Slashdot Mirror


White Hat Hacker Breaks Silence

Flackboy Kevin writes "The nation's hackers are about to come out of their shells on Friday as one of the most notorious 'good guys' in Manhattan makes a rare-yet-cyber public appearance on USA Today's online chat. Gary Morse, Manhattan's white hat hacker and good friend of every Chief Security Officer in the financial world agreed to an online chat regarding security. Morse's uncanny knowledge of how Manhattan is wired helps keep him one step ahead of hackers and has kept him in high disregard in most hacker communities. Morse's company, Razorpoint Security Technologies does not employ hackers who've decided to come in from the cold."

374 comments

  1. well by toddhunter · · Score: 0, Troll

    Of course he is held in wide-disregard. Just look at the ''s around 'good guys'

    1. Re:well by gotscheme · · Score: 3, Interesting

      That's just the thing, though, that I try to explain to my friends. When hackers hold a security person in high "disregard", it isn't that they dislike them. They really respect people the people like Morse because he gives them exactly what they want: a challenge. On the other hand, script kiddies dislike Morse because he makes sure they have to actually use intelligence to execute an attack on public networks.

    2. Re:well by sarose · · Score: 1

      "Morse's company, Razorpoint Security Technologies does not employ hackers who've decided to come in from the cold." what the hell he thinks?

  2. Which shell is he coming out of? by ralphart · · Score: 4, Funny

    Bash, Korn or Csh?

    Inquiring minds want to know.

    1. Re:Which shell is he coming out of? by ePhil_One · · Score: 1
      Bash, Korn or Csh?

      Sea?

      --
      You are in a maze of twisted little posts, all alike.
    2. Re:Which shell is he coming out of? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      zsh is best :((( proplem.

    3. Re:Which shell is he coming out of? by stevens · · Score: 4, Funny
      Bash, Korn or Csh?

      I was thinking the same thing: He broke silence? Maybe we should remove his cvs commit access to it until he learns better.

    4. Re:Which shell is he coming out of? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I assume he uses White Hat 10?

    5. Re:Which shell is he coming out of? by arvindn · · Score: 1

      Well, didn't you know that all hackers worth the name write their own shells?

    6. Re:Which shell is he coming out of? by di0s · · Score: 1

      I think CowboyNeal meant to say "cave" and not shell. I find that most computer geeks emerge from the aforementioned "cave" to refill on "carbonation" and "sugar". Or something.

    7. Re:Which shell is he coming out of? by yaphadam097 · · Score: 0, Troll

      He's a security expert... so ssh

  3. Re:the problem with subscriber notices by dzym · · Score: 3, Funny
    The problem with having the 'a new message will appear soon' message, is FP trolls know to refresh the screen a whole bunch to get that FP! :)

    Thereby driving up page hits and ad views.

    I think I'm on to something here.

  4. Re:the problem with subscriber notices by caino59 · · Score: 3, Funny

    best patent that idea...

    ooh..trolling = profit

    aww..cmon, someone chime in with the profit model, and something about soviet russia, this wont be a good post w/o it...

    *shrug*

  5. High Disregard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny


    High disregard, huh?

    1. Re:High Disregard by ePhil_One · · Score: 5, Funny
      High disregard, huh?

      Actually, I can understand this, being held in rather "high disregard" myself in some circles.

      Ah, the joys of being the "Prince of Insufficient Light"

      --
      You are in a maze of twisted little posts, all alike.
    2. Re:High Disregard by ralian · · Score: 1

      I guess being held in high disregard would be having nobody really aware that you're there?

      --

      -raph

    3. Re:High Disregard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah. It's pretty sad when powerful people actually make an effort to ignore you.

  6. How sad. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Morse's uncanny knowledge of how Manhattan is wired helps keep him one step ahead of hackers and has kept him in high disregard in most hacker communities. Morse's company, Razorpoint Security Technologies does not employ hackers who've decided to come in from the cold."

    He's not well regarded because he's good at what he does, or because he's good at what he does without cattering to the overused claim that ex-hackers are best suited at protecting systems?

    Frankly I find him a breath of fresh air.

    1. Re:How sad. by shaitand · · Score: 1

      how much you want to bet he's either overrated or black hat when he goes home at night.

    2. Re:How sad. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Razorpoint Security Technologies does not employ hackers who've decided to come in from the cold."

      How the hell would he know? Ever heard of `lying to get a job?`.

    3. Re:How sad. by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 1
      How the hell would he know? Ever heard of `lying to get a job?`

      They could stick the word "knowingly" in there, but that's obvious, isn't it?

    4. Re:How sad. by lymond01 · · Score: 2, Funny

      It seems, Mr. Morse, that you've been living two lives...

  7. Re:the problem with subscriber notices by EvilAlien · · Score: 0, Funny
    1. Imagine a Beowulf cluster of Soviet Underpants Gnomes

    ...

    3. PROFIT!

    Happy now? I feel sooooo dirty. You forgot the gratuitous cluster reference I'm all over it like a fat kid on a smartie.

    --
    perl -e 'print $i=pack(c5, (41*2), sqrt(7056), (unpack(c,H)-2), oct(115), 10)'
  8. Re:the problem with subscriber notices by confused+philosopher · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    These Uber-FP /. "hackers" are going to find their IPs banned too. So that may be another reason for these subscriber messages.

    Maybe /. should hire some white-hat hackers to destroy the FP trolls?

    --
    Why slashdot? Why not?
  9. Omg by Mr_Poche · · Score: 0

    "Morse's uncanny knowledge of how Manhattan is wired helps keep him one step ahead of hackers and has kept him in high disregard in most hacker communities. " Blablabla, don't think you are the best 'cause you are a security guy. Everything can be exploited!

  10. Is this a joke? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Why is Slashdot posting advertisements from random security consultants?

    Do Slashdot editors realize how many security consultancies there are in New York City, even leaving out the credible names like @Stake and IBM?

    Do Slashdot editors honestly believe that major financial firms in NYC don't already have a track record of hiring and retaining exceptional security engineers? Do they honestly believe that a major financial needs Gary Morse to tell them what a firewall does for them?

    Haven't the Slashdot editors ever seen that silly flash video with "Kimball" and "Dataprotekt"? Heard about the subsequent investor fraud story? Recognized that maybe real security firms don't market themselves on "white hats staying ahead of the evil hackers" hype?

    Did the Slashdot editors think of visiting Razorpoint's website, where we find white papers with scintillating security insights like "security is a process" and "here's how to read a CIDR address"? Or notice the lack of advisories, research papers, or bios of credible security researchers on the site?

    Maybe these are smart people. Maybe they secretly have Citicorp and Bank of America on their client list.

    Or maybe they're just a bunch of wannabes.

    Why are we supposed to be interested in this crap?

    1. Re:Is this a joke? by scubacuda · · Score: 4, Informative

      Here are their whitepapers.

      Kinda boring, actually...

    2. Re:Is this a joke? by ipfwadm · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Here are their whitepapers.
      Kinda boring, actually...


      My favorite was the ports list. It started out as a nice copy of /etc/services. The good part is the last third, the "Security Backdoor/Trojan Ports." I learned that ports such as 21, 22, 23, 25, and 80 are "hostile ports" that are "mostly used for backdoor or trojan programs." I can just see some management cl00bie saying "oh shit, our webserver is listening on port 80, we must have been hacked!" Though I suppose given sendmail's security history, maybe it should be considered a backdoor ;-)

    3. Re:Is this a joke? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      RAZORPOINT TCP/UDP PORTS LIST
      v1.5 / June 2002
      A comprehensive list of TCP/IP ports (TCP and UDP), including both legitimate and illegitimate (hacker/cracker) ports.

      WOW! Impressive! Some interesting reading there...

    4. Re:Is this a joke? by Fnord · · Score: 0

      sendmail is port 25. Port 80 is http.

    5. Re:Is this a joke? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, since .NET, SOAP and web services, port 80 has been a port used for RPC, and should be blocked completely at the border firewall.

    6. Re:Is this a joke? by Renli · · Score: 2

      "management cl00bie saying "oh shit, our webserver is listening on port 80, we must have been hacked!""

      "sendmail is port 25. Port 80 is http."

      Glad you cleared up his misconception that its not the webserver on port 80 but in fact http. /sarcasm

      Go back and read the post. The webserver comment and the send mail comment were different.

    7. Re:Is this a joke? by ostiguy · · Score: 2, Funny

      No kidding.

      I hang out on the cisco's firewall support board. Some guy wanted to know how to stop people via his PIX from being able to telnet into port 25 and type commands like "mail to", "helo", etc. to his mailserver. Yikes.

      ostiguy

    8. Re:Is this a joke? by the-dude-man · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I think you were a little harsh on this

      This isnt by any means groundbreaking but it is something that is a psdo-event in the security industry...this is not a random firm, it is a leading New York City firm...that being said, no they are not an national/international authority on the subject. This wouldnt be on the scale as something like phil zimmerman having an online chat about asyncronus encryption.

      However, it is an oppertunity for smaller people in the security community, and people who arnt even in the security industry to talk to someone who is, at least, a successful member of the community. A Business execuitive Will pay $5,000 to find out they need a linux box with a NAT'ing firewall...i know...i've charged companies that much to just to tell them that. So for some people, this is a major event to get free advice.

      If these people were put that Citicorp and Bank Of America on their list of clients, and they wernt clients, there would at least be a public announcment from them that they do not have any affilation....worst case...possibly a lawsuit.

      Also, dont expect alot on a proffesional security firm's website....a website for a proffessional security firm has one purpose....attract clients...not divulge information...any firm is not going to want any random script kiddy or a black hat hacker scouting the security surrounding their target to be able to find out weather or not they are a compentent firm, or what areas of security they focus on. Personally, i consider it a disservice to clients to put loads of security infromation up onto a public website. The legitmite people who can deal with this data, and offer intelligent disscusion on it, are going to find out and do it in the many security circles that exist.

      Moreover, many firms dont even divulge big things they have discovered to anyone. Thats how they stay on top...they may be a security frim...but they are also a business...they dont exist to make the security world a better place...they are going to want to devlop methods that no one else knows...they are then less likely to be broken...or copied by other firms...all of wich lead to more money for the current firm. That being said, this would really only cover big things....for example, if iptables was found to have a vaunerablility to exploit, and a firm found it and patched it, they would most likely not divulge this, they can make alot more money by not divulging it than by running out in the open about it.

      And finaly ...who cares? well alot of people...personally, I am going to attend the chat just to listen and maybe do a little talking...its an interesting thing for many people in the security industry....certianly worthy of front page of slashdot.

    9. Re:Is this a joke? by Komarosu · · Score: 1

      what amuses me more is that port 31337 isnt in there for back orifice 2000....

      --

      "What do you mean you have no ice? Do you expect me to drink this coffee hot?" - Random Customer, Clerks
    10. Re:Is this a joke? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well actually, doing that is quite easy.
      Enable mail authentication.
      Or session encryption.

      Now, that may severely cut down on the mail you get, but...

    11. Re:Is this a joke? by Fnord · · Score: 1

      Oops. I wasn't very awake when I wrote that. Things like that tend to slip by me when I'm tired.

    12. Re:Is this a joke? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      what amuses me more is that port 31337 isnt in there for back orifice 2000....

      It is there.

    13. Re:Is this a joke? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      BO 2000 could use any port... It was the previous version which used 31337.

  11. Morse Code? by sTavvy · · Score: 5, Funny

    "Morse's uncanny knowledge of how Manhattan is wired helps keep him one step ahead of hackers " keep in mind things have changed a lot since he devoloped his 'code' sends out a "dot dot dot - dash dash dash - dot dot dot - i'm being hacked!!! " the first bit was SOS in morese code if you didn't know Steve

    1. Re:Morse Code? by Brian+Boitano · · Score: 2, Funny

      I didn't know Steve...

      EH! STEVE!

      --
      What would Brian Boitano do?
    2. Re:Morse Code? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was just going to post in morse, but the lameness filter bitched.

  12. M-O-R-S-E: A Coincidence? by gotscheme · · Score: 1

    I think not.

  13. Re:McHacker. by confused+philosopher · · Score: 2, Funny

    "What about those [hackers] who've been sitting under the heat lamps?"

    Those computer geeks will not be cold and clammy, they'll just be clammy.

    --
    Why slashdot? Why not?
  14. let me get this straight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    he is an expert in attack/penetration, and he wants to help us avoid viruses -- just checking

  15. Don't wait around for the USA Today chat by Dag+Maggot · · Score: 5, Informative

    Here is the text of a recent interview with the
    reclusive security wonk from Crain's New York Business.

    On the job with...

    Gary Morse
    Founder and CEO
    Razorpoint Security

    Keeping a company's computer systems and networks secure from intruders used to be the responsibility of mid-level IT managers. But after the Sept. 11 attacks, the job landed on the desk of company CEOs. Executives in all sorts of industries woke up to the fact that security--of everything from the front door to the mailroom PC--has to be a top management concern.

    The new consciousness has proved a boon for companies like Razorpoint Security, which was founded in Manhattan in 2000 and saw its business take off after the attacks. Razorpoint tests just how secure a company's network is by trying to hack into it. The company then does the follow-up work of fixing problems and performing regular network audits. Crainsny.com's Judy Messina talks with Razorpoint founder and CEO Gary Morse.

    Crainsny.com: Describe what Razorpoint does.

    Gary Morse: In the simplest terms, you can think of us as professional hackers. We're tech professionals who in the past have built large-scale networks, including major sites on the Internet. That helps us know where the pitfalls in systems are and how to break things. Once we find vulnerabilities, we demonstrate them in a very comprehensive report. If we're able to crack passwords, for example, we'll show the list of passwords or a screen shot of them. We want to drive the point home.

    Then, one of the three things happens. The company has trained staff who are capable of fixing the problems and they use our report as a roadmap. Others ask us to do the remediation for them. In the third category, and this is coming up more and more, is the client who is overwhelmed and understaffed, and we go in and act as their temporary IT security arm for a while.

    Crainsny.com: How do you convince executives that their networks are vulnerable?

    Gary Morse: At one firm half the executive board wanted to bring us in and the other half was on the fence. They had all the buzzwords, the firewalls, all the security products you're supposed to have. But when they finally hired us, in less than one week we had control of every device on their network - every server, every desktop computer, every laptop. We even logged on to the system as the president and we wrote an email in his name. The screen shot of that email was one of the prominent pieces in our presentation to the executive board. We had to break the report in two pieces it was so big.

    Crainsny.com: What are the most common holes you find in computer systems?

    Gary Morse: There's everything from the seemingly insignificant to the colossally devastating. You can have a poorly configured web server or mail server sitting next to a server with financial information. One time, we found a fax machine talking to a phone system so that a document on somebody's work station was being sent over the network as if it were being faxed. Somebody had set up the connection and forgot about it.

    Crainsny.com: What do companies need to do to make their systems secure?

    Gary Morse: They need to think about what services they truly need in order to be online. Security is a process not a product. There is no shrink wrapped thing you take off a shelf and install. New vulnerabilities are coming out every hour.

    Crainsny.com: What changes did you see after 9/11?

    Gary Morse: We saw more security awareness. The bar was raised quite a bit. People who had been on the fence about doing regular security audits were certainly calling us a lot more than we were calling them. The year 2002 was a big year for us. We grew roughly 300%.

    Crainsny.com: You said new vulnerabilities are surfacing every day. What should companies be preparing themselves for?

    Gary Morse: Web and web application vulnerabilities and wireless security issues are going to be concerns. In the past year, a lot of w

    --

    I have no pants and I must scream

    1. Re:Don't wait around for the USA Today chat by bestguruever · · Score: 1

      We even logged on to the system as the president and we wrote an email in his name. The screen shot of that email was one of the prominent pieces in our presentation to the executive board.

      It seems social engineering is the most effective tool for hackers. Who's up for a gratuitous round of forging mail headers?
      I may be wrong about his abilities though ... he may have just used photoshop to alter the screen shot.

      --
      if you think this is bad, you should have seen my last sig
    2. Re:Don't wait around for the USA Today chat by sllim · · Score: 3, Informative

      If you want to play that game then take it farther.
      They could have forged the entire presentation. The whole thing could be nothing but a mock up of the company internet site.

      Get real. These people are professionals and you have to trust them to some degree.
      Hell, you have given them permission to break into your company system.

      Besides, is it so farfetched that the President has his password set as 'IBGOD' and the head of networking doesn't have the guts to point out this is a bad choice for a password?

    3. Re:Don't wait around for the USA Today chat by fdawg · · Score: 1, Informative

      I saw a "demonstration" of how a "security firm" broke into the 911 system of a large city. I think it was on ABC News but I could be wrong.

      Their demo consisted of spoofing an email address and sending it to a worker's email address. I think it was signed the director or something. Attatched was a vb script that sent a netsend to everyone in the building to go to the director's office. And almost on queue, the camera went to the security firms office where a bunch of nerds were quoted as saying "we're in". Yeah, real impressive. I think my 4 year old cousing can cause more damage randomly hitting keys on the keyboard.

      I never believe in firms like this. It all boils down to undereducated IT staff and less educated public. Its true, tell the public anything with a somewhat authoritarian/confident voice and they'll believe anything.

      When was the last time a security firm noticed a a huge gaping hole in Microsoft code like the slammer, or the calls used by nimda. I cant picture a bunch of self proclaimed "experts in security" going over lines of code in Sendmail to find another buffer overflow.

      Buyer beware. Its cheaper and more reliable just to read a book.

    4. Re:Don't wait around for the USA Today chat by Vskye · · Score: 1

      > On the job with...
      >
      > Gary Morse
      > Founder and CEO
      > Razorpoint Security

      Wow, so Gary really is a freak'in looser! In any real admin's job it would be that he would protect his/her systems on a normal basis, yet Gary the so called geek is suddenly popping up claiming he is the god of security... sucking up on the 9/11 disaster. What is so NEW in this story? Nothing! Sounds like a self endorsement for getting more work to me. Poof! Bla bla bla...

      Dana

      --
      Life was hell, then I discovered Linux...
    5. Re:Don't wait around for the USA Today chat by bestguruever · · Score: 1

      1) sorry, I forgot to enclose that in a tag

      2) either "how much cash do you have on hand" or "somebody please post a 1) promote professional = trustworthy 2) profit"; I just can't decide which best suits my warped sense of humor

      3) I agree with this one. I can just picture the IT guys rolling their eyes and bitching about the job market.

      --
      if you think this is bad, you should have seen my last sig
    6. Re:Don't wait around for the USA Today chat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Get real. These people are professionals and you have to trust them to some degree.

      And if you believe things like that then you really NEED some help with security.

    7. Re:Don't wait around for the USA Today chat by sllim · · Score: 1

      Granted this is just like anything else.
      On one end of the spectrum you have the company doing the audit.
      They are there to point out any and every flaw. No flaw too small.
      And on the other end you have the clueless pointy haired CEO who is pissed at the IT guys because he just had to reinstall his Gator Password tool for the 3rd time in the last month.

      (ever see the Dilbert where they gave the pointy haired boss an etch-a-sketch and told him it was a laptop? To reboot you hold it over your head and shake)

      Smart people look for some place in between the two ends of that spectrum.

      If I was sitting on that board I would be taking notes on what was overboard and what was not. You discuss it and move on from there.
      But I do think it is insane to think that these people would forge problems.

      Is there anyone that works at a company that has no security issues at all?
      Look hard enough and you will find some. Why forge results and destroy your reputation and business when all you have to do is look for the smallest and stupidest and most rediculous problems.

      Hell those people come out on top. They get mistaken for being thorough.

    8. Re:Don't wait around for the USA Today chat by Placido · · Score: 1

      the President has his password set as 'IBGOD' and the head of networking doesn't have the guts to point out this is a bad choice for a password?

      Heh.... if the head of networking knows what the presidents password is then he's tried guessing it and wouldn't mention it because he could then be accused of cracking. ;)
      IT systems should never ever display a users password. Not even to the user.

      --

      Pinky: "What are we going to do tomorrow night Brain?"
      Brain: "I would tell you Pinky but this 120 char limi
  16. Re:the problem with subscriber notices by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In soviet russia, profit makes YOU!

    Have YOU ever combined two of the most popular /. trolling methods into one ubertroll?

  17. Funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wouldn't it be funny if I hacked the video interview and broadcast UHF instead?

    1. Re:Funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Would it?

      YES! Do it!

  18. yeah i think so by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    he is an expert in attack/penetration testing
    Um...was he ever in jail? :-D tat tat ta

    1. Re:yeah i think so by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      sounds like a rapist to me

  19. I just ordered mine. by StormyWeather · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    I hope he didn't run out of books due to the /. before I got my order in :).
    I don't own an X-Box, but from the samples it looks like some very interesting stuff.

