July 24th, 2001, 09:01 PM
I am pleased to see your site running. I have a history in the yesteryear of the hack/phreak scene, and was a member of the Legion of Doom from 1987 - 89. I am not "active" in that sense, but I do keep up with security, the "scene" and have a decent grasp of security issues. I am learning more all the time, and I am really glad to see sites like this that allow our hobbies to turn into our professions, to make us income and allow us to serve others, while still plying and developing our skills, without risk of arrest or other hassles. Nowdays, there is so much access to be had, one can keep themselves busy forever with projects as a "white hat" hacker type, which is more of what I would consider myself being. I have no interest in malicious activity except to learn how to block it from any servers/sites I wish to protect, and of course, how its accomplished.
Best wishes with the site! I hope all goes well.
Radiance (a.k.a. "Phantom Phreaker" of yesteryear)
For those of you who don't recognize the name, check out some of the early editions of Phrack.
I know what you mean about Bell Atlantic. Take it from a guy that had to
network 38 locations on frame relay using Bell. They never made any dates
they promised and sounds like they still are up to their old tricks. But
one thing I'll say though, once they came up, it was rare to have any
Hang in there...you will make it!
Branch Electric Supply Co.
Thanks for the re-assurance. I will admit, we have yet to have any down time on the line, and it's been
a whole week now (heh). Although, we did get several calls from a Bell Tech. (along with our isp), about our line going down when we added access lists to our router. Heh, sorry, no more using ping to verify the connection....
It STINKS. nasty portal look... cheesy corporate graphics... even the
CNN-style let's-have-a-little-community-vote box. Ugh.
I hate it. I hate it. I hate it.
John - whoever your sponsors are, give them their money back, tell them
to **** off and die, and go back to doing it YOUR way.
LRH (an ex-fan)
Ok, maybe that little vote box was a bit too much. It's gone now, so let us rejoice once again. As for my graphics, I thought they were kinda pretty =P
I am sure glad your site is finally up and running. I was having withdrawls when the site was down!
I really appreciate the dedication, information, time and up keep of this site from the Antionline team.
Information Security is ever changing and anybody who is anybody in the InfoSec world should be here learning all the can!
Thanks Antionline Team!!
Had to balance out from that last e-mail we got from (an ex-fan).
ice9 Submitted The Following:
Re: Granny Hacker From Heck
It's obvious to me that the only thing Carolyn Meinel is qualified to write about is herself. In this "article" she does not revel anythig about her knowledge (or lack thereof) of computer security. She does however, once again, display her blatant ignorance when she states : "Also, when you see me trying to secure shell into your ftp port, you'll know I'm just yanking your chain."
Secure shell into your ftp port? Huh? This statement obviously has NO basis in actual TCP/IP communication.
In light of this, perhaps I should revise my first statement, Meinel doesn't even seem to be competent to write about herself.
Ooooh, did we ever catch hell for publishing that story! I could make a month's worth of mailbags from just letters we got about her. Hahaha.
I noticed in the pics of the suite, that there was an I-mac, who there uses
that machine and why? After all, it's at best an entry level machine so why
would a bunch of gurus like yourselves be using it. And just to let ya know,
the new site is very well designed and layed out, keep up the good work.
We have a little bit of everything here. It's nice to have a wide range of platforms and toys
to play on. Helps keep us up to date in all areas.
its funny how Pitt is now constantly filing judical charges against
students for various forms of computer scanning. I was talking to David
Schatz the other day when he brought up charges against a fellow CS
student for domaining scanning mediaone.net. I represented the the kid,
and won the trial by simply convincing the jury that domain scanning was
1) totally harmless and 2) not illegal. The funny thing about it was
though that Mr. Shatz could not when asked give the jury a definition of
what a domain scan was. He then passed the question on me and I totally
ripped on his credibility, and asked him how he could bring up charges
when he doesnt even know what he was dealing with.. anyway the most
likely reason prophet lost his trial is because he spent 7 hous trying
to show the jury various ways someone could have spoofed his scans.. If
you wanna give that kid advice break it down likie this:
1. Uses information technolgoy resources for purposes other
than research or instructional purposes.
how broad of a category is this? when I talked to the jury I explained
that this is the default charge that they use when the accussed action
doesnt fall into any of the other categories.. I mean really, using
email or borwsing the web can be a violation of rule #1.. its
ridiculous. Shatz's reaction to my statements were funny to say the
least.. the guy really didnt have a clue.. he was more of a help to our
case than anything..
2. Intentionally abuses or misuses the information technology
resources so as to cause damage, program
harassment to other persons.
the key word here is "Intentionally".. just convince the jury that he
wasnt intentionally trying to do anything bad..
at main Pitt these dorks spends hours getting technical trying to act
like this is a real court case.. and thats why they lose.. Mr. Shatz
told me we were the first computer case like this to win.. and our trial
was about 1 hour.. any longer than that is wasting time.. other factors
included choosing a jury of students and not getting to technical with
I think just about everyone already knows what I think of the Pitt CIS department. No need
for me to say anything more....
Responding to the "A Little Help, Please" article:
First of all, computer security does not equal "hacking". Computer security is more of a subset of hacking.
I like the term, "hacktivists" -- I have never seen that one before. I agree with the author in that it is confusing about what to consider a hacker as. There are so many terms flying around, it is hard to adopt one of your own. And hacktivists are really just spouting off a bunch of contradicting nonsense most of the time. For example, I have seen on a site this (paraphrased):
Hacking is given a bad name in the media. It is not about trading wares or cracking programs. It is about overriding a password scheme or gaining access to something you are not given explicitly.
That is obviously a bad contradiction: the reason hacking is given a bad name is because people are gaining unauthorized access to remote systems and calling themselves "hackers". I don't hear the media saying, "A warez g0d (aka hacker) just distributed Windows 2000. That was the best hack this year!"
I, personally, use the term "true hacker" as defined on a few sites, which you can find if you do a search for the term on altavista or another search engine.
I basically define my own terms and forget about what everyone else believes. I really recommend a comprehensive search on the subject. It is amazing at how little is actually dedicated to the topic.