Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

NY Times On Spam Zombies

Posted by Zonk on from the creddiiiiit-caaaaaardssss dept.

A discreetly valorous slashdotter writes "The NY Times is featuring a story about the growing armies of spam zombies. It focuses on New Jersey teen spammer Jasmine Singh. Choice quote: 'Hacking in its purest form is not about compensation or about wrecking a Web site. Hacking in its pure form is to show what you can do.'"

8 of 166 comments (clear)

  1. From BugMeNot.com by Silverlancer · · Score: 3, Informative

    Username: loser1234
    Password: loser123

  2. Re:Subscription Shmubscription by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    bugmenot.com will give you passwords to use to get around lame registration requirements

  3. Holding systems hostage... by dancpsu · · Score: 3, Informative

    In one recent case, a small British online payment processing company, Protx, was shut down after being bombarded in a zombie attack and warned that problems would continue unless a $10,000 payment was made, the company said. It is not known whether the authorities ever arrested anyone in that case.

    Where would they send the money? This is like a kidnapping scheme. There is far too much involved when you actually want something back from the person you commit the crime against. You would think they would be easier to catch.

    --
    "Scientists don't change their minds, they just die." -- Max Planck
  4. That's exactly right... by Omega · · Score: 3, Informative
    'Hacking in its purest form is not about compensation or about wrecking a Web site. Hacking in its pure form is to show what you can do.'
    That's it exactly. Hacking is about putting your skills and knowledge to the test. Such as kernel hacking or writing a device driver without any specs.

    Cracking is about breaking into a system. It might require some hacking, but it can also be done by script kiddies.

    1. Re:That's exactly right... by rpdillon · · Score: 2, Informative
      Eh, I'd say the media drove the "newer" definition, and it is therefore the definition "normal" people buy into. That doesn't mean the old definition is invalid by any means.

      Actually, wikipedia has a pretty damn good entry for the word.

  5. No typing required option by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    http://www.nytimes.com.nyud.net:8090/auth/login?US ERID=loser1234&PASSWORD=loser123&URI=http://www.ny times.com/2005/06/24/technology/24zombie.html

    Uncheck "remember me", press login.

  6. Wouldn't that be discreetly INvalorous? by 3l1za · · Score: 1, Informative

    Since a coward is the opposite of one exhibiting valor.

  7. Re:Irregardless, it's not like anyone cares by The_Wilschon · · Score: 2, Informative

    You're quite correct. It doesn't make you any smarter. However, it does have a few positive effects:

    You don't sound like a 15-year old who slept through elementary school English class, which in turn gains the respect of other people, which in turn helps you to do a lot of things, among others, get a job.

    Other people understand what you mean. It is true that in most cases it is fairly trivial to infer the meaning, but there are cases in which both the phrasing which was actually used and the phrasing which was intended form logical, sensible sentences. In this case, the meaning becomes ambiguous.

    In answer to your question "Who cares?", many people do. Your professors, publishers, potential (and current) employers, people you do business with, just to name a few.

    --
    SIGSEGV caught, terminating

    wait... not that kind of sig.