Slashdot Mirror


Wi-Fi Pineapple Hacking Device Sells Out At DEF CON

darthcamaro writes "At the recent DEF CON conference over the weekend, vendor were selling all kinds of gear. But one device stood out from all the others: the Wi-Fi Pineapple — an all in one Wi-Fi hacking device that costs only $80 (a lot cheaper than a PwnPlug) and powered by a very vibrant open source community of users. Pineapple creator Darren Kitchen said that 1.2 Pineapple's per minute were sold on the first day of DEF CON (and then sold out). The Pineapple run Linux, based on OpenWRT, is packed with open source tools including Karma, DNS Spoof, SSL Strip, URL Snarf, Ngrep, and more and is powered by g a 400MHz Atheros AR9331 MIPS processor, 32MB of main memory and a complete 802.11 b/g/n stack. Is this a tool that will be used for good — or for evil?"

80 of 132 comments (clear)

  1. Holy False Dichotomy Batman! by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Funny

    I, for one, am imagining a world where a large number of mass-produced devices, sold to a large number of different parties, can be used for both good and evil at the same time. Blows my mind; but there it is.

    1. Re:Holy False Dichotomy Batman! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      can be used for both good and evil at the same time.

      What's the difference?

    2. Re:Holy False Dichotomy Batman! by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Interpretation.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    3. Re:Holy False Dichotomy Batman! by davester666 · · Score: 1

      Perp or victim?

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    4. Re:Holy False Dichotomy Batman! by schnell · · Score: 4, Informative

      vendor were selling all kinds of gear.

      1.2 Pineapple's per minute were sold

      The Pineapple run Linux, based on OpenWRT, is packed with open source tools

      I, for one, am imagining a world where a Slashdot "editor" can parse the English language and fix typos. Blows my mind, but there it is.

      --
      "95% of all Slashdot .sig quotes are incorrect or completely fabricated." -Benjamin Franklin
    5. Re:Holy False Dichotomy Batman! by Thanshin · · Score: 2

      The difference in distance from yourself of the people favored and unfavored by the action.

      Which is closed differentiates good and evil.
      The shorter the distance, the greater the evil and the smaller the good. And vice versa.

    6. Re:Holy False Dichotomy Batman! by FatdogHaiku · · Score: 2

      I, for one, am imagining a world where a large number of mass-produced devices, sold to a large number of different parties, can be used for both good and evil at the same time. Blows my mind; but there it is.

      gooevil (goo-we-vil) adjective:
      good and evil at the same time

      This will vastly improve the communication accuracy of Professor Hubert J. Farnsworth (e.g. "Gooevil news everyone!")

      Well done sir!

      --
      You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
  2. Re:According to the government by cheater512 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Then the FBI places an order for 1,000 of them.

  3. "Yes" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Is this a tool that will be used for good -- or for evil?

    There is only one answer to this: Yes. Yes it will.

    Too bad packing its functions up in an easy appliance means it now no longer has anything to do with "hacking" at all. You aren't a "hacker" if all you do is run some appliance.

    Might as well call yourself a master baker for using a bread baking machine... or even a toaster. Well, no, no you aren't.

    That the security industry claims otherwise means that they are deluding themselves... and us. We're not getting our money's worth in security out of their efforts. But we do get nice toaster equivalents, complete with instant "hacker" label. Nice, innit?

    1. Re:"Yes" by Opportunist · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It kinda hurts to admit it, but yes, you're right. Most of the security industry is a bunch of charlatans who are unable to produce more than cheap tricks to impress those that know even less than they do.

      Every time we're about to hire some security consultants (which we have to, regulations require us to have my security system tested by outsiders) I kinda think I know how Penn&Teller feel when they host "Fool us". Only that the amount of half-talented stage magicians who show off ancient tricks is way higher for me.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:"Yes" by Tom · · Score: 2

      And what stops you from sticking with the good ones?