  20. Please mod this up... by moogla · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I had the same feeling, it was a particular feeling in the back of my throat; of course I didn't know why I felt turned off by the article.

    I guess it seems kind of hokey. The guys who KNOW security tend to not be so outward about it.

    --
    Black holes are where the Matrix raised SIGFPE
    1. Re:Please mod this up... by shamilton · · Score: 0, Redundant
      The guys who KNOW security tend to not be so outward about it.


      EXACTLY. This guy reminds me of Steve Gibson. There's a reason reputable organisations divide their marketing and technical departments.
      --
      "[A] high IQ is like a Jeep; you will still get stuck, just farther from help!" --Just d' FAQs, c.g.a
    2. Re:Please mod this up... by paganizer · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Thanks! I was trying to think of who this reminded me of; Steve Gibson in a Nutty shell (bash flavored).

      I do not doubt that there are people out there who have never broken any laws and are decent, if not excellent, security types.
      However, since it's been illegal to do ANYTHING with a computer since the DMCA and Patriot Act came out, that type of expert is obviously a breed rapidly approaching death.
      If a person is acquiring security skills in this day and age, that person is in the law's eyes a black hat.

      --
      Why, yes, I AM a Pagan Libertarian.
    3. Re:Please mod this up... by charon_on_acheron · · Score: 1

      Good point paganizer. Today, a 'legal' white-hat can only work between two computers he has setup in his own apartment connected with Cat5 and a hub, seeing what their hostnames are, because anything more in-depth has been outlawed as computer terrorism. So, anyone who really tries to understand the products their friends, family, or customers use is a black-hat, even though they are just trying to find security holes or hidden features. The difference between white hat and black hat used to be the person's incentives and actions, now it's whether Disney/RIAA/Adobe/Intel/etc have bought a new law.

    4. Re:Please mod this up... by Cirvam · · Score: 1

      Wait so if I have 3 computers networked or even 20 in my house to play around on its computer terrorism? Damn I better tell the people that teach Cisco Classes around here, they have like 5 or more computers hooked together with routers! That must be like super-duper computer terrorism.

      </sarcasm>

    5. Re:Please mod this up... by paganizer · · Score: 1

      No....
      the comment you replied to states that you are only legally able to really experiment with computers on your private LAN; while this might be a slight oversimplification, it's close enough to being true to not make a difference.

      --
      Why, yes, I AM a Pagan Libertarian.
  21. Won't employ hackers? by supz · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The comment for the story says: "Morse's company, Razorpoint Security Technologies does not employ hackers who've decided to come in from the cold."

    Does anyone have any links regarding that? I read the link in the story, and all it gives is some very brief information. I'd just like to see the guys reasoning for not hiring "hackers who have come in from the cold."

    1. Re:Won't employ hackers? by freeweed · · Score: 4, Insightful

      His reasoning is probably the same as why you need a criminal background check to do almost any real-world security work (ie: non-computer related).

      Want to be a security guard? Nope, sorry, not if you have a B&E record. Want to be a police officer? Couple of murder convictions? I don't think so. And so on.

      The rest of society has already figured this out. Ex-criminals can be useful for information, but it's not very often that they get put into positions of *trust*. I sure wouldn't want someone who's already proven their disregard for security controls designing them.

      --
      Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
    2. Re:Won't employ hackers? by ehiris · · Score: 1, Redundant

      For the ignorant me. What is the definitition of "coming in from the cold"?

    3. Re:Won't employ hackers? by daveodukeo · · Score: 2, Interesting
      The Razorpoint website doesn't help either. The only mention of the word "ethic" is applicants need a good work ethic...

      "Razorpoint is always interested in the best and brightest in the technology security field. If you have five to ten years of hands-on, real world experience, we may have a place for you.

      Smart, skilled and self-motivated professionals are desired in the following areas: Security Auditing, Sales/CRM, Firewalls & Intrusion Detection Systems, Application Development, Systems & Network Administration (heterogeneous environments only, no "one OS wonders" please).

      Applicants must be U.S. citizens or already have a green card, have excellent communication skills (written and presentation) and provide a track record and references that illustrate an outstanding work ethic and past career successes."

    4. Re:Won't employ hackers? by shamilton · · Score: 4, Insightful

      A B&E record only lasts seven years (IIRC) so it seems that society has actually figured out that people CAN turn around. People CAN grow up. Amazing eh?

      Furthermore, the hacker who grew up retains his knowledge. The hacker who has never broken into a Real System cause mommy said she'd take away his computer privileges simply cannot know all the details.

      How do you get good at knowing you're being tracked, if you've never been tracked? You don't. So how do you devise a tracking system which a hacker wouldn't detect? You can't.

      All but the stupidest of employers care vastly more about experience than education.

      --
      "[A] high IQ is like a Jeep; you will still get stuck, just farther from help!" --Just d' FAQs, c.g.a
    5. Re:Won't employ hackers? by pseudonymouse · · Score: 1
      I sure wouldn't want someone who's already proven their disregard for security controls designing them.

      The interview posted above indicates that his company specializes in finding vulnerabilities by executing authorized attacks against their clients.

      Where would he or his people become good at that, without breaking the law? I seem to recall seeing references to classes in this sort of thing, where the students are carefully vetted, but is that where this Razorpoint place got them? I thought those were mostly for law enforcement, intelligence, and defense agencies (though that might have changed).

      If it's not where he got them, then it seems to me that they are either inexperienced, or have systematically and repeated broken the law in the past (though they might not have been caught doing so). I don't think you can learn how to crack real-world security on paper.

      --
      In a free society you are who you say you are. -- Mumford
    6. Re:Won't employ hackers? by Ieshan · · Score: 1

      That's positively absurd logic. That's like saying the people who design home security systems for a living should have been criminals at some point in their lives. Or that people who design buildings should have experienced structural collapse, just so they know what it feels like and they don't screw it up.

      See, in humans, we've got this thing called language, which can be used to symbolically represent situations. We've also got this new concept called "imagination".

      I don't know, but I think you'd have a pretty hard time convincing a prison psychologist or preacher that to counsel inmates properly, she'd have definately needed to do hard time, because hey, how else could she relate?

    7. Re:Won't employ hackers? by freeweed · · Score: 4, Insightful

      A B&E record only lasts seven years (IIRC) so it seems that society has actually figured out that people CAN turn around. People CAN grow up. Amazing eh?

      Yup, some people CAN change. Fact is, most crimes are commited by repeat offenders. Most people DON'T change, and have fun applying for the CIA job with your supposedly-erased-due-to-it-being-7-years-old criminal record.

      The hacker who has never broken into a Real System cause mommy said she'd take away his computer privileges simply cannot know all the details.

      How do you get good at knowing you're being tracked, if you've never been tracked? You don't. So how do you devise a tracking system which a hacker wouldn't detect? You can't.


      Now come on, grow up. You want to break into a system? Set one up. Crack it. Next, get a friend to set one up, not tell you what he did, then crack it. And so on. You want to elude detection? Install Snort, and try to elude it. Etc.

      You don't think Locksmiths are trained for their job by breaking into unsuspecting homeowners, do you? Or alarm companies enhance their products by comitting B&Es?

      --
      Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
    8. Re:Won't employ hackers? by Majikk · · Score: 1

      And where were all these posters when Kevin Mitnik was under fire for wanting to do consulting work? Seems like a suspicious double standard to me.

    9. Re:Won't employ hackers? by Flakeloaf · · Score: 1

      Does anyone have any links regarding that? I read the link in the story, and all it gives is some very brief information. I'd just like to see the guys reasoning for not hiring "hackers who have come in from the cold."

      Same reason the rape crisis center isn't returning calls from Mike Tyson.

      --

      Am I the only one who heard Roxette to sing "I'm gonna get blitzed for some sex"?

    10. Re:Won't employ hackers? by rzbx · · Score: 1

      Ever see the movie "Catch Me If You Can"? If not, I suggest you find out about the person the movie was based on and you'll see why your wrong. I will never believe that a person that has done bad things in the past will always be that kind of person (unless they are mentally ill).

      --
      Question everything.
    11. Re:Won't employ hackers? by shamilton · · Score: 1

      You and this post's uncle make about the same point, but you're missing mine. I'm not saying you HAVE to have been a black hat to be a good white hat. I'm saying, if you were a black hat, you are in every way better off than if you have always been a white hat. You've seen both sides of things. You know the mentality.

      There are also heuristics: the desire to break into systems, to trespass and have the rules not apply, are going to go hand in hand with somebody who puts huge amounts of effort into learning everything they can about the field. And it's true, hackers are obsessive!

      But whoever got such a kick out of securing their system that they stayed up till the wee hours of the morning, foregoing friends, girls, and other such things?

      --
      "[A] high IQ is like a Jeep; you will still get stuck, just farther from help!" --Just d' FAQs, c.g.a
    12. Re:Won't employ hackers? by LamerX · · Score: 2, Interesting

      True, however, I belive that if someone has had these mishaps would be more experienced and better suited to see that it doesn't happen again.

      There are in fact, lots of people who commit crimes that go on in thier lives to council others. Often people who have done something wrong and have turned thier life around, are the best people to council others who are trying to turn thier lives around.

      I don't believe that anybody is saying that it's a requirement to do something wrong, to be good at correcting it. They are just saying that typically the person who has done the wrong, is better at knowing how to prevent it because they've had the experience and feel of what the problem was, not had someone tell them what the problem was.

      That's the problem with language. You can describe things until you're blue in the face, but you can't ever completely recreate the feelings and surroundings of a situation with your words. Language is always an interpretation, and everyone's interpratation is always different, which is what makes the real experience better.

    13. Re:Won't employ hackers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really? Excellent. Would you mind sending me some money to my post-office box in Eastern Uganda? I've got an...er.. orphange I need to save. Oh, you also get a free bridge with every donation over $12 million.

      I believe the bridge is somewhere in San Francisco...

    14. Re:Won't employ hackers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ya this pimple faced virgin here ran p1mphax0r.c against an unpatched redhat 6.2 box! Yes lets hire him! I'm sure he really knows how to manage and secure an enterprise level information systems infrastructure against industrial espionage!

    15. Re:Won't employ hackers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well in that case the Dept. of Homeland Security should hire ex-al-qaeda members to help secure against terrorism right!

      With your winning logic bin laden should set up a security consulting firm!

    16. Re:Won't employ hackers? by LamerX · · Score: 1

      Uhm, we are talking about breaking into computer systems here. We aren't talking about repeat rapists and repeat murders. Violent offenses are usually the ones which are reapeated the most, and most violent offenders have serious mental, or psychological issues.

      Usually people cracking computers aren't doing it because they were victimized, or because of some trauma, which is mostly true for violent criminals. They do it for the thrill, or for the knowledge, or just because they want to know whats on the other side.

      Besides, setting up your own system to break into? Isn't that the same as picking someone elses system to break into? What difference does it make who's system is being broken into? A system is being compromised. And that is one more for the experience. Besides if you set up your own system, chances are that you already know of the security flaws. You're probably not going to find new things.

    17. Re:Won't employ hackers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People who break into computer systems habitually and obsessively also have mental problems.

      Lack of social skills or some other social trauma making them outcast and withdrawn.

      So Mean Joe punched your bladder at recess and you pissed your pants in front of that girl you had a crush on in 2nd grade, ok now go become a eleet haxor d00d to show the world whos boss!

      Yeah!

    18. Re:Won't employ hackers? by Angst+Badger · · Score: 1

      The rest of society has already figured this out. Ex-criminals can be useful for information, but it's not very often that they get put into positions of *trust*. I sure wouldn't want someone who's already proven their disregard for security controls designing them.

      It's not quite that simple. The reason you don't hire a hacker to be a security consultant or a bank robber to be a security guard is that the connection between the two, in terms of the skills required, is tenuous at best. Yes, a cracker will tend to have decent insight into the weaknesses of a system, but it doesn't mean he has a clue about how to strengthen system security.

      Most of the self-proclaimed "crackers" I've dealt with on the job have the naive notion that you probe for vulnerabilities and then plug them. While that's certainly part of securing a system, it's a bit like saying that the best way to design a sturdy boat is to take any old rotten rowboat and patch the leaks. Security -- at least if it's done right -- is akin to architecture. Mere system cracking is like throwing bricks through windows. How does vandalism qualify someone to be an architect?

      The other big strike against firms composed wholly or partly of crackers is that they tend to be little more than teenage cults of personality for people whose security credentials are on a par with Ozzy Osbourne's Satanist credentials. The same may often be true of suit-driven organizations within their peer group, but I'd rather take advice from someone with no criminal record and an advanced degree than from some bush league rawkstar who doesn't understand why Back Orifice didn't really say anything at all about Windows security.

      --
      Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
    19. Re:Won't employ hackers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh please so you are yet another techie tard that thinks he's "too cool for school".

      If someone is so fricken dedicated to whatever they do then don't you think they would take it upon themselves to go to school and study it in a formal setting?

      How many breakthroughs in computer science came from uneductaed hobbiests sitting in their basement?

      Just because you got some shitty coder job doesn't mean you know anything that a person with an advanced CS education knows.

      A big whopping goose egg. zip. zilch. nada.

    20. Re:Won't employ hackers? by LamerX · · Score: 1

      Uhm, I'm sorry about your childhood trauma. But that's not true for everybody. And again, you say habitually and obsessively. Yes more than likely that is true for obsessive people, but MOST 'haXors' aren't obsessive. It's mostly a hobby, that is done in spare time, after school, homework, work, etc the things that are required to live.

    21. Re:Won't employ hackers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not my childhood trauma pal. I'm not leet hax0rX d00d I'm just a security consultant with a masters in CS, what would i know!

      Well if you only do "hax0r" in your spare time and not professionaly than you are simply a hobbiest.

      Try applying to The Wiz i hear they hire lots of part time PC technicians ok...

    22. Re:Won't employ hackers? by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

      "Besides, setting up your own system to break into? Isn't that the same as picking someone elses system to break into?"

      Not at all, if you really think so, then you have a view very contrary to popular morality, and legal morality. I can shoot and kill someone with a gun, but in one situation walk away a hero, and in another go to jail as a murderer. Suppose:

      I am walking along, armed. I decide to turn down a back alley, there is a man and a woman there, the man has one arm around the woman. The man is also armed with a gun. I stop, draw, and shoot and kill the man.

      Now some more details are needed so take two possabilities:

      a) The man and woman are husband and wife, he has his arm around her lovingly. He has a gun holstered, like me, which is perfectly legal in this state.

      b) The man is restraining the woman with his arm, and has the gun to her head, and finger on the trigger.

      In case a, I'm a cold blodded murder, guilty of murder 2 at least, and maybe murder 1. In case b I made a justified killing, to protect the life of another, and will face no legal recourse.

      Now this is the most severe case (the taking of another life) and even at this level, the distinction between doing right and wrong with the same act still applies. IT certianly applies at lower levels. Learning how to pick locks by purchasing a bunch and working on them is perfectly legal. Learning how to pick locks by going and picking the front door of all your neighbours is not, even if oyu never go in their house.

      I'll never understand why some people seem to think it's ok to hack other people's systems, provided they just poke around. That is the same as me saying its ok for me to pick your lock, come in your house, and poke around so long as I don't take or break anything. Even if you do something stupid, like leave your front door hanging open, I am STILL breaking the law.

      You want to learn how to hack? Do it to stuff you own.

    23. Re:Won't employ hackers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      It's not my childhood trauma pal.

      Yeah, of course, it was your friend, who pissed his pants in front of that girl, wasn't it?

    24. Re:Won't employ hackers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Well in that case the Dept. of Homeland Security should hire ex-al-qaeda members to help secure against terrorism right!

      Now THAT is actually a really great idea!

    25. Re:Won't employ hackers? by slashdot_commentator · · Score: 1

      You don't think Locksmiths are trained for their job by breaking into unsuspecting homeowners,

      They don't, because their job is not to ensure physical security on a site. Its to install locks. And shockingly, they spend a good chunk of their time breaking into safes, cars, and buildings. Sometimes people lock themselves out, or don't possess combinations or keys.

      Or alarm companies enhance their products by comitting B&Es?

      They do, but usually in their own labs. But I'm sure at a large, expensive client site, they may hire a tiger team for research purposes.

      My big problem with "Holier than Thou" "White Hat" hackers is not a policy of not hiring criminals. Its their mindset. If its immoral to "break" into a system, their mind tends to be too closed to anticipate possibilities. Or think if they follow a set of rules, that somehow a site is impenetrable (and when they die, they go to Heaven.) That makes them less talented security specialists. Not that I would hire a security company which employed known computer criminals either.

      --
      There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
    26. Re:Won't employ hackers? by curious.corn · · Score: 1

      Yup, some people CAN change. Fact is, most crimes are commited by repeat offenders. Most people DON'T change, and have fun applying for the CIA job with your supposedly-erased-due-to-it-being-7-years-old criminal record.

      It depends on what they need... in Italy we're about to muffle up a cute little scandal on nazifascist criminals that surfaced in the past year. Appears that the secret services of USA and GB politely brushed the accusations aside in order to hire them as agents in the nascent Cold War. Opportunity and timing is all you need...

      --
      Mi domando chi à il mandante di tutte le cazzate che faccio - Altan
    27. Re:Won't employ hackers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actauly the cops must consider applicants that have done there time the sate has a vested interest that the system works.

    28. Re:Won't employ hackers? by Eric+Savage · · Score: 1

      Now come on, grow up. You want to break into a system? Set one up. Crack it. Next, get a friend to set one up, not tell you what he did, then crack it. And so on. You want to elude detection? Install Snort, and try to elude it. Etc.

      Well said. I wonder if anyone actually has done this. Such a thing, if well organized, would be of tremendous value to the entire community. Picture it, the Black Team of hackers/crackers trying to get in. The White Team of developers and admins trying to keep them out. Keep logs of everything, so if the Black Team wins, there are valuable lessons to be learned by all. It could be like the Geek Olympics. :)

      --

      This is not the greatest sig in the world, this is just a tribute.
    29. Re:Won't employ hackers? by lobsterGun · · Score: 1
      Fact is, most crimes are commited by repeat offenders. Most people DON'T change...


      I'm not sure you can draw that that conclusion from the fact you presented. I'm not saying it isn't true, but I would find it interesting to see how many people commit a crime only once and compare it to the number of repeat offenders.

      My guy feeling is that the number of single time offenders will exceed the number of repeat ofenders (but that feeling isn't very strong).
    30. Re:Won't employ hackers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      There are in fact, lots of people who commit crimes that go on in thier lives to council others. Often people who have done something wrong and have turned thier life around, are the best people to council others who are trying to turn thier lives around.

      This should be modded +50 Insightful. Every word you said is completely true.

      I'm not speaking on the issue of companies hiring ex-blackhats-now-whitehats. This is a more complicated issue politically. But sometimes you simply can't appreciate what you've done wrong until you've been caught and gone through not only the legal process, but the self-(re)discovery process.

      (Posting anon for cowardly reasons.)

    31. Re:Won't employ hackers? by katarac · · Score: 1
      That's like saying the people who design home security systems for a living should have been criminals at some point in their lives.
      Haven't you ever seen Beverly Hills Cop? Having "bent the occasional law" in the past makes you an extraordinary law enforcement officer. It also lets you show the button down squares how to solve a case in the most hilarious and zany way possible.
    32. Re:Won't employ hackers? by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      All but the stupidest of employers care vastly more about experience than education.

      Holy cow are you horribly under educated.

      If you have a New BS degreed student in CS and his MCSE, MCDE, EIEIO and whatever else he bought in front of you and a non degreed 15 years of experience with systems and network management + design and integration... you would be a complete fool to hire the college kid (unless he is only asking for 1/5th the guru's wages..)

      Do you want someone to bungle their way through your operation lerning as they go? or do you want someone who can walk up to it, do a quick analysis and produce viable solutions?

      you go ahead and hire the educated folk.. I'll always hire a seasoned vetran over some fresh punk any day... I'm here to get work done and help the company to increase it's profits and market by managing and expanding the IT and IS infrastructure..

      if you can, hire expierience... and if you have no other choiceother than between the janitor and a fresh MCSE... ask the janitor if he is willing to take classes.... as they both have the same worth.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    33. Re:Won't employ hackers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      See google for:- Honynet/honeypot

    34. Re:Won't employ hackers? by minderaser · · Score: 1

      While I don't believe that what you are actually trying to say is "once you've done 'bad thing X' you are therefore never qualified/able to do work in the field of 'solutions to X'", you (and others) do, IHMO, somewhat project the appearance of taking that position in your comments. So let me provide an example that dispels that premise.

