Hmm... a hardware engineer who can't code (what about VHDL ?), sounds a be strange these days. But this may be a valid exception.
Are you saying that a systems engineer (i.e. someone who spec's, designs, assembles, installs and troubleshoots systems) needs to know how to program?
They have a special name. They are called "mathematicians" ; not "hackers". Abstract algorithms has to do with design (so they are called designers ; but a designer should know how to code, otherwise it is a manager) or more often computer science (but then they are called "professors", not "hackers"
Well, in that case, aren't people who can "code" called "programmers"? Or is an educational qualification in software engineering proof that you're a hacker?
Personnally, I can't see how you can be a Hacker without any coding ability.
Okay, so requirement #1 to be a hacker is an ability to code. Does it have to be a compiled language, or would a scripted language, like Perl do? What about Javascript?
Yeah, sometime back, my beloved BBS was invaded for an hour or so by a small group of stupid sub-14yr Norwegian Kids - the ringleader claimed to be a "hacker". When I asked "what do you code", he got rather insulting and told me that I didn't know what I was on about.
So, are you saying that to qualify as a "hacker", you have to be able to "code"?
Check out this article on the BBC News Online site which talks about how the 'Net is redefining news, and mentions Slashdot.
Wired was pretty good to begin with, but it rapidly succumbed to the whole media hype surrounding the 'Net and began to climb up it's own arse, placing style before content.
I reckon the people who used to read Wired now read Network News, Computer Weekly, Data Communications, Information Weekly, etc.
Well, I'm sure that a reputable publication such as 2600 Magazine would never condone or support any actions which violated Computer Misuse laws...
You've got to remember that the "hackers" JP spoke/communicated/chatted on IRC with, are mostly teenaged kids who "hack" using scripts, etc. The more mature, older hackers, both those who have parlayed their unique skills into a career in information security, networking, programming, etc., and those who continue to hack illegally, (but, unlike the script-kiddies who provide JP with his news content, don't seek media exposure or recognition) will, by and large, have nothing to do with JP.
I suppose, in a way, JP is the ultimate wannabe. He was originally seduced by the supposedly "sexy" image of hacking (that film 'Hackers' has a lot to answer for) and, although he apparently spins a good line of bullshit, he doesn't have the technical prowess to actually be a decent hacker. So, I reckon he decided instead to become a hacking "expert" by the back door, and AntiOnline was his way of doing this, and of gaining respect in the community.
Unfortunately for him, the only people who respect him are other wannabe's like him. Birds of a feather flock together and it's no coincidence that JP numbers Carolyn Meinel amongst his allies. The real hackers have long recognised him for what he is and have chosen to have nothing to do with him.
I've heard rumours that some of them have owned him and that, occaisionally, they've also been playing with him by doing things like hijacking his DNS and upstream routers in order to "spoof" him with fake website hacks, just to see him do a "press release" about whitehouse.gov or nato.int being hacked...
It could well be that they've decided that enough is enough and have decided to hit JP where it hurts - by making his website unavailable. Not only does this seriously dent his credibility (what sort of hacking expert can't even defend his own website), but it also means that his company is, to all intents and purposes, inoperational.
Of course, this is all merely hypothesis (for you linguistically-challenged individuals, that means that I'm just guessing).:-)
You're under a slight misapprehension, my friend - the Brits give the Yanks _land_ to operate listening posts (e.g. "RAF" Menwith Hill) on, but GCHQ (the British equivalent of the NSA) gets copied all of the intelligence developed from those sites.
In the early days of the UKUSA agreement, GCHQ received so much raw SIGINT that they could barely process all of it.:)
Dodger, with his Intelligence and Security Expert's hat on.
Well, considering that the Celts were carving spirals into rocks at places like Newgrange in Ireland more than 5,000 years ago, I think that both the Dreamcast and Debian logos are rip-offs...
I'm afraid that your statement is disingenuous at best, deceptive at worst. Perl is hardly a `server-side scripting language' as you portray it. [...snip...] I hope that's all clear now.:-)
Yikes, that told me! (-:
I bow to your obviously far superior knowledge on the subject, but would humbly point out that my intention in describing Perl as a `server-side scripting language' was not to denigrate the language in any way, but to differentiate it from Java, in order to point out that the problems caused by Microsoft's hijacking of Java were less likely to occur if they hijack Perl in the same way.
Not that I'm implying that Perl can't be used for client-side operations - merely that it's most common use is on the server and that I, for one, won't give a monkeys if Perl scripts/programs written on a Unix box won't run on an NT box and vice versa.