      It really is the same in every professional career. You hear much the same about lawyers, doctors and mechanics - the good ones are hard to find. In IT security, it is comparatively easy, just check what they publish.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    3. Re:"Yes" by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Sadly, it's kinda hard to convince Bruce to fly over to Europe at a rate my boss is willing to pay...

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    4. Re:"Yes" by Tom · · Score: 1

      Contact me by mail (tom@lemuria.org) and tell me which country you're in. I am in Germany and I have a couple contacts to pretty good people in several european countries. And if they can't help, they can point you onwards.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    5. Re: "Yes" by blibbo · · Score: 1
      Might as well call yourself a master baker for using a bread baking machine... or even a toaster. Well, no, no you aren't.

      Call myself a toaster? Sure; why not?

    6. Re: "Yes" by Fnord666 · · Score: 1

      Did someone mention toast?

      --
      'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables
    7. Re:"Yes" by laffer1 · · Score: 2

      Not only do I agree with you, but I have an example. Many years ago, I worked at an ISP as a sys admin. It was very early in my career. I had no college experience, and I was starting to learn to program and administer servers.

      We were hired by a credit union as security consultants. They needed an audit of their new online banking system. The first thing I did was run Retina against their public server and a few script kiddie tools I had. I found that they had no firewall, an open SQL Server with no sa password and some very ugly IIS defaults. In 45 minutes, I had a script to dump their account data and list tables in their database. The sales guy asked me to print a few pages of that and he drove over and dumped it on the CU president's desk. It was very dramatic and fast, and we were then hired to setup a firewall and secure their network. We were never allowed to look at that VB code for their web app. Looking back, I wonder what I missed.

      Reading 2600 and having a few apps lying around does not make me a security consultant. Of course, I can say I legally hacked a bank but in reality it's really lame.

    8. Re:"Yes" by nucrash · · Score: 1

      A good pen tester has to not only give you results to what he is doing, but also inform the company of how to fix what they are doing wrong. An example would be something as simple as upping their password complexity. Use Enterprise WPA2 instead of Personal WPA. Lock off your ports or lock up your switches. Upping password complexity. Opportunist is correct in that there are the security testers who just invade and churn out a report that says: blah. These guys get paid, but aren't worth much. Many of them probably don't understand the tools they are using or how they work. The problem is, the security industry really doesn't have much credibility yet. There have been improvements. But as with all gold rush opportunities, there has been a flood of applicants claiming they know what's going on. This is the same as any industry though. Security is picked on, not unfairly mind you, because a lot more money is tossed around.

      --
      Place something witty here
    9. Re:"Yes" by Basje · · Score: 1

      Spam was a problem ten years ago. Get with the times.

      --
      the pun is mightier than the sword
    10. Re:"Yes" by pnutjam · · Score: 2

      His security is so rock solid he isn't worried. Kind of like that lifelock guy and his SS #.

      In all seriousness, there is nothing wrong with publishing an email address. They used to have books that listed everyones phone number, imagine that world.

    11. Re:"Yes" by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      The only thing I can say to that without breaking an NDA is "Yep".

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    12. Re:"Yes" by stoatwblr · · Score: 1

      where have you been for the last 10 years? It's still a problem even if it's not in _your_ inbox anymore - and it's MUCH more complicated than you might think to keep it out without blocking wanted mail.

    13. Re:"Yes" by Tom · · Score: 1

      lol. Where to start?

      First, you are an idiot if you think that the common obfuscation stuff will stop harvest bots. Seriously, you are.
      Second, my mail address is all over the net already. It doesn't matter if I post it to one more board. I've had this address for 15 years, it is in publications I've published, websites I run, e-mails, forums, pretty much everywhere.
      Third, obfuscation is not security. ;-)
      Fourth, I didn't advertise my own services, but offered to make contacts, so even if in some strange parallel universe this says anything about my expertise, it doesn't matter.
      Fifth, because of the law of five: fnord

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    14. Re:"Yes" by Tom · · Score: 1

      His security is so rock solid he isn't worried. Kind of like that lifelock guy and his SS #.

