Slashdot Mirror
Inventor of Proxy Firewall Blames Hackers
An anonymous reader writes "SecurityFocus published an interview with Marcus Ranum, the inventor of the proxy firewall. It's an interesting reading, and the end is even better:
Truly, the only people who deserve a complete helping of blame are the
hackers. Let's not forget that they're the ones doing this to us. They're the
ones who are annoying an entire planet. They're the ones who are costing us
billions of dollars a year to secure our systems against them. They're the
ones who place their desire for fun ahead of everyone on earth's desire for
peace and the right to privacy."
with their hair and thier clothes, and thier music! I can't stand 'em!
time is a perception of a being's consciousness
time is your 6th sense, the wierd ones are 7+
Truly, the only people who deserve a complete helping of blame are the
hackers. Let's not forget that they're the ones doing this to
us. They're the ones who are annoying an entire planet. They're the
ones who are costing us billions of dollars a year to secure our
systems against them. They're the ones who place their desire for fun
ahead of everyone on earth's desire for peace and the right to
privacy."
Ok, but swap a hacker's desire for fun with a software companies
desire to make money without properly taking responsiblity for
securing their product and one could also write:
Truly, the only people who deserve a complete helping of blame are the
software companies. Let's not forget that they're the ones
doing this to us. They're the ones who are annoying an entire
planet. They're the ones who are costing us billions of dollars a year
to secure our systems against them. They're the ones who place their
desire for profit ahead of everyone on earth's desire for peace
and the right to privacy."
It is like a credit card company saying that if someone breaks into
their systems and steals my credit card number, that is my
responsibility - or maybe it is the hackers fault. Well sure, it is
my fault for using a stupid bank, and the hackers fault for committing
the crime - BUT SURELY the bank has to take some fault for making this
whole possible - right?
Blame Canada
bieng the inventor of said firewall they have most asuredly paid your bills for sometime.
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
How dare a large american mega-corperation that wants to keep our private data on their systems and make money off selling it have to spend any money protecting it.
Yes hackers are a pain in the arse, so are spam merchants. Thats life, live with it.
In other news the inventor of the Yale lock blames thieves for the invention of the lock, which irritates us daily.
"They're the ones who are annoying an entire planet. They're the ones who are costing us billions of dollars a year to secure our systems against them."
Hmmm.
He is also 100% wrong. No one wants to live in a world where we have to lock our doors. Everyone wants to live freely without worry of being taken advantage of. It is absolutely the fault of the "evildoers" that we must put locks on our windows and worry about the footsteps following us down the dark, reeking alleyway.
But it is also our own responsibility to be sure that we can prevent people from taking advantage of us. This means that we must have those locks and firewalls. To neglect this is to essentially invite attack and intrusion. And if it isn't at the hands of one group, it will be at the hands of another.
We don't live in a perfect world, so it's important that we have adequate locks.
Rome builds shitty wall, Emperor blames failure on existence of barbarian hordes.
It'd sound fucking ludicrous to read that in a history book, it's no less ludicrous to read that in a modern context.
Dude, grow a pair.
Perhaps five or ten years ago it would have been plausible to say that computer criminals were largely breaking into others' machines for fun -- but even then, as Clifford Stoll discovered, there were exceptions. Then it turned into more of an organized enterprise. People controlling most of the infected machines on the Internet are NOT doing it out of curiosity or fun: They are doing it for power, and exploiting that for criminal enterprise.
In the past years, we have seen profit-seeking criminals discover how useful insecure systems are to them. The major disruptions now are not caused by simple thrill-seekers.
programmer => hacker
criminal hacker => cracker
criminal non-hacker => script kiddie
"Truly, the only people who deserve a complete helping of blame are the hackers. Let's not forget that they're the ones doing this to us. They're the ones who are annoying an entire planet. They're the ones who are costing us billions of dollars a year to secure our systems against them. They're the ones who place their desire for fun ahead of everyone on earth's desire for peace and the right to privacy."
Is it just me or does this sound like a Onion story?
