Slashdot Mirror
Everyone Is A Hacker In Training
An anonymous reader writes "Michal Zalewski was recently interviewed by O'Reilly's Onlamp. During the interview, he stated a belief that hacking is a state of mind. From the article: 'I don't think that (good) hackers have any special, hardwired mental abilities or specific personality traits, and I do believe you can easily learn to think like a hacker, even when you come from a different background.'" The interview goes on to discuss the overall need for better security in protocols and communications.
This sounds absurd. A hacker isn't a mentality, it's a set of actions. I may think like a mass murderer, but until I do it, it doesn't mean much, does it?
MacroHard - Boning you in a big way! (TM)
There is no skill involved in hitting things, just as there is no skill involved in running a "script". However even with a script and a punch you can still bring harm.
With training you can learn how and where to hit someone to inflict pain, debilitate them, or kill them. Just like anyone with an iota of programming knowledge can shutdown a server, destroy the data on it, or bring down entire networks.
Like martial arts, thankfully those that do know how to kill someone with their hands and those that do know how to do malicious things with a computer, do not do them. Anyone can write a virus, and knowing programming I know that you could make a very nasty virus to do very nasty things.
But that doesn't happen. Usually what happens is those who might know the tools of the trade or a few moves don't have the discipline. They lack the ability to know that "you can" is different than "you should".
However, there is no kung-fu quality of knowing how to "hack". There is a quality to knowing how a computer works, how they can be exploited, and how they can be repaired. It's the knowledge of computers that will get a person to a point in which they can contribute to the community, sometimes make money, and sometimes just get noticed.
Then there's the smeg-heads who are the l33tz0r hax0rts d00dz that ... don't get it.
Ignore the "p2p is theft" trolls, they're just uninformed
I agree that it's not always something specifically mental in that some people simply can do it and some simply can't (but some do have more natural talent). I disagree about personality traits.
I think good hackers tend to be obessive about what they hack - meaning that they eat, drink, and sleep the subject they are good at hacking at.
A lot of people these days tend to try to learn (too) many things and turn out to be more of a jack of all trades than an expert in a single subject (thinking of all those programmers who have to learn a new language everyother week) or simply can't concentrate on any one thing for longer than 5 minutes at a time.
This is my issue with college - many of which try to teach a wide variety of subject to a student that really only wants a specific degree (say in Math or Science related) - studies have shown that people tend to remember less than 15-20% of what they learned in school/college several years after attending so why force something that will only be forgotten later for lack of interest?
Genius - 1% inspiration, 99% perspiration. Morale: Prize Intensity over Extensity.
A genius that probably can't be replicated in everybody is a renaissance man who can excel in multiple non-related subjects - like Leonardo Davinci. But that still took some type of concentrated obsession.
From what I understand, a good "hacker" in the sense that he uses the word should probably be:
- Attentive to detail.
- Patient.
Finding bugs in software requires a lot of patience and attention to detail because often times you have to manipulate time and memory to get what you want..over and over and over again.
That said, FINDING bugs is tricky. Using or modifiying a POC off of bugtraq is not so hard.
Hacking is an art.... You don't just wake up one morning calling yourself a hacker. It takes years upon years to even learn the necessary skills. And "hacker" is a word that other people call you after you have proven yourself knowledgible in certain areas.
Not everyone can have the title hacker, its a name that you earn because you are very good in your line of work, not because your a wannabee and want to be called a cool name. Of course they all start out as wannabees anyway, but many never go through with their quest for knowledge and understanding.
And for you media-freaks out there, hacker does not mean breaking into another person/business's computer unauthorized, that would be a cracker. The media has tainted the word into something unwanted and looked down upon when it really means something very good (who doesnt like the quest for knowledge?).
I can see what means, but as always, it comes out wrong.
I know for a fact there are (intelligent) people that no matter HOW hard they try, they cannot program - it is just literally impossible for them, they just cannot grasp the concept. Maybe this is to do with the way some people's mind works or not, I don't know, but it has something to do with it.
Now to the 'hacker' bit. Anybody that can/does understand programming/concept is only one step away from being a 'hacker' (not a _cracker_ !). It is the next step after learning the base, and 'hacking' is the logical next step to learn more.
But as I said, not everybody has the ability, willing or unwillingly.
What makes you think that because you did something first means your efforts were any more sincere, valid, or superior to the efforts of the mainstream?
We had candles before we had lightbulbs, but I see you've hopped on the Electricity Bandwagon with the rest of us. Tool.
That's pretty much what Mr. Zalewski said. He specified that a hacker was a "skillful, passionate enthusiast" as opposed to someone who approached what they did as simply "just a job." Of course, he's speaking in the context of computers, but i doubt he'd be offended if that term was stretched into other areas of study/work. That's just my two cents.
(i didn't have a good referral link to put here, so i'll just leave this)
Even though he states that (good) hackers have any special, hardwired mental abilities, I disagree.
From the article: What I wanted to achieve is to show how to think creatively and see problems that go beyond textbook examples
This is exactly what I've always thought good hacking was all about - creative problem solving. I agree that good hackers go beyond a textbook or class work in order to solve problems, but I also think this is an ability that some have and others just don't. Good problem solvers can be found way beyond IT. It's the same as people that are considered good "handymen", for lack of a better term. Give them a problem, be it move some heavy furniture or fix something that's broken and they'll come up with a creative solution, even though it initially looked impossible to solve. I'll even bet that some hackers are considered good "handymen" around their neighborhood.
I've noticed for a while that the term "hacker" is generally considered a vague, legendary and elusive title which supposedly only a very few godlike souls are ever able to attain or become worthy of. ESR seems to have led the charge in perpetuating this pretentious tripe, but it is a belief which sadly a great many people seem to be afflicted with.
How do I define a hacker myself? Someone who:-
(a) Has sufficient knowledge of a particular system/topic (and although use of the term normally applies to computer related areas, it has been colloquially lent to other fields) that they are able to employ a degree of intuition when solving problems in said area.
(b) Performs said problem solving in an improvisatory, rather than formal, manner.
(c) Has a tendency to develop solutions to problems which involve surrealistic associations. By that I mean that their solutions will involve combining objects, ideas, or processes which would not ordinarily go together.
Contrary to the common belief, this doesn't require being a god, either. It generally doesn't require too much more than at least a basic level of intelligence and familiarity with the area in question. So given that, yes, pretty much anyone who has any level of proficiency in anything could call themselves a hacker if they wished to do so.
ESR's claim of, "you're not a hacker until somebody else calls you one," implies to me that *he* anyway is somebody who forms his self-perception on the basis of other people's assessments...a rather questionable idea, to my mind.