Printable View
On demand of Ennis:
The discussion about hackers and crackers reopend
hacker: someone with lots of practical and theoretical computer skills. He would only force into another system when testing his / here skills or when learning about other systems. A hacker does not (ethical implication) intentionally damage another system.
cracker: his goal is to gain access to a secured computer just to make himself important or to make money
Ah..... the object of ethic's in a loosely unethical hard to govern cyberworld.
We all have a choice you see but I ask you VictorKaum why we look upon the differance of two words, the term hacker and the term cracker with such emphasis, what makes it so important that we know the differance.
Is it the culture, the history or just another way of mindlessly passing time on a wasteful subject?
Im not sure thats why I have asked you to make this thread, I want to know what you think...?
Well, I could release that I'am a *real* ethic and writing a Masters dissertation on the topic civilized society but that's not the issue here...
I'am referring to the fact that any computer lover would agree that malicious computer use is not meant to be called hacking.
I'am just sick of the widespread misunderstanding hack/crack
thankz holywood by the way for their ignorance
I think that you (Ennis) have almost the same opinion or not?
I have a very similar opinion, Im not a hacker by the way but I do understand why those who are get frustrated by the whole issue.
Ive tried the best I can to spread awareness about the h/cr/acker issue but after a while I realised it was pointless.
The media has a larger voice than a million typed keys that are only to be seen and recognised by those with similar views. Those it reaches will become like you, same cause, same results.
Anyway Im ranting so Ill stop but you get the jist, I hope!
This should be cleared up even more. Anyone who accesses another computer without the expressed permission of the owner, whether to gain money from it, to show off,or just prove that they can, is a CRACKER. A hacker is one who knows how to crack, but only uses their methods for the advancement of security and tests primarily on their own networks.
thePreacher: so how do you categorize Adrian Lamo?
security focus article
I am not trying to say that Adrian Lamo is a bad person, but what he does is still illegal. That means he is cracking. This is quoted from the article you gave me.
"But the bottom line is, it is unauthorized access, and it's clear when you get into a company's network that there are disclaimers everywhere you go. I suppose at some point he could make the wrong people angry, or the timing could be such that he doesn't get a chance to come forward and say, 'Here's how I did it,' because they find him first."
A book(John Chirillo, Hack Attacks Revealed) I read awhile back defined them for me, and it's pretty much the way I've viewed the two terms since.
A hacker is typically a person who is totally immersed in computer technology and computer programming, someone who likes to examine the code of operating systems and other programs to see how they work. This individual then uses his or her computer expertise for illicit purposes such as gaining access to computer systems without permission and data on systems. At that point, this individual would steal information, carry out corporate espionage, and install backdoors, virii, and Trojans.
A cracker is a person who circumvents of defeats the security measures of a network or porticular computer system to gain unauthorized access. The classic goal of a cracker is to obtain information illegally from a computer system to use computer resources illegally. Nevertheless, the main goal of the majority is to merely break into the system.
Now they are similar, perhaps more emphasis on knowledge is imparted to the hacker. Clearly though, both are viewed here as distructive. Looking up the definition on dictionary.com and in websters, they seem to comply with the idea that hacker is generally meant as somebody who conducts illegal activities on a computer.
So I have to ask those of you who fight to be called hackers and to have it mean only having the knowledge and not carrying it out. Why insist on the name hacker? Clearly the public view of the term is a negative one, as is most defintions for the word.
Perhaps the struggle for the term hacker is not entirely based on principals, but also the lust for the touch of awe and mystery it inspires in the average person to hear that you're a hacker.
What is wrong with computer security expert? Would not a rose by any other name smell as sweet?
Echelon for one monitors al our traffic, de-crypt our encrypted mails and read them, listen in on our cell-phones and the list goes on and on. And that´s legal? Or JP first "encounter" with a wrongful computer act.
What the "big" guys are doing is far more revolting that what Lamo is doing, and yeah it´s illegal but if some wanker decides to press charges against him they are begging for DoS and an asorted mix of trojans.
