Slashdot Mirror
The Seven Types of Hackers
Bruce Schneier's blog links to a nifty article listing the
seven types of malicious hackers. The list is: Cyber criminals;
Spammers and adware spreaders; Advanced persistent threat (APT) agents;
Corporate spies;
Hactivists;
Cyber warriors;
and Rogue hackers.
Script kiddies. (They believe they are hackers)\
The real pros. (The ones you never hear about)
Probably some others.
If I were God, wouldn't I protect my churches from acts of me?
They all think they're the "good" kind.
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
What about "Curious kids"?
Pro tip: When ever you see "APT," run in the other direction. That term belongs to Marketing now.
called the your a fooken lamer poster
Here are your suggested nicknames:
Script kiddies.
The Can't-Somebody-Else-Code-It? Hacker
The real pros.
The Gingerbread Men
And than you become one of those "Groovy" hackers. Groooooovy.....
I always considered myself a hacker in its original sense. Someone who modded an existing piece of hardware or software to suit their needs, or to work around an existing issue. My latest and most simplest "hack" is getting Froyo on my phone, since my carrier wouldn't send the update. Where am I on the list? Certainly not Hackivist. I guess I am now a "modder" or "homebrewer". I am afraid that the previous terms will be added to the hacker list, with the word criminal added in front.
"Ones and zeros were everywhere. I even think I saw a two!" - Bender
"From the partridge-in-a-pair-tree dept" -- did I miss a pun, or was "pear" just misspelled here?
(Yeah, I know, "ja wohl, mein dictionary" and all that.)
may 6, 2010. look for the photo in Wall Street Journal. Vice Admiral Joseph Maguire rang the NYSE opening bell, Maguire is deputy director for Strategic Operational Planning at the National Counterterrorism Center. Record high trading volume, dow drops over 1000 points... someone banked billions in an hour
8) Website devs who force simple articles to split unnecessarily across multiple webpages. They're in it for clicks and ad revenue, essentially scamming multiple banner-ad buyers into paying for the same article read. Here's an example.
So I take it we've abandoned arguing that the 'hackers' label is for sophisticated tinkerers and that 'crackers' should be used to label criminals.
Good. It was a stupid argument.
Are all hackers really evil? In my book I count all the usual wizards and programers or patchers as hackers. Even if they are helping and not trying to bring you down.
Does Rogue Hackers include all the roguelikes such as Net Hackers, Moria Hackers and Angband Hackers?
mod me funny
If they're conflating Wikileaks with hackers, then it's pretty clear to me that they either don't know what hackers are, don't know what Wikileaks is, or are riding the Wikileaks-hater bandwagon.
Scientists point out problems, engineers fix them
altslashdot.org: The future of slashdot.
from good to bad...
white hat, gray hat, black hat, and asshat
I don't remember where I originally heard this, known it for years, so sorry to the source.
From the article:
I'll grant that Wikileaks are activists. I'll also grant that they have some great hackers working for them. But what the article describes as "hacktivism" is not what wikileaks does. Wikileaks employs hackers defensively, to provide a secure system that guarantees anonymity for the sources who leak information to them.
Although there have been allegations made in the press by people who probably don't know anything about information security, I have seen no evidence that suggests that Wikileaks obtains information by cracking into systems. On the contrary, Wikileaks have always claimed to work by receiving information from sources who were privileged with access to the information, and who elected to leak it to Wikileaks out of duty to their conscience.
There has been, to date, no evidence brought forward which suggests that Wikileaks has ever broken into a system to extract information out of it. That isn't the way they do things.
There are "hacktivists" who do things like deface websites in order to publicize a cause, or DDoS attack some target that they disagree with. But that is not what Wikileaks does, either. Misguided sympathizers from "Anonymous" may have done some of these things in an attempt to aid Wikileaks, but that is still not something that Wikileaks does or endorses.
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
Angelina Jolie is suspiciously absent...
When you're killed by the letter "k"
when they were selling blueboxes?
"future millionaire" hackers?
There are only two:
- Fat, preferably beard
- Super-Slim, Glasses
Um, if you think that a buffer overflow is supposed to defend you, then you're even more wrong.