      Back in the days when I was doing SELinux work, I did in fact go to conferences, plug down my notebook, get an IP address, pick up a piece of paper, write the IP and the root password on it in large letters and pin it to the wall above my place.

      Fun days. :-)

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    15. Re:"Yes" by Tom · · Score: 1

      Actually, yes.

      Since most security customers doesn't allow the consultant to talk about what he did and for whom, papers and advisories give me an indication of their skills. Or lack of same.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
  4. A Minus Minus - Not a Pineapple by Artea · · Score: 5, Funny

    Instead of wireless enabled fruit, device is actually just some plastic and electronic bits. I was under the impression this device would be concealed in a pineapple for stealth hacks. (Nobody suspects the fruit with an antenna)

    1. Re:A Minus Minus - Not a Pineapple by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 5, Funny

      (Nobody suspects the fruit with an antenna)

      This was conclusively proven in a Hogans Heroes episode - except it was a WW2-era walkie-talkie hidden in a potted plant.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    2. Re:A Minus Minus - Not a Pineapple by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Talk about a security device going bad...

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    3. Re:A Minus Minus - Not a Pineapple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I am really not sure what is funnier:

      1. "conclusively proven in a Hogans Heroes episode"
      2. the Insightful mods that followed
      3. "Pineapple" was the nickname for a US handgrade
      4. This all rode in on a 93 Escort Wagon

    4. Re:A Minus Minus - Not a Pineapple by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1

      Funny... when I heard it was called a pineapple, I presumed it looked like this:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MkII_07.JPG
      Of course, that's not going to help for stealth; I think anyone seeing one of those lying around is probably going to notice, duck and run (and then call out the bomb squad).

    5. Re:A Minus Minus - Not a Pineapple by thunderclap · · Score: 1

      what! I wanted a wireless enabled fruit! I mean Apple has never produced any wireless or wired apples. Just things with apples on them. A red, apple shaped router would have been awesome and a conversation piece. Just think no one would suppect hacking with a pineapple sitting beside your laptop. (they would just you are crazy in starbucks. Damn, there is the perfect wifi hacking toolcase. A starbucks mug!)

    6. Re:A Minus Minus - Not a Pineapple by Minwee · · Score: 1

      I was also disappointed by that, but then realized that it is small enough that, with a little creativity, you could put it _inside_ a pineapple.

      Cooling might be a minor problem, and the smell of Hawaiian pizza may tip people off to the illicit contents of the fruit basket which was just delivered, but at least it wouldn't need a pineapple-shaped sticker to justify its name.

  5. Some security experts are idiots by TubeSteak · · Score: 2

    Going a step further, if a Pineapple user is inside a coffee shop (or office location), the research can execute what is known as a "deauth" attack, essentially disconnecting the end user from legitimate access point, then reconnecting him or her to the Pineapple.

    However, some security experts say that weaknesses in WiFi and user behavior need to be identified and weeded out in order to make organizations more secure. If the Pineapple is able to help security researchers do that, they say, than it will improve security for us all.

    As a user, how the fuck can my behavior be modified to deal with a deauthorization attack?
    WiFi has become so stupid simple to use that it leaves us vulnerable, despite all the encryption in the world.

    --
    [Fuck Beta]
    o0t!
    1. Re:Some security experts are idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Use a VPN. Either a paid one or a home one will do. If your connection is encrypted to a known safe point (the VPN provider), then it doesn't matter that they can sniff your traffic. This is why I have my machine set up to disconect from wifi when it can't connect to my VPN.

      Mind you, this isn't a solution to the problems of WiFi, but is a solution to that particular attack.

    2. Re:Some security experts are idiots by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Some? SOME? Most of them are!

      Old joke: You can tell by how the techs three-piece suit fits whether he's a hack: If he wears one, he is.