      In the field of addiction recovery, almost ALL the staff (paid or unpaid, trained or untrained) are themselves recovering addicts themselves. While one hasn't had to travel that road themselves to be a good counselor, it certainly does help greatly. In addition, it gains one credibility among the "clients".
      [I considered throwing in personal examples here but chose not to. Suffice it to say I do know of what I speak.]

      While I concede that this example has a less than direct bearing on the topic of computer security, I thought it a worthwhile point to mention. Also, to that I would reply that in analogies brought up in other posts, "WTF does having a conviction for pot possession have to do w/ your ability to be a security guard?" (I'm sure we can all agree that sort of person shouldn't bother applying for that sort of job)

      Anyway, just some food for thought. I'm kind of suprised I haven't seen this brought up already. Maybe it's just below my threshold (and I'm too lazy to switch it and scour the posts :-) )

    35. Re:Won't employ hackers? by ichimunki · · Score: 1

      I think you'd have a pretty hard time convincing a prison psychologist or preacher that to counsel inmates properly, she'd have definately needed to do hard time, because hey, how else could she relate?

      Considering the U.S.' abnormally high incarceration rate, it might do us all some good to spend some time "inside" so we can better understand how that system functions. Law and order propenents have become increasingly strident in the last couple of years. So maybe it is a good idea for us all to learn to relate better to this approach.

      As to computer security, the point you are looking for appears more to me to be one of: you don't have to forego ethics to learn to do nasty stuff. Practicing martial arts or firearms usage doesn't imply that one will become a serial killer... the real question is one of reform. Can a black hat reform? Yes. In some cases. In others, no. It depends on the circumstances. We have to look at both the nature and scope of the original criminal activity, the life circumstances of the hacker, and subsequent behavior. If someone cracked a few sytems at age 15, but then spent all the time from 18 to 35 as a responsible computer technician, I'd trust them more than I'd trust even that same someone at age 20.

      --
      I do not have a signature
    36. Re:Won't employ hackers? by shamilton · · Score: 1

      Uh, did you even read the post you are responding to?

      And it's a little ironic that you then proceed to use "under educated" as some sort of insult.

      --
      "[A] high IQ is like a Jeep; you will still get stuck, just farther from help!" --Just d' FAQs, c.g.a
    37. Re:Won't employ hackers? by Strange+Ranger · · Score: 1

      You don't think Locksmiths are trained for their job by breaking into unsuspecting homeowners, do you?

      Actually, an inordinate number of locksmiths are ex-cons. I was told this by a locksmith who was jealous of their real-world experience. He waxed romantic about it in the bar like he wished he could do that stuff rather than punch catalog numbers into an automatic key maker.

      What would you be if you got out of prison and your only advanced skill was breaking and entering? Last time I needed one almost proves the above story. My car key broke off in the ignition. The locksmith came, took one look at my car, and tooled a new ignition key BY HAND, without looking anything up or examining the old broken key or anything. They don't teach that in locksmith school. His little laptop computer hooked up to a key maker could've done the job with a few clicks, (like they teach in locksmithing school). But he said he only used that for oddball cars he "had no experience with". He scoffed at 'locksmithing school' methods the same way some 'nix folks scoff at GUI admin tools. So maybe he wasn't an ex-con. Yeah right.

      --

      Operator, give me the number for 911!
    38. Re:Won't employ hackers? by LamerX · · Score: 1

      All that CS NON l33t ness, and you cant even think of a Name to log into /. Wow. Maybe you should use some of that schooling of your wise guy and learn how to log in, you anonymous coward....

    39. Re:Won't employ hackers? by Master+of+Transhuman · · Score: 1

      - I think you'd have a pretty hard time convincing
      - a prison psychologist or preacher that to
      - counsel inmates properly, she'd have definately
      - needed to do hard time, because hey, how else
      - could she relate?

      Having done eight years in the Federal pen and currently required to have mental health aftercare, I can assure you that prison psychiatrists do NOT relate and are generally ineffective at influencing inmates at all. Most prison psychs are there just to fill out paperwork to cover the BOP's ass in case someone really loses it and commits suicide or kills someone else and someone on the outside decides to sue.

      Prison psychs are the bottom of the barrel of psychs in general, just like utility company lawyers are the bottom of the barrel in lawyers and prison guards are the bottom of the barrel in law enforcement.

      In any event, the point should be that reformed hackers are a useful resource. While that might not translate into being given positions of TRUST, that should translate into being used (and paid) as resources in computer security.

      Otherwise you might as well ban hackers from EVER owning a computer again just as I am banned from EVER owning a firearm again...AND banning hackers from ever working in the computer industry again (except maybe on non-networked machines). This is not a very intelligent approach to the problem.

      But then people aren't known for intelligent solutions to any problem, so big surprise...

      --
      Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
    40. Re:Won't employ hackers? by crucini · · Score: 1

      The technique you're referring to is called impressioning, and is taught in locksmith schools. It's generally considered the crowning achievement of a locksmith.

    41. Re:Won't employ hackers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He didn't stick the blank in the hole and look for marks/impressions. He just whipped up a key from memory. Who remembers specific cars ignition keys?

    42. Re:Won't employ hackers? by crucini · · Score: 1

      Wow. That is truly impressive.

    43. Re:Won't employ hackers? by rzbx · · Score: 1

      My logic isn't to hire criminals, but to understand that once a criminal not always a criminal.

      --
      Question everything.
  22. Re:the problem with subscriber notices by confused+philosopher · · Score: 2, Funny

    confused philosopher = donkey
    donkey = six letter word
    six letter word = hacker
    therefore confused philosopher is a hacker.

    --
    Why slashdot? Why not?
  23. (replying to self) by moogla · · Score: 0, Redundant

    I guess the worst part was that he was hosting a chat. Talk about a grab for attention.

    I mean, on the one hand it's cool to try to educate people on things concerning security. But he doesn't need to pimp himself with the credentials. People who read USAToday will pretty much believe anyone tells them... forwarded emails, you know ^_^

    Smells like he's fishin' for gullable clients. Then again, maybe he's just bored. ::shrugs::

    --
    Black holes are where the Matrix raised SIGFPE
    1. Re:(replying to self) by fdawg · · Score: 2, Funny

      I agree completely. Althogh, I think it would be kind of funny if they were doing it over IRC and someone took over the room.

      "WhiteHat just got slapped by a dead fish"
      "Fdawg is now op"
      "Fdawg - Hi mom!!"
      "WhiteHat was just kicked by fdawg's mom"

      Some security.

  24. Re:the problem with subscriber notices by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Due to excessive bad posting from this IP or Subnet, comment posting has temporarily been disabled. If it's you, consider this a chance to sit in the timeout corner. If it's someone else, this is a chance to hunt them down. If you think this is unfair, please email moderation@slashdot.org with your MD5'd IPID and SubnetID, which are "c1" and "e3".

  25. Re:I just ordered mine. --damnit by StormyWeather · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Don't you hate it when you respond to the wrong fucking article lol. I wish I had mozilla on this work machine, not having tabbed browsing is complicated :P.

  26. Not a simple choice... by danielrm26 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The idea that people can accurately make a decision on whether or not someone is going to be a quality employee based on whether or not they have done some Blackhat-oriented activities in the past is ludicrous.

    It totally depends on the situation. Some people did very illegal things that hurt no one, others did not get caught doing much of anything, have a far cleaner record, and shouldn't be let within 50 miles of a Security operation.

    Moral issues are always complex. All people being looked at for a sensitive position, regardless of history, need to be looked at on a case by case basis. Of course someone's past should be taken into consideration, but an in-depth interview and background check is far more productive than simply writing people off based on a title that they may have had at one point in their lives.

    --
    dmiessler.com -- grep understanding knowledge
    1. Re:Not a simple choice... by Ieshan · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure I agree with you.

      I think you're adopting a point of view like this: trait consistency is better explored through interview and business conversations than it is through similar situations in the past.

      I think that point of view is wrong.

      Personally, I'd be looking for honest and repuutable in a Software Engineer to protect my business, and an interview might not tell me that. Background checks are little more than a formality these days - there's very little one can do about making sure someone hasn't falsified an employment record.

      When placed in a similar situation with sensitive data and equipment, did the person react badly in the past? If he was a black-hat hacker for any period of time, I say, "Yes". Being a security professional is as much about being a trustworthy person as it is being a good programmer. Think about what you're saying: "To reduce security, we're going to hire someone that has contributed to crime in the area we're hiring him for." The chance of a "social" hack increases astronomically - just as when people hire stupid employees with easy to guess passwords, employers should be careful not to hire people who have password-circumvention access and will abuse it.

      I'm not saying that one black-hat job should stain one's reputation. I'm just saying that this type of thing should be a grave warning sign to an employer with extremely sensitive data to protect.

    2. Re:Not a simple choice... by danielrm26 · · Score: 1

      Sure, I agree with that. But the current situation is what needs to be assessed, not what was the case in the past. That's why a face to face interview and some tough questions put forth by someone who knows what they are doing is more important in my view.

      It cripples a company to categorically deny those who have a checkered past without doing some research into what the nature of the infractions were. Were they morally wrong or just legally? How young were they? How likely are they to have those sorts of lapses of judgement now? Without answers to these questions, it is haphazard to discard talent that can help the company. I agree that if the line is blurry then you should avoid the risk, but at least investigate where the line is.

      --
      dmiessler.com -- grep understanding knowledge
    3. Re:Not a simple choice... by Ieshan · · Score: 1

      Sorry to keep arguing, I call it "discussion". =P

      I think what you're stumbling upon is called "The Interview Illusion" - a Social Psychology term - that goes something like this: People have a mistaken belief in their ability to predict, based on a brief conversation with someone, how they will evaluate this person in the future. (Reference: Kunda and Nisbett, 1986).

      Interviews are generally a poor measure for gaining personal knowledge about someone. While they often serve well in proving someone a bad candidate (interviewee is completely unprepared or totally inconsistant), they hardly ever help in determining whether or not someone will be a *good* candidate - that is, people overestimate trait consistency, when really, responses are mostly pre-determined by expectency and prior-knowledge.

      If someone were to ask, "Hey, you were a black-hat in the past, have you changed?", the very fact that the black-hat is applying for a security job signifies change, but his *answer* is going to be stock: it expects a "Yes".

      I'm not a big fan of interviews. I'm a big fan of putting someone to task, briefly, and seeing how they perform. Unless you're extremely charismatic, interviews often tell little about a candidate.

    4. Re:Not a simple choice... by danielrm26 · · Score: 1

      Point well taken. I agree with you quite a bit, actually. I just think that there are those who didn't do much at all to get painted with the "hacker" brush, and now are blacklisted.

      Some investigation into what actually happened and a quality interview can allow some of these 'criminals' to be seen for what they really are - good people who did something that they perhaps shouldn't have.

      Of course, I also know that there are others who just shouldn't be trusted, and I agree with you about both those people and those who you can't assign easily to one of the two categories. It's too much of a risk to play with benefit of the doubt.

      My point is that you shouldn't just drop people as options the second you hear the word "hacker". It's often the very ignorant that assign this title and the company doing the hiring can benefit from looking into the issue to some degree before counting them out.

      --
      dmiessler.com -- grep understanding knowledge
    5. Re:Not a simple choice... by Omnifarious · · Score: 1

      The biggest problem I see here is that the law doesn't match the expectations and beliefs of most of the people who's behavior it governs. This makes it really hard to classify any given 'black hat' or 'white hat' as bad. Because the classification 'white hat' or 'black hat' has everything to do with the law, and very little to do with what behaviors most security experts would consider good or bad.

  27. Low hanging fruit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    " These Uber-FP /. "hackers" are going to find their IPs banned too. So that may be another reason for these subscriber messages."

    I want you to think about this more carefully.

    1-Slashdot is built to take it's own effect.
    2-Non accounts already start at zero. which BTW.
    3-Why are moderators wasting their points on posts that default to unseen?
    4-Isn't banning a group of tech minded individuals similiar in "degree of failure" to what the MPAA and RIAA is attempting? (If the amount of bravo displayed everytime the subject comes up is any indication).
    5-We can't even get the problems that need solving, solved. So what makes you think they'll come up with a solution to this problem?

    1. Re:Low hanging fruit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They already ban IPs for refreshing more than a set number in a set period of time. So what is there to think about, it is already happening.

    2. Re:Low hanging fruit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They can do anything they want. Nothing they can do can stop me from getting to the site unless they take the site down, or go totally subscription based hahahahahahahaha

    3. Re:Low hanging fruit. by poor_boi · · Score: 1

      Wow -- do you have a deep, evil villain's voice?

  28. This guy has no proper java experience by javamonk81 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    I started reading the article, and the more I read, the more confused I got. Then it finally hit me. This guy has never worked with java as most of us do. Writing HelloWorld java programs for each release of JDK doesn't count as any java related experience. "Property files multiply like rabbits in a large, Java-based Web application," after reading this I realized he hasn't used Java web app (JSP/Servlet) in his life. After reading the articel I have realized that the author unknowningly brings forth the point, which says that Java allows you maximum flexibility and access to two different products, it encourages competition thus increasing the quality of the packages we use, and MICORSOFT LOCKS YOU INTO THEIR OWN PLATFORM, WHICH PROBABLY WORKS BUT IT IS NOT GUARENTEED TO BE THE BEST SOLUTION OR IMPLEMENTATION OUT THERE.

    1. Re:This guy has no proper java experience by Nataku564 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Remember people, CAPS LOCK does, in fact, make you smarter. I work at an investment firm in Milwaukee. Most of our computers run windows. However, the main application that the traders use is, in fact, written entirely in Java. The operating system has not limited our ability to use competetor's products in the slightest. We have .NET apps in production right along side the Java based applications. Now if, on the other hand, you mean that Microsoft restricts its tools to its own OS ... well then I fail to see your point. We dont expect Ford to make parts that fit in a Toyota as well. I find it interesting that you choose to find one of the more obscure points in the article and turn it into the start of an MS vs Java offshoot, which is hardly what this article is about. JavaMonk indeed :)

    2. Re:This guy has no proper java experience by zurab · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Now if, on the other hand, you mean that Microsoft restricts its tools to its own OS ... well then I fail to see your point. We dont expect Ford to make parts that fit in a Toyota as well.

      Then you have low expectations of your systems. I expect my web server to run on most available platforms, same for my database server, and I will try my best to make my middle layer be flexible as well. I do not expect my own solutions to restrict me to a single path dictated by a single corporation. If you choose to predominantly use MS-specific solutions, you are doing just that.

      Now, I am not saying that's what you do, I am just commenting on the point that it's OK to be locked in. It's not "OK", unless it's by choice or a very good set of reasons.

      Car comparison is not really valid. If you drive a Ford and start liking a new Toyota model, you can trade it in the next day; don't try that with any corporate systems, especially if you are locked in to a single vendor.

    3. Re:This guy has no proper java experience by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now if, on the other hand, you mean that Microsoft restricts its tools to its own OS ... well then I fail to see your point. We dont expect Ford to make parts that fit in a Toyota as well.

      Well he seemed to be saying that Java was more flexible. If Ford don't make parts that fit Toyota as well but a rival manufacturer produces parts of equal quality that do fit both then recommending people who want to hold stocks of parts to go with the more flexible option seems to make sense. Why would you care whether it's to be expected of a manufacturer to behave one way or another? The only question is which serves you better.

    4. Re:This guy has no proper java experience by Syre · · Score: 4, Informative

      What article did you guys read, and why are people modding these as "insightful"?

      THERE IS NO ARTICLE LINKED TO IN THIS NEWS ITEM.

      In fact the link goes to a place you can post questions which may be asked in a chat which has not yet taken place.

      C'mon mods... at least read the news story and links before modding troll posts like this.

    5. Re:This guy has no proper java experience by Cedric+C.+Girouard · · Score: 2, Interesting
      We dont expect Ford to make parts that fit in a Toyota as well.


      And while I'm being soooo off topic here, it might not be a bad business decision to start manufacturing cross-compatible car parts.
      Think of it. I've done the maths once (for fun) and the cost of rebuilding my car from scratch with parts, would be 5 times higher then to purchase it from the dealer. This means that they take a higher markup on parts, and since they always break down, one company could make massive money just manufacturing parts, and not going through the hell of manufacturing the whole car. The car business is just a way for them to create potential customers for parts.

      Secondly, think about the ecologic impact cross-compatible parts would have. You dont need 10 different gas pumps (for example.) you can have only one model that fits 10 different cars. This way you get to reduce the amount of gas pumps on inventory, which will eventually find their way back to nature if they dont get used.

      Now for the open-source angle, so I don't get modded down into oblivion... I've seen the advocacy of re-usable code thrown around so many times. Write once, use many, yadi yadi yada... Why not the same for car parts ? There is only so much tuning you can bring to a piece of code. Once you're there, what can you do ? Pull a Microsoft on it, and make sure it won't work with the next version, so they have to purchase your next version which consist of the same exact code, plus the compatibility flag checked in at compile time.

      So let's calculate here... -1 Offtopic, +1 insightful, +1 informative, +1 funny, -1 troll, +2 posting bonus, so I should end up at +5 funny or something... Thank god for Slash moderation :D

      Smile... You're dying already, it's only a question of time...
      --

      Marriage is considered capital punishment for the theft of a goat in some third world countries...

    6. Re:This guy has no proper java experience by nolife · · Score: 1

      Secondly, think about the ecologic impact cross-compatible parts would have. You dont need 10 different gas pumps (for example.) you can have only one model that fits 10 different cars.

      Even further off-topic..

      Most car designs do include cross compatible parts within one company. Some manufacters more then others. Using Ford for an example. The radiator for my Mustang fits just about every V8, many 6's and even quite a few 4 cylinder engines made by Ford/Lincoln/Mercury from the mid 70's to the upper 90's. Not as compatible but many of the ignition parts, emmisions controls, brakes, alternators, PS pumps etc.. are the same across the line. Another example is compatibility across the lines, an example being.. The larger diameter rotors and calipers off of certain Lincoln's and Thunderbirds and directly bolt on a Mustang with no modifications. Since there is a good third party supply of all these things they tend to be available anywhere and cost much less. I don't know if the ecological impact is any better though as stated. You need a specific quantity of replacement fuel pumps regardless of what type. How would fewer models but the same quantity represent less waste?

      --
      Bad boys rape our young girls but Violet gives willingly.
    7. Re:This guy has no proper java experience by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hell, I'll do you one better.

      Before I trade in that Ford for the Toyota, I can rip out my 3rd party addons (stereo, fuzzy dice, vanity plates) and expect them to function with little to no modification to the new car.

    8. Re:This guy has no proper java experience by jsahol · · Score: 1

      We dont expect Ford to make parts that fit in a Toyota as well.

      I wouldn't make statements like that unless I knew better:
      http://www.azcentral.com/class/marketplac e/cars/08 03hybrid.html ...not to mention all of the engine & axle swaps that I've seen among Fords, Toyotas, Jeeps, and Chevys, among others.

    9. Re:This guy has no proper java experience by xetaprag · · Score: 1
      Your analogy of a car is not complete. The Operating System is the car (let's use a truck). All of the elements of that Operating System ,processes or sub-applications (file system, drivers, etc), relate to the steering wheel, speed indicator, seats, gear shift, etc.

      However, the applications that you install on that Operating System can be compared to the utility functions of truck. So a Office Suite can compare to a truck-bed camper, or a trailer hitch, or the trailer itself. Maybe you throw some shelving in the back of the truck, or a wielding unit. This would compare to your web server apps or your database apps.

      That having been said.. I would expect Ford to offer trailer hitches that fit any trailer in the industry. Or if Ford decided to start making trailers, I would want that trailer to work on my Toyota, Dodge, or Chevy. You see, Microsoft is in the business of making trucks, campers, camper-shells, trailers, weilding units, bed cabinets, etc. But those utility features only work for Microsoft's 'trucks'. No one else's trucks.

      Consider this (however)... If 90% of America drove Ford cars. And 40% of companies bought Ford work trucks.. Why would Ford make utilities modules for anything but their own autos.

    10. Re:This guy has no proper java experience by Cedric+C.+Girouard · · Score: 1
      I don't know if the ecological impact is any better though as stated. You need a specific quantity of replacement fuel pumps regardless of what type. How would fewer models but the same quantity represent less waste?