If you include in Wikileaks the people who are stealing the secrets and giving them to the organization, then Wikileaks are hackers. They're quite a bit less technical about their acquisition of data, but they are the most famous representative of the hacktivists subset of (cr|h)ackers that includes those who are more technical. If you prefer, you can always think Sneakers.
may 6, 2010. look for the photo in Wall Street Journal. Vice Admiral Joseph Maguire rang the NYSE opening bell, Maguire is deputy director for Strategic Operational Planning at the National Counterterrorism Center. Record high trading volume, dow drops over 1000 points... someone banked billions in an hour
How does it go? Something like "never attribute to malice that could be reasonable explained by stupidity" or something (because it weren't the guys that caused it the ones who banked them billions).
Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
...is a list of skill bonuses for each class, and we can start rolling up characters!
XD
You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
Um, if you think that a buffer overflow is supposed to defend you, then you're even more wrong.
That HAD to be a typo . . . somehow. Not sure how. I think he might have meant "firewall", but I just can't see how "firewall" could morph into "buffer overflow". Unless there's a buffer overflow vulnerability in your firewall? But then, as you so succinctly pointed out, that wouldn't help your network much.
Oh, the irony. I attempted to read the article, and I get "Site off-line".
Anyone think that he might have just won the "pissed off the hackers" achievement?
Transparent.
Why do reporters and writers everywhere keep doing this?
A hacker is a highly skilled computer programmer who loves doing neat things with computers or other electronic devices.
Just because he has the right skill set doesn't mean that he wants to steal your money/identity.
The correct term for any person that uses a computer in malicious ways is CRACKER. Get your shit together, people!
At this rate, true hackers will have to coin a new term to represent themselves.
...still supports the original sense as the primary meaning:
hacker |hakr|
noun
1 informal an enthusiastic and skillful computer programmer or user.
a person who uses computers to gain unauthorized access to data.
And, believe it or not, there are other meanings:
1.
: one that hacks
2
: a person who is inexperienced or unskilled at a particular activity
3
: an expert at programming and solving problems with a computer
4
: a person who illegally gains access to and sometimes tampers with information in a computer system
Since there is no other convenient synonym for Definition #4, it's hard to blame writers for using "hacker" as shorthand.
Although trained in different skill sets, they come together as a communal force to DOS sites.
God spoke to me.
There are only two types.
Those that you know about.
Those that you don't know about yet.
Thankfully, idiots make up 98%+ of the ones out there, but there are some that you never see, never know about, and are usually doing it as part of their normal job for whatever agency or government that is hiring them.
Of course, they aren't interested in us normal folk, so it's really us vs the idiots. And some days I wonder how they can be doing so well. Then I see my neighbor and it makes quite a lot of sense...
Well, to be fair, if you've followed Wikileaks you'd know that they've hacked a few email accounts at the New York Times and offered them advice on improving their security. Not exactly worthy of someone like the World's Number 1 Hacker or anything, but still within the definition of hacker. It's also well known that Assange is a former/current hacker and allegedly there are some within the organization as well. I'm not sure if Grimes knows about any of this, he seems kind of naive based on some of his responses to comments on his articles.
I thought that was supposed to mean the people who are "defending" Wikileaks, Anonymous et. al.
It's unfortunate that the writing isn't very good, because the point he's trying to make (the random troublemaker is different from the commercially motivated is different from the targeted attacker) is a pretty good one.
There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
Yeah, I'm not really diggin the list.
#1 "Criminal" is any law-breaker, which would be everyone on the list, except maybe "Cyber Warriors". Also maybe Hackticists, depending on if you consider "crime" to mean anything "socially detrimental".
#1a Maybe you meant for-profit criminals, which would still include Spam, Adware, and Corporate Spies.
#2 Spamming and adware spreading are two different activities. They may be of the similar low-hanging-fruit bulk-rate sort, but I don't know if they overlap.
#3 APT, wow what a horrible name. But after a wiki explanation, I think it includes anyone whose dayjob/hobby is to screw over a specific target. That would include subsets of Corporate Spies, Hacktivists, and maybe cyber warriors.
#6 What the hell is a "cyber warrior"? I think they were in Shadowrun.
#7 Rogue hackers is kind of a catch-all, but it includes subsets or splinter-groups of all the other types.
And yeah, missing from the list is:
#8 National Entities, with two flavors: "Yours" and "Foreign".
A Venn diagram would do wonders here.
The buffer overflow is there to offset the adjacent buffer underrun. It is a very delicate system.
I think what your referring to is buffer overflow protection. Buffer overflow is where data overflows your buffer and causes writes to unintended sections of memory. Buffer overflow protection simply checks to see exactly how full the buffer is and prevent any writes that exceed it. There is no way to use a buffer overflow to your advantage unless your a hacker.