Sit... Speak.... Shake.... Good Dog!
"Locks only keep honest people honest." Such is the same with all security measures. Anything that is created by man can be defeated by man.
Cliff Claven
K.E.G. Party Chairman
Founding Leader of: Koncerned for Egalitarin Governance
Virus writers, crackers and their ilk are the predators and pathogens of the Internet ecosystem. They kill off the weak and make the rest stronger.
What would you prefer? An Internet full of weak hosts, with a wealth of unexploited security holes and weakly configured security systems, where your security is left up to the good will of others (everybody just play nice now)? Or one where leary vendors and service providers stand in constant vigilance over security issues, because they have to. The wolves are circling the herd.
What would happen if all the 'hackers' just went away? Everyone would get complacent. Security holes would proliferate, until the temptation just became too large and someone takes it all down in one fell swoop.
I don't know where to begin on this one.
If there weren't any burglars around, I wouldn't have to lock the doors of my house.
If everyone would abide traffic rules, the need for airbags etc. would vanish.
This guy is not only complete missing any connection with the outside world, he also forgets that there are thousands of people working in the (IT) security industry, making a living. It may sound silly, but we keep our economy going this way. This is why there are so many economists/therapists/lawyers/communication advisors/etc. around.
I feel like feeding the troll here. Time to knock it off...
*gollum, gollum*
As nice as it is to think that the world would be in perfect harmony without hackers, it is little more than a pipe dream. Throughout history, humanity has been plagued by the selfish nature of its constituents ('human nature' just does not jive with the 'common good'), and that is a fact I would argue is on par with Death and Taxes. We as a society have to be realistic here, and we as the geek community, the developers of software, have to take the responsibility to make high quality, secure software, because you just can't trust the public. Wasting our efforts by complaining about hackers is foolhardy.
I'd rather be cycling.
I agree with you. Sadly though (in this particular instance), languages change, and word usages evolve. (Anyone remember when you could actually use the word "gay" to mean "happy"?) The hoi polloi have taken the word away from the Hacker (in the traditional sense) community, and made it into something else. We just have to move on, I guess. Given that you're already no longer allowed to correct people's spelling, grammar, syntax, be it on the Internet or even at work, might as well let semantics go down the drain with the rest of it all... /vocabulary nazi off
Well, I guess they did prepare us for more serious infrastructure threats, e.g. information warfare, organized crime etc.
I'd rather have an army of citizen-lamers spend decades breaking into our computers for fun, prompting us to build up an immune system.
Xcott
I see every day the results of poor practices, shoddy software, and just plain old stupidity when it comes to security. Fix those first, then worry about the hackers.
LOAD "SIG"
RUN "SIG"
Obviously this guy has never heard of espionage. *Most* (not all) hackers/crackers get in, poke around, and leave. I've known a few that actually fix shit on the way out, and leave friendly notes (though I think more highly of the do no harm crowd).
The *REAL* danger are corporate spies who not only want your secrets, but also plant spyware, or destroy infrastructure to hamper a competitor. There is also the growing instances of state-sponsored computer cracking whereby poorer nations (particularly the axis-of-evil states) seek to leverage the power of attacking information infrastructures instead of the physical infrastructure. Remember, the US didn't take down the Soviet Union by dropping bombs and shooting bullets. We bankrupted their ass in a nice game of 'keeping up with the neighbors'.
The idiot who comes in with a lit cigarette is doing nothing wrong and, supposedly, didn't intend anything evil. You're a moron for spreading kerosene all over the house. The cigarette dude isn't to blame. This is just an unfortunate incident caused by owner neglect and stupidity.
Not so with the hacker. The hacker might know the owner neglected to have decent security on his system but he's still entering the system with malice in mind.
You can call a home-owner ignorant for not locking the doors of the house but the thief who waltzes in the front door and steals the TV is still a prick and is the one who should be punished.
Even though I am on the defensive side, trying to keep my servers safe from crackers, script kiddies and so on, I do apreciate these groups for existing.