As for the definition of `interpreted', I will say that I would define Perl, along with the Bourne, C and Korn shells, and TCL as interpreted scripting languages, as opposed to Ada, C, C++ and Java, which I would define as compiled programming languages. I'm not implying that either is better or more powerful than the other. I'm in no position to do so as my "programming" expertise extends no further than unix shell scripting.
As an aside - don't Microsoft claim that NT is POSIX compliant? If it is, then why do they have to make custom changes to things like Java and Perl?
The Dodger A Systems and Network (not a software) Engineer (-:
You make good arguments and I appreciate your point of view. I'd need to spend some time thinking about the points you've raised (e.g. whether damage caused as a result of non-malicious curiousity can be viewed in the same light as deliberately malicious damage, etc.) before I could decide whether my own opinions need to be modified or not (unlike many people, I do not stick rigidly and blindly to 'my' side of an argument, when presented with valid points which challenge my opinions).
...if you want to hack on systems, get a job...
This is exactly what I did. I don't break into computer systems anymore (at least, not without the sysadmin's permission - losing or forgetting the root password is something at least a couple of our clients do every month). Instead, I satisfy my hacking urges by designing, building and troubleshooting systems, clusters and networks, and writing shell scripts to solve interesting problems.
And it's not just me either - a lot of hackers here in the UK have gone 'legit' and work as unix, security or networking administrators. The skills and knowledge we acquired through hacking have launched our careers.
2600 isn't a Nazi regime, you know. We _are_ allowed to have our own opinions. Just because the account I'm using to collect my email is @2600.com doesn't mean that I have any kind of official role at 2600, or that my opinions represent the official stance of 2600 magazine, if there is such a thing.
As for your claims that the a systems "page was defaced to show that it was vulnerable", I can't accept that. The traditional way of letting a system's admin know that his system is vulnerable, if to send him an email from himself, or to leave an unobtrusively small image on the webpage, linking to a declaration that the system has been hacked. I continue to believe that it was done in order to attract publicity and in order to impress peers.
I'll always put down cybervandals. They give the rest of us a bad name.
Genetically engineering a primitive creature, which forms itself into the necessary structure and can attach _itself_ to electrodes or whatever, is probably the solution here. If they could achieve that, they'd be able to grow biochips in petri dishes and Intel would be employing bio-engineering graduates to design it's biochips.
This step from silicon to biological components is an inevitable one. We'll reach a point, in the not-too-distant future where we can no longer improve our traditional silicon- (or even copper-) based chips. We'll need a new medium/substance with which to work and, with the progress we've been making in the biosciences, I wouldn't be surprised if that new medium isn't biological in nature.
Another thing - cell can both detect (e.g. our eyes) and emit (e.g. those deep-sea fish you see on natural history programs) light, right? Now, think about how fast our nervous system is capable of carrying information, and how fast light can travel...
And don't slate academia - it's where all the real research happens and the important discoveries are made, from the computer at Manchester University, to the DNA double helix at Cambridge.
This article may have been closer to the truth than you think. ISTR reading about a researcher at a British University who was working on analog chips, who had some success in getting the system he'd built using them, to recognise voice commands.
Anyone else recall this? I don't have any references, unfortunately.
This isn't necessarily an altogether Bad Thing (tm). It means that Microsoft must feel they are losing out by not supporting Perl fully. Unfortunately, the nature of the Perl source licence means that Microsoft don't have to publish the source for their implementation.
And before people start spouting off about how Microsoft shouldn't be allowed to embrace Perl like this, don't forget that the whole idea of Open software is that anyone can use it, and one of the reasons that Perl uses the Artistic licence, as opposed to the GPL is to allow companies to use Perl in commercial software. It's not something I personally agree with, but the creators of Perl decided to do it that way, and it was their choice.
I also foresee dire predictions that Microsoft will turn Perl into a proprietary technology, like they did with Java. However, so what if they do? Perl isn't like Java - for the most part, it's a server-side scripting language, not a half-compiled binary which is meant to run on the client.
The main thing is, don't panic. This will probably turn out to be good for Perl in the long run.
Pity this has a score of Zero - you're talking sense.
Some of the more intelligent/informed members of the media have taken to describing malicious crackers, who deface webpages, remove files, carry out DoS attacks, et cetera, as 'cybervandals', which is a perfect moniker. There is a world of difference between a cybervandal and a hacker who hacks into a system in order to learn about it (I used to have to hack into Suns in order to learn how SunOS worked, for example, because I didn't have an account on a Sun) and doesn't do anything malicious.