      But seriously, it's by no means short of frightening how many quacks and hacks (and I don't mean that as a compliment...) litter the field. Which is quite logical if there is little if any reputable and generally accepted (especially amongst management) certification system. And don't come with things like CISA and the like, I am not looking for a security manager, I'm looking for someone who can actually test a security implementation, not design it.

      Now add that the average manager knows little beyond how to plug some device relatively accident free into some hole on his computer and you can easily see how knowledge free idiots who can navigate the surfaces of some "hack tool" (I'll use the term loosely here) can convince said managers that they are "security experts". In the kingdom of the blind and so on...

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    3. Re:Some security experts are idiots by sjames · · Score: 1

      The problem is the delusion that managers don't need to know anything about what they manage. It's created a class of basically worthless MBAs that nevertheless get paid more than the people who have a clue what's going on.

    4. Re:Some security experts are idiots by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Reminds me of something I saw a while ago during a job interview.

      Applicant: Well, what do you do here, anyway?
      Boss (surprised): You don't know? You want to work here, right?
      A: A good manager can manage everything, no matter what.
      B: And a good manager also knows that he should do his homework before getting into a meeting. Thanks for your time, no need to call. NEXT.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  6. Hide your kids, hide your wife by PhotonSphere · · Score: 1

    ...or just disable auto-join.

    Keep an eye out for DEFCON 21 t-shirts in your local coffee shops this next week...

  7. Re:According to the government by Opportunist · · Score: 2

    So... considering the more recent events... does that mean it is good?

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  8. Python offers self-defense against fresh fruit... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    3rd Man: You could stand and scream for help.

    Sergeant: Yeah, you try that with a pineapple down your windpipe.

    3rd Man: A pineapple?

    Sergeant: Where? Where?

    3rd Man: No I just said: a pineapple.

    Sergeant: Oh. Phew. I thought my number was on that one.

    3rd Man: What, on the pineapple?

    Sergeant: Where? Where?

    3rd Man: No, I was just repeating it.

    Sergeant: Oh. Oh. I see. Right. Phew. Right that's bananas then. Now the raspberry. There we are. 'Armless looking thing, isn't it? Now you, Mr. Tin Peach.

  9. Convenient, but still overpriced by evilviper · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I can see buying one for the convenience of having all the software pre-installed for you, but the specs for the hardware aren't any different than a dozen home WiFi routers, which can run OpenWRT and sell for $40.

    I'd think giving those aging home routers a second life as security tools would be better than everyone buying another new product for twice the price, and eventually throwing both away. I recently added a USB sound card on mine, for use as a streaming audio player.

    --
    Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    1. Re:Convenient, but still overpriced by Demonantis · · Score: 4, Informative

      I have met Darren. He is a pretty decent guy. The hardware isn't what people care about. Its the software package it comes with. You can basically mitm wifi cards. Its based off of Jasager so anyone can do it. He did a show about setting one up. Its just lazy people buying the whole kit and he probably sold out cause he was selling them at a discount. This isn't news in any regards though. These have been around for years. Last time I saw one it was white. Hak5 finally getting a wikipedia page that would be news.

    2. Re:Convenient, but still overpriced by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Of the ten or twelve routers I've bought over the years, only one has had a USB port and it doesn't run Linux. Most of us don't have a useful AP with USB just lying around, even if we are enthusiasts.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:Convenient, but still overpriced by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      The problem with buying random routers off eBay is you never know what you are going to get. Linksys are the worst, often having several very different hardware revisions under the same model number. As such you can't be sure if the one you buy will have the chipset you are expecting, and thus be able to run all the exploits you want and so forth.

      For the sake of simplicity I don't think $40 for a guaranteed working and pre-installed solution is at all bad. If you waste an hour with your off-the-shelf router it would have paid for itself.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    4. Re:Convenient, but still overpriced by evilviper · · Score: 1

      Most of us don't have a useful AP with USB just lying around, even if we are enthusiasts.