There is a fairly large section of hackers that try to operate within the bounds of the law. There only goal is simply to "enhance" already existing software so that it performs the way they want it to. This is generally refereed to as game hacking. These hackers take advantage of software security holes to make the software perform in an unintended way. This often is applied to games for things like "god mode", "wall hacks", etc... While these hackers don't intend to be a threat they often expose threats, and create additional security holes that were not foreseen by software creators.
Sorry i forgot to mention buffer under run is where you are reading information from your buffer faster than you are adding information to the buffer. This problem usually occurs on cd-burners where this problem can cause permanent damage to the disk being written. But it does have instances where it can be an issue. The protection for this is simply to limit the speed that data is being read from the buffer. There is never an instance where buffer under run is good. and it can not be protected against with a buffer overflow. Using the one to protect against the other is just stupid. Each one needs it's own specialized form of protection and can they do not simply cancel each other out.
...I've ever seen on Slashdot.
Malicious hacker No. 5: Hacktivists
Lots of hackers are motivated by political, religious, environmental, or other personal beliefs. They are usually content with embarrassing their opponents or defacing their websites, although they can slip into corporate-espionage mode if it means they can weaken the opponent. Think WikiLeaks.
Right... 'Think Wikileaks' ?!??
Wikileaks don't hack anything. They offer an anonymous way of publishing information of public interest. Some of the information published on wikileaks is probably gained through 'hacking' (by which you mean 'cracking', but that ship has long sailed thanks to widespread ignorance).
Unless of course you deem journalism to be some kind of 'hacking' activity?
Seriously slashdot! Moderate this lame duck crap PLEASE!
Doc, Grumpy, Happy, Sleepy, Bashful, Sneezy, and Dopey?
I started my career as a "White Hat Hacker." I was hired by a large telecom to hack their entry points. Anyone?
In the 80's (before the internet) and before jargon was mixed up by casual computer users...
- A "hacker" meant someone who was proficent enough with computers (few people were at that time) that they typed really fast at their keyboard, usually writing code or scripts. Today a "hack" still means quickly written, not carefully thought out code.
- A "cracker" was someone who broke copy protection. Today that would include breaking network security.
I may be considered pedantic, but it would be good to retain the difference in meaning between the two words.
I wouldn't classify anyone on that list as a hacker. A hacker learns by trying, exploring systems and learning along the way. All of those descriptions were based on the premise that hackers are bad. For shame.
How can we even begin to discuss hackers without this video? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQ_SE71N3Bc
Sidenote: Slashdot's css has fucked up OL. Another entry for my user style. Great job, Slashdot. Great job.
UTF-8: There and Back Again
the conspiracies are thousands of times worse in the bond market, and people get away with hundreds of times more stuff there.
i just clicked the server, then hit his firewall and crashed his computer.
All cows eat grass!
And if all else fails, remove your RAM! There, problem solved!
Does it really matter? The security industry is obsessed in trying to define "the enemy" and portraying infosec as a battle ground.
It isnt!!! It's just some people trying to stop other people misusing their computers. You know, like groundskeepers keeping kids off the grass. The people "hacking" do it for all sorts of reasons. Understanding those reasons is not required to thwart them. Understanding the vulnerabilities is all that matters, the threat agents could be micky fecking mouse and donald barstard duck for all I care.
The only "threat" to our personal information, money, identity, national secrets, whatever - is a lack of due diligence. ALL successful intrusions are possible due to someone somewhere being slack, not the work of an evil genius. And contrary to popular belief, an "unhackable" network is completely possible - it's just costs more than the other type.
So while it suits large corporations and governments to paint themselves as under siege from a more capable, better resourced adversary. The truth is they are using it as a front to focus less on securing existing systems while they blow the budget on building new ones. All the tools required already exist. Only the man power to run them properly holds us back.
I was thinking the exact same thing. First of all, his definition of "hacktivist" is quite broad, so that even blogs or PETA-like sites could fall into that category. Besides, AFAIK Wikileaks just gives a channel to distribute classified information, it doesn't do the hacking themselves. Poor article really, don't know how such a smart guy as Schneier could link it...
What's wrong with the Buffer Overflow defense? Also, might I suggest that you try protecting your data from hackers with NULL pointers.
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
It says "Your guide to the seven types of malicious hackers"
Please note the word malicious
There are many more types of hackers, which are not malicious at all.
Atari rules... ermm... ruled.
There are 3 types. Whitehats, greyhats and backhats.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_hat
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grey_hat
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hat
Only the blackhats does nasty stuff on the net. FYI.