Put it this way - If someone were to hack into my network and do something malicious, like trashing a server or defacing a website, my first action would be to call the Computer Crime Unit. You can call me a fuckin' narq or whatever you want, but if some little shit is trying to trash the systems I administrate, I will take steps to ensure that he never fucking does it again, whether it's by cooperating with the police in identifying the perp and securing a conviction, or by paying the fuckwit a visit and breaking his fingers.
On the other hand, if I come in one day and find someone logged onto the system, poking around, reading manpages, et cetera, and I discover that he hacked in because he wanted to learn about the operating system, or hardware or whatever, then I'll invite the guy to come 'round for an interview, and, assuming he fits the bill, I'd probably hire him.
But a DoS attack is not any server crack. A DoS attack simply burns up all the bandwidth in the neighborhood and the server.
Correction - A DoS attack is a 'Denial of Service' (note the initials). Overloading a webserver (or it's link with the Internet) by flooding it with http requests/connections/pings/whatever is a TYPE of DoS attack. There are others, including things like teardrop, land, etc.
I will allow that script kiddies do possess some intelligence and knowledge, but only to a certain level. They are seriously deficient in common sense, however.
Put it this way, if they're so goddamned smart, then how come they get caught?
The real hackers are hardcore guys who spend a significant amount of their waking hours in front of a computers. They gain respect amongst their peers by dint of their knowledge and skills, not by hacking a high-profile website. They don't court media attention - in fact, they studiously avoid it.
And you never, ever hear of them, because they don't get caught.
Please don't mention AntiOnline on Slashdot. They really are beneath contempt: muckraking wannabe-journos who think that getting "exclusive" interviews on irc with script-kiddies who've hacked some lame site, is legitimate journalism.
They rip off other people's work, whether it be rewriting 'Smashing the Stack' into their own explanation of how buffer overflows work, or ripping off Freshmeat's HTML page and using it for their AntiCode page, and the majority of stories/analyses they put on their website are inherently flawed and misleading - e.g. they're interpreting a couple of Chinese hackers DoS'ing American webservers as an information warfare attack by the PRC on the USA.
I know for a fact that several of the website hacks they have "exclusively" reported were actually complete bullshit - some _real_ hacker/crackers (i.e. guys who hack into machines, but don't deface websites or try to get into the media) have owned AntiOnline for quite a while, and when they get bored of just reading Vranesivich's mail, they do some judicious re-routing and DNS work and make AntiOnline think that such-and-such site has been hacked. Then they piss their sides laughing when Vranesivich issues a press release about it.
Most of the people involved in AntiOnline are teenagers, and I've been told by someone who claimed to have been at college with him that Vranesivich is a hacker wannabe failure, who views AntiOnline as his own particular way of impressing what he considers to be 'hackers' - i.e. the script kiddies. Dunno whether it's true or not - I'll leave you to make your own mind up.
Has anybody ever wondered about anti-matter? Like how there's is supposed to be an exact opposite of you and me somewhere out there.....Or what would happen when matter and anti-matter collided causing a 100% energy conversion.
I'm currently carrying out a long-term research project aimed at discovering who the anti-Dodger is. They've got to be female (I'm a guy), beautiful (I'm a real ugly bastard) and dumb (I'm a genius). That third requisite also means that I stand a chance of getting them into bed, so as soon as I figure out who it is, I'll be able to test that 100% energy conversion theory...
Slashdot Mirror
Wonder if it'll go off in times of, say, great passion.
:)
The cops could end up bursting in on a lot of people having sex!
"Oh, I'm sorry, I've just had an orgasm..."
:)
Dodger
You're under a slight misapprehension, my friend - the Brits give the Yanks _land_ to operate listening posts (e.g. "RAF" Menwith Hill) on, but GCHQ (the British equivalent of the NSA) gets copied all of the intelligence developed from those sites.
:)
In the early days of the UKUSA agreement, GCHQ received so much raw SIGINT that they could barely process all of it.
Dodger,
with his Intelligence and Security Expert's hat on.
* http & web techs were built by swiss & french people, not so bad ;-)
Err, no. Tim Berners-Lee, inventor of the Web, is British.
Dodger, who is Irish.
Written by Stephenson under a pseudonym, I believe, and set around now.
Anyone?
The Dodger
Well, considering that the Celts were carving spirals into rocks at places like Newgrange in Ireland more than 5,000 years ago, I think that both the Dreamcast and Debian logos are rip-offs...