Dont get me wrong, I am all for the helpful hacker, but looking at what the definition of cracker is and what Lamo is doing, I see a parallel. The main difference is that he doesnt illegally access the computers for personal gain. It would be like someone walking up and down your street checking to see if your door is locked. They find your house they walk in, look around, go through your things, and leave without taking anything. The next day they call you and tell you that your door was unlocked so they let themselves in. How would you feel? I personally want no one inside my house(computer) without my permission, even if they had good intensions. This is my place not yours. I have the right to my privacy, and so do these big companies.
Yep,
When you left your door unlocked,
you wish that your neighbour say something about it instead of exploring... the same goes for computers.
A hacker keeps the moral things in mind
u must see the big differens between a hacker and a cracker... a hacker who saw an open door into a house wouldn't enter! the cracker would! the hacker would have notified u (the owner) at once and helped u to fix ur problem (this is quite easy since u just have to lock the door)...
hacker finds most of all the security errors. and they do it legally! they do everything on their own computeres and they don't test it against unknowing net users.... it's easy to see when a person is a cracker and not a hacker.... let me give a good example...
Kevin Mitnick... a clever man, but a cracker... why? because he broke the law just to satisfy his own selfish needs.
Linus Torvalds. Father of linux and a hacker... he develops software, debugs, tests it... whatever it takes to make it as perfect as possible... he never breaks the law!
when i tell somebody that i'm a hacker (a white hat i.e.) they always think that i'm some sort of criminal. but as soon as i explain that Linus Torvalds is hacker too (who nearly everybody knows who is) they see the difference... it's easy!
the movie "Hackers" and "Hackers 2" should have been named "Crackers" and "Crackers 2".... A movie about REAL hackers is "AntiTrust" (but hackers r more than just programmers). (an odd case sometimes happen when a hacker breaks the law to prove something's wrong (or illegal)... and if the hacker is right the law wasn't broken after all since it was the only right thing to do.)
this is my opinion. it's build on the nethic and my own experience, I'm not saying that I'm right, but I know that I'm a hacker and I know that I'm not a cracker! when u hear the word "hacker", think Linux... when u hear the word "cracker", think jail! :)
Zion1459; I have a very similar opinion, and I think it's the only right but how to make it clear to the others?:rolleyes:
Sure, my computer is my space and should not be violated. But there is a metaphysical difference so the simile you use has a zero value to me. Getting sidetracked here..
What I´m trying to express: The government and corporations violating my privacy has a clear intent and that is to controll me.
The people who try to strike back should not be viewed as criminals. (hacktivists) If I could I´d lend my support to them (as long as noone else gets caught in the fire) and to non-malicious illegal hackers (read Adrian Lamo) from my point of view this crappy world takes a turn for the better.
But if we take Matrix as an example, it´s clearly illegal to do what our heroes do but they fight the system anyway. Would you stand on the side and cheer the system?
I´m gonna get :spank: for this one ey? Hehe
how do u stop criminals? by using the law!
how do u stop government cruelties? Echelon, ENFOPOL and all that kind of **** is illegal... but the gov don't care because they control everyhing anyway, right? good, so how to we stop 'em? what should the hacktivists do? well the fight is gonna be long and hard but that's just because there's to little ppl who know about this... I actually still meet ppl who don't have a clue about what Echelon is! The only way to control the government is to make all the ppl of the affected country fight against it...
it can be done, but it aint easy! and how to do it the most efficient way is the real question.
even if a hacker notifies the admin of a problem he still has brokeing into the system which is considered illegal
A start is to post things with the words: bomb, Bush or Osama Bin Laden. Maybe Echelon then gets overloaded?
No, for real: _keep moving forward_
use your brains or don't do anything wrong
Get real victorkaum, don´t do anything wrong(!). Who is setting the standards for what´s illegal or not, for that matter what should be monitored (it may not be illegal but we can find someone who is a criminal by listening in on al cell-phone activity). I know that I wasn´t asked.. I don´t think alot of people has a saying in this.
And what is to say that they don´t pass on the non-vital for them (but for someone else). There has already been allegations from a french company that american companies has recieved vital business information from american "authorities" (read wankers) .
zion1459: you do realise that the entire world is monitored?
I´m gonna go outside and order some pot via smoke signals, maybe I can have my buds alone then.
Whe have a misunderstanding:
I mean:
use your brains OR don't do anything wrong
So the OR is not inclusive
When you actually do things wrong use your brain to keep your freedom
And by the way: illegal or not, I was talking about wrong in the ethical sense...
