIA operators use Archimedes to redirect local area network (LAN) web browser sessions from a targeted computer through a computer controlled by the CIA before the sessions are routed to the users. This type of attack is known as man-in-the-middle (MitM). With their publication WikiLeaks included a number of hashes that they claim can be used to potentially identify the Archimedes virus and guard against it in the future. Paganini stated that potential targeted computers can search for those hashes on their systems to check if their systems had been attacked by the CIA. [1]
References
{{
cite news}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url=
(
help)
It doesn't have an "about us" page, just a " contact me" page that lists the author's email.
Pierluigi Paganini is member of the ENISA (European Union Agency for Network and Information Security) Threat Landscape Stakeholder Group and Cyber G7 Group, he is also a Security Evangelist, Security Analyst and Freelance Writer. Editor-in-Chief at " Cyber Defense Magazine", Pierluigi is a cyber security expert with over 20 years experience in the field, he is Certified Ethical Hacker at EC Council in London. The passion for writing and a strong belief that security is founded on sharing and awareness led Pierluigi to find the security blog "Security Affairs" recently named a Top National Security Resource for US. Pierluigi is a member of the " The Hacker News" team and he is a writer for some major publications in the field such as Cyber War Zone, ICTTF, Infosec Island, Infosec Institute, The Hacker News Magazine and for many other Security magazines. Author of the Books "The Deep Dark Web" and “Digital Virtual Currency and Bitcoin”.
RT was in your edit. You might not have originally added that material, but it was in the version you restored.
Since WikiLeaks announced the leak of 'Cherry Blossom', eventually RSes will pop up... Anyone seen anything yet? (WL article: https://wikileaks.org/vault7/#Cherry%20Blossom) 2001:980:1234:1:7D84:1372:CC01:DBAC ( talk) 21:23, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
In July 2022 former CIA software Joshua Schulte was convicted of leaking the documents to WikiLeaks.
I added this. 666hopedieslast ( talk) 02:48, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
Vault 8 doesnt have its own article, and probably doesnt have enough content or notability to get one. Since its a sister release or whatever, I added it here as a short section because it should be mentioned somewhere.
No objection to moving it or splitting if anyone thinks thats better Softlemonades ( talk) 15:54, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Vault 7 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | A news item involving Vault 7 was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 8 March 2017. | ![]() |
![]() | This page is not a forum for general discussion about Vault 7. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Vault 7 at the Reference desk. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I don't think we need to repeat everything WikiLeaks claims in its press release, especially since they've recently started promoting conspiracy theories to promote their leaks. Accusing any organization of murder is a serious deal, and hacking a car does not automatically mean the CIA uses hacked cars to kill people. In addition, we should add more details on UMBRAGE beyond what WikiLeaks claims; so far I see the Daily Dot has examined what the documents say about the group and what they don't. Falling Gravity 22:48, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
This should be stricken out—>"This statement brought renewed attention to conspiracy theories surrounding the death of Michael Hastings." JohndanR ( talk) 03:15, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
5.2 Vehicle control systems. Until and unless Wikileaks publishes uncommented material that better substantiates CIA offensive (and defensive) interest in 'hacking' vehicles, I'd rather the whole section were mothballed for the present. The amount of press dedicated to such a tiny fraction—of uncertain motivation—of the Vault 7 corpus is already extreme, and putting such a larded entry can only exacerbate widespread media speculation and hyperbole. Wikipedia needs to maintain encyclopedic standards for entries, even if its material does not (yet) meet the level of stringency that academia would like before it permits its use more widely in marked essays, or that the media can actually rely on for quotes JohndanR ( talk) 03:15, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
We should probably add a "reactions" section. Ralph Peters was just saying on Fox News that the CIA was doing this to keep US citizens and allies safe. Zigzig20s ( talk) 20:02, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
References
Hi @ Pantherfly: Please stop re-adding your image to the article. It is of dubious relevance and seriously does not belong in the article. If you keep adding it, you could end up getting blocked from editing. So I'd recommend stopping. Thank you. - Kamran Mackey ( talk) 23:28, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
I strongly object to this revert. How should I cite the descriptions of most if not almost all of the attack payloads performing keylogging and screengrabing? 184.96.138.160 ( talk) 12:38, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Is it either "notable" or the purview of Wikipedia to be a platform for speculation on the motives of a given article subject? o_O? I know this is a "hot-button issue"/current events, but do we regularly do this for other articles, say, historical ones? The whole bottom paragraph taking quotes from Zeynep Tufekci cites no outside sources but an opinion piece (twice), which seems rather flimsy Wikipedia editing, IMO. CitationKneaded ( talk) 16:11, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
The only nominally relevant chunk out of that whole section is this:
"When WikiLeaks released its Vault 7 documents, it suggested that the CIA had the means to bypass the encryption on messaging apps such as WhatsApp and Signal and hack into iPhones. Some security experts have said that there is no evidence for that in the leaks, while others have claimed that the direct capture of user input (through keylogging and recording of the user interface) can capture the information before it is sent, and therefore before it has been encrypted by the app.[12][24][22][26][27][28][25]"— Wiki
The rest of the section contains no discussion of Vault7, so it stands or fall based on the above text. Unfortunately, this is just transparent nonsense, poorly masked by WP:CITEKILL.
