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.

Comments

Missed some

[Capt.DrumkenBum]

Script kiddies. (They believe they are hackers)\
The real pros. (The ones you never hear about)
Probably some others.

Re:Missed some

[dkleinsc]

You're just being paranoid. Those government agencies don't exist. And if you don't believe me, just ask them.

Wait A Second

[mattwrock]

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.

Re:Wait A Second

[jgrahn]

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.

You're a hacker in my book. Those others are not. And I'm surprised that Slashdot has started using the word *exclusively* to mean criminals.

Re:Wait A Second

[_anomaly_]

Why exactly do those listed not fall under the category of malicious hackers?
"Hacker" is only used as a negative word in this context because of the adjective "malicious".

Missing option

[blair1q]

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.

I've always broken it down by "hats"

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

innacurate re: wikileaks

[Junior J. Junior III]

From the article:

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.

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.

Maybe you should have an editor read this one, Rog

[Minwee]

"If you think simply having a buffer overflow, fully patched systems, and antivirus will defend against all hackers no matter their objectives, you're wrong."

Um, if you think that a buffer overflow is supposed to defend you, then you're even more wrong.