So hacking to keep freedom could be interpreted as just as an activism like greenpeace. Sometimes greenpeace breaks the law but they never use violence. Make the parallel to our topics and you get my point.
Aah, sorry dood, read it fast. It´s a bitch to keep posting here when the teacher keep running around in the room interfering :D
*unf* yer local bigbrother!
I thought we could reach the same 'altitude'.
Watch out for little Brother
Making such distinctions as "Hacker vs. Cracker" is irelevent. What we all deal with is security. The general puplic in most cases has no idea what is capable with the internet, computers, Technology, etc.... So the only way the puplic will learn is if they are shown. If you call someone and say that their computer security is lax and they do nothing about it then they may need to be shown.
If this takes breaking into teir sercurity then so be it. Thats how I got into sercurity. I once thought that I was safe behind a simple firewall and norton antivirus. It took some "script kiddie" to show me that I was wrong. When I started learning I realized almost any information could be found with a little curiosity and some general knowlage.
The analogy that it is the same as breaking into someones physical house is rediculous. We no longer live in a world that is governed by what is physical. Would any of us be able to live the lives we do without the technologies we use? I think not. Perfect intentions do not change ones actions from cracking to hacking. I will always see the two terms as the same thing.
Now I will probably get good and flamed for this opinion but thats the way I see it. Sure one could site people who break serurity for personal gain but that is the individual not a counter-culture to the sub-culture of "Hackers"
When we no longer make the distinction between a hacker (white hat) and a cracker (black hat), who else would do?
There will always be someone willing to hold on to the traditional culture of hacking so fear not there is always the few keeping the 'dream' alive whether it be hacking or greenpeace as you so aptly put it.
The disniction sould be made between people, not lumping people into sterotypes. Anybody who would lable themselves as a hacker has done some cracking in the past so wouldn't they also be a cracker. Otherwise how could they gain those skills and knowlage. If they are not breaking in for personal gain then that is the hackers choice not because he is part of a fundmentaly different group.
By the same token, anyone who would call themselves a cracker would still fit the deffintion of a hacker at least part of time. They would still aid security by defualt. The person would still be "seeking knowlage".
These groups and sterotypes are reversable at almost anygiven point in time. To differentiate between them just doesn't do any good. They are the same thing.
And here we are back to the start...
You are thinking that I'am an idealist?
well, I'am.
The ethical thing, remember
They are *not* the same thing
In practice some people jump from 1 role to another but in theory there is a difference: how could't you else discuss differences when 2 things are the same?
They say the greatest debates [by they I mean me] are those that have no end, this is why I love this topic. Nobody ever fully agree's and human nature is quaintly exposed.
Viva la muerte!
Indeed, this could go on...and sure it does
Why lowering yourself tekfrost?
"Self-respect is the most important of the primary goods"
(see J. Rawls, a Theory of Justice, p.440)
This isnt a ridiculous analogy to me, and when someone trys to illegally access my computer, I get pissed. I might calm down later if they send me something telling me that they are trying to help, but until then I would be pissed. Also from what I read Lamo wasnt just checking the door to the house(computer), he was walking into the house, and going through their stuff(data). It even states in the article that at some places he could have changed payroll records to work in his favor. If he is just checking the door, why is it that he has access to payroll? Like I said before I am not against him, but I can understand why he might run across someone who doesnt take this sort of thing lightly.Quote:
Originally posted by tekfrost
The analogy that it is the same as breaking into someones physical house is rediculous. We no longer live in a world that is governed by what is physical. Would any of us be able to live the lives we do without the technologies we use? I think not. Perfect intentions do not change ones actions from cracking to hacking. I will always see the two terms as the same thing.