Wikileaks said that the CIA can "effectively bypass encryption" apps by simply reading the data directly off the device's camera and mic by infecting the OS. They explained it further in their cover story:
The CIA's Mobile Devices Branch (MDB) developed numerous attacks to remotely hack and control popular smart phones. Infected phones can be instructed to send the CIA the user's geolocation, audio and text communications as well as covertly activate the phone's camera and microphone. (...) These techniques permit the CIA to bypass the encryption of WhatsApp, Signal, Telegram, Wiebo, Confide and Cloackman by hacking the "smart" phones that they run on and collecting audio and message traffic before encryption is applied.
Now, let's take your very first citation [12]:
That has done little to prevent confusion on the matter, something WikiLeaks itself contributed to with a carelessly worded tweet:
WikiLeaks #Vault7 confirms CIA can effectively bypass Signal + Telegram + WhatsApp + Confide encryption https://wikileaks.org/ciav7p1"
The end-to-end encryption protocols underpinning these private messaging apps protect all communications as they pass between devices. No one, not even the companies providing the service, can read or see that data while it is in transit. Nothing in the CIA leak disputes that. The underlying software remains every bit as trustworthy now as it was before WikiLeaks released the documents.
Of course, the CIA can compromise the devices sending or receiving those messages. By taking control of a so-called end point, spies can access everything on a smartphone, be it texts, videos, the camera, or the microphone. “It isn’t about ‘defeating encryption,’ despite the hype,” says Nicholas Weaver, a computer security researcher at the International Computer Science Institute. “If you compromise a target’s phone, you don’t care about encryption anymore.”
— Wired
Wired is simply cautioning people against the possible misunderstanding that the "CIA can read encrypted communications traffic." Wikileaks never actually claimed that, and Wired never claimed that Wikileaks claimed that. This is a FACT. You have just manufactured a controversy out thin air. In an effort to build up this fake controversy, your text further states that "Some security experts have said that there is no evidence for that in the leaks
". Who are these "some
" and what is this "that
"? This is false, misleading and needlessly vague: in reality, all security experts and Wikileaks (or anyone minimally aware of the issues) agree that Vault 7 does not demonstrate the CIA's ability to decipher encrypted traffic(from Signal, Telegram etc.) Naturally, this is wrong too: "others have claimed that the direct capture of user input (through keylogging and recording of the user interface) can capture the information before it is sent, and therefore before it has been encrypted by the app.
Again, everyone agrees that Vault 7 does showcase the CIA's ability to hack Android and IOS directly, allowing them to read data straight off the device. They do not need to break encruption to do that. One of your own sources says so right in the headline: "WikiLeaks Documents Show CIA Can Hack iOS And Android, But Not Encrypted Messaging Apps"
— Forbes. There is no debate: these two "claims" are fully compatible and completely uncontroversial. According to your own sources, these "some
" and "others
" are actually one and same.
I don't know why I had to write a whole essay explaining something so rudimentary. Guccisamsclub ( talk) 20:35, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
I suggest to include the two main purposes to part 3. Draft for discussion below.
On 31 March 2017 WikiLeaks published Vault 7 part 3 "Marble". Which contains 676 source code files. [1] According to analysts, the Marble toolkit is used as a malware with two main purposes, first to fool forensic investigators from attributing viruses, trojans, and hacking attacks to the CIA, and second as an obfuscator to avoid detection by antivirus programs. [2] [3]
References
{{
cite news}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url=
(
help)
Francewhoa ( talk) 19:22, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm not an expert in Italian or French, but I don't see where those sources say Marble is evidence that the CIA does "false flag" attacks. The second source you cite is a quote from September 2015. Here are the sources I'm looking at:
However, experts said WikiLeaks went too far in alleging this data included evidence that the CIA was performing cyberattacks intended to be blamed on other agents, also known as "false flag attacks."— TechTarget
WikiLeaks, in its news release, suggested that the obfuscation tool might be used to conduct a “forensic attribution double game” or false-flag operation because it included test samples in Chinese, Russian, Korean, Arabic and Farsi.
