Mitnick: It's a new breed of hackers

TalkBack 28 of 78:

Next »

« Previous

• Thread View
• Flat View

True, but...

"Real hackers don't attack random target...footprinting and fingerprinting can take a few weeks. Script kiddies and like thugs, simply don't have the patience to do the real thing and rely on drop and drag exploits."

Yes I know. The definition of "hacker" is different in the "hacker community" than it is for the general public. (Personally... I'm more used to the general public's definition, even though I would be a "hacker" by some other people's definition. Though I'd never call myself a hacker in public.)

Like it or not, for the general public, "hacker" has taken on a negative meaning (which is why I don't call myself one nor would I ever). To me, it's the same as the word "demon" some people consider "demons" to not be necesarily evil. Others do. However... I always use it to mean the "evil kind" because that's what most people expect.

"Where I grew up on a midwest farm, say I was driving on a rainy day and it quit raining and I forgot to turn my headlights off after parking to do some shopping. It is not unusual to have a complete stranger reach through a partially open window and turn off my headlights...thereby saving me from a dead battery. Nor is it uncommon to close someone's gate, mend a fence, retrieve a wayward calf back to the barn...it is just a neighborly thing to do. The "rules of engagement in civilized society" isn't uniform."

That's true. However... A lot of hackers aren't returning calves or turning off headlights. And they aren't often dealing with their own community. For example when sabayer said in "perfect example", "I decided to check security on this rather large, very popular website" He didn't exactly return a calf to the company and I doubt that company is a member of the "hacker community". He got through their security and then announced to them that he had done so. In fact, it's more like my earlier example of someone breaking into someone else's house to test their security.

Now, if they had lost... Say... A big pile of money somehow electronicly and he let himself in and somehow restored it to them, they might worship the ground upon which he walks. But he didn't. He tested their security without their permission.

People don't tend to like such things.

Also... With some things it's even more problematic, because when you're the "victim" you don't really know all that transpired. For example, for all they know sabayer might have screwed something up on purpose or by accident (just because you know some things, doesn't mean you know everything, I know alot of computer 'experts' who manage to screw things up when they start tinkering with other people's stuff).

Also... A lot of people are busy and don't have time to discuss every little incident with people and educate others as to why they consider something wrong, which is why you should try to be familiar with what other people find acceptable in advance. This makes it so the number of incidents will be minimized and people can go on with their daily business.

That's why you should (generally) have permission. I'll grant that there are exceptions to every rule, which is why I say generally.

Posted by: Umbar   Posted on: 11/04/05 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

• Server Consolidation and Containment With Virtual Infrastructure VMware To meet the constant demand to deploy, maintain and grow a broad array of ... Download Now
• Five Steps to Determine When to Virtualize YourServers VMware Server virtualization isn't just for big companies. Entry-level ... Download Now
• Three Steps You Need to Know to Stop Data Loss Varonis Sensitive data exposed to misuse or loss... it is the stuff of nightmares ... Download Now