If they didn't exist, I would really have felt much more unsafe from espionage and the prying eyes of national and international bodies.
From my stance, confidential information must be very well protected, and if you put available on the internet, you better have secured it or face the consequences.
By knowing that crackers exist, you might hessitate to put important and confidential information online, imagine how it would be if everybody only talked about cracking as teoretically possible!!! Spies would never tell what they do, they would be everywhere! Knowing your accounting, your secret papers, everything, for nobody would care to improve the security of their products from something that was only teoretical... All the good guys would have no privacy whereas only the black hats would be able to move around as they liked.
Face it - the world have all kinds of people - angles, devils, and all sort of people in between. To be hit by someone who expose you is many times better than to be hit by those who simply abuse the information without any words.
In a related story, the designer of the Great Wall of China blames Mongols.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
What I really find interesting about this Thievs/Hackers analogy is that you never hear people telling the victims of Theives that they should have had three deadbolts on the door, or saying "shame on you you don't have bars on your windows, of course you'll get broken into."
It never ceases to amaze me how much blame is laid at the feet of the users. I know running an email attachment executable is really stupid, but alot of other exploits are the equivalent of using a crowbar to break your windows. Thieves get serious jailtime and the police work to find them and they are considered the only ones to blame. In the PC realm, hackers go largely uncaught and unpersued by the athorities, and the user gets told its their fault.
He's correct in his assessment of blame. The people who hack systems, break stuff, spread viruses and bot networks etc are 100% responsible for their actions. They are violating laws left and right with no regard for others.
Yes, insecure code, a lack of a firewall or antivirus software opens you up to potential attacks, or not having the latest security patches. However that doesn't excuse an actual attack.
By the reasoning of most of the posters here, unless your home is as secure as fort knox, anyone who breaks in and steals stuff isn't really to blame... I mean, come on, you could have protected your house better. Put in pressure plates and motion sensors. Try a laser grid on the floor. Armed guards, time sealed doors, attack dogs etc. Anything less and, geeze, you're practically inviting them in to take your stuff!
That's what the Internet is like. You really have to lock up your system like Fort Knox to keep yourself safe. Even then, the burglar could find a spot in the security system that isn't fully covered and get in that way.
The ONLY secure machine is one that is sitting in the corner, surrounded by a lead box, not connected to any network or power supply. A useless machine really.
Those who attempt to maliciously exploit vulnerabilities deserve every once of blame you can possibly assign to them. I personally want to kick the guy in the balls that did the Blaster worm... took weeks to get my old workplace cleared of that thing. Just because it is POSSIBLE to exploit something does not mean you SHOULD exploit it. Too many people online use the reasoning that if it's possible it should be allowed.
> Have you never heard the saying "Your freedom ends
> where my nose begins"?
"The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins."
-- Oliver Wendell Holmes
The actual quote implies that a spirit of self-restraint is necessary in order for the concept of "rights" to be applicable to all.
The common misquoting as reflected in your post turns the individual responsibility around.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
To say hackers are evil is like saying germs, viruses, and carnivores in general are evil. By merely acting out Adam Smith's society being benifited best by each acting in his own best interests (adapted by John Nash to include societal interests for best outcome), we are keeping in step with mere nature.. A dog will forage for food, defend it's food, and kill it's food, so that it can stay alive. A rabbit will defend against other rabbits if need be (though they'll generally run away from anything else).
A patron is looking for a good deal, and will expend effort to maximize their deal, so sloopy wording on a sign on your store-front are invites to a natural onslaught of fiscal frustration. By natural, I mean there is no evil intent in people trying to keep you for your word in maintaining a good bargain (that you didn't intend).
If there is money on the street, it is conceivable that:
a) the original owner will never find it again
b) someone else will take the money
So you justify taking the money yourself.
If you are hungry, you might be inclined to take two samples at a free food-sample kiosk. It's unfair as it goes beyond the intent of "sampling" and takes away from other's (since there is usually a set amount of sample provided for the day).