      I tought this was a one off, but hell, it's getting interesting :D

      Say that theoretically, Ford, Mazda, and Toyota each manufacture 5 cars. We have 15 cars. So 15 gas pumps total.(all different models.)
      Not all of the 15 gas pumps are going to break. But the manufacturer has to stock parts for all 15 models. If they had a universal gas pump, they could stock one each for their 5 cars. If one runs out, they still can rely on the other two. As it stands, they each stock up on 5 gas pump models, some of which will never leave the shelf during the useful life of the car (5yrs after it's out of production.).
      So I do believe that having a universal model would reduce the amount of pumps in stock/returning to nature.

      --

      Marriage is considered capital punishment for the theft of a goat in some third world countries...

  29. Can't ... withstand ... the urge by Max+Romantschuk · · Score: 5, Funny

    It's cracker dammit...

    --
    .: Max Romantschuk :: http://max.romantschuk.fi/
    1. Re:Can't ... withstand ... the urge by Guppy06 · · Score: 1, Funny

      Now now, there's no need for racial slurs here... :)

    2. Re:Can't ... withstand ... the urge by Chester+K · · Score: 1

      It's cracker dammit...

      Look, just because he's a white hat, you don't have to be racist about it.

      --

      NO CARRIER
    3. Re:Can't ... withstand ... the urge by Kelz · · Score: 1

      They probably know the difference they just didn't want to say white cracker.

    4. Re:Can't ... withstand ... the urge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Crackers are people who strip copy-protection from software "warez" and re-issue the software.

      Hackers are people who investigate all aspects of a system and understand ways around the system in ways that the developers had not intended.

    5. Re:Can't ... withstand ... the urge by AVryhof · · Score: 1

      Mmmm....With Cheese! Salty....crispy...tasty CRACKERS!

  30. White Hat Hacker Breaks Silence by scubacuda · · Score: 5, Funny
    Recognized that maybe real security firms don't market themselves on "white hats staying ahead of the evil hackers" hype?

    Maybe the title should instead be "White Hat Hacker Breaks Wind"

  31. He who writes the paychecks... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...can go by any damn criteria they choose. It's as simple as that. Don't like it? Then start your own damn business. When YOU write the paychecks, then you can spout your indignation to your content. Until then, your opinion means squat.

  32. Re:the problem with subscriber notices by KwisatzHaderach · · Score: 1

    Done.
    You have four moderator points left.

  33. WTF did 9/11 have to do with unsecure networks??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Ok, I may be being dense, and I expect some flameage if I am. 9/11 had lots to do with unsecure aircraft. It had lots to do with media sensationalism. It even had lots to do with structural design! But please explain wtf it had to do with unsecure networks? Did the terrorists hack to get their plane tickets? I know they didn't need to hack to plan it cause the airlines publish their flightlists and times. I know, they hacked their way into flight school right? This assclown is playing on peoples fears and its intensly disgusting. The reason he doesn't have any hackers "from the cold" is that most of them have morals and would refuse to work for one displayed such a gaping lack of them. I hope he gets hacked and they report his REAL earnings to the IRS....

  34. Look forward.. by euxneks · · Score: 5, Funny

    Look forward to script kiddies among others trying to hack the broadcast to gain noteriety.

    I think this will be interesting to watch too.

    --
    in girum imus nocte et consumimur igni
  35. Hmph. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Morse's company, Razorpoint Security Technologies does not employ hackers who've decided to come in from the cold.

    Translation: Morse's company does not hire people who know best how to defend against the type of attackers Morse's company is paid to defend against.

    What a dipshit.

    1. Re:Hmph. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So 14 year old dorks who had their old brother compile leethax0r.c for them and run it against a 4 year old version of IIS are who he should be hiring?

      Get real loser. Go watch some hax0r movies or something ok kid.

  36. White hat? by Ballresin · · Score: 2, Funny

    So is there a similar type of thing going on with hackers as there is with general employment?

    White Hat Hackers
    Blue Hat Hackers
    Labor Union Hat Hackers
    Slave Labor Hat Hackers?

    (Refering to the entire "white collar" idea...)

    --
    I got nothin'.
  37. Cracker by mikeg22 · · Score: 2, Informative

    The word is "cracker" not "hacker" I'm neither but at least I know the difference. Thanks a bunch.

    1. Re:Cracker by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      I prefer "honky" myself.

    2. Re:Cracker by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, the word is "hacker," for well over a decade now. Teenaged Cabals don't get to make language, the populace at large does.

      "Cracker," by the way, is either a salty biscuit you top with cheese or slang for a narrow-minded White Southerner.

    3. Re:Cracker by Kombat · · Score: 1

      You know what's funny? I see posts like yours all the time on Slashdot. And if you're an intelligent person, that should tell you something.

      Think about the point you're trying to make. You wish to "educate" the world that the proper word for illegal computer invasion activities is "cracking," while "hacking" refers simply to harmless fiddling with either hardware or software. However, the world is resisting your efforts, and insists on calling illegal computer invaders "hackers."

      So, the majority of the media (i.e., virtually every media outlet on the planet except Slashdot) is using the generally accepted definition of "hacker." But ... and here's where it gets interesting ... more often than not, even Slashdot uses the conventional (bad) definition of "hacker!" Need proof? Your post is proof enough. The sheer frequency of posts like yours is proof enough. The very fact that I do see posts like yours all the time on Slashdot indicates that Slashdot habitually uses the "incorrect" (in your interpretation, but generally accepted interpretation of "hacker."

      What's my point? My point is that it's a lost cause. "Hacker" has ALWAYS meant breaking into computers illegally. Simply because a few geeks seek the self-validation of knowing that they effected a relatively high-profile change on culture is not enough reason for society to oblige and alter the language. Just because a few underachievers with low self esteem want to point to a CNN article that uses "cracker" in the manner they desire so they can say "Look, you see that? *I* helped make them do that" is not enough reason to try and confuse the public at large about definitions of words that they already know so little about.

      The public is already pretty fuzzy on what a "hacker" is. You have no hope of educating them about the differences between a "hacker" and a "cracker" when for years, the media's been calling the bad guy's "hackers." Who do you think CNN would rather upset - you, or their computer-illiterate viewers? Heck, I think you'd be surprised to learn how many people out there don't even truly understand where a "computer virus" comes from. Many people (I've met some!) actually believe that computer viruses, like actual viruses, simply appear spontaneously. They don't realize that someone has to actually sit down and write the virus.

      Anyway, it's a lost cause, not even Slashdot accepts your little quest to change the language, as evidence by the preponderanceof posts like yours, correcting them, every time they post a story on hackers. Oops, sorry, I mean "crackers."

      --
      Like woodworking? Build your own picture frames.
    4. Re:Cracker by mikeg22 · · Score: 1

      60% of Americans believe Saddam Hussein was in cohoots with Osama in the 9-11 attacks.

      I'd say most Americans misuse the computer term "memory" to mean hard drive space when it really means something entirely different.

      Just because the general public is misinformed and blindly accepts things that aren't true doesn't mean we have to.

  38. Knowledge from the school of hard locks. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "All but the stupidest of employers care vastly more about experience than education."

    Most care about both. However you can gain those skills without breaking the law. Or were you under the impression that one has to do illegal things to gain security knowledge? But then that's the difference between ill gains gotten easily, vs gains gotten the hard way.

  39. Re:WTF did 9/11 have to do with unsecure networks? by fdawg · · Score: 0

    Couldnt have said it better myself. I agree completely. All but the hackers having morals part. A true hacker will work for moutain dew and free porn.

    Regardless. I agree and hope someone DDOSes his website.

    Mod the original up. you know you want to.

  40. Links please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    thx

  41. Really bad examples. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "How do you get good at knowing you're being tracked, if you've never been tracked? You don't."

    By your reasoning, only a murderer could catch another murderer.

    All but the stupidest of employers care vastly more about experience than education.

    So if I had spent 12 years of my time coding in my house (but doing it badly since in reality, no one ever taught me anything), you would hire me over an MIT grad? Hey, I'm experienced!

    1. Re:Really bad examples. by shamilton · · Score: 1
      So if I had spent 12 years of my time coding in my house (but doing it badly since in reality, no one ever taught me anything), you would hire me over an MIT grad?

      Absolutely. If you were coding for twelve years, you'd immediately have demonstrated tremendous commitment, which is a Big Plus in employers's eyes. One can assume you would have sought out information on the www, usenet, irc, etc, if you were that interested.

      Where I work, every student we've ever had on co-op was the pits, in one case years of schooling did not teach "how to not destroy client equipment and data."

      In my experience, the people who go to IT school are doing it because they heard there was big money in computers but didn't have the direction to go about it themselves. This is not the kind of person I want working for me.

      Here's another example. I am somewhat interested in computerised physical simulations. I will spend some time doing various physics simulations in OpenGL, or whatever. This is entirely self-taught at my own pace.

      I was recently speaking to somebody about his education in the same field. He made an interesting remark: "Next year, I get to apply calculus to physics!" It occured to me that school was not helping him, but in fact crippling him!

      --
      "[A] high IQ is like a Jeep; you will still get stuck, just farther from help!" --Just d' FAQs, c.g.a
    2. Re:Really bad examples. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well if you aren't using calculus then your physics simulations must be incredibly trivial.

    3. Re:Really bad examples. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the Valley, paper gets no respect. Only piles of working code gets respect.

      You wander around flashing your credentials and you will just look stupid. You sit down and make something work, and you will get paid.

      That's reality.

  42. Give it up. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You lost this war a long time ago, the Press won. You can never beat the Press.

  43. @Stake by OneArmedMan · · Score: 1

    I was under the impression that @stake was formed by former / current L0pht Heavy Industries members? . While they might know their stuff, are they the people you want "protecting" your network? Shrug. Just a thought

    1. Re:@Stake by stanmann · · Score: 1

      As I understand it, @stake took some of L0pht and the rest of L0pht either moved on or dropped out. Although if you read @stake, you would get the impression that the whole team is still there.
      BR However if they are as good as their reputation, who better to protect you...

      --
      Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
  44. Re:Zzzz. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You must not have been here on April 1st. The Slashdot editors get pretty wild for April Fool's Day. Now that's what I call a party.

  45. Use your brain, please. by twitter · · Score: 5, Insightful
    An anonymous coward bitches and moans and asks, " Why is Slashdot posting advertisements from random security consultants?" He then points out how many smart people there are in New York City and concludes by asking, "Why are we supposed to be interested in this crap?"

    AC, there may be many bright people in New York, but you are not one of them if you overlook this. Some of us might be interesed in asking pointed questions that millions of people will see when the sit in on the USA Today chat this particular consultant is about to have. My questions are, "Would you recomend free software, such as Debian or Red Hat, on the desktop?" and "What makes Microsoft software so insecure?" Other people here could have better questions.

    I highly recomend everyone to go and post questions about free software solutions to security problems. The answers he provides will be seen by the chat crowd and may be turned into an article for printed USA Today. There are 750,000 Slashdotters all interested in free software and security? This interest should be reflected in the questions. Follow the link and submit as many good questions as you can think up.

    --

    Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.

    1. Re:Use your brain, please. by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      >"Would you recomend free software, such as Debian or Red Hat, on the desktop?" and "What makes Microsoft software so insecure?"

      If you're gonna ask those questions, then you don't need a security analyst, you need a frontal lobotomy!

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    2. Re:Use your brain, please. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      shut up idiot

    3. Re:Use your brain, please. by twitter · · Score: 1
      >>"Would you recomend free software, such as Debian or Red Hat, on the desktop?" and "What makes Microsoft software so insecure?"

      >If you're gonna ask those questions, then you don't need a security analyst, you need a frontal lobotomy!

      Yeah, I know, the answers are so obvious that even the popular press has noticed. For instance, the BBC recomending recomending against using Internet Explorer. For every article about the poor state of Microsoft security, there's a billion in M$ marketing. Every chance to get an opinion that's not paid for is worth taking.

      My questions were purposfully simple. I want them to register with whatever question parser they have and include common keywords. Next question is "Does GNU Linux offer better security than Windows?" Wow, got both Linux and GNU keywords in that one.

      Have you though of any better questions to ask The good man?

      --

      Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.

    4. Re:Use your brain, please. by Reziac · · Score: 2, Insightful

      IOW...

      Would you recomend free software if it were known to be coded by someone with a record of putting malicious back doors in their programs?? Even if they swear up and down that they're reformed and don't do such naughty things anymore??

      I know I'd look upon it with deep suspicion, at the very least. And not let it touch any computer other than a goat box.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  46. Trust is the point here. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your bleeding heart liberal mentality is glaringly obvious. People like this have broken the trust that they probably expected before they broke it. The problem is now people expect 2nd, 3rd chances as some sort of entitlement. Only in America does this happen. It's like "yeah I broke the trust, but if you want me to not do it again, you better trust me." Sorry, there has to be some sort of accountability, some sort of understanding that if you fuck up a good thing (the intial trust of being a non criminal is), that things will get harder. Trust broken must then be earned, not simply demanded like a petulant child. Computer security is not the only job path in the world, people like this could become programmers, etc.

    That's the problem when spoiled people never decide to own up to their actions.

    Then again, why should anyone hire someone they don't trust? Just to please the liberals who typically care more for criminals than victims?

  47. 2 most overrated IT fields ever by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The 2 most overrated fields in IT are definatly

    1) Security

    2) Video Games

    Both are fucking boring as fuck. I know every kid these days goes into college dreaming of becoming a leet d00d with his Information Systems degree and become a uberleet securitah master. Either that or they want to get a CS degree and then instantly get the job they are guaranteed as a code monkey for some video game firm (shea).

    Both of those fields fucking suck. Security, once you leave the leet hacker intrigue CIA espionage fantasy shit back in the dorm after you graduate you'll realize what you do is fucking boring ass shit thwarting scumbag employees and stupid script kiddies. Ooohhh FUN! And guess what in the video game industry you don't actually play the god damn games you just code monkey it up for the designers, JUST ANOTHER CODING JOB. BORING.

    1. Re:2 most overrated IT fields ever by Kelz · · Score: 1

      Guess what in the video game industry you don't actually play the god damn games you just code monkey it up for the designers

      Well actually you do "play" games but you dont want to. This is video game testing:

      DONT go into video game testing unless you LIKE earning a minimal wage to buy you a 9x9 appartment in SoCal (prison cells are 10x10), work 10-12 hour shifts near the game release time, and eventually end up in one of these environments.

  48. So what are the underrated ones? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you really don't know, then your above opinion automatically becomes void.

    1. Re:So what are the underrated ones? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, I know but I ain't telling, biatch.

      Go get your IS degree and become a uberleet superspy securitah mast0r!

      Hah.

    2. Re:So what are the underrated ones? by Fizzl · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Do you actually work in the real world?

      Remember, McDonalds doesn't count as we are talking about IT.

      CodeMonkey job at video game firm might be boring. Don't know. Don't know anyone personally working in that field. Database app codemonkeying was interesting for as long as I had problems. It got extremely tiresome when I got stuck in the "support" phase.

      If you like to trace raw HD dumps and cracking crypto to reveal originator of an instrusion, then the security sector might be just for you. Done that twice. Once with my own box that gor rooted, once with companys server. Both just of sheer curiosity on my own time because I find the above mentioned things interesting and intellectually challenging. Ofcourse, once I would get good at it, I'd prolly get bored of that too.

      You don't state what you do for a living. Or even what you'd like to do and what you might find interesting. I have found out that I get bored to one labour pretty quickly.

      If you are like me, go work for a contracting firm. I like this. Once I get bored with one job, I just tell that to my superior and we will negotiate another place to work for me.

      This far I have had just short contracts varying from 3 months (Porting Symbian code from device to another) to 2 years (my current job as a software integrator.).

      You also get an impressive resume quickly ;)

  49. Actually no. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hackers spend their time learning how to break security, not how to make something secure.

    1. Re:Actually no. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stupid comment. You can't learn one without the other. It's like saying you learn the principle but not its corollary.

    2. Re:Actually no. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Sorry scanning a box and running an exploit against some unpatched daemon does not suddenly make you an expert on secure software engineering practices.

  50. Re:Omg Hacker Wantabees by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Certainly hacker wanta be ./script kiddies are the easiest of all to social engineer, you just have to make them think about gettin' your latest and greatest hack. They come a droowlin' to the bait. Hide it in a dll, what the hell, trick out ptsnoop, if he's ppp custom it for his win 2000 swiss cheese box and watch the fun.

  51. Sensible position, whether or not claim is true by MickLinux · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Listen, his position of not hiring ex-black-hats makes a ton of sense, whether or not ex-black-hats are the best at detecting security flaws.

    A person who has been a black hat has been so, specifically because they did not have the moral fortitude to remain on the white side. Now, that can change when there is a profound revelation [Dr. Laura Schlessinger], or when there is a ton of incentive [G.W. Bush], or because they were caught and decided the price was too high [many haxors who have been caught flip in this way] or it can appear to change when convenient [psychotics.]

    But the fact is, you don't really know why it changed, and therefore you don't really know if it changed. So you don't let ex-black-hats work for your company, period.

    Now, if a black hat did have some profound change, that doesn't mean that there isn't work for him. Assuming that it is not prohibited by court order, he can start donating information to the security watchdog groups, and they can verify the information on their own. If it is illegal for them to be using the internet or interfacing with computers, they can wait until it is again allowed. Or they often can instead put their skills to use building new systems, or writing code for a supposedly secure system -- on paper.

    Anyhow, I have no idea whether the claim is true or untrue, that ex-black-hats make good white hats. But Morse's position makes a lot of sense.

    --
    Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
    1. Re:Sensible position, whether or not claim is true by cyril3 · · Score: 4, Insightful
      It is just as easy to say that any white hat is merely a really smart black hat who hasn't been caught yet and the reason why you wouldn't hire them is that they aren't very good at black hatting.

      If, as you say, black hats arise from white hats who specifically ... did not have the moral fortitude to remain on the white side how can anyone be sure that any given white hat will never turn to the black side if the incentive/threat is great enough.

      if a black hat did have some profound change,

      You make it sound like they are evil incarnate. If the BH you are looking at did time for money crimes or e-vandalism maybe you'de think twice about trusting them but if it was pure challenge based hacking maybe a blanket no-hire wastes talent.

      Seems to make more sence to hire good people who haven't shown any serious criminal activity and then watch them very closely white and black.

    2. Re:Sensible position, whether or not claim is true by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      I agree with this wholeheartedly. This is why before I hire anyone I always track down and interview several of their public school classmates to find out if they were ever thought to have stolen anything, if they were ever unpopular or made fun of (might have latent resentment).

      I try to find teachers they had to find out if they were ever given detentions or didn't do their homework -- who knows why someone who used to refused to do their homework started doing their work, they could stop again at any time!

      Especially, I try to discover if they were ever caught masturbating. The last thing I want to do is hire a masturbator.

    3. Re:Sensible position, whether or not claim is true by CausticWindow · · Score: 1

      Now, that can change when there is a profound revelation [Dr. Laura Schlessinger], or when there is a ton of incentive [G.W. Bush]

      I can picture it now, GWB the "black hat" cowboy coming to town with a sinister motive. Then some nasty terrorist mexicans run a dilligence into the towns two water towers. This somehow gives GWB incentive to go "white hat". Yes, it does make a lot of sense.

      --
      How small a thought it takes to fill a whole life
    4. Re:Sensible position, whether or not claim is true by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful
      If the BH you are looking at did time for money crimes or e-vandalism maybe you'de think twice about trusting them but if it was pure challenge based hacking maybe a blanket no-hire wastes talent.

      Unlike in the movies, there are often consequences to one's actions. Those consequences are not necessarily limited to any time served. Whatever wasting occurred was done by the BH.

    5. Re:Sensible position, whether or not claim is true by merlyn · · Score: 5, Insightful
      So what do you do with someone like me, who is arguably (and been accepted for the most part as) a white hat, and yet has been convicted under what some would argue are messed-up laws as if a black hat?

      Would you hire me?

      Or would you merely stop at the apparent conviction as if that's the only ruling authority?

    6. Re:Sensible position, whether or not claim is true by Jace+of+Fuse! · · Score: 1

      How about this? Maybe a black-hat turned white-hat because they (GULP)... GREW UP?

      --

      "Everything you know is wrong. (And stupid.)"

      Moderation Totals: Wrong=2, Stupid=3, Total=5.
    7. Re:Sensible position, whether or not claim is true by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The last thing I want to do is hire a masturbator.

      Yeah, can't have more than one wanker in the office.

    8. Re:Sensible position, whether or not claim is true by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. Anyone with such an obssession for a crappy old scripting language is likely to not be very confortable with newer, useful technologies.