A lot of people doesn't take these sort of things ligthly. In most cases they are even in their right to have such an opinion
a hacker, cracker, trespasser are all the same no matter if you destroy anything or steal something all the same it's the fact that you have crossed a line owned by someone else no matter if we may not agree with everything they do (i.e. carnovor, cia, nsa, fbi, ect...). They make the laws and they make it illegal for hackers to hack and crackers to crack. saying hacking is just finding problems for system admin is stupid because your exploting their weaknesses as well as other crackers would you just tell them about them if you want to fix problems apply for a job
There is no Job telling about every1s weakness. You could help 1 firm and the others. Why couldn't hackers stay independent?
not one job but i'm pretty sure there more than one hacker in the world more that the businesses i'm just saying hacking is illegal even when you hack and then email them telling them that they been hacked and telling them how to fix it.
sonic_overload, you are once again confusing the term hacker and cracker. They are not the same because the hacker is one who tests on their own network, or networks they have permissions on to find security holes and make solutions. A cracker illegally accesses others networks sometimes just for personal gain. A real hacker cant be the same as a trespasser because they have permission to do what they do. After finding holes they warn others with similar networks of the problems they found and everyone benefits. This mixing up of the terms is what causes people to have a negative view on those of us who call themselves hackers. This is another reason why I tell people that I am a network security student, not a hacker.Quote:
a hacker, cracker, trespasser are all the same no matter if you destroy anything or steal something all the same it's the fact that you have crossed a line owned by someone else no matter if we may not agree with everything they do (i.e. carnovor, cia, nsa, fbi, ect...).
Lowering myself? I really don't see how expressing my humbles views on a topic is lower myself in any way, shape, or form but eh,
Don't misunderstand me friends. I love a good debate and with this topic I felt I would express my views. I think that Victor Ennis and ThePreacher had some good points, I just don't readily agree with all of them. I think that by often switching roles of white hat or black hat we loose the distinction, at least to some degree.
"With lowering yourself tekfrost" I doesn't mean that you lower yourself while ventilating your opinion.
I mean that when someone who is a hacker (in my sense of the word see other posts) and is recognized by the others as hacker pejorativly, so as a cracker he should be humiliated and react in some way. If he / she doesn't react then he / she seems to have a lack of self-respect.
Or: if you make yourself a worm you couldn't complain that others step on you.
thus make the difference beware of the worms
no i know the diffrence between a hacker and cracker but they come from the same family a hacker would just hack a place snoop around and tell the sysem admin that they broke in and how they could fix the problem a cracker takes it one more step but destroying or stealing information for money, fame, or sick perversion what ever they have the same root as the all have to hack in the first place
So it´s out of the question to sugest that there are people that cross the border between white and black hat?
difference between hackers and crackers
http://www.projectgamma.com/news/edi...ackcrack.shtml
http://www.ladysharrow.ndirect.co.uk...d_crackers.htm
http://www.zdnet.co.uk/news/2000/13/ns-14629.html
Moral issues
http://www.stedwards.edu/newc/capstone/sp2000/hackers/
The media and the public give a negative connotation to the term “hacker”
http://www.lemis.com/hacker.html
Hackers have only been viewed as evil criminals for about the last ten years, now termed "crackers" to differentiate them from harmless hackers
http://www.hackerz.org/.
Hacker History
http://www.thefuturesite.com/catman/history/index.html
A Brief History of Hackerdom
http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/opens...k/raymond.html
Hackers Deface 2 More Government Web Sites
http://www.dallasnews.com/national/0601nat8hack.htm
No Suspects in Cyberattacks
http://www.mercurycenter.com/svtech/...hack031000.htm
Hack Attack
- interview of former hackers and security experts
http://www.forbes.com/asap/6396/hack.htm
The Hacker Crackdown
http://www.eff.org/papers/hacker_crackdown/crack.html
Can the Law Keep Up with a New Generation of Cyberspace Hackers?
http://wings.buffalo.edu/Complaw/Com...s/scalion.html
Sub-Topic 1: What is the law on hacking?
The Computer Security Act of 1987
http://www.aenigma.net/resources/csa_87.htm or
http://epic.org/crypto/csa/
Computer Security Enhancement Act of 1997
http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/1997_rpt/h105_243.htm
Section-by-section summary of H.R. 1903: Computer Security
Enhancement Act of 1997
http://www.house.gov/science/hr1903.html
Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section of the Department of Justice
http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/
U.S. Code on Fraud and Related Activity in Connection with Computers
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/1030.text.html
A list of acts, laws, and executive orders relating to computer security
http://www.p-and-e.com/pubs_laws.htm
http://web.syr.edu/~purwinto/comlaw.txt
Laws and Crimes Statistics
http://www.blkbox.com/~guillory/comp4.html
So that's a lot of stuff but it sure gives an impresion on hacker ethics.
There is a difference between hackers and crackers