In reality, those that are sheltered from such harsh survival of the fittest environments will EVENTUALLY meet with that environment.. It is impossible (short of death) to avoid it. Thus the question is not IF we will meet our challenges, but when, and how quickly will the difficulty level rise.
For those with assets we fear to loose (time,money,posessions,intellectual property, etc), it is natural for them to be saught by others. Having a public wiki is valueable advertising real-estate (or a personal repository for globally accessible content). So grafiti, being merely a primitive form of marketing, is bound to happen. Bank accounts are an obvious point of content.. If you happened to come across money on the street, you are more than likely to take it. If your ATM machine started allowing you to withdraw cash w/o deducting from your bank account, there is a better than likely chance that you'll take advantage (anonymous theft when it is considered to not overwhelmingly harm someone else - proportionate loss/gain - is often self justified). There isn't much difference from taking from that ATM machine and taking from an online bank account that you've happened by. Yes there is a greater issue of proportionality (you might be stealing from someone poorer than you), but you might think to yourself (I'm teaching them a lesson).. What-ever the cause, an otherwise moral man may find themselves tempted.. To say nothing of the mafia.
And ultimately organized crime is the tyrannasauras of our internet age. The mafia being only one form of it (unfriendly governments being an even more serious threat). The age of mafia and internet "WAR" (literally between nation-states) is only a matter of time.
So if our "evolution" through natural selection and adverse environment does not "toughen" us enough to sustain such natural phenomena, then we will die (or at least the medium will die).
So lets look again at these "evil" hackers. Many of the hackers were self-professed white-hackers, or anonymous exposers. If you are inclined to see if a WEB-INF directory or IIS-specific file-set are visible on a public site, you can either email their sys-admin who might sue you for hacking, or simply ignore you (like MS tries to do with serious security alerts so long as the general public is oblivious), or you can make it a priority for them... Deface their web site, delete lots of their database records.. Make it too expensive for them NOT to resolve the issue.
These are altruistic people. Slightly less altruistic are those that advertise themselves 3l33t hacker-names advertised here and there. As they have the fun and recognition-factor of it all (especially if they get CNN coverage).
Embrace th
-Michael
pi = 2*|arg(God)|
happy => gay
homosexual => deviant
closet-case => priest
Yeah, go on. Mod me -1. I've got Karma to burn, and if you're so easily offended, perhaps you should turn your computer off. This is a humorous post to demonstrate that words change over time and the OP should learn to deal with it or move to France (where they have a department to try to keep the language pure).
The "bad guys" (don't want to call them hackers because of the debate about that term) are not going to just go away because we give them mean looks and call them poopheads.
...), we will have to do that on the Internet.
There are three types of motivation:
1. The excitement and fulfillment that comes from understanding a system and finding the holes in it, and often leaving your mark so others know you were there.
2. Political and ideological motivations -- a desire to educate people, and punish the "enemy".
3. Economic motivations. This includes both advertising, and theft/scams.
The trends started at (1) and are increasingly moving towards (2) and (3). Ironically, the technology generated by (1) is being used by those whose motives are very different than the type (1)s.
The only way to fix this is to reduce the openness and anonymity of the Internet.
I repeat:
The only way to fix this is to reduce the openness and anonymity of the Internet.
Just as we had to find a balance between privacy and security/integrity in every other aspect of society (e.g. telephones, credit cards,
"The major disruptions now are not caused by simple thrill-seekers."
Please name one serious, high-profile hacking case (to include authoring viriii & worms) in which the perpetrator was caught and didn't turn out to be a teenager or a still adolescent 20 something.
Inside jobs don't count.
I'm sure there must be a few but I honestly can't think of any.
Not to say that there aren't real bad guys out there... they just don't seem to get caught despite all the money thrown at computer and network security.
Speaking as a sys admin for almost 20 years, most hacking has been a source of annoyance (and sometimes amusement) rather than serious damage. The oft quoted "billions & billions of damage due to hackers' is a load of crap as far as I can tell. Kind of ike the y2k bug was.