    9. Re:Sensible position, whether or not claim is true by Surak · · Score: 1

      Now, that can change when there is a profound revelation [Dr. Laura Schlessinger], or when there is a ton of incentive [G.W. Bush]

      Huh? Dr. Laura and G.W. Bush are ex-31337 h4x0rz???
      Somehow, I doubt that very much ... ;)

    10. Re:Sensible position, whether or not claim is true by Johnny5000 · · Score: 1

      I think the poster was trying to claim that the two of them were ex-evil, which is a pretty dubious claim.

      --
      The libertarian solution to the failures of capitalism is to apply more capitalism til the failures are fixed.
    11. Re:Sensible position, whether or not claim is true by NDPTAL85 · · Score: 5, Informative

      You aren't looking at it from the right angle.

      Look at it from the company's point of view. YOU are a liability if you have a criminal record. If you ever do anything wrong while working there their cleints who may be victimized by you will ask your boss "Why did you hire someone with a KNOWN criminal record for hacking?"

      Then once your boss gets sued he'd be liable for damages since he'd lose insurance coverage for hiring a known convicted hacker.

      Do you understand it now?

      --
      Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.
    12. Re:Sensible position, whether or not claim is true by Surak · · Score: 1

      Exactly my point.

    13. Re:Sensible position, whether or not claim is true by epine · · Score: 1


      After throwing around that piece of shit sound bite about "hiring known criminals" the same customer goes out into the parking lot and smokes a joint. Good thing he hasn't been caught yet, must be the universal instinct (aka moral fortitude) to keep a low profile at work here.

      Haven't we learned anything at all from the Catholic Church and the Moral Majority? It seems to me that the people who most love to push these disgusting buttons of knee-jerk public opinion ride a very interesting elevator in their own private lives.

      "It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err."
      -Mahatma Gandhi

      Posts like this one make me wish we'd criminalize adultery. If criminalizing pot isn't enough to make people think twice, that's about the only thing I can think that would cast a wide enough net to shut the idiots up.

      Nothing pisses me off like the virtuous who haven't been caught yet.

    14. Re:Sensible position, whether or not claim is true by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now, that can change when there is a profound revelation [Dr. Laura Schlessinger], or when there is a ton of incentive [G.W. Bush]

      If being on the white side requires being bigots who try to model the world into their own image, count me out.

    15. Re:Sensible position, whether or not claim is true by secolactico · · Score: 5, Funny

      Especially, I try to discover if they were ever caught masturbating. The last thing I want to do is hire a masturbator.

      "Self motivator" with "a lot of manual hability". Funny, a lot of companies value that.

      --
      No sig
    16. Re:Sensible position, whether or not claim is true by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Seems to make more sence to hire good people who haven't shown any serious criminal activity and then watch them very closely white and black."

      So he's against hiring blacks... isn't there a law against that kind of discrimination?

    17. Re:Sensible position, whether or not claim is true by Zathrus · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Posts like this one make me wish we'd criminalize adultery.

      Uh, adultery and/or fornication (sex outside of marraige - which generally includes adultery as a subclassification) was illegal in England and most of the US until fairly recently. The most recent US state to repeal it's fornication law is Georgia, and there are still 10 states with it on the book (as of that article). Georgia has a separate adultery law, however, and I believe that still stands.

      As best I can tell most states have laws against adultery - either felony or misdemeanor. Having difficulty getting info out of Google on this, and most of the pages I did find are outdated (still listing Georgia as having a fornication law for instance).

    18. Re:Sensible position, whether or not claim is true by NDPTAL85 · · Score: 1

      This isn't about Christian morality. Its about legal and financial liability. If you want to work at certain companies then you have to be as clean as possible. That means no felonies on your record. I doubt you'll get in trouble for a minor weed bust but hey you never know. But relax, this isn't being run by the 700 Club here. Its being mandated by insurance companies and trial lawyers who love to ask questions like this: "Ok let me get this straight. The guy you hired to secure bank systems for your clients is himself a felon who was convicted into breaking into computer systems? So you hired a guy to prevent others from doing what he was arrested for doing? Wow brilliant!"

      Then the company who hired the guy loses their insurance coverage and get hit with huge financial judgements against them plus the loss of repeat business because hey who wants to hire a security firm that has criminals working for it?

      --
      Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.
    19. Re:Sensible position, whether or not claim is true by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Posts like this one make me wish we'd criminalize adultery

      I might agree with this idea... do you know how much benefit society could gain from making adultery a crime. The number of children screwed up and the number of spousal victims in adultery alone could justify the criminilzation. Additionally, there are indirect $$$ costs to adultery that could be prevented. Granted, not everyone would obey the law but that's not the point of laws-- ofcourse there are SOME that will break the law. I realize you were not serious about this, but I think it might be a good law.

    20. Re:Sensible position, whether or not claim is true by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I disagree completely! The claims are quite reasonable. Dr. Laura S. is an example of a person that has SIGNIFICANTLY changed her moral compass. Her situation has been documented. In fact, you can go see some pics of her nude from her prior life so to speak. The pics were released out of apparent malice, but they prove the point of her change.

      George Bush, on the other hand... I'm not so sure that the original poster wasn't saying that he is an example of a person that was able to apply pressure and incentives for people/countries to change (adopt his) position (specifically some of the allies in the Iraq war). Also, he does have a documented change in several areas of his life that indicate he had to make profound changes. For example, he is on record as being a former drunk and drug abusers. From all accounts today he is neither of those. You may disagree with some of his political actions or inactions (I certainly do), but he definitely has also made some significant turn-arounds in his life.

    21. Re:Sensible position, whether or not claim is true by Lothar+0 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If you're one of those "hang 'em high" types who have absolutely no regard for people after serving a criminal sentence, read no further. It would just be lost on you.

      Do you realize the implications of what you're saying, whether or not it is the reality of things? How is anyone supposed to put their life back together after being released from incarceration or probation if everyone shuns them? This creates a permanent underclass of people who very likely have something positive to contribute to society. The costs of a prior mistake, or worse, of being convicted under laws that make no sense would be, and are too high for anyone to bear in a purportedly civil society.

      Under a capitalist system, your scenario makes sense, but I think it shows us one of the flaws of such a system that puts scarlet letters on people out of selfish interest.

      --
      "Anonymous Coward" is for whistleblowers, not unpopular opinions.
    22. Re:Sensible position, whether or not claim is true by Col.+Panic · · Score: 1

      Oh man, you need a smackdown. Do you know anything about merlyn's case? If so, you should recognize that what he was charged with was circumventing security when what he was actually doing was working *for* the fscking client and their bonehead manglement didn't trust their own employee (contractor, employee, whatever - I'm the guy with the root password).

      So the question is, again, would you look at the details of the charges and judge for yourself whether the case was just or would you check the box that says "convicted" and just refuse to hire ONE OF THE MOST TALENTED PEOPLE IN THE WORLD!!!?

    23. Re:Sensible position, whether or not claim is true by fubar1971 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Damn, I better remove the "Guiness World Record Holder for succesfull masturbation attempts in 1 day, out of the Accomplishments section of my resume. Even though, it still would rank higher than the MCSE I have earned

    24. Re:Sensible position, whether or not claim is true by reconn · · Score: 1

      [...]or it can appear to change when convenient [psychotics.]

      Hi! I learned all my psychology from reading Dungeons and Dragons character creation rules!

      [...]Such characters have been known to cheerfully and for no apparant purpose gamble everything they have on the roll of a single die. They are almost totally unreliable. In fact, the only reliable thing about them is that they cannot be relied upon! This alignment is perhaps the most difficult to play. Lunatics and madmen tend toward chaotic neutral behavior.

      --
      Everything that was once directly lived has receded into a representation. -debord
    25. Re:Sensible position, whether or not claim is true by jrexilius · · Score: 0

      I would have to say that there are other factors to be considered. 1) how do you know he is a WH or a BH? by having a record? that just means he got caught, badly, and without a good lawyer. The line between a WH and BH isn't as clear as it seems in the movies. 2) if he has a record, is it because he was stealing money or destroying resources or because he published code to read DVDs on a Sony DiscMan? 3) when doing anything with your mission critical systems do you ever have just one of anything? I'm not talking engineering by committee here but checks and balances or redundancy.

    26. Re:Sensible position, whether or not claim is true by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh yeah, it will be so much better, instead of "Daddy fucked his secretary and mommy and him divorced." it will be, "Daddy fucked his secretary and is now serving 20 to life in prison. And we lost the house and live in the street." _That_ will result in people being ever so less screwed up. NOT!

      The most important thing to remember is that the law doesn't _prevent_ anything, it can only punish after the fact. In many cases these punishments are more harsh on everyone involved than the original crime was. Such as smoking marijana.

    27. Re:Sensible position, whether or not claim is true by wrax · · Score: 1
      But if we just blindly hired someone who has proven that they can't be trusted to do the right thing, then what happens when the person goes right back to the way they were and takes your company down when you a) eventually fire him due to layoffs/bad performance/whatever or b) offend him in some way.

      Its sad to say, but criminals have shown that they just don't care about the law, be it stupid or not, and I just don't find that acceptable.

    28. Re:Sensible position, whether or not claim is true by Reziac · · Score: 1

      It's the same in any field. Would YOU trust a known embezzler with your company's books, even after he's been caught and "reformed"? Would you trust your life to a nurse who is suspected of having "helped" put patients out of their misery? Examples go on and on, with varying degrees of realworld drama.

      Geeks tend to think they're smart enough to catch anyone who isn't truly reformed, but given the average geek's social skill level and tendency to believe "not getting caught" or "it doesn't hur anyone" is as good as "not doing it in the first place", I agree with Morse -- there's a vast gulf of broken trust that must be recovered first, and I'd rather not take the risk when there are plenty of white hats available. (Or at least, people whom we believe are still white hats. :)

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    29. Re:Sensible position, whether or not claim is true by MickLinux · · Score: 1

      Are you indeed the intel employee? If so, glad to meet you. I have to say that I do not feel qualified to judge what went on between you and intel -- my impression was that what you were doing was legal, but you ticked off the wrong people. If so, that's a sign of a bad government.

      Bad governments do have casualties, and ours hasn't been getting better.

      Nonetheless, the general policy that I stated still remains general. My experience has been that people who knowingly play the wrong side of the law do have a character flaw that makes dealing with them quite risky. That is very different than a person who unknowingly treads where they were prohibited, or from a person who was treading where they were allowed, and got stomped out of convenience.

      --
      Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
    30. Re:Sensible position, whether or not claim is true by NDPTAL85 · · Score: 1

      I'm not the one in need of a smackdown. I wasn't talking about any specific case. I was commenting on hackers with criminal backgrounds in general.

      Secondly, yes I would refuse to hire "ONE OF THE MOST TALENTED PEOPLE IN THE WORLD" because as I stated before there are other things to consider such as legal/financial liability and loss of insurance coverage.

      --
      Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.
    31. Re:Sensible position, whether or not claim is true by k12linux · · Score: 1
      The FBI has made recommendations to companies to NOT hire ex-black hats. (Specifically I heard this from Special Agent Bowling from the Milwaukee, WI field office.)

      It comes down to a matter of motivation. What basic principal motivated them to be a black hat in the first place?

      1. Greed - What happens if they get a better offer from someone else while working for you in exchange for hacking one of your customers?
      2. Revenge - What happens when you manage to piss this employee off... or one of your customers does? Any reason to beleive they won't try to take revenge now if they did in the past?
      3. Curiosity - What happens when she becomes curious about aspects of your systems or a customer's system where she isn't granted access?
      4. Excitement - Will only hacking systems he is told to hack, and only to the extent he is told to go be enough of a thrill for him?
      5. Ego - Will your ex-BH be able to resist the temptation to prove they are better than you or your customer's security staff?
      Regardless of the motivation, an ex-blackhat has already shown themselves to willing to "give in" to temptations to commit illegal acts. One of the things security consultants are selling to their customers is peace of mind and a sense of safety. Will customers feel "safe" knowing you have a black-hat hacker on staff... even if they are "reformed?"

      In studies, the white-hat hackers typically are found to be motivated more by a sense of right and wrong or of "doing good" than by the things listed above. This type of motivation doesn't really pose much of a risk to a business. At least not unless they are doing something illegal or unethical themselves and are worried about a whistle-blower.

    32. Re:Sensible position, whether or not claim is true by Col.+Panic · · Score: 1

      I would refuse to hire "ONE OF THE MOST TALENTED PEOPLE IN THE WORLD" because as I stated before there are other things to consider such as legal/financial liability and loss of insurance coverage.

      And when you let such matters cloud your judgement of the Right Thing (TM), you sir, are a dumbass.

    33. Re:Sensible position, whether or not claim is true by charon_on_acheron · · Score: 1

      "there are other things to consider such as legal/financial liability and loss of insurance coverage."

      Pussy.

      No, I'm not trying to flame you, it's just you are a pussy if this is the _most_ important part of your hiring decision in a case like this. You don't have the guts to hire someone that will do the job, because you are afraid that a lawyer will use it against you. Great, the lawyers have already wone, thanks to pussies like you.

    34. Re:Sensible position, whether or not claim is true by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, you're probably just foreshadowing the future of HR and life insurance.

      Fuckers.

    35. Re:Sensible position, whether or not claim is true by Lothar+0 · · Score: 1

      Then they'll become a menace to society at large. By having wasted potential and a lower quality of life, the spill-over costs of increased health care costs, lower community involvement, lower income (and hence lower tax revenue), increased domestic violence, deficient attention to children, increased alcoholism, disorderly conduct, not to even mention the humanitarian concerns start to accrue. Then you will really see people not care about the law when they have less incentive not to violate it if their life's in the shitter. These things are proven to increase when you build an underclass of people. Ask any sociologist: having a decent, reaffirming job is a huge deterrent to these things.

      Whether you like it or not, someone's problem of not being able to meet their potential as a human being becomes everybody's problem in the end.

      --
      "Anonymous Coward" is for whistleblowers, not unpopular opinions.
    36. Re:Sensible position, whether or not claim is true by NDPTAL85 · · Score: 1

      Tell me exactly how I am supposd to fight company policy? Unless I own the business myself there is nothing I can do.

      And its really easy to call someone a "pussy" when you aren't the one risking your job/career/business on such a decision like this.

      Family: Why can't we eat?
      Me: I lost my job thats why.
      Family: How'd that happen?
      Me: I hired a felon who ended up breaking the law again and ruining the company.
      Family: Why would you do such a thing? Isn't your family more important than giving a chance to some random criminal?
      Me: Yes family IS more important. But unfortunately I listened to the supposedly morally superior posters on Slashdot for my business advice and look at where it got me. Oh well starving isn't THAT bad.....

      --
      Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.
    37. Re:Sensible position, whether or not claim is true by dangermurphy · · Score: 0

      maybe they sould just ship all ex-cons to an island to foster their own community where they can be respected and not judged by their convictions. Worked for austrailia.

      Dibs on the "soap on a rope" factory

    38. Re:Sensible position, whether or not claim is true by NDPTAL85 · · Score: 1

      I don't see how exposing my clients to criminal risk from an ex con is the Right Thing. I don't see how risking my career and job and livelihood by supporting such an individual is the Right Thing. I don't see how putting the needs of a lowlife criminal before those of my family, myself and my clients is the Right Thing.

      Perhaps your Moral Compass is misaligned? Consider getting it recalibrated at your local Common Sense Service Center as soon as possible.

      --
      Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.
    39. Re:Sensible position, whether or not claim is true by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > How is anyone supposed to put their life back together after being released from
      > incarceration or probation if everyone shuns them? This creates a permanent
      > underclass of people who very likely have something positive to contribute
      > to society. The costs of a prior mistake, or worse, of being convicted under
      > laws that make no sense [anti-dmca.org] would be, and are too high for anyone
      > to bear in a purportedly civil society.

      And that, in a nutshell, is part of the price of breaking the law. Whether I agree with a law or not, (and I don't agree with the DMCA), my decision to ignore the law must (or should) take into consideration the overall consequences, not just the potential criminal penalties. The social and professional consequences can far exceed the jail time or fines levied.

      That said, each person is an individual with strengths and weaknesses. Depending on the nature of the crime and the position to be filled, I might be inclined to just score a conviction as a big issue in the "negative" column, or I might completely disqualify an applicant. But YOUR implication is that we should "forgive and forget" is completely unrealistic. A candidate's past performance is their currency in the job market, and a criminal record is a huge deficit to overcome.

    40. Re:Sensible position, whether or not claim is true by swordgeek · · Score: 1

      "After throwing around that piece of shit sound bite about "hiring known criminals" the same customer goes out into the parking lot and smokes a joint."

      You're missing two important points here.

      1) The connection between the crime in question and the job in question. You're hiring a convicted criminal computer hacker to work as a computer security professional! Would I hire someone with a 'pot posession' record to work as a computer geek? Sure. Would I hire them to be on the drug squad? No! Would I hire a reformed hacker to work on the drug squad? Quite possibly. If they have a criminal record that directly ties to the work in question, then they're probably not the best person to hire. Remember that hiring is bringing on (1)a set of skills, (2)a personality, and (3)a degree of liability. If the liability is too high, or the personality is a terrible fit, it doesn't much matter how good the skillset is.

      Secondly, it's the employer's choice, within the confines of the law. If they decide to limit their liability at the risk of potentially limiting their skillset, that's their choice. If they want to have the best skills in the known universe, and hiring people with a directly relevant police record is how they do it, then the increased liability risk is also their choice.

      --

      "People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
    41. Re:Sensible position, whether or not claim is true by maxpublic · · Score: 3, Insightful

      YOU are a liability if you have a criminal record.

      Funny, I thought it was a criminal nature was a requirement for advancement into management these days.

      Not to mention politics. You do know that almost 50% of Congress has a criminal record? And that our own President was a criminal (drug user) at one point? The fact that he wasn't convicted and sent to jail does nothing to diminish the crime itself.

      Max

      --
      My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
    42. Re:Sensible position, whether or not claim is true by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is the big difference between a White Hat and a Blackhat?
      The white hat had the opportunity to get paid + doing legally what the blackhat is been doing...

      The question is how many white hat would become blackhat if it was impossible for them to be whitehat?

    43. Re:Sensible position, whether or not claim is true by Cirvam · · Score: 1

      You mean like the banks and FBI did with Frank Abingle (sp?) the worlds greatest check fraud? They did and now check security is greatly improved and hundreds of people were caught because the guy they hired knew what to look for and how those people worked.

    44. Re:Sensible position, whether or not claim is true by Col.+Panic · · Score: 1

      None of that applies here, which has been the basis of this entire argument.

    45. Re:Sensible position, whether or not claim is true by Slack3r78 · · Score: 1

      Ex con? I really suggest you check out the story before you make such statements. I wasn't familiar with this one when I read the parent post, so I read up on it. It quickly becomes clear that this guy is the victim of an overly broad law and was essentially prosecuted for doing his job by his employer. The point the parent poster was making is that having a conviction on his record does not always make them a bad guy, and that you should at least learn the basics of the case before making the judgement that someone is unhireable. The person in question is far from a "lowlife" criminal. Not every convicted "hacker" is like this, but not every supposed hacker was actually doing something wrong.

      Perhaps your Cranial Positioner has mistaken your neck for your rectum? Consider getting it recalibrated at your local Rational Thought Service Center as soon as possible.

    46. Re:Sensible position, whether or not claim is true by Slack3r78 · · Score: 1
      But if we just blindly hired someone who has proven that they can't be trusted to do the right thing
      The mistake you're making is assuming that this and a conviction are one and the same. They're not. Blindly rejecting an applicant without learning the details of a situation is just as bad as what you describe is.
    47. Re:Sensible position, whether or not claim is true by NDPTAL85 · · Score: 1

      The guy could be Arnold Schwarzenegger from the movie The Running Man set in the future where he was framed and had to fight on a TV show to save his life and companies today STILL wouldn't hire him.

      Understand?

      --
      Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.
    48. Re:Sensible position, whether or not claim is true by AllAmerican · · Score: 1

      Dont do the crime if you cant do the time. This includes the prejudices that carry on after you have paid you "debt to society". Either be smart enough not to get caught or dont break the rules in the first place. Grade school teaches you that. Nothing worse than a criminal whining that he doesnt get an honest break. There is always room for landscapers or burger flippers.

    49. Re:Sensible position, whether or not claim is true by 7dragon · · Score: 1

      Better not let them find this out. If you do this kind of backgroud check
      without their knowledge you could suffer a discrimination lawsuit.

      What does being unpopular or made fun of in high school have to do with anything regarding employment?

      What are you a fucking Nazi?

    50. Re:Sensible position, whether or not claim is true by MadAhab · · Score: 1
      Then again there's the gray hats. In the context of your comments, they would be the ones who have the moral fortitude not to go to the dark side and who are smart enough not to get caught. White hats are smart enough to do only things they wouldn't mind being caught at. It *is* a higher ethical standard, though the gray hat is closer to the white hat than the black, with the caveat that this distinction is maintained largely by having enough skill and/or prudence not to get caught - and the distinction disappears in the eye of others the second they get caught.