      A decent number of people here specifically look for routers that can run some kind of Linux firmware before buying. There's really no reason NOT TO these days, since they're just as cheap as the worst junk hardware. And it's a great fail-safe even if you don't plan to use it, as you're in good shape even if the manufacturer's software is complete junk (like that D-Link).

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    5. Re:Convenient, but still overpriced by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      A decent number of people here specifically look for routers that can run some kind of Linux firmware before buying. There's really no reason NOT TO these days, since they're just as cheap as the worst junk hardware.

      Well, my reason not to has been that I didn't have a cellphone with data, and I buy most of my APs at yard sales. But now I do (albeit GPRS) so I can look up router compatibility...

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    6. Re:Convenient, but still overpriced by Demonantis · · Score: 1

      So this peaked my interest in putting together one of the new pineapples. The router they use is here; http://www.data-alliance.net/servlet/-strse-642/Alfa-AP121U-802.11n-AP-fdsh-Router/Detail. About $46. Although anything with a Atheros AR9331 I think would work. You also have to have a JTAG for it.

    7. Re:Convenient, but still overpriced by evilviper · · Score: 1

      *piqued*

      I'm not usually a pedant, it's just that your wording broke my brain for a good 5 minutes...

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  10. frsit grammer nazi pozt by Hognoxious · · Score: 4, Funny

    1.2 Pineapple's

    Their what?

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  11. Logging in to say... by sockman · · Score: 1

    I hope it can be used for evil, because "good" these days amounts to a circle jerk with NSA, DEA debauchery. Your privacy is yours to own, and if other people begin to realize how screwed they are maybe they will choose a better path.

  12. You might want to check the security first... by spinkham · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Sure, get your wifi pineapple, but I've already got a wifi pineapple buster.

    --
    Blessed are the pessimists, for they have made backups.
  13. Already been done - in a coconut by PassMark · · Score: 1

    Old news, they have had wireless devices in coconuts for years. Maybe they are expecting better antenna diversity from the rough end of the pineapple, I dunno.
    See, http://goo.gl/VoirWo

  14. Second grammer nazi pozt by skirmish666 · · Score: 1
    • the vendor were
    • Ngrep, and more
    • powered by g a 400MHz Atheros
    --
    Sigger than your average
    1. Re:Second grammer nazi pozt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Not seeing your point about the second one. Comma is optional. That is the problem with prescriptive grammarians - half the time they themselves don't understand the rules they try to force on people.

  15. easy by Tom · · Score: 2

    Is this a tool that will be used for good â" or for evil?"

    Both, like any tool. Next question.

    --
    Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
  16. Re:Overpriced, have some slightest creativty? by PerformanceDude · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Not lazy, just time poor. Some of us security professionals haven't got the time to play with distros, find the right drivers, mess around with package levels , find a proper sturdy case and all the rest. We just need a tool. Even the most expensive version of the Pineapple is less than half of what we charge per hour. I only spend time building my own hacking tools when I'm doing something out of the ordinary or if I have to make a hacking device look like it's not one. The things the Pineapple does is just pen-testing for dummies - but sadly, often that is enough to get through. I always start with the basics and move to more complicated attacks only if I have to. Same as any other genuine blackhat out there.

    --
    Meus subcriptio est nocens Latin quoniam bardus populus reputo is sanus callidus
  17. I'm obviously missing something... by necronom426 · · Score: 1

    I don't know anything about this type of device, but looking in from the outside, the question springs to mind "How is this legal?"

    It's for hacking into networks, right? Isn't that against the law, like, EVERYWHERE? It says "Stealth Access Point for Man-in-the-Middle attacks" - that sounds illegal. It also says "Easily concealed and battery powered " - nothing dodgy going on there!

    How can this be used for good? Maybe a few people may use it to test the security of their network, but that's clearly not what it's for.

    I'd have thought that the police would be all over this, but like I said, I'm obviously missing something.