They don't frighten me. The internet was never designed for privacy to begin with. If that's your aim then paying to "hack in" extra security is the price you pay.
And you know what...? sometimes the cure is even worse than the disease.
I read somewhere recently (sorry, can't remember where) where someone (a security "expert"?) criticized a nuculear power plant's network security by saying something along the lines of "they're so backward they aren't even connected to the internet". Sounds like good security to me.
Security isn't about stopping somebody who wants to be malicious to a system and have fun with that.
.. but don't say we wouldn't want it otherwise. Firewalls are a good thing...
Its about protecting information that you otherwise don't want unauthorized people to have access to. its about espionage, its about privacy. Its about making sure you know if somebody is just looking on your system. Honestly a server can be replaced if it gets fried by some hacker trying to hurt it, and there are backups. But you'd never know if somebody went in and just invaded your privacy and looked at all your things and then left it completely clean right?, not without something like a firewall or some sort of logs and security system set up.
So yeah go blame hackers for making us think of the idea
Who makes you Sig?
Why in the world would he be bitter-- hackers and criminals keep him employed and have made him somewhat of a known figure. I understand his frustration at the lack of real morality in some people, but the bitterness is a bit over the top.
Let's look at it another way-- do you really think Batman would be happy if Gotham (or the world) were rid of crime? What would he do?
Or yet another point of view-- hackers are actually helping the economy. They have created a new market in security which creates jobs, revenue and all the other economic benefits. As Gordon Gecko might say "Hacking is good!"
To expand this a bit-- without crime there would be no need for a police force. Without war there would be no need for a military. What would we do with all that excess production capacity?
*tounge firmly planted in cheek*
They're the ones who place their desire for fun ahead of everyone on earth's desire for peace and the right to privacy
How can someone be clueful and clueless all at once... Desire for fun....that did not steal 40 million credit card numbers. Everyone on Earths desire for peace and right to privacy? Tell that to the Chinese who are told what ports they can or can not secure to allow for "public monitoring" This guy is lost.
Computer criminals and black-hat-hackers are as much a fact of life as rain showers in Seattle, earthquakes in California, flus in winter, and accidents on highways.
...) is very much to blame. In fact, it should be possible to hold liable for negligence.
Security isn't an accidental byproduct of software, it is one of its primary functions; if software doesn't provide security, then it is defective. That's just like if you buy a padlock, you have an expectation that it actually works as a lock. The padlock manufacturer can't say "oh, well, our padlock doesn't work, but that's really the criminal's fault".
Any vendor that puts out software that contains easily avoidable security holes (like buffer overflows, backdoors,
The problem, as I see it, is that since "software" is such a new concept (compared to houses, locks, etc) that people and society haven't settled on REASONABLE steps to secure things vs. UNREASONABLE steps.
For example, if I wanted to, I could easily break into the average person's home. It just isn't that hard. Does that mean they "failed" to secure it? I would think not.
There is no such thing as "perfect" security. It will always be an arms race between malicious people (or misguided non-malicious hackers) and the people trying to protect their systems.
Now this is just a sad justification and can easily be turned the other way-- If it had been organized crime that started hacking, the governement would probably take it more seriously than it is now, with laws and penalties to match. The tools would have been developed anyway, so it's really a non-issue.
Besides. Hackers have been doing serious damage from day one. Besides just breaking into networks for "curiosity sake" they've been planting worms, trojans, trolling entire credit card data bases, commiting DDoS attacts, etc etc. No, not all of them, but enough to make the OPs point a ridiculous one to even attempt to justify.
You need a FREE iPod Nano
I often go out and leave all the doors open and piles of money lying around and it's amazing how few people are sympathetic when someone steals all my stuff.
Technically his statement is correct, however prima facia, its a foolish one. As its been said elsewhere in the comments it implies that if it were not for 'hackers' systems would be 'safe'. However as is the case with companies looking to cut every conceivable cent, there would be no security otherwise. "Why bother locking the doors there are no criminals to steal my possessions!"