      A white hat might be a gray hat who never gets caught, but a black hat who doesn't get caught is still a black hat. IMVWO (in my very wise opinion).

      So wanting to hire only white hats still makes sense even if you see nothing wrong with the gray hats...

      --
      Expanding a vast wasteland since 1996.
    51. Re:Sensible position, whether or not claim is true by Lew+Payne · · Score: 1

      Yes, I would hire you if... the financial benefits derived from hiring you exceeded your salary. So, if I ever need someone to "show me the ropes" at Intel... I'll know who to call.

    52. Re:Sensible position, whether or not claim is true by Reziac · · Score: 1

      I don't know the case.. but that's not the sort of work one does unsupervised.

      It's one thing to hire a black hat as a consultant on how to lock out exploits that black hat knows about (it won't do any good for the ones he doesn't know about). However, I still wouldn't want to trust him to secure my network from the ground up.

      Seems most people here are having trouble distinguishing the two job focuses...

      A more drastic parallel: would you hire a convicted pedophile to babysit your kids?

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    53. Re:Sensible position, whether or not claim is true by MegaHamsterX · · Score: 1

      Too true...

      Don't hack if you can't afford the finest lawyer in the land ...and... what your hacking into will net you enough money to hire the finest lawyer in the land so you end up even when caught. You will sooner or later get caught, be prepared.

      The best hackers are not socially inept cave dwellers, they are electronic conmen, friendly people who will rob you blind while your watching and smiling.

    54. Re:Sensible position, whether or not claim is true by crucini · · Score: 1

      So why don't you start a company and hire only convicts? They'd be cheap, right, being part of a permanent underclass. And they have something positive to contribute, right? You should enjoy a competitive advantage that would lead to great wealth.

      Maybe you know something that today's businessmen don't. Or maybe not.

    55. Re:Sensible position, whether or not claim is true by SlimFastForYou · · Score: 1

      One of my good friends was investigated for hacking the school district computers, and now faces criminal charges. Later on in this long saga (I will spare you the details), the computer lab that the hacking of district computers was done from was formed into a new network. Consequentially, the teacher had to set up a server, etc.

      He is having me and another good friend set up the server. We are both good friends of the "black hat", but only he and only one other school employee know the password. All work we do is supervised. Although we can intentionally "neglect to put in certain security procedures", we can't exactly place back doors. Granted we are not "black hat", having "black hats" work seems not to be that bad of an idea.

      Like other jobs, have a probationary period. Any hacker that is "black hat" status will simply have to do all stuff while being monitored. For example, don't give admin access, have station use screen captures, keyloggers, be physically watched, etc. It depends on what the security company is doing, but if the future employee could be utilized for setting appropriate security policies with the real net admin of the client present and watching.

      This might be better for the client company as well, because the net admin would probably wonder why the guy is "black hat", and probably ask about his experiences. Productive conversations would probably come out of this, such as "network administration common flaws", "don't trust strangers based on the way they dress", "you have an AP? Wardrivers are probably having a ball", etc. They have already been caught, prosecuted, etc - so they can tell about (some of) the stuff they did.

      Anyway, I understand completely why companies don't want to hire "black hats". However if "black hats" are supervized (especially by client net admins), others will learn from people who don't have to worry about telling of past exploits.

      Then again, if the guy seems like a loser who fits the stereotypical "hacker profile", and seems like a slob - forget it. Use common sense. Simply put, the attitude must be one of "this is how you fix your stuff", as opposed to "you have X flaw with your setup".

      Then again, this may be one of my many random mumblings. Don't mod down - reply!

    56. Re:Sensible position, whether or not claim is true by crucini · · Score: 1

      You sound a bit young. May I assume that you have never had the responsibility of hiring someone? Whether you're spending your own money (your life savings) or your employer's, you are responsible for spending it wisely, in a way that will benefit the employer. Showing "guts" by placing yourself or your employer in legal/financial jeopardy is not the recipe for a long career or a profitable business. I'm not necessarily agreeing with the previous poster that the liability is significant - but if it is, a manager who ignores it to avoid looking like a pussy is not doing a good job.

      Again, I suspect this is an age difference. As you get older, you discover that many seemingly unpleasant and pointless aspects of life exist for a reason.

    57. Re:Sensible position, whether or not claim is true by Cirvam · · Score: 1

      Oh I agree compleatly, it would be one thing to have a blackhat compleatly build your network security and its another to have them test your current network security under supervision.

    58. Re:Sensible position, whether or not claim is true by Reziac · · Score: 1

      The other question that comes to mind -- if the reformed blackhat is perhaps not as reformed as he should be... might he inform you of and fix all these here vulnerabilities, but keep knowledge of that there obscure one to himself? Worse, if he was the only expert used, you'd never learn of the "reserved hole" til it bit you (and not even then if he's really skilled).

      I've seen a case in Real Life which I strongly suspect was a "reserved hole" left by the previous coder, who had some blackhat history but several years of being "reformed". (Fortunately the hole was found and fixed by a later coder.)

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    59. Re:Sensible position, whether or not claim is true by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh really, so how many of his white hats have smoked marajuna or done drugs or coke?
      Once you start excluding (or including liars) you start inbreeding. Take a cleanskin and invest 200K to train them up to speed?
      Penetration testing can be safely done and supervised, and best conducted by *many* skilled individuals.

      As for securing what you find,yeah, whitehats are the way to go, simply as blackhats are nortoriously bad at documentation, or training chimps up to nightwatchman speed.

      As for hiring a company, hiring a managed sercurity company (web based) is the most timely and heaps cheaper

    60. Re:Sensible position, whether or not claim is true by Slack3r78 · · Score: 1

      The FBI and the country's largest financial institutions don't seem to agree. Abagnale WAS actively committing fraud, and is now among the top experts in his field, one known for being highly conservative in employment. Again, if you check the story, Schwartz never did anything other than his job. You'd be allowing Intel's abuse of an overly broad law to keep someone who could be an enormous asset to your company out. Companies that slam the door shut over an applicant's previous "mistakes" (as it is in this case) without investigating things for themselves first are shooting themselves in the foot.

    61. Re:Sensible position, whether or not claim is true by WhiteDragon · · Score: 1
      I don't see how exposing my clients to criminal risk from an ex con is the Right Thing


      How many linux geeks are ex Windows users? Just because the hacker was in the past guilty, doesn't mean anything. If they were still considered to be a threat to society, (ie not rehabilitated) they would (in theory) be still incarcerated. If our criminal code releases people who have shown no evidence of being rehabilitated, then perhaps we need to rethink our criminal code.
      --
      Did you mount a military-grade, variable-focus MASER on an unlicensed artificial intelligence?
    62. Re:Sensible position, whether or not claim is true by jomiller · · Score: 1

      Hiring this guy would be a good idea in my veiw. He is self motivated, thorough, and has genuine concern for his company (all inclusivly). In reality, the only thing that makes him a black hat in most people's minds is that he has a criminal record. What if Intel had decided to talk to him about it before filing charges and had then decided to not file them. What if Intel had decided on some sort of internal disiplinary action, or better yet, decided to re-write the sys admin job description in a more clear and concise manner. In the end the act is the same, but without the trial he is considered a white hat even though nothing changed. And if you read some of the articles you would have seen the summation about the carpenter going through personal papers instead of fixing your garage. That should be more like, the carpenter that was supposed to be fixing your garage noticed that your front door-knob was broke and replaced it for you, supplied you with new keys, and didn't charge you a dime for it.

    63. Re:Sensible position, whether or not claim is true by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      well said

    64. Re:Sensible position, whether or not claim is true by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From a political stand point I would not let an ex blackhat work for my company. however this is merely business politics, the fact that you have that opinion.
      I'm sure it would not sound good from a security point of view either.

      However, the simple fact is that all white hats have, at some stage been black hats. And thats how they learn in the first place.
      Most port scanning and attempted intrusion into a companys infrustructure is done by uni students, and kids learning 'how it's done'.
      Without this real life experience, there is really no real way of learning about hacking at all.

      And in conclusion, I do not believe that there is any hacker of any sort who has not started out as a black-hat.

    65. Re:Sensible position, whether or not claim is true by merlyn · · Score: 1
      When we have accomplished the criminalization of even changing the background colors on the screen of our desktop PC, what actions are left that are not possibly considered to "do the crime"?

      My case involves an arguably overbroad and vague law in the Oregon state code, which can turn even the most trivial act with electrons into a crime if the local constabulary can be convinced (especially by a large employer) and a jury can be snookered by overwhelming technical terms and taking things out of context.

      Unfortunately, many states have similar laws. And I won't even go in to what the USA PATRIOT act or the DMCA or other laws do for criminalization of formerly innocent acts.

      "Don't do the crime" these days means "don't get out of bed".

      I never knowingly harmed anyone or intended to harm anyone. I just wanted to help the people who had paid my bills for five years. My friends. My co-workers. No harm was ever substantially proven, and yet I'm the felon-for-life with about $300K out of my pocket (and who knows how much lost time).

      The law does not reflect a fair and just reality. The law has become a tool for selective enforcement, as a means of control far beyond the original intent of the criminal system.

      Choose wisely your words. They'll be coming for you next.

  52. Speaking of (not) bright people... by Matthew+Weigel · · Score: 1, Flamebait
    "Would you recomend free software, such as Debian or Red Hat, on the desktop?"
    This is not relevant to a discussion about security. This is an attempt to slip ideology into a technical discussion. Back away.
    --
    --Matthew
    1. Re:Speaking of (not) bright people... by keramida · · Score: 2, Insightful
      "Would you recomend free software, such as Debian or Red Hat, on the desktop?"
      This is not relevant to a discussion about security. This is an attempt to slip ideology into a technical discussion. Back away.

      It's probably an inappropriate question only because it is too specific, imho. One of the first things I'd probably ask a guy or girl who is known for his experience and expertise in security would definitely be something along the lines of:

      "Given the increasing interest of the business world about OSS, what are, in your opinion as a security expert, the advantages if any and disadvantages that you know about of OSS when compared to closed source software?"

      One might argue that this is too generic as a question, or that the question "begs for a particular sort of answer". I would encourage answers that are as objective as possible though.

      --

      --
      My other computer runs FreeBSD too.
    2. Re:Speaking of (not) bright people... by Matthew+Weigel · · Score: 1
      It's probably an inappropriate question only because it is too specific, imho.

      Are you familiar with the old RSAREF license (relevant before the RSA patent expired)? That wasn't OSS. Taken a look at the PGP license? Again, not OSS. "OSS vs. closed source" is not an issue relevant to the security community.

      Here's another question: would you prefer an open source derivative of Red Hat, or a closed source derivative of OpenBSD, as your preferred secure server system? What if you could see the OpenBSD code (particularly diffs), just weren't licensed to build and run it? Is the open-source nature of the product the only factor in deciding?

      --
      --Matthew
    3. Re:Speaking of (not) bright people... by cHiphead · · Score: 1

      RSAREF and PGP licenses were all under the direct shadow of a PATENT and U.S. export laws, there are laws restricting these items in the first place. Blame the law, not the license. (even so, if the law didnt exist, I'm sure RSA/PGP would still milk licensing for maximum profit, blame greed for that)

      One important factor of choosing GPL/BSD Operating Systems is that I don't have to pay for a software 'license' to VIEW the code in the first place, and then I don't have to pay for a license to USE the software. So I can do code audits without the worry of the Software Police (BSA + Federal Marshalls) busting down the office door and taking all of the computers.

      Your question is essentially (and probably unintentionally) FUD... the reason OpenBSD is good at what it does in the first place is becuase its *OPEN*BSD. On that premise, yes, an open source RedHat is better than a closed source OpenBSD. There's a reason its not called ClosedBSD.

      On a side note, whats the point of being able to view the OpenBSD code if you could not build and run it yourself?

      --

      This is my sig. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    4. Re:Speaking of (not) bright people... by Cyno · · Score: 1

      there's more to security that the type of encryption algorithm you use.

    5. Re:Speaking of (not) bright people... by keramida · · Score: 1
      Are you familiar with the old RSAREF license (relevant before the RSA patent expired)?

      Yes. I was around for quite a while already when the patent expired.

      That wasn't OSS. Taken a look at the PGP license? Again, not OSS. "OSS vs. closed source" is not an issue relevant to the security community.

      Although I agree that "case studies" are important in determining if something is true of false, you're attacking the wrong sort of point. My point wasn't that "OSS is more secure" but that this (more or less) would be one of the first things I'd ask a security expert about. I don't know if there *is* an OSS issue with the security community. This is why I'd ask. If you know the answer already, from verifiable, trusted contacts you have in that community, that's cool... thanks :-)

      As far as PGP or RSA is concerned, I have my doubts about the safety of the non-quite-OSS implementation of the first (I assume you are talking about PGP and not its OSS friends like GnuPG), and the second isn't safe because it was patented but because some people did the Right(TM) sort of math when writing about it. But this is increasingly off-original-topic now...

      --

      --
      My other computer runs FreeBSD too.
    6. Re:Speaking of (not) bright people... by Matthew+Weigel · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, but you do not appear to know a damned thing about the RSAREF license. You were forced to use RSAREF under US Patent law, because that was the only way RSA would give you a license to their patent for free; that does not impact the fact that the RSAREF copyright license did not allow you to modify it. Yet it still benefitted from open peer review, because there was a security hole in RSAREF that was found via peer review.

      One important factor of choosing GPL/BSD Operating Systems is that I don't have to pay for a software 'license' to VIEW the code in the first place, and then I don't have to pay for a license to USE the software.

      I once again refer you to PGP and RSAREF, neither of which required you to pay for a license to view their code, thus not impairing auditing at all.

      Your question is essentially (and probably unintentionally) FUD... the reason OpenBSD is good at what it does in the first place is becuase its *OPEN*BSD.

      There are a lot of reasons OpenBSD is good; one is that it is completely unencumbered, so you can put it into an embedded security product. But then, you can put BSD4.4Lite2 in an embedded security product too, but I don't see people doing that. Another reason OpenBSD is good is that the development team does code audits themselves, rather than relying on external parties to bother with it; this process has found more security holes in a few years than third-party audits have revealed in decades. A third reason it is good because you can audit the code yourself.

      Two of these benefits have clear impact on security, and two of these benefits do not require open source licensing to be true. Neither the presence of a team doing audits, nor the ability to audit yourself, require open source licensing.

      Let me spell it out real nice and easy: the ability to do audits is one of the most important factors in making a piece of software secure. Open source licensing provides that ability, but it is not unique in providing that ability. It is sufficient but not necessary.

      --
      --Matthew
    7. Re:Speaking of (not) bright people... by Matthew+Weigel · · Score: 1
      My point wasn't that "OSS is more secure" but that this (more or less) would be one of the first things I'd ask a security expert about.

      My point is that discussing whether they would recommend OSS systems on desktops is not directly relevant to security concerns. An expert on security may, or may not, be able to offer reasonable arguments pro or con, may have spent little prior critical thinking time evaluating the subject, and may or may not be able to show their expertise in security through the discussion.

      It doesn't communicate to the other people reading the question and answer anything useful regarding security. It may or may not give you a view into the security expert's views on the security process, and if they're good talkers but not good security experts they can make sure it doesn't reveal their lack of expertise.

      A better question in that context would be a critique of Microsoft's security practices; "What could Microsoft do better about security?" This is a no-brainer to someone familiar with the field, it focuses the reader's attention on concrete, "this could be better" steps, and makes them aware of better practices, all together. It's not a good way to determine the real quality of a security consultant, but it's a good way to separate white-hat poseurs from security experts.

      --
      --Matthew
    8. Re:Speaking of (not) bright people... by keramida · · Score: 1
      My point is that discussing whether they would recommend OSS systems on desktops is not directly relevant to security concerns.

      I don't really agree here. That makes it seem as if security is something that should not 'bother' desktop users. Recent years have proven that there is an increase in desktop related problems (trojans, other forms of viruses, scans and break-ins that put at risk any computer that is networked, desktop or not). Why should we put the 'security of the desktop' aside?

      An expert on security may, or may not, be able to offer reasonable arguments pro or con, may have spent little prior critical thinking time evaluating the subject, and may or may not be able to show their expertise in security through the discussion.

      That's ok. One should probably read such interviews with an understanding that nobody knows it all. This isn't a good enough reason for asking only the sort of questions like "what can Microsoft do to improve its security track record" though :-/

      It doesn't communicate to the other people reading the question and answer anything useful regarding security.

      I think it might provide a good way to steer the discussion towards security practises that are nice. It's not a small thing to be able to do source code audits. It will certainly serve fine as a way to let those security experts that do appreciate source code availability to talk about ways in which it's useful. Those who aren't familiar with the side-effects of having access to the source can always answer "I don't think this is important, because [blah] since we do and encourage [blah]".

      Plus, it's not like the whole interview is this one question :)

      --

      --
      My other computer runs FreeBSD too.
    9. Re:Speaking of (not) bright people... by Matthew+Weigel · · Score: 1
      That makes it seem as if security is something that should not 'bother' desktop users.

      No, no, no. OSS is not a security solution; talking about OSS on the desktop is not talking about security on the desktop. Please, listen to me: open source software does nothing, by itself, for security.

      This isn't a good enough reason for asking only the sort of questions like "what can Microsoft do to improve its security track record" though :-/

      What? You want to talk about security on the desktop, then you have to accept that by and large Microsoft is the desktop, which means you have to talk about Microsoft writing more secure software. Talking about Microsoft was never my idea of 'everything to talk about' - but if you want to emphasize security on the desktop, that's what you have to deal with.

      I think it might provide a good way to steer the discussion towards security practises that are nice.

      OK, let's talk about that. Letting the user introduce their own changes to software that has already been audited is not a good security practice. Letting random third parties have at your source code, play with it, and release it with the same name - possibly with trojans included - is not a good security practice.

      OSS is not about best security practices; OSS allows secure practices, but does nothing to actually encourage them. It doesn't discourage them either; OSS has nothing to do with security.

      I like open source software! I hack on OSS, and as a programmer in an academic environment, most of the software I write is under a very liberal BSDish license. But open source software is not a security solution. If you equate OSS with security, you might find yourself using NIS (as implemented on Open/Net/FreeBSD and Linux) to distribute password information across your network, you might find yourself using the version of sendmail (OSS) that enabled the great Worm of the '80s on your mail server. OSS is completely neutral about security.

      --
      --Matthew
  53. This reminds me of someone...... by Andrew+Lockhart · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Eerily this Gary Morse guy reminds me of John Vranesevich.

  54. It had a lot to do with it... by Ethelred+Unraed · · Score: 4, Interesting

    IANASC (...security consultant), but ISTR that many firms in the WTC were foolish enough to have the "backup" systems...in the other tower. IOW they assumed that if one tower went blooey, the other one would still be there. So much for redundancy.

    The point is physical security, not network security. It's kind of like having all your backup CDs in the same room (or building!) as your computer. Fire, fire, oops, it's all gone.

    Also, ISTR that in some cases, with the loss of systems in the WTC, financial networks were left in a state of chaos -- perfect time to be hacked, really.

    Cheers,

    Ethelred

    --
    Everyone wants to be Ethelred. Even I want to be Ethelred.
    1. Re:It had a lot to do with it... by drix · · Score: 1
      IANASC (...security consultant), but ISTR that many firms in the WTC were foolish enough to have the "backup" systems...in the other tower.

      Scold them all you want with the benefit 20/20 hindsight, but I'm guessing that if someone told you on Sep. 10 that this scheme was unsecure because both towers were going to be levelled, you would have laughed him out of the room. Just like everyone else in the world.

      --

      I think there is a world market for maybe five personal web logs.
    2. Re:It had a lot to do with it... by slashdot_commentator · · Score: 1

      Foolish? Oh come on, who thought BOTH towers would go down after a terrorist attack? And they save money by not having to maintain a remote location and while using the same staff. If you're Citibank, or Chase Manhattan, yes it would have been stupid. (And note, neither had that arrangement.) But a mid-sized investment firm? Who's got money to throw around for a backup control center? Next you'll be telling me that a Wall Street trading firm should have their backup site in London, England, because NJ is not remote enough from a nuclear strike on their main offices.

      Its always a good time for financial networks to be hacked. 9/11 would have only been an "opportunistic" hack. You're still going to need to have some exposure to internal systems to be able to penetrate them. And if you are internal, you don't need 9/11 to pull a scam. There's a reason why security firms put their emphasis on company employees.

