School Teaches 'Ethical Hacking'

Yardboy writes "A Yahoo! News/Reuters story discusses students in Los Angeles paying $4,000 to attend 'Hacker College' and become 'Certified Ethical Hackers'. Apparently: 'Instructors race through topics like symmetric versus asymmetric key cryptography (symmetric is faster), war dialing (hackers will always call late at night) and well-known TCP ports and services (be wary of any activity on Port 0)', and the president of the college: says 'What we attempt to do in our classes is teach how the hackers think.' Hmmm, perhaps 'Certified Script Kiddie' would be a more accurate designation."

Comments

dumb answer

[JeanBaptiste]

ICMP

Re:great..

[armando_wall]

Another one who bites the media dust.

You refer to cracking. Hacking means knowing a system more than you need to. Enjoying it is optional.

Grrr!

[Hassman]

Ya know, I used to hate it when people would bitch about subimitting a story and getting rejected...then a few hours later it gets posted from someone else.

Well, now I understand. I submitted this story earlier this morning. WTF? To everyone else who has been hosed on and rejected... I now feel your pain.

*tear*

Sorry for the polemic

[bluethundr]

10 out of 10 Terrorists agree - Anybody but Bush in 2004

Sorry, couldn't let that one go past.

The terrorists are very likely to want Bush in the Oval Office. House of Bush, House of Saud details the business relationships between the Bush family and the Bin Laden family, as well as the ruling Saudi family. Bush's military record was enough to label him a "deserter" by Michael Moore. To whit, the White House released a censored version of Bush's military record. What was censored? Curiously, it was one name: that of James R. Bath. We know this because copies of the GW Bush Military record from 2000 still show his name. It was censored post 9/11 due to the fact that James Bath was a buddy of GW's from the military. After the military, Bath went into the Aviation business and his first business deal was to sell an airplane to Osama's brother. This is all a matter of public record. Since the early 70s, the Bin Laden's (second wealthiest family in Saudi Arabia) continued to funnel money to Bath, who in turn funded several failed oil business of GW's. GW was great at drilling empty wholes that didn't provide any oil. When GHW Bush (first president Bush) was in Office the Carlyle group invested a TON of money into what would turn out to be ANOTHER failed oil business captained by Baby Bush. Several Bin Ladens sat on the board of Carlyle. Since then, Saudi oil money has funneled roughly 1.5 BILLION dollars per year to Bush, their family and friends. If you're being paid $400,000 dollars a year to server the American people and another group is paying you $1.5 billion (with a "b") per year, whose interests do you think you would represent?

The only problem is that Saudi has a public face and a private face. The Prince is the public face, and his brother is the minister of the interior who fosters the furtherance of their wahabist culture. They (the Wahabis) run the schools and religious instruction of the youth in that country. As early as 3rd or 4th grade, children's textbooks start to refer to America and the West as "The Great Satan". The Princes' brother is funneling money to those people that run the schools.

In the time since Iraq had been invaded AL Qaeda has grown in size, power and organization. America's military structure is still geared towards a cold war way of thinking. Al Qaeda has been able to morph into a true Information Age culture, using the web, cellphones and other technologies to conduct their horrors. The real focus of the "War on Terror" needs to be on Afganistan and the Wahabi's in Saudi. While we have few qualms invading Afganistan, there is simply NO WAY a Texas Oil Man who sits on the throne America Tis going to jeapordize America's relationshiop with the Saudi's. Whose total investments per year represent roughly 7% of the total American economy. No way. The war in Iraq is nothing more than a distraction on what SHOULD be the war on terror. Don't fool yourself.

Ethical Truth? How About Ethical Film Makers?

[rm3friskerFTN]

J. Michael Straczynski's Babylon 5 "Illusion of Truth" episode leads one to speculate JMS is aware of how "truth" might not always be ethical truth ... remember that Dan Randall (the b5 ISN news reporter) was very truthful ... he just strung the facts together in an unethically truthful way

From

"Illusion of Truth" plot summary (spoiler warning)

From a second "Illusion of Truth" plot summary (spoiler warning)

From a thrid "Illusion of Truth" plot summary (spoiler warning)

And finally a fourth "Illusion of Truth" plot summary (minor spoiler warning)

Ed Koch (democrat mayor of New York City from 1978 to 1989) might agree there is a need for "Ethical Film Makers"

Disagreeing with America's foreign policy and seeking to change it, responsibly or irresponsibly, is a fundamental right protected by the First Amendment.

Shaming those who do it irresponsibly [unethical Moore?] is our only lawful recourse and rightly so.

Senator John Kerry in criticizing United States' foreign policy and the incumbent president is acting responsibly, albeit I disagree with many of his views. On the other hand, Michael Moore, writer and director of the film "Fahrenheit 9/11," crosses that line regularly. The line is not set forth in the criminal statutes, but it is determined by Americans who know instinctively what actions and statements taken and uttered violate the obligations of responsibility and citizenship they deem applicable in time of war.

Franklin Roosevelt (president of usa during ww2) might agree there is a need for "Ethical Film Makers"

And, finally, there are a few among us who have deliberately and consciously closed their eyes because they were determined to be opposed to their government, its foreign policy and every other policy, to be partisan, and to believe that anything that the Government did was wholly wrong.

To those who have closed their eyes for any of these many reasons, to those who would not admit the possibility of the approaching storm--to all of them the past two weeks have meant the shattering of many illusions.

They have lost the illusion that we are remote and isolated and, therefore, secure against the dangers from which no other land is free.

In some quarters, with this rude awakening has come fear, bordering on panic. It is said that we are defenseless. It is whispered by some that only by abandoning our freedom, our ideals, our way of life, can we build our defenses adequately, can we match the strength of the aggressors.

I did not share those illusions. I do not share these fears
[snip][snip][snip]
But there is an added technique for weakening a nation at its very roots, for disrupting the entire pattern of life of a people. It is important that we understand it.

The method is simple. It is, first, a dissemination of discord. A group--not too large- a group that may be sectional or racial or political--is encouraged to exploit its prejudices through false slogans and emotional appeals. The aim of those who deliberately egg on these groups is to create confusion of counsel, public indecision, political paralysis and, eventually, a state of panic.

Sound national policies come to be viewed with a new and unreasoning skepticism, not through the wholesome political debates of honest and free men, but through the clever schemes of foreign agents.

As a result of these new techniques, armament programs may be dangerously delayed. Singleness of national purpo