This sounds merely like an argument for altruism and security thru obscurity (which of course doesn't work). Why would a company try to harden against problems, even if caused my a mistake, if there is never any pressure to think there would be a need?
Would a civilization wonder if there is anyone else out in space if they can see no stars? Problem is without external pressure, people get sloppy. Of course people are sloppy to begin with. Imagine the extent of the credit card problems we have seen in the past months if there was no security at all? Its a poor argument really.
The grandparent and parent both touch on something important. The vandal/repairman example comes straight from Hazlitt and is indeed an old fallacy. People see the new improved and rock-resistent glass and they say 'now that's progress'. What they don't see is the resources the shopkeeper had wanted to purchase with the money that had to go to the new window. The shopkeeper could have spent that money to become more efficient or expand. Or as in Hazlitt's example, bought a new suit. Then the tailor would have had more resources to put into play.
The window repairman, much like the parent poster, probably thinks rock-resistant windows and proxy firewalls are an excellent investment. When we look at the long list of technologies that changed the 20th century, many/most were developed at least in part to help wage and defend warfare. One might deduce that warfare is a creator of value. Yet war is always a destroyer of value. It is the allocation of resources that could be more suitably employed.
Let's set the record straight: "Hackers" refer to those of us who do wonderful things with the hardware and software. "Crackers" are those who seek unwarranted entry into other people's systems, usually for malicious intent.
I am a born bonafide *hacker*, and have been so for the past 27 years. I, on the other hand, am NOT a *cracker*, and I would like to see them on the business-end of a (insert your favorite weapon here). Recovering from the damage crackers have caused me and others is no fun, eats valuable time, and forces me to focus on things that are not productive, but necessary to keep them out.
Ruby Neural Evolution of Augmenting Topologies
Thought I'd mention a bit of history (long since forgotten) that Marcus Ranum was also the author of the UberMUD and UnterMUD, mud engines. Two very nice mud cores, written in K&R C that ran on Ultrix. Both had their own strengths and weaknesses. UberMUD was my favourite, as it had its own scripting language called "U". UnterMUD didn't so it was harder to develop on, but its filestore backend was much smarter than Uber's. A union of the two would have been the perfect MUD engine IMO.
I mean sure...the crackers DO cause all the problems, but you have to develop a system that allows for the existance of the inevitable. Yeah, communism is a great idea, but unless it can be modified to account for the fact that there will be people trying to leech off the system, it won't go very far. Similarly with computers: it's a bit foolish to complain that we wouldn't have to have information security if we didn't have all those darn criminals cracking our computers. There will always be people who want to leech because they're selfish, and there will always be criminal crackers. Part of running a society, or a computer system, is making it resilient to those that don't follow the rules.
The criminal, on the other hand, is still a criminal in this scenario because he violated the owner's house/car/computer, and no plea of "trying to protect by demonstration of vulnerability" is possible. In other words, breaking and entering is never a "favor" rendered.
When you buy a product, you expect the same due diligence in quality, truth in advertising, and utility of the product. If the producer deliberately produces an inferior product, lies about it, or if it does not live up to its utility, that producer may be subject to at the least, ridicule, and at the most, financial or criminal liability. On the other hand, someone who deliberately breaks a product has a reduced, and probably no, claim against that producer.
A hacker who draws attention to a weakness in a product may actually be a hero; however, one who deliberately breaks things or breaks into places without permission is nothing more than a criminal.
You should be expecte to install updates on your system, as the basic precaution.
;-). This way they could ease the users burden in the defense of their PCs. Of course their users would complain that their really cool (spyware laden) browser toolbar doesn't work anymore, and they'd get angry. Wait, I was defending the users wasn't I? Oops.
To follow along with this analogy. But with my house when I install a new deadbolt I'm done. With a PC users need to install a new "lock" every month.
I just find the amount of crap users are expected to do just to keep their machine usable is amazing. Everyone is expected to be an expert and they're not. In the real world Brinks will outfit your house with a security system, install it, manage it , the whole nine yards. With PCs the user has to do all the maintenance, all the management.