But Williams explained that the tests were to ensure that hacking operations using code written in those languages could be hidden. “If you’re trying to false-flag an operation as Chinese, you wouldn’t want to hide those code strings, you’d want everyone to see them,” he said. Moreover, other experts said, attribution is based on more than just malware analysis.— Washington Post
However, some experts noted that although the framework does include tools to add foreign languages to the malware code, they seem to be for obfuscation purposes rather than to mis-attribute or frame another nation or actor. Others pointed out that the Russian and Arabic sample text were essentially gibberish.— IBTimes
Many news agencies incorrectly reported that Marble allows CIA's operators to plant false flags inside the malware they create thanks to a feature that inserts code comments written in various languages such as Chinese, Russian, Korean, Arabic, and Farsi.
In reality, the Marble framework is a banal code obfuscation utility, like many other tools on the malware market.— Bleeping Computer
In its release, WikiLeaks describes the primary purpose of Marble as being to insert foreign language text into the malware to cause malware analysts to falsely attribute code to the wrong nation.
This appears to be an inaccurate description of the primary purpose of the code, however.— The Hill
I believe that presenting expert opinions are more important than regurgitating WikiLeaks's press releases. The Hill contradicts the assertion made by FranceWhoa about the purpose of the Marble framework. Falling Gravity 16:16, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Where exactly did WikiLeaks state that it was used for cyber false flags? first to fool forensic investigators from attributing viruses, trojans, and hacking attacks to the CIA
isn't saying that they're using it for such. Maybe they were implying they could be used for such but where exactly did they so far allege CIA cyber false flags getting planned or carried out? --
Fixuture (
talk)
21:15, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Regarding these edits: neither Breitbart nor RT nor "TheNewAmerican.com" is a reliable source. Breitbart is well-known for promotion of fringe conspiracy theories, RT is a Russian propaganda outlet, and "TheNewAmerican.com" is a website whose parent organization is the fringe, far-right John Birch Society. None of these three is reliable, especially on a highly contentious topic. Neutrality talk 01:56, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
On 5 May 2017 WikiLeaks published Vault 7 part 8 "Archimedes". According to U.S. SANS Institute instructor Jake Williams, who analyzed the published documents, Archimedes is a virus previously codenamed "Fulcrum". According to cyber security expert and ENISA member Pierluigi Paganini, the CIA operators use Archimedes to redirect local area network (LAN) web browser sessions from a targeted computer through a computer controlled by the CIA before the sessions are routed to the users. This type of attack is known as man-in-the-middle (MitM). With their publication WikiLeaks included a number of hashes that they claim can be used to potentially identify the Archimedes virus and guard against it in the future. Paganini stated that potential targeted computers can search for those hashes on their systems to check if their systems had been attacked by the CIA. [1]
References
{{
cite news}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url=
(
help)
It doesn't have an "about us" page, just a " contact me" page that lists the author's email.
Pierluigi Paganini is member of the ENISA (European Union Agency for Network and Information Security) Threat Landscape Stakeholder Group and Cyber G7 Group, he is also a Security Evangelist, Security Analyst and Freelance Writer. Editor-in-Chief at " Cyber Defense Magazine", Pierluigi is a cyber security expert with over 20 years experience in the field, he is Certified Ethical Hacker at EC Council in London. The passion for writing and a strong belief that security is founded on sharing and awareness led Pierluigi to find the security blog "Security Affairs" recently named a Top National Security Resource for US. Pierluigi is a member of the " The Hacker News" team and he is a writer for some major publications in the field such as Cyber War Zone, ICTTF, Infosec Island, Infosec Institute, The Hacker News Magazine and for many other Security magazines. Author of the Books "The Deep Dark Web" and “Digital Virtual Currency and Bitcoin”.
RT was in your edit. You might not have originally added that material, but it was in the version you restored.
Since WikiLeaks announced the leak of 'Cherry Blossom', eventually RSes will pop up... Anyone seen anything yet? (WL article: https://wikileaks.org/vault7/#Cherry%20Blossom) 2001:980:1234:1:7D84:1372:CC01:DBAC ( talk) 21:23, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
In July 2022 former CIA software Joshua Schulte was convicted of leaking the documents to WikiLeaks.
I added this. 666hopedieslast ( talk) 02:48, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
Vault 8 doesnt have its own article, and probably doesnt have enough content or notability to get one. Since its a sister release or whatever, I added it here as a short section because it should be mentioned somewhere.
No objection to moving it or splitting if anyone thinks thats better Softlemonades ( talk) 15:54, 6 August 2022 (UTC)