1- A Hacker (Or rather cracker, but that's a different discussion) who uses his abilities for malicious purposes.
2- Anything relating to malicious use of the internet.
wiktionary:
A malicious hacker who commits illegal acts.
other relevant definitions from google: (disregarding the ones about actual hats, westerns, search engines, and judaism)
Black hat is used to describe a hacker (or cracker) who breaks into a computer system or network with malicious intent. Unlike a white hat hacker, the black hat hacker takes advantage of the break-in, perhaps destroying files or stealing data for some purpose.
A malicious hacker who exploits - or publicises - a security weakness before informing the affected organisation.
Nowhere was "personal gain" mentioned. "Black hat" was always applied to individuals with "malicious" motives and/or whose actions are "illegal". Winning the prize money in a contest is neither of those.
Actually, they'd have to flip a coin for every bug – and their current statistic, "40% of the bugs we identified as exploitable were exploited", would probably look great compared to the percentage they'd get by flipping a coin.
Basically, you're looking at this wrong. Microsoft correctly predicted 40% of the exploitable bugs, but they also correctly predicted the non-exploitable ones which wouldn't be exploited.
Suppose (and I don't have actual numbers, so I'll make up hypothetical ones) Microsoft finds 100 bugs, and 5 of them appear exploitable. 2 of those are actually exploited (40%). However, you should take into account all the non-exploitable bugs that weren't exploited: Microsoft correctly predicted 95 non-exploitable bugs and 2 exploitable ones, which is 97%. They were incorrect only on the 3 bugs that they thought would be exploited and weren't (using these hypothetical numbers).
Keeping the poor poor? So, exactly how many people have ever risen above the poverty level on welfare?
To make the same point differently: Why would someone put forth an effort to better one's self when zero effort is required to have a meager but adequate subsistence?
Slashdot Mirror
I beg to differ.
urbandictionary:
1- A Hacker (Or rather cracker, but that's a different discussion) who uses his abilities for malicious purposes.
2- Anything relating to malicious use of the internet.
wiktionary:
A malicious hacker who commits illegal acts.
other relevant definitions from google: (disregarding the ones about actual hats, westerns, search engines, and judaism)
Black hat is used to describe a hacker (or cracker) who breaks into a computer system or network with malicious intent. Unlike a white hat hacker, the black hat hacker takes advantage of the break-in, perhaps destroying files or stealing data for some purpose.
A malicious hacker who exploits - or publicises - a security weakness before informing the affected organisation.
Nowhere was "personal gain" mentioned. "Black hat" was always applied to individuals with "malicious" motives and/or whose actions are "illegal". Winning the prize money in a contest is neither of those.
I'm fine with that, so long as churches can marry people in the religious sense.
Wire a hidden switch and trigger it at opportune moments (when certain people walk by your cubicle, for instance).
Or just put it on a motion sensor. *snore*... somebody walks in, "huh? no, I wasn't sleeping..." ("0 seconds without...")
Sure... just send an e-mail to subscribe@newsletter.org and in the subject line please indicate your preference of "plain text", "HTML", or "PDF".
You're kidding, right? Please tell me you're kidding.
Actually, they'd have to flip a coin for every bug – and their current statistic, "40% of the bugs we identified as exploitable were exploited", would probably look great compared to the percentage they'd get by flipping a coin.
Basically, you're looking at this wrong. Microsoft correctly predicted 40% of the exploitable bugs, but they also correctly predicted the non-exploitable ones which wouldn't be exploited.
Suppose (and I don't have actual numbers, so I'll make up hypothetical ones) Microsoft finds 100 bugs, and 5 of them appear exploitable. 2 of those are actually exploited (40%). However, you should take into account all the non-exploitable bugs that weren't exploited: Microsoft correctly predicted 95 non-exploitable bugs and 2 exploitable ones, which is 97%. They were incorrect only on the 3 bugs that they thought would be exploited and weren't (using these hypothetical numbers).
don't forget to mention his big ears.
(going for funny, insightful, and flamebait here...)
Keeping the poor poor? So, exactly how many people have ever risen above the poverty level on welfare?
To make the same point differently: Why would someone put forth an effort to better one's self when zero effort is required to have a meager but adequate subsistence?
Quick, someone needs to inform the companies that manufacture instant soup!
Wait a minute. Are you suggesting that mild forms of violence would always be pretty?
You tend towards generalizations. But I must admit, so do I. However, my generalizations are firmly grounded in statistical theory.