Dodger
High King of Ireland
2600 isn't a Nazi regime, you know. We _are_ allowed to have our own opinions. Just because the account I'm using to collect my email is @2600.com doesn't mean that I have any kind of official role at 2600, or that my opinions represent the official stance of 2600 magazine, if there is such a thing.
As for your claims that the a systems "page was defaced to show that it was vulnerable", I can't accept that. The traditional way of letting a system's admin know that his system is vulnerable, if to send him an email from himself, or to leave an unobtrusively small image on the webpage, linking to a declaration that the system has been hacked. I continue to believe that it was done in order to attract publicity and in order to impress peers.
I'll always put down cybervandals. They give the rest of us a bad name.
The Dodger
The idea of computers based on biological components brings an entirely new meaning to the term "computer virus". :)
D.
This article may have been closer to the truth than you think. ISTR reading about a researcher at a British University who was working on analog chips, who had some success in getting the system he'd built using them, to recognise voice commands.
Anyone else recall this? I don't have any references, unfortunately.
Dodger
Pity this has a score of Zero - you're talking sense.
Some of the more intelligent/informed members of the media have taken to describing malicious crackers, who deface webpages, remove files, carry out DoS attacks, et cetera, as 'cybervandals', which is a perfect moniker. There is a world of difference between a cybervandal and a hacker who hacks into a system in order to learn about it (I used to have to hack into Suns in order to learn how SunOS worked, for example, because I didn't have an account on a Sun) and doesn't do anything malicious.
Put it this way - If someone were to hack into my network and do something malicious, like trashing a server or defacing a website, my first action would be to call the Computer Crime Unit. You can call me a fuckin' narq or whatever you want, but if some little shit is trying to trash the systems I administrate, I will take steps to ensure that he never fucking does it again, whether it's by cooperating with the police in identifying the perp and securing a conviction, or by paying the fuckwit a visit and breaking his fingers.
On the other hand, if I come in one day and find someone logged onto the system, poking around, reading manpages, et cetera, and I discover that he hacked in because he wanted to learn about the operating system, or hardware or whatever, then I'll invite the guy to come 'round for an interview, and, assuming he fits the bill, I'd probably hire him.
D.
Heh... Is that a rhetorical question? :)
./ers looking up "rhetorical" in the dictionary in an attempt to understand this one*
*imagines dozens of
D.
But a DoS attack is not any server crack. A DoS attack simply burns up all the bandwidth in the neighborhood and the server.
Correction - A DoS attack is a 'Denial of Service' (note the initials). Overloading a webserver (or it's link with the Internet) by flooding it with http requests/connections/pings/whatever is a TYPE of DoS attack. There are others, including things like teardrop, land, etc.
Just felt the need to be pedantic...
The Dodger
Anyone know what hackers call crackers?
Retards, Lamers, Fucking annoying little dipshits, et cetera, et cetera...
D.
I will allow that script kiddies do possess some intelligence and knowledge, but only to a certain level. They are seriously deficient in common sense, however.
Put it this way, if they're so goddamned smart, then how come they get caught?
The real hackers are hardcore guys who spend a significant amount of their waking hours in front of a computers. They gain respect amongst their peers by dint of their knowledge and skills, not by hacking a high-profile website. They don't court media attention - in fact, they studiously avoid it.
And you never, ever hear of them, because they don't get caught.
Dodger
Please don't mention AntiOnline on Slashdot. They really are beneath contempt: muckraking wannabe-journos who think that getting "exclusive" interviews on irc with script-kiddies who've hacked some lame site, is legitimate journalism.
They rip off other people's work, whether it be rewriting 'Smashing the Stack' into their own explanation of how buffer overflows work, or ripping off Freshmeat's HTML page and using it for their AntiCode page, and the majority of stories/analyses they put on their website are inherently flawed and misleading - e.g. they're interpreting a couple of Chinese hackers DoS'ing American webservers as an information warfare attack by the PRC on the USA.
I know for a fact that several of the website hacks they have "exclusively" reported were actually complete bullshit - some _real_ hacker/crackers (i.e. guys who hack into machines, but don't deface websites or try to get into the media) have owned AntiOnline for quite a while, and when they get bored of just reading Vranesivich's mail, they do some judicious re-routing and DNS work and make AntiOnline think that such-and-such site has been hacked. Then they piss their sides laughing when Vranesivich issues a press release about it.
Most of the people involved in AntiOnline are teenagers, and I've been told by someone who claimed to have been at college with him that Vranesivich is a hacker wannabe failure, who views AntiOnline as his own particular way of impressing what he considers to be 'hackers' - i.e. the script kiddies. Dunno whether it's true or not - I'll leave you to make your own mind up.
Dodger