    1. Re:I'm obviously missing something... by N1AK · · Score: 1

      It's perfectly legal to use it with permission. Now we can debate just how likely it is that it's main market is for people who are only going to use it, with permission, to test security and demonstrate security risks, but it does have a legitimate legal use. Should we be able to ban products because a lot of their use will be to do something illegal? What threshold should we set? How do you observe and measure the proportions?

      Ban it and someone will release a blank version with the ability to download the software instead. Ban that and someone will produce guides on how to produce one and sell the parts. Ban that and people will buy off the shelf bits and find plans online.

    2. Re:I'm obviously missing something... by necronom426 · · Score: 1

      If that's the case, then why not sell bombs in kit form at the show?

      It looks like they sold out because they were ready made and you could just pick one up. I doubt a lot of these people would have got one if they had to research it, buy parts, build it, etc.

      I can understand government and professional organisations having things like this, but not for them to be unregulated and available to buy from a stall. It seems crazy to me.

    3. Re:I'm obviously missing something... by necronom426 · · Score: 1

      Yes, very good.

      But if the book was actually called a "Terrorist Training Handbook", you might have a point, but the hacking thing is advertised as a device to hide on yourself and to hack with.

  18. Re:pineapple by thunderclap · · Score: 1

    so, what's the dealio? is the whole thing packed into a real pineapple, or what?

    No its packed inside a plastic lime thats inside a plastic coconut. They just call it a pineapple because it confuses the f*** out of the authorities.

  19. Re:MODERATOR ALERT by thunderclap · · Score: 1

    So 'framing' Karma is bad now? pretty bold statement from and AC. I think it looks like you are complianing where there is no problem.

  20. Retro 2008 by chill · · Score: 3, Informative

    Wow. This was news when they were released back in 2008. It is interesting to see the devices becoming popular again.

    Back in the day they were demoed by putting the little unit and batteries in a novelty plastic cup shaped like a pineapple. The lid had a hole for a straw that was just the right size for a wifi antenna.

    You can buy those cups on Ebay and in party stores.

    --
    Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
  21. Re:Overpriced, have some slightest creativty? by Gothmolly · · Score: 1

    Calling yourself a 'genuine blackhat' and a 'security professional' immediately disqualifies you from both, AND makes you sound like a douche.

    --
    I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
  22. Re:Overpriced, have some slightest creativty? by PRMan · · Score: 1

    He's not calling himself a black hat. He's saying that he might as well test the same way that a black hat is going to hack.

    --
    Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
  23. No grasp of F/LOSS concept? by SplatMan_DK · · Score: 4, Informative

    While you claim others "don't get the concept", you seem to have totally missed the cornerstone of how F/LOSS is monetized.

    It makes perfect sense for someone knowledgeable and skilled to assemble exactly the right hardware components, and compile+install just the right F/LOSS software components, into an easy-to-use appliance, and sell these at whatever price point the market is willing to pay. People are not paying for the "licenses" they are paying for the labor that went into combining all the supplied pieces together - and perhaps also for getting future support and developmen. In other words people are paying for professional services in a nice and understandable package.

    I have no idea why you feel the need to bash this concept with such contempt, but this approach is just about the most popular way to monetize F/LOSS on the planet. It is also shows the clear strengths of F/LOSS: that anyone can take the software, modify it, expand it, improve it, and share it with all other customers without negative impact to the original supplier.

    If you want to take the software and install it on a PC, go right ahead. Feel free to install other drivers in the process. Make a laptop-version and share it as much as you like. Go right ahead. But while you may be perfectly willing to spend loads of time on this, others may not. Not all network experts want to mess with assembling their own hardware. Or spend endless nights compiling new versions of [insert-whatever-FLOSS-component-here] just to make a brief packet analysis in the field. It is not trivial to compile and combine all the right F/LOSS products included in the packaged mentioned here and some people are happy to pay someone else to get that job done.