It suprises me that there aren't more ISPs offering a fully blocked and monitored service to customers (wait I should patent that idea
It depends on where you live. In some cities/countries/parts of the world, you are expected to have three deadbolts on the door, or some other security features. Otherwise you end up paying very high insurance fees.
There is one thing that you forgot to mention in your analogy: collateral damage. If a thief breaks into your house and steals stuff, then you may have lost something but your neighbors should still be relatively safe. But with the Internet, if some cracker breaks into your PC and adds it to his botnet, your PC will soon be inflicting significant damage on your neighbors. Although the cracker is the one to blame for starting it, the lack of security on your PC will have contributed to the collateral damage.
Let's take another analogy and replace thieves with fire: let's imagine that because it is cheaper or easier, you decide to build your house using highly flamable materials. You live in a densely populated area and several of your neighbors decide to build their houses from highgly flamable materials for the same reasons (or some company starts selling prefab houses made of flamable materials and even gets a near-monopoly on that). Now comes a pyromaniac who sets your house on fire. Bad luck, in a few hours the whole city is destroyed or damaged. Now do you really think that the only one who will be blamed is the one who started the fire? I expect that some people will also complain about the damage caused indirectly by their neighbors.
You could think about other analogies in the same vein, for example if houses could be built easily without solid foundations and if they could start falling down on each other like dominoes. I expect that some people would not be happy to have their neighbor's house falling on their own house, regardless of who pushed the first domino.
-Raphaël
consumers want to blame companies
companies want to blame hackers
hackers want to blame developers
developers want to blame users
users blame whoever the media tells them to blame.
there is some truth to what is being said here. sure early hacking showed the developers they had to pay some attention to security. but couldn't that be done in a controlled environment? why? because that way innocent people wouldn't be put out. there are people losing identities and money because of theives (i say 'thieves' becuase a hack where you steal is a theft - sorry everyone but that's the law).
so continue to point your own finger when a finger is pointed at you but at some point some culpability must be had.
nature loves variety::society hates it get your variety at http://www.monkeypantz.net
Get over the last paragraph, morons, and RTFA!
It's FAR more insightful than any of the comments I've seen bitching about the "blame hackers" paragraph - which was preceded by "blame everybody else" sentences anyway.
You guys sound like the big media press whenever somebody gets caught faking or running false stories - "Oh, woe is us! Somebody is blaming us for being idiots! We're such a poor, put-upon industry!"
Deal with it!
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
sPh
In a perfect world, maybe. But everything in the world we live in is driven by conflict and competition, not the betterment of our fellow man, not the betterment of our world, not even the betterment of ourselves.
Until that changes, war is indeed a creator of value, because it's unlikely that many of those advances would have been made otherwise. All we know of space exploration is founded on advances that were originally made to kill people. Nuclear power came after nuclear weapons.
It's nice to imagine a world where there is o conflict and there is no competition. That world is probably also without technology, however.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
It is NOT "hackers" causing all those problems with the internets that Dumbfuck McCumstain so laments. (Yes, I AM being really insulting and offensive to Marcus Ranum! He's been really insulting and offensive towards me and my fellow hackers.)
It is thieves and vandals causing all those problems.
Hackers invented the micro/home/personal computer. Hackers invented the diverse protocols that allowed these machines to talk to one another. Hackers invented the operating systems. Hackers invented the Internet. A hacker invented the World Wide Web.
Thieves and vandals merely took advantage of what hackers have invented and shared with the world. Took advantage and turned these tools to an evil purpose. Not hackers, THIEVES & VANDALS!
The language changed some time around the early to mid eighties, when Hackers became synonymous with Crackers.
If you can't handle a 20 year old change to the English language, you shouldn't be allowed near computers. Unless you're only planning on programming in Cobol.
Get over it.
Coming soon - pyrogyra
They're the ones who are responsible for companies needing to buy the software that the company who employs me produces... thus giving me a job.
To the hackers:
Though you annoy me... my lifestyle thanks you.