      --
      There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
    3. Re:It had a lot to do with it... by Ethelred+Unraed · · Score: 1
      Scold them all you want with the benefit 20/20 hindsight, but I'm guessing that if someone told you on Sep. 10 that this scheme was unsecure because both towers were going to be levelled, you would have laughed him out of the room. Just like everyone else in the world.

      Except that the WTC had been the target of terrorist attacks before, with the goal of toppling (or at least damaging) both towers. If someone had suggested the idea before the first attack, then yes, I'd have been skeptical.

      Cheers,

      Ethelred

      --
      Everyone wants to be Ethelred. Even I want to be Ethelred.
    4. Re:It had a lot to do with it... by rikkards · · Score: 1

      Oh come on, who thought BOTH towers would go down after a terrorist attack?
      Probably the same type of people who thought that the Titanic would never sink. :)

    5. Re:It had a lot to do with it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "IANASC (...security consultant), but ISTR that many firms in the WTC were foolish enough to have the "backup" systems...in the other tower. IOW they assumed that if one tower went blooey, the other one would still be there. So much for redundancy. "

      Yeah, and a friend of mine works as a consultant, and has spent a lot of time recently helping a lot of Manhattan companies (mostly financial) with their disaster sites... across the water in New Jersey. Now, *excuse* me, but a small nuke would take out those as well. Seems to me that to have a *real* DR site, you'd want it to be several *hundred* miles away, not 10. Just in case, y'know.

    6. Re:It had a lot to do with it... by regen · · Score: 1
      One of the big problems was actually the West St. Central Office. This one CO served most of the financial community and BA re-organized thier network to run circuits which where supposed to be physically divergent through this one CO.

      This CO was heavily damaged (mostly from flooding) and knocked out both primary and backup com circuits for a lot of finical institutions including NYSE. Thus even thought NYSE primary and backup datacenters were not damaged, the were isolated from the rest of the world and send out ticker data feeds.

      I know this because I used to be a network engineer for SIAC (the company which provides network services to the NYSE).

    7. Re:It had a lot to do with it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which companies do you recall as having had backup in the other tower? First of all, financial companies weren't as predominant in WTC as people seem to think.

      And, more importantly, the financial companies I've worked with in NYC almost all have backup sites in NJ or Brooklyn - as the SIAC guy who posted here can confirm.

    8. Re:It had a lot to do with it... by fizbin · · Score: 1

      I know this is hindsight, but consider this: if you are planning backups, and are planning them so that your systems will still operate if the building you're in falls over (which, after the 1993 bombing attempt, anyone in the WTC should have been doing), wouldn't you want to place the backups far enough away so that the building the main system is in can't possibly fall on the building the backup is in?

      I know that's not what happened on 9/11, but shouldn't that scenario have been considered?

      Besides, why waste WTC rental money housing backup systems? Surely there's cheaper land out on Long Island or across the river in Jersey.

      Housing backup systems in the other tower was expensive flashiness that could never have been expected to provide bomb-proof systems.

    9. Re:It had a lot to do with it... by slashdot_commentator · · Score: 1

      Besides, why waste WTC rental money housing backup systems? Surely there's cheaper land out on Long Island or across the river in Jersey.

      WTC floor space was not that expensive, compared to other metro areas. NYS agencies would be based in the WTC to fill up the floors. There were empty floors all over the towers. Sadly, its the big reason why the Twin Towers will not be rebuilt in its original configuration.

      The rationale was as follows: You need an alternate site to address the possibility of a disaster at the main site. Generally, that's fire or power outage or civil disruption (disgruntled employee with an assault rifle). You can't just put the backup center next door because fire can spread beyond the original building. BUT, fire was unlikely to jump from tower #1 to tower #2. The advantage would be that the personnel at the main site can still readily maintain the backup site. With an alternate location, you lose those personnel during the day at the main site when testing or maintenance needs to be done at the alternate site. An international bank like Citibank can't afford to go cheap, because they're more likely the target of a terrorist attack, and they still need to conduct operations if the NYC bridges needed to shutdown. But to a small trading firm, with say a couple hundred million in capital, they don't need to be as cagey. (If the bridges shutdown, the exchanges are going to shutdown.) Its more disruptive for them to have a colo in NJ or LIC.

      Backup center in the other tower was not expensive flashiness. And blowing up a tower after 1993 was a non-possibility. They shutdown the parking garages after that.

      --
      There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
  55. Re:the problem with subscriber notices by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

    I was investigating anonymous proxy servers that were abusing our system, and was setting my browser to random proxies to see how they were working (most of them did pretty well). I forgot to change back off of the proxies to come to /. , and got a big message about how I couldn't access from there, because of abuses.. Perfectly reasonable, since I found them through abuses on my network. :)

    So, consider the timeout a good thing. At least you haven't been banned by the gods. :)

    --
    Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
  56. Re:WTF did 9/11 have to do with unsecure networks? by slashdot_commentator · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If you look at 9/11 as purely a terrorist act using airplanes, then yes, its facetious hyperbole. But you could have sat down and thought about 9/11 in a metaphorical context. It was a tragedy that could have been avoided and was not because of careless complacency; now the statement makes more sense. I'm sure large companies started to realize they could be next in line. Also, I'm sure he's telling the truth that after 9/11/01, the computer security business skyrocketed. There were many news articles talking about computer "terrorists" infiltrating computer infrastructures to sabotage public works, or even the internet itself. Its hardly fair to castigate a guy for reciting fact.

    Normally, I would agree with your assessment of Morse a fearmongering assclown. Except, I know that computer security is thought of as a joke, never taken seriously, and worst of all, procedures and tools are put in place by people who really do not understand the nature of system security. It is the digital equivalent of a 9/11, except its unlikely to have quite the same repercussions. There is nothing moral about a hacker that chooses not to work in computer security because they think that the act of preventing illegal hacking into systems is somehow wrong. In the real world, people work for employers they don't like. To not support their families is irresponsible and childish.

    --
    There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
  57. Overrated to those who dont understand them by the-dude-man · · Score: 1

    You obviously dont have fucking clue what your talking about....so lets lay down a few facts first that arnt biased by your knowledge/experience (or lack there of) or my urge to find you and slap you first before we draw any conclusions.

    Security is not an overrated field...its a field worth hundrends of billons of dollars a year....no its not overrated...when you have a field were consultants can bill upwards of 1000 dollars an hour...no its not overrated to have a community behind it. Security is a field in wich hundreds of thousands of people in North America alone work in proffesionally....all day every day...not just doing codeing, but doing research, and research that has changed many aspects of the internet over the past 10 years.

    Real security that is done by large firms, is not code dependant, in fact, codeing only makes upa bout 10% of the time a proffesional consultant spends on average working a contract.The security we talk about here, and the security wich is regarded when people talk about the security community is very real and very importnat, and involves very little coding. its not a code monkey job. And it requires much more skill, and experience to do than just a random coder can.

    Security is not about thwarting scumbag employees or script kiddys, these people use known exploits that a patch gets coded for and then a few millons systems get patched.

    The security that we are talking about here involves the use of bugs, explits and holes in system design that are not known and not readily visible. The people who find these, and are smart enough to find these are usally black hat hackers, they are the people the security community is after, since you obviously dont know about this, i'l have to define it for you like i have to with everyone who donst know what goes on past their desktop

    A black hat hacker is being paid by one person to get information from another hacker. Fourtune 500 companies do this often. They send hackers after their most threatining competion, in an effort to get design specfications, or other documents that could give them the edge over the company. Other black hat hackers are running billon dollar credit card or other line of credit scams, they go after major companies accounts recivables, they take the credit information, and exploit those credit lines for as much as they are worth...then take the money and run.

    These hackers use techniques that they devlop, and the rest of the world dosnt know about, so proffesionals (ie - security people that you were just calling "code monkies") have to constantly look for possible ways that software could, ina hypathetical scenario, be broken. And then generalise these breaks into a more general type of attack (ie buffer overflow attacks) and then design a general methodoligy to countery them, this is what gets handed off to indivudal coders to code solutions for individula applications. The actual security community doesnt do a whole lot fo coding. Yet by your definition, we are all code monkeys.

    Is it boring? Not generally, but that depends who you talk to. Is it a Coding Job? is it something that is done by random CS students or code monekys? No. It isnt. Unfortunalty before making your post you didnt bother to actually consult the facts. Perhaps if you were able to understand what goes on in the security industry you would understand why you are so wrong.

  58. Dont forget Red Hat Hackers. by noogle · · Score: 1

    (subject body here)

    --

    I'm smarter than the average bear.

  59. Re:WTF did 9/11 have to do with unsecure networks? by albanac · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Ok, I may be being dense, and I expect some flameage if I am. 9/11 had lots to do with unsecure aircraft. It had lots to do with media sensationalism. It even had lots to do with structural design! But please explain wtf it had to do with unsecure networks?

    It didn't have anything *directly* to do with insecure networks, that I've ever heard about. However, the date 9/11 had a great deal of indirect effect on security consultants. Security/anti-terrorism/stopping people from kicking your ass has become *the* most discussed concept in the western world since that date. The Office of Homeland Security. Iraq represented a threat to US Security. Hackers present a Security threat. Apologies for sounding like Illiad but that's what has actually happened in the public eye over the last two years. The profile of security as a profession has gone through the roof.

    I imagine that is why they asked the question.

    ~cHris
  60. it's about getting people's attention by feepcreature · · Score: 1
    The September 11th attack made people feel more at risk, and raised their awareness of security in general. That extends to all areas of security - including network security.

    It's also why so many unrelated, futile, and in some cases counterproductive "security" measures were adopted in the aftermath of the attack.

    --
    Paul "Say no to feeping creaturism"
  61. Crackers do _not_ make good security experts by @madeus · · Score: 4, Interesting

    How do you get good at knowing you're being tracked, if you've never been tracked? You don't. So how do you devise a tracking system which a hacker wouldn't detect? You can't.

    Utter garbage.

    That is completely analogous to saying only a burglar could design a security system, which is the point an earlier poster was making.

    There is phrase 'send a thief to catch a thief', which makes for a good Hollywood script, but this is not good everyday practice, which the rest of the world has already worked out. The idea behind the phrase is that the a thief has information that can be useful in catching another thief, but thieves make VERY bad policemen.

    Being a hax0r does imbibe you with any knowledge of how to develop secure systems. In the same way that being a successful scam artist does not put you in a good position to design a more secure credit card. Most crackers have no knowledge of using secure systems, break ins that occur usually down to trivial holes, which all non-security orientated developers know how to fix (and code against), these holes occur simply because best practices are not always followed.

    Commercial systems designed with security in mind (e.g. trusted operating systems, encrypted networks, systems that use seperate signed keys for all inter-process and inter-host transactions, networks that have hard-wired one way Ethernet links) tend to cost many hundreds of thousands of dollars to build, and require a team with a strong mix of OS, Software Development and Networking knowledge.

    Knowing how to defeat a burglar alarm system is a far cry from knowing how to build one, just as knowing how to write microcode to exploit a buffer overflow is a far cry from knowing how to write and develop for a secure environment.

    All but the stupidest of employers care vastly more about experience than education.

    Crackers break into secure software, they don't have experience in designing secure software. They would make awful systems that would be just a vulnerable but in different ways - developing secure solutions requires a design approach that bears this in mind.

    Serious crackers are *not* suitable canidates for security experts.

    1. Re:Crackers do _not_ make good security experts by qortra · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You are undoubtedly right that even most seasoned hackers would probabloy not be experienced enough to secure a network. However, Morse's business model seems to be based on first penetrating a network, in order to secure the business of a client by demonstrating its vulnerability (a la Sneakers, an excellent movie). And then, of course, securing a network. If I had to guess, Morse probably has entirely different teams for each of these processes. Now, you could argue that black hat hackers can't be trusted, and I wouldn't put up a fight. But, purely from a skill set point of view, black hat hackers would probably most qualified for the "penetrate" portion of a job. regards, qortra

    2. Re:Crackers do _not_ make good security experts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Being a hax0r does imbibe you with any knowledge of how to develop secure systems.

      Saying something "imbibes you" is like saying something "learns you." See the dictionary. You can learn a bit of knowledge. Something doesn't learn you the knowledge. Likewise, you can imbibe knowledge, but something else can't imbibe you the knowledge.

      which all non-security orientated developers know how to fix (and code against)

      Ugh.

      Knowing how to defeat a burglar alarm system is a far cry from knowing how to build one, just as knowing how to write microcode to exploit a buffer overflow is a far cry from knowing how to write and develop for a secure environment.

      You wouldn't usually write microcode to exploit a buffer overflow. Microcode is a way to implement a given CPU/Instruction Set Architecture more easily by coding it in a specialized machine language. You might write some assembler or machine language (machine code) to exploit a buffer overflow. If you could insert microcode into a machine, then you've REALLY 0wn3d it big time! Webopedia

      I wouldn't hire either of you to do security. Mr Morse, because he's probably trying to manipulate the media to break into business. You because you can "effectorively communorcate" about as well as George W. Bush.

    3. Re:Crackers do _not_ make good security experts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh please, and just what the hell is a "serious cracker"? You don't honestly think this type of generalizing is constructive do you? [sighs]

    4. Re:Crackers do _not_ make good security experts by @madeus · · Score: 1

      Here's some regular expressions, just for you:

      s/imbibe you with any/not mean you automatically imbibe/
      s/orientated/oriented/
      s/microcode/shell code/

      Personally, I have better things to do than endlessly proof read posts, I'm not getting paid for it, have Real Work (TM) to do and most people seem to be happy to put up with the odd spelling & grammer mistake. I'm also quite happy as long as I can roughly understand what /. posters are driving at, I'm not paying for them to type up their POV's so I'm just happy they post things of value at all.

    5. Re:Crackers do _not_ make good security experts by @madeus · · Score: 1

      Oh please, and just what the hell is a "serious cracker"

      A 'serious cracker' I would define as someone who habitually exploits systems to satisfy their own wants or needs (as opposed to someone who's just experimented and broken into a few out of, say, idle curiosity).

      This is not a distinction I've created - it's already widely used in other contexts too, you can be a regarded 'casual' thief/drug user/cracker, and can commit minor offences (loitering, littering, speeding), you can also be regarded as a serious criminal who commits commit serious offences (GBH, GTA, fraud).

      You don't honestly think this type of generalizing is constructive do you? [sighs]

      Yes I do - I think generalizing can be a practical and useful mechanism.

    6. Re:Crackers do _not_ make good security experts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A 'serious cracker' I would define ....

      CRAP!!! "Serious Cracker" is an oxymoron!!! It's like saying "Mischevious Do-Gooder!"

      I don't know about the rest of you, but from my angle, this conversation aint going anywhere... The only people that are making any sense on this blog are the ones trying not to make sense - and I have a hunch they are the only ones that have any knowledge in this area to boot... But of course, obfuscation goes with the territory...

    7. Re:Crackers do _not_ make good security experts by @madeus · · Score: 1

      CRAP!!! "Serious Cracker" is an oxymoron!!! It's like saying "Mischevious Do-Gooder!"

      That's bizzare and illogical, and very untrue.

      It's a crime. Like bombing the L is a crime. It has a tangable, and criticaly costable, impact on companies (and not just the companies that are victims of attacks).

      There are people (i.e. those who do it) who don't think that tagging should be regarded as a crime, but then they don't tend to be amoung those of us who contribute the most to society. People who commit these kind of crimes rarely think they are serious, or that they are doing any real damage. And I'm not just talking about crackers, pick pockets, shop lifters, car radio thieves and even burgalars will all use the same excuses (it doesn't cost anyone anything really, it all comes out of insurance, the vicitim can afford it).

      If your not knowledgeable enough to realise the impact of cleaning up after tedious crackers then I'm not surprised you think the debate is going nowhere, I don't think your listening to the opposing side hard enough to hear what points they are making.

      The multiple network, systems and security admins (who all need to work together) at providers, telco's and carriers that get dragged into every investigation don't go out and grab their pay cheques from trees - it comes from the companies they work for and in costs that get passed down to the consumer.

      I don't know about the rest of you, but from my angle, this conversation aint going anywhere... The only people that are making any sense on this blog are the ones trying not to make sense - and I have a hunch they are the only ones that have any knowledge in this area to boot... But of course, obfuscation goes with the territory...

      Anyone trying not to make sense is not someone I think you want to be listening too much to, sounds they like are concentrating on style over content.

      You come accross like someone who's utterly bought into the pretentious garbage perpetuated by young wannabies and script kiddies the world over. It still amazes me that people think just because someone _looks_ cool or _sounds_ cool they must know what they are talking about.

  62. On the subject of hats... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The idea of discriminating due to previous hat color
    is apalling. I used to be a black hat. I have penetrated corporate america and then some. I have
    exploited entire countries. I never went out of my
    way for publicity, but some of my exploits were
    publicized. I was quoted in a few places. This was
    all when I was younger, and not so wise.

    I changed.

    There is no money in staying a black hat. Eventually, everyone has to eat. The love of the
    game never dies, but you have to face reality. I work for a very successful company doing security.
    I have taken their policy and general operation
    and turned it around in the realm of security. I enjoy my job, it stimulates me, and while they have a good idea of my past, they are cool with it, because they pay me to help protect them from what I used to be. I grew up.

    This man who does not hire previous black hats isn't trying to make a statement; he just doesnt want to be upstaged. The only way to be very good at security, is to once have been on the black side of the fence. There are no college credits for exploitation and penetration; these are skills that must be learned under the gun. I have no respect for this man, as his message is wrong. He knows that his livelyhood depends on black hats exploiting systems, so he will not ever give one a chance to change his colors. They will be forced to get a different kind of job, and will stay as a black hat because its the only stimulation they will get.

    At least wait until the trial is over and then decide if one is worthy of employment.

    For the record, I was never raided or tried in anything, this does not make my once black hat status right, its just the way the chips landed.

    1. Re:On the subject of hats... by Quill_28 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Interesting read, and I don't completely disagree, but I do have a question.

      If one replaced "black hat" with "pedophile" in the above post, would the argument still hold water?

    2. Re:On the subject of hats... by I_redwolf · · Score: 1

      One has sex with children, One illegally penetrates networks against their own will. Which obviously leaves the network in question psychologically damaged and physically harmed. Not to mention the black hat didn't give the network a choice, took away it's freedoms and civil liberties as a human bei....

      Seriously

      If one replaced "black hat" with 'pedophile" in the above post, would the argument still hold water?

      Obviously not, the two commit two different crimes affecting two different things. One affects a computer network at the most, maybe gives someone a headache or a longer working day. Eventually things get cleaned up.

      One affects the LIFE; approximately 70-75 years of a human being, damages their psyche and generally makes it harder on them in relationships they have with people. They can overcome this but it'll always be suspect as a memory even when they themselves have children., if that ever happens. Some don't overcome it and they themselves become pedophiles and the cycle continues.

      I don't even know how you got to the point where you could correlate the two. However I got this detailed to point out that one of these people can walk away with 2 years probation and one of them can be jailed for 20-35 years. I'll let you figure that part out.

    3. Re:On the subject of hats... by Quill_28 · · Score: 1

      You make a good point and well taken.

      I used pedophile because no one will side with one.

      According to the parent post you need to be a 'bad guy' before you can catch one. There is some validity to the statement and it would help, because I wouldn't consider it necessary.

      offtopic: You seem bitter.

  63. razorpoint security website by generic · · Score: 1

    It's a nice website, but I haven't read anything on it that lead me to think they have more than just a basic understanding of network security.
    razor point security whitepapers whitepapers
    I dont see any bugtraq posts either...

    --
    Microsoft aggravates my tourettes syndrome.
  64. Chat with Gary about... by Anonymous+Custard · · Score: 4, Funny

    From USA Today: Chat with Gary about keeping your computer safe from hacking and viruses.

    Yeah, I'm sure Manhattan's uber-elite white hat hacker wants to spend his time answering questions like "I can't find my email. Did a hacker take it, or does my computer just hate me?"

  65. you're a criminal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    sequent?

  66. What is a White Hat Hacker? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or a black hat one, for that mattter?

  67. Who? by dentar · · Score: 1

    Never heard of the guy! Is he all that big?

    --
    -- I am. Therefore, I think!
  68. Other Amusing Corporate Security Procedures by lysium · · Score: 1
    I know of more than a few NYC companies who changed their physical security (access, inspection) procedures to correlate to the ever-so-helpful color alerts. Employees get to have their belongs searched in the off chance that terrorists will want to strike an anonymous building (not even tall). The CEOs have the gall to think that they are important enough to target; security firms of all sorts are stepping up with toys to confirm that fantasy. Millions are being wasted, and employees get to be further humiliated on private property.