    The fact that people are willing to put money on the table for the service and labor this man has produced with F/LOSS software is by no means "retarded". It is a testament to the viability of F/LOSS economy, and clear proof that customer value can be added to F/LOSS without bogging customers down in complex licenses and EULAs.

    Ah, damn, I noticed too late you posted as AC. Well, since you won't stand by your words, I guess producing a decent and intelligent answer was a waste of time...

    - Jesper

    --
    My security clearance is so high I have to kill myself if I remember I have it...
    1. Re:No grasp of F/LOSS concept? by evilviper · · Score: 1

      Either you give out the source and thereby lose control over its distribution, or you can ask money.

      RedHat and many others do both, and they're very much compatible with open source. Their software is all open source, but you have to pay to get their exact binaries. A great many people do pay.

      Their rule-of-thumb is that open source software companies can sustain a price of about 1/10th what a proprietary software company could. So there's very much an opportunity for monetization of open source, just not as large as with proprietary software.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    2. Re:No grasp of F/LOSS concept? by Kalriath · · Score: 1

      Redhat also monetizes by their use of the "Redhat" trademark. You cannot redistribute Redhat's binaries or source "as-is" because if you do so you are violating trademark law, and they can (and will) sue you. The CentOS project spends a lot of time stripping Redhat's trademarks from RHEL prior to redistributing it as CentOS.

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
    3. Re:No grasp of F/LOSS concept? by evilviper · · Score: 1

      I don't see how anything you said is relevant to anything being discussed. How does Redhat's trademark change the previous statement:

      "Either you give out the source and thereby lose control over its distribution, or you can ask money."

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    4. Re:No grasp of F/LOSS concept? by SplatMan_DK · · Score: 1

      I don't see how anything you said is relevant to anything being discussed. How does Redhat's trademark change the previous statement:

      "Either you give out the source and thereby lose control over its distribution, or you can ask money."

      It does not change it. But that doesn't really matter because the statement itself is flawed and untrue.

      You are totally free to ask money for F/LOSS while giving away the source and that is exactly what many F/LOSS business do. Customers pay for the software and while they do have the right to rewrite and recompile it all for free they simply choose not to - because the value provided with the software is greater and the price is acceptable for them. Maintaining and compiling software (F/LOSS or not) is complex. Many end-users for example are perfectly capable of downloading a Live-CD and boot a Linux for desktop use, but are in no way capable of downloading, combining and compiling all the individual components needed to make a full working distribution.

      The implied opposition presented in the above statement is simply false. As proven by thousands of business using and trading F/LOSS products and services every day. :-)

      - Jesper

      --
      My security clearance is so high I have to kill myself if I remember I have it...
    5. Re:No grasp of F/LOSS concept? by SplatMan_DK · · Score: 1

      Still posting as AC ... oh well, some people just won't stand by their opinions I guess.

       

      No. I reject your so-called "cornerstone". You cannot "monetize" infinitely abundant information.

      You are mistaken. Ask Redhat. Ask SuSE. Ask Google also, who is absolutely a master of monetizing "infinitely abundant information" and presenting in a way that can be monetized through their specific business model.

      You may personally reject it all you want, but reality begs to differ. And while you can off course reject reality itself I really see nothing productive coming from that.

      Only the organized crime (like the post-Bill-Gates software sector) that made up the lie about imaginary property to be able to create artificial scarcity and /steal money/ from people, acts like you can.

      I don't know why I am even wasting my tie debating this with someone calling the established software industry "organized crime". Your approach to reality seems to be in total disarray. May I politely propose a visit to Sicilia in order for you to obtain a more appropriate and correct perception of "Organized Crime"? Your local Hells Angels club might also be of assistance...
       

      In reality, it is fundamentally incompatible with the concept of FLOSS. Either you give out the source and thereby lose control over its distribution, or you can ask money.

      I am not going to argue this further. Thousands of businesses do this very thing every single day and are very happy to do so. F/LOSS software is delivered in combination with various services and happy customers are paying. Your continued reluctance to accept the current reality is not something I wish to spend more time on.
       