    -----------

    --
    Together, we will drive the rats from the tundra.
  69. to summarize your assertion... by gosand · · Score: 3, Funny
    If, as you say, black hats arise from white hats who specifically ... did not have the moral fortitude to remain on the white side how can anyone be sure that any given white hat will never turn to the black side if the incentive/threat is great enough.

    You underestimate the power of the dark side.

    --

    My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.

    1. Re:to summarize your assertion... by beekr · · Score: 1
      Indeed.

      ...and I find this lack of faith disturbing.

  70. its a white/black thing you wouldnt understand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    :-P

  71. Evil computer-user by anythings-possible-b · · Score: 1

    19:51 9/5/2546

    TOPIC: Evil computer-user

    hey! no black hat, no white hat, eh? invers of no sunshine no shadow.
    just because i found out you programmed something stupid/cheap/sloppy and are acctually earning money from it,
    doesn't make me evil ... of course i'm going to use it, and some more. YOU should go to prison
    for making a cheap product and actually charging money for it.

    come on 99.9% of the internet is email. finish. MEGA-REDUNDANT.
    why don't they just make computers and a network for that.
    should be easy to keep that secure ...

    computers: it's made for programming. people did alot "not-correct" thru history.
    it's still funny you can go to jail for sending these few electrons thru her and not there ...
    now if i send these electrons thru here and not there, and you/person would vanish,
    now THAT would be serious.
    like going to prison for making a short. maybe the should go arrest
    those particle-beam-accelerator-scientists...

    how can you ACTUALLY call sending-electron-around WORKING?
    how can you actually get paid to make sound-waves, e.g TALK?
    anyways, it's not like english and our character-set is universal ...

    as far as i know computers are made for programming ... so do your programming.

    but HELP!, what ARE they encrypting? the big companies? i know, so
    the NYSE-cops don't know they're doing an insider-job again with the next merger ...

    see there are evil persons everywhere, some just don't get catched ...

    why don't we call a good programmer a white-hat and a sloppy programmer a black-hat?

    the WHOLE sec. issue is because they are LAZY, they are trying to CRAM everything into
    one protocol(IP/TCP) and network (INTERNET).

    the big companies which do work in all countries around should get their own. i mean it.
    it's not expensive. lay some cables, security is complete.
    it stays there, like one of their super huge skycrappers. can't be more expensive ...

    let the poor-normal-people have their internet. go get your own.

    i can't fly (nature didn't make us to fly), so i build a plane.
    i hacked the univers. is it going to sue me (it's a safe plane!)? NO!

    NO for security, serious, WHY? Nobody knows anything of importance anyway.
    and if you're one of those who think just because you know something nowbody else knows, which
    makes you have a meaning in life, well, i can smell them from a mile away (and it's probably
    some bogus information like "i know who your wife sleept with", wah *yawn*).

    the only reason why you have to hide stuff, is like werner heisenberg said "Die Verantwortung des Forschers",
    meaning the scientist is responsible for his findings. some dummy (say military) would just get the plan and
    blow up the whole planet.
    science is funny: you can actually make stuff work, without understanding why it works.

    but if i hack your bank-account an make you a billion poorer, who cares:
    first: you got another 5 billion.
    second: i can't spend it anywhere else but here, this planet. ...
    maybe the huge-company guys just lament to the PUBLIC bout security. In realty they
    meet at the polo-club, eat lunch together and have a good laugh about the "security-issue".
    if this is true they invented 'security issues" because they are suddenly afraid the general public
    would start discusssing stuff seriously and would find out that they are actualy doing nothing ...
    the internet should stay OPEN! if you want to keep a secret don't tell, don't put it on a
    computer that's on a open network.

    MAEH, sometimes i feel sooo dumb ....

    1. Re:Evil computer-user by TheLoneWolf · · Score: 1

      The answer to all the problems is an open network, open systems, open Os' and open source. Then whats the challenge? where is the fun the game. Why would hackers, and crackers even bother script kiddies will always exist, but they are of no real worth talking about. WOW I CAN RUN A PROGRAM :-P in anycase this whole thing about the white hat hacker comming out, I dont see the big deal he knows things and can do what he wants and he came to a chat and talked. Not a big deal, it actually happens alot. Just they dont let you knwo who they are and they talk about stuff. Well in any case this cool because not many real hackers exist anymore, things have become too easy, or too difficult depending how you look at it.
      ~Ricky

      --
      ~Ricky
    2. Re:Evil computer-user by kongjie · · Score: 1
      science is funny: you can actually make stuff work, without understanding why it works.

      To take simply one silly comment from your opus, science isn't a special area in this regard.

      People enjoy music without understanding how to play an instrument, or even knowing which instruments are being played sometimes.

      People can enjoy foods which they have no idea how to cook.

      People can reproduce without understanding the process.

      If you were to try and understand how every process you are involved in works from the ground up, you would very quickly run out of time to do things and be paralyzed by a kind of analytical, investigatory paranoia.

  72. What about plaid? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You guys are being insensitive to the hats of color.

    1. Re:What about plaid? by marklark · · Score: 1

      ;^) Black is not a color, it is the lack of it.

    2. Re:What about plaid? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's light, not color. Idiot.

  73. Not anymore, we lost. Hacker does == Cracker by Nick+Driver · · Score: 1

    Face the music boys and girls. Hacker and Cracker are indeed synonyms now. We lost that battle. Time to move on.

    Even CowboyNeal knows that or he wouldn't have used "Hacker".

  74. Security by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A number of posters have stated that security is a boring biz. They could not be more wrong. I've been in this industry for 2 years, having moved over from networking for 3 years. That IS boring. Managing networks is mindless. Managing any router and switch is mindless at best and rarely challenging.
    Security IS a process, and because of that process, there are always new and exciting things to work with. I like working with people who are a hell of a lot smarter than I am. Some of the guys I work with are smarter than a tree full of owls and therefore I am constantly learning.
    I happen to manage firewalls for a living now, as well as handle DoS attacks and unauthorized access. Great job with no boundaries outside my willingness to learn whatever it takes to move up to the next level.
    People that say security is boring have a) never done it and want to and/or b) work in some lame help dick, er-- helpdesk position and are inflating their own self-importance beyond that of a phone jockey.

  75. relavant to all. by twitter · · Score: 1
    [free software on the desktop] ... is not relevant to a discussion about security. This is an attempt to slip ideology into a technical discussion. Back away.

    Nope, the use of free software is a practical security consideration on the desktop. Like it's "server" counterparts, there's a rational user model, greater choice, higher quality, easier upkeep and lower cost. These lead to greater security through extra barriers, diversity, fewer bugs and more time and money spent on things that matter. The ideology makes it this way but a consultant does not have to mention that in a short answer such as the one above. Anone who would ignore free software as an option on the desktop is blinding themselves for one reason or another.

    I may not be very bright, but I'm not blind and I use free software. This message was posted from a currently stable Debian box sitting behind a Debian packet filtering firewall. To the best of my knowledge, I've never been rooted and the strange things that used to happen to my Windoze computers don't happen anymore. This proves that free software, such as Debian and Red Hat, is not difficult to install or keep up.

    It's only a matter of time before places like Key Largo build up statistics that proving that free softare is more secure than it's comerical counterparts.

    --

    Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.

    1. Re:relavant to all. by Matthew+Weigel · · Score: 1
      rational user model, greater choice, higher quality, easier upkeep and lower cost.

      Yes, these are trivial matters compared to the power of auditing code for errors, open review of algorithm, and awareness of security issues to begin with. OSS allows the first two, but the trick is not whether it is allowed, but whether it happens.

      In a security-conscious group like the OpenBSD team, this stuff happens. At Red Hat, not so much. Whether or not it's OSS doesn't have much impact.

      --
      --Matthew
  76. So now... by Kelz · · Score: 1

    The white hackers are good?! Just another attempt to bring down the black man.

  77. YOU FAIL IT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    +1 funny

    -2 stupid

    -1 misspelling (e.g. obssession ... confortable)

    total: -2

  78. black hat/white hat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    it all sounds pretty stupid to me. do people actually refer to themselves in this way??

  79. ugh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm sick of this racist bullshit. Why do we have to differentiate ourselves by color? We left that notion behind back in the 60's.

    Black Hat = Afro Hat
    Red Hat = Native American Hat
    White Hat = Cracker-Hat

  80. Buzzzzzzz....what a sweet sound by Flackboy+Kevin · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Yes, it's I, the Flackboy. Glad to see that my piece generated so much dialogue. In the order of fairness, I should mention that I simply submitted the story to the editors - there's no conspiracy behind it's appearance, so go easy on the Slashdot staff, they made an editorial decision based on newsworthiness. Thanks to all for the compliments and criticisms.

    1. Re:Buzzzzzzz....what a sweet sound by Surak · · Score: 2, Informative

      FWIW, you didn't exist prior to the existance of this story. Not that it matters, the editors are probably just sloppy and lazy. Screenshot showing proof is here.

    2. Re:Buzzzzzzz....what a sweet sound by Flackboy+Kevin · · Score: 0

      Ummmmm...should my feelings be hurt?

    3. Re:Buzzzzzzz....what a sweet sound by Surak · · Score: 1

      Nah. Nothin' personal. Just proving a point.

  81. MOD PARENT -1, DEAD HORSE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Please never mod up discussions of hacker vs. cracker. Honestly, the dead horse is long since beaten into dust.

    Hacker is not the word it once was. Weep for it or move on in life, but please don't discuss it here.

  82. Questions to ask by t0ny · · Score: 1
    1. d00d, t311 uz guyz h0w suX0rz M$ W1nd0z3 2k3.

    2. d00d, free kevin.

    3. d00d, W1Nd0z3 suX0rz.

    --

    Manipulate the moderator system! Mod someone as "overrated" today.

  83. Re:WTF did 9/11 have to do with unsecure networks? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...news articles...reciting fact...

    hahahahahahahaha

  84. Give them the color test... by Dareth · · Score: 4, Funny

    If their terminal uses red text, they are definately evil black hats... but if it is green or blue then they are on the side of good and justice and are white hats.

    --

    I only look human.
    My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
  85. hackers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Crackers, not Hackers. Stop ruining genuine people's hobbies' good name.

  86. Re:WTF did 9/11 have to do with unsecure networks? by mdielmann · · Score: 1

    What do you mean, the digital equivalent of 9/11? The physical one wasn't enough? People were given extra time, or released from obligation, for their tax returns. Computer systems for many, if not all of the companies housed in WTC were crippled, as well as many things hosted there. Phone traffic in NYC was congested and crippled. Economic shock was incurred in part due to the human loss (which was actually small, just concentrated) and corporate disruption, but also from IS disruption of financial systems. You may not have heard, but redundancy is part of security. So, does it tie in? Yes.

    --
    Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
  87. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  88. nice question. by twitter · · Score: 1
    Would you recomend free software if it were known to be coded by someone with a record of putting malicious back doors in their programs?? Even if they swear up and down that they're reformed and don't do such naughty things anymore??

    I would not recomend any such sofware, free or not. I trust the people at Debian to filter out backdoors and spyware. That's something you can do when with free software. I will trust Sun and other reputable comercial software if forced to. I will never trust Microsoft which has backdoord multiple programs, written their EULAs so that they can continue doing this and don't alow 3rd party compilation and verification of their source code for any reason.

    A memory is a nice thing to have. You might consider using yours when chosing an OS to "touch any computer other than a goat box."

    --

    Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.

    1. Re:nice question. by Reziac · · Score: 1

      I'd trust the people at Debian, insofar as they show sense in what packages they include. I'd be disinclined to trust KewlPackage.by.IswearIamreformednow.blackhat.tar.g z, whether it arrived by way of a Debian disty or was downloaded from ftp.randomsite.com.

      As to M$, I trust some stuff more than others. DOS is as safe as it gets (BTW, source code for M$DOS 6.0 *is* available if you look around a bit :) I don't have a trust issue with Windows itself (insofar as internal blackhat type code) up thru Win2K, so long as one isn't fool enough to use M$Office or IE. (Tho I'm pretty sure W2K's revamped admin tools started life as the source package for BO2K. :) But XP's integrity is highly questionable, and what with various statements from Balmer and Gates, the next version will clearly be WinBB (Big Brother).

      As I've said hereabouts before, I prefer Windows as my desktop OS, but I sincerely hope something else is truly viable as a Joe User desktop before WinBB goes mainstream, because given the direction M$ is going, XP-noSP is the last one I'll ever use.. and I'll need something else for my clients, too.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  89. White Hat? Black Hat? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't care if your hat is neon green.

    A hacker is a hacker, and not worthy of any praise whatsoever.

    Whether they break in to a computer for the fun of it, to put up a web site that says 'omg i r teh l33t', or to forcibly patch an exploit that's been common knowledge for ten years, they're still in the wrong.

    Of course, this story is just one big orgy of semantics.

    Is this guy really a 'hacker'? I doubt he would be able to keep his day job. Oh, wait, hacker! Not cracker!

    So what's a black hat hacker than? Someone who writes bulk mailing software? Someone who tries to slip DRM into the Linux kernel? (Nooo! Not Linus!)

    Bah.

  90. how the hell would he know by maxpublic · · Score: 1

    Morse's company, Razorpoint Security Technologies does not employ hackers who've decided to come in from the cold.

    Exactly how the hell would he know? If you get caught, you weren't a terribly good hacker to begin with. If you don't get caught, then Morse wouldn't know dick one way or another what it is that you've done in the past, except for those things you decide to put on your resume.

    Max

    --
    My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
  91. 9/11 was a metaphor? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh, 9/11 was a _metaphor_. I see. So the hundreds of people killed were just...symbolic? Maybe the crushing collapse of two buildings was an artistic expression of the collapse of capitalism? Brilliant.

  92. nonsense. by twitter · · Score: 1
    ...auditing code for errors, open review of algorithm, and awareness of security issues to begin with. OSS allows the first two, but the trick is not whether it is allowed, but whether it happens. ... Whether or not it's OSS doesn't have much impact.

    Nonsense! The fact that software is free makes a huge difference.

    Free software is further ahead than comercial code and there is little chance of comercial code catching up. What kind of reviews do you think M$ Money got in Microsoft's big security hug. How about any of the other code that Microsoft has bought and rebranded? Do you think any of it was written in a way that even aproaches the Unix standard that free software is built on? Do you think people using pirated M$ visual C in Indian sweat shops are going to do any better? The very fact that a pudknocker like me is having this conversation shows the power of free software. We are more than eyeballs. We start from a better postition we care and we get good advice. People making comercial code start with nothing and bang out code someone else, generally clueless, tells them to write.

    The massive imbalence shows up in patching. When flaws are discovered, free software is much faster at fixing the problem. The people who cared about the software to begin and dozens of helpers swing into action and a fix is out in a few hours. In the comercial software world, you are lucky if the person who wrote the code even works there. If the poor devil does not get canned, he will have to refresh his memory because the company will have kept him busy with other stuff he may or may not care about. The result is that it takes the company days, weeks months or never to fix the problem.

    This all adds up. The comercial software writer is handicapped in the software he starts with and is outmaned and poorly motivated. This is why free software has such good uptimes and does so much more with your hardware. My silly little P90 laptop with 24 MB of RAM and 1 MB of video RAM has multiple desktops, ethernet, 802.11 and a 56.6k modem and supports a 5 Gig hard drive the bios never invisioned. Windoze won't even run on it anymore and the version it came with would never see the networking equipment, the hard drive or give me more than one desktop or accept x-forwarding. Sure, it can be broken into, but it takes more effort and skill than the average script kiddie's got.

    --

    Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.

  93. he may know how nyc is wired by rusko · · Score: 1

    ... and i know how my lan is wired. what does this have to do with security? never once did he mention anything about on-wire data, his penetration tests apparently involve nodes only.

    my money is on him not being able to penetrate a wet paper bag.

    paul

  94. Exaggeration by crucini · · Score: 1

    This is not true. You are absolutely free to examine and reverse engineer software products in order to find security holes. What the DMCA prohibits is traficking in circumvention devices. Very few security advisories have anything to do with copy protection. While I think the DMCA is a bad law, you are exaggerating its scope. If I'm wrong, please tell me what "in-depth" activities that really should be legal have been outlawed as "computer terrorism".

    1. Re:Exaggeration by paganizer · · Score: 1

      Pray tell me, what pit have you been hiding in since 2001?
      DECSS ring a bell? how about this article? or this censorware article? or even just a simple ping? the DMCA, Section 1201 (a)(1) prohibits unauthorized access to a work by circumventing an effective technological protection measure used by a copyright owner to control access to a copyrighted work.

      If you copyrite a image and place it on your website, and offer to sell this image, then state that anyone who pays for the image can go to the IP address of the website instead of it's URL and be able to download the image, and then someone runs a tracert or DNS query against your URL to discover the IP, that person is in violation of the DMCA.

      It's truly pathetic, Only Freenet can save us at this point. or a revolution, I suppose.

      --
      Why, yes, I AM a Pagan Libertarian.
    2. Re:Exaggeration by crucini · · Score: 1
      The impact of DMCA on DeCSS and censorware are valid concerns. However, they have nothing to do with the topic of my post. I was responding to this:
      So, anyone who really tries to understand the products their friends, family, or customers use is a black-hat, even though they are just trying to find security holes or hidden features.

      That statement is just not true. Read Bugtraq for several days. You will see many researchers doing exactly that - probing commercial software products for bugs and hidden features. That activity is not banned by DMCA. I think you'll agree that if they had the ability, software companies would shut down the full-disclosure world.

      Again, I'm not defending the DMCA. But it is not affecting the heart of the computer security community. You can set up Microsoft Exchange on your computer, probe it extensively for vulnerabilities, and publish a report showing a new vulnerability to the world. And the DMCA has nothing to say about it. But if you distribute a script to automate conversion of Apple's protected AAC files into MP3s, you're breaking the DMCA. While I'd like both those activities to be legal, the first one is far more important and integral to the security community.

      I though the image example was pretty far-fetched. You could write similar scenarios about almost every law. We've been living under the DMCA for several years now. Why do we have to imagine a nightmare scenario? Why don't we already have nightmare scenarios happening? Because if you examine actual DMCA cases, they are not as simple and innocent as your scenario. The defendants set out quite deliberately to break the security of a copyright protection system. They weren't just using standard tools in a standard way.

      I noticed that you closed your post on a note of despair. Things aren't as bad as you think. You are more likely to be killed by terrorists than to be arrested under the DMCA. The internet allows us to focus in on a Dmitri Sklyarov and feel his pain, while not realizing that every day Dmitri is in jail thousands are dying from car accidents, cancer, brutal dictatorships.

      The feeling that the government is holding its mailed fist over the heads of computer users, ready to smash us at any second, is understandable, but is not supported by the numbers.
    3. Re:Exaggeration by paganizer · · Score: 1

      My example is only slightly far-fetched.
      But your reply, while I completely disagree with it, was very well written; you have obviously reached your conclusions only after studying the situation fairly extensively.
      My thoughts that you have reached the WRONG conclusions do not prevent me from admiring the way the response was written, in other words.

      I do hate it when people I disagree with are better able to present their point of view, though.

      --
      Why, yes, I AM a Pagan Libertarian.
    4. Re:Exaggeration by crucini · · Score: 1

      Thanks. I think I share your horror at the arbitrary nature of the DMCA. Lately I have stepped back from sheer outrage to wonder how we can change things. The world we live in today is largely shaped by activist groups who clearly articulated their platform in a way legislators and the public could understand. So far, we haven't started to do that. We don't even have a platform - just a series of negative reactions to the other side's platform.

      If you look at the money politicans receive (on opensecrets.org) the amounts are laughably small. And yet we aren't able to scrape up these contributions, and present a coherent case to our legislators. When congress passed the DMCA, I doubt that any of them even knew there was another side to the story. And how often do we read on slashdot about harmful legislation just passed or about to be passed? Shouldn't we find out further in advance? We need our NRA, our PETA, our Christian Coalition.

  95. Laugh - Forget about it! by Corpus_Callosum · · Score: 1

    Your point would be valid, in an alternate reality where this "white hat hacker (cough)" did not have his chat advertised on Slashdot.

    But, alas, it was. And now, instead of 750,000 interested Slashdotters (as you claim), there are 750,000 * (boredom ratio) Slashdotters who will be planning some sort of cyber attack on the chat in question in order to show that they have stronger l33t fu than this sad "security guru" who, in his infinite wisdom, just bought a karma pass on the ride of hideous evil madness that is geek one-upedness.

    --
    The reason that it can be true that 1+1 > 2 is that very peculiar nonzero value of the + operator