      As soon as it's abundant because freely distributable, it becomes worthless. That's a simple law of the marketplace.

      No, absolutely not. This is true only for software products which do not innovate or which are so simple in nature that no further product development is taking place. All modern F/LOSS suppliers act as VARs and their customers are happy to pay for the value they add. Such as new releases, quick bugfixes, influence on the direction of the product, notifications on critical problems, premium support, community access, and more.
       

      You "monetize" the SERVICE of writing code & co. Just like literally every other service-based industry out there. From the guy who fixes your sink and the delivery guy to prostitution and industry consultants.

      This is perfectly combatible with selling or byuing F/LOSS through a VAR. For example my dads smart TV uses Linux as an OS, and the vendor distributes the source exactly as they should, but rather than downloading the sourcecode and compiling it himself he prefers to pay 5 bucks for a ready-to-use file he can install on the TV set. If I propose to him that he should somehow learn how to download the source, compile it himself, and then install it - just for saving 5 bucks - he would (rightly so) call me an idiot. So yes, ready-to-use and compiled F/LOSS software can absolutely have a price, even though the source is freely available.

      - Jesper

      --
      My security clearance is so high I have to kill myself if I remember I have it...
    6. Re:No grasp of F/LOSS concept? by Kalriath · · Score: 1

      The statement is that you cannot monetize open source, which is fundamentally incorrect. Redhat has managed to monetize it quite effectively even while giving away their source simply because redistributing Redhat's source "as-is" is trademark infringement and therefore actionable, and modifying it to comply with trademark law is enough trouble as to not be worth it. Thus, Redhat gives out the source, retains control of distribution, and asks for money. Something that the GGP claimed is impossible.

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
    7. Re:No grasp of F/LOSS concept? by evilviper · · Score: 1

      The statement is that you cannot monetize open source, which is fundamentally incorrect. [...] Something that the GGP claimed is impossible.

      Then why are you ranting about trademark to me, instead of replying to the GGP? I'm the one who mentioned RedHat as a counter-example in the first place, I hardly need a bunch of people ranting at me about someone else's false claims.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    8. Re:No grasp of F/LOSS concept? by evilviper · · Score: 1

      It does not change it. But that doesn't really matter because the statement itself is flawed and untrue.

      Good, then go rant at HIM, not me, dammit. Don't reply to my post (I know... that wasn't you) with some off-topic random discussion about minutia of HOW X does Y, when that's not the topic.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    9. Re:No grasp of F/LOSS concept? by SplatMan_DK · · Score: 1

      Sorry, no "rant" was intended and nothing was targeted at you specifically. I had my eyes on the ball, not the man ;-) and I believe my reply simply explains why the statement is false (in a F/LOSS context).

      Peace and tranquility to you. :-)

      - Jesper
       

      --
      My security clearance is so high I have to kill myself if I remember I have it...
  24. Re:Overpriced, have some slightest creativty? by Gothmolly · · Score: 1

    English, how does it work?

    "I always start with the basics and move to more complicated attacks only if I have to. Same as any other genuine blackhat out there."

    He's calling himself a 'genuine blackhat'.

    --
    I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
  25. Re:pineapple by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

    ...to connect Apple computers?

    --
    Ezekiel 23:20
  26. Re:ffs by Phreakiture · · Score: 1

    What wrong with summary? It look's fine to me. /s

    --
    www.wavefront-av.com
  27. Re:MODERATOR ALERT by noh8rz10 · · Score: 1

    Wtf AC?? It's just a pineapple pun. Just chillax, you make me feel bad.

  28. Re:MODERATOR ALERT by noh8rz10 · · Score: 1

    The account is currently "farming" karma and mod points by asking questions and posting comments that can be moderated up by other managed accounts.

    guilty guilty guilty. I'm posting a shill question asking if the device comes in a pineapple, so I can post a self serving response and mod it up for greater visibility. Brought to you by Dole Pineapples!