The True Cost of Hacking

[nihil]

Really the only true crime you can commit online is maybe something like fraud but even then it still has nothing to do with computers because the Internet is another medium, its not actually a f****** planet.

An interesting argument, albeit slightly flawed in the way it restricts itself.The underlying premise that the internet is just another medium, or form of communication is absolutely correct. Therefore, virtually ANY offence that involves communication can be committed or enabled via the internet. BUT, the major difference is that because the internet involves computers, it involves data and assets..............this extends the boundary beyond that of previous media...........

1. Fraud (one of the most obvious)
2. Libel
3. Paedophilia
4. Terrorism
5. Vandalism
6. Murder (yes! open your minds............a message can trigger an event, a C4 event perhaps?)
7. Blackmail
8. Theft (intellectual property?)
9. Treason
10. Espionage
11. etc., etc., etc.............................

Now, NONE of those offences are NEW................they just found a whole new ballpark to be played in...............

I also beleave ethics and computers is just a big pile of bull$hit

Yes! ethics are about PEOPLE, not about machines and media.....................

Tiger Shark said:

I really don't understand why it is so hard for ISP 's to implement minimal forms of firewalling their clients

A very good point, I have long argued that ISPs have renaged on their duties of care to their customers. It is a bit like "health and safety at work" Certainly in the EU, the employer is legally required to protect employees from their own stupidity (within reason).

Secure_lockdown said:

i believe you. but it doesn't matter what i believe. what matters is what a prosecutor believes. they they are trained to believe what can be proven.

Oh, that is so true! I know that in the UK and probably in North America, the problem is that lawyers look to get a "result", they don't give a rat's a$$ about justice..............just a result, and their fees..............that is a fundamental fault in our legal systems...........they are based on contention, rather than a desire to seek the truth and justice.

just my thoughts

[secure_lockdown]

Really the only true crime you can commit online is maybe something like fraud but even then it still has nothing to do with computers because the Internet is another medium, its not actually a ****ing planet.

well thats a BIG PILE OF RUBBISH!

try to explain that statement to the cop who arrested the pedophile pervert who was trying to make himself a load of $$$ by selling pornographic pictures of children to other perverts. there are some very VERY nasty crimes being commited online using computers. what are you - new to the internet?

[secure_lockdown]

Originally posted here by secure_lockdown
well thats a BIG PILE OF RUBBISH!

try to explain that statement to the cop who arrested the pedophile pervert who was trying to make himself a load of $$$ by selling pornographic pictures of children to other perverts. there are some very VERY nasty crimes being commited online using computers. what are you - new to the internet?

[TheSpecialist]

try to explain that statement to the cop who arrested the pedophile pervert who was trying to make himself a load of $$$ by selling pornographic pictures of children to other perverts. there are some very VERY nasty crimes being commited online using computers. what are you - new to the internet?

How about arresting people for the initial act of forcing kids into situations in the first place...

[nihil]

TheSpecialist said:

How about arresting people for the initial act of getting these kids to pose nude in the first place..

That is a very nice theory, unfortunately, in real life, it is the pathetic little scumbag consumers who get caught, not the pushers........................I guess the pro privacy, bleeding heart, politically correct, liberal stalwarts of our society are responsible for this? And the real scum are smart enough to use them.

Hell, we have had people whining about little yellow dots out of a photocopier, as an invasion of privacy...............when are some people going to grow up, get themselves a life, and realise that you cannot have your cake and eat it?

my thoughts

[littlenick]

true cost of hacking ..........i was following what was said in this thread and i would like to attract everyones towards loss of reputation due to hacking.
Ankit fadia is considered to be india's number one ethical hacker his three books on hacking and network security has been a big success i don't really know whether he is a hacker or just a media hype but in any case he is somebody.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/wor...00/1934874.stm
http://computertimes.asiaone.com.sg/...4,1157,00.html
He is associated with ethical hacking school in india recently established called e2labs.
His web site was hacked. zone-h.org received an entry on August 16, 2003 including Ankitfadia.com in the list of defaced websites. The attacker gave his name as SkriptKiddie.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/a...how/141313.cms

it was a DDOS attack.what ankit fadia lost due to this attack?
answer is simple reputation, have a look at this.....
http://lists.netsys.com/pipermail/fu...st/007719.html
discussion like this were allover internet and in indian news web sites.he was termed as bullshit and just a media hype......

i guess he lost heavily

also kelvin metnick's web site got hacked
http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/interne...ker.hacked.ap/
and how it was hacked(defaced)?
web folder mathod.

[MrLinus]

discussion like this were allover internet and in indian news web sites.he was termed as bullshit and just a media hype......

He didn't lose his reputation over this. There wasn't any to lose. It was his first book that did that. Plagiarism doesn't go over well in a professional community. That said, his present version of his site is more of a "search-spyware-distribution" kind of thing (IMO).

Kevin Mitnick may be in a similar boat. Depending on who you talk with, he had no reputation to begin with and is a "media whore". So how can one lose a reputation when one didn't have one to start with?

Defacements aren't really at the same level of reputation ruining as say sending faxes out with personal information and then blaming the receiver for releasing private information or releasing machines without doing proper equipment exit procedures. From what I've seen defacements are often considered minor compared to when data is actually proven to be released. That said, many of these activities often identify the flaws in the procedures for day-to-day business. The question is does business learn from these mistakes?

[secure_lockdown]

Originally posted here by MsMittens
He didn't lose his reputation over this. There wasn't any to lose. It was his first book that did that. Plagiarism doesn't go over well in a professional community. That said, his present version of his site is more of a "search-spyware-distribution" kind of thing (IMO).

Kevin Mitnick may be in a similar boat. Depending on who you talk with, he had no reputation to begin with and is a "media whore". So how can one lose a reputation when one didn't have one to start with?

Defacements aren't really at the same level of reputation ruining as say sending faxes out with personal information and then blaming the receiver for releasing private information or releasing machines without doing proper equipment exit procedures. From what I've seen defacements are often considered minor compared to when data is actually proven to be released. That said, many of these activities often identify the flaws in the procedures for day-to-day business. The question is does business learn from these mistakes?

bravo. that was well put and to the point. i would say that you are usually almost always looking at a procedure problem - except for program design flaws (but even then, it's a procedure problem that resides at the prog deginer/vendor level before it hits customer), and perhaps protocol weaknesses - e.g. tcp/ip was designed to communicate. it was never designed with security in mind because at the time when they were designing it - no one ever thought security issues would plauge computing as much as they do.

[Riot]

MsMittens yes that was a very good statement and to back you up when most places have new wiring and new computers installed they just get rid of the old ones by either giving them to the installers to get ride of or by just tossing them. most of the time I can just call up the company that is doing the installing and ask them if they have any comps off a job they are getting rid of for them if they do most of the time they will just say come pick them up if you want or they will give you the number of someone you can call in the company they are redoing and they will hook you up. My point is most of these computer still have all the data that was on them so if they have any sensitive material on them you can just take it.

[secure_lockdown]

Originally posted here by Riot
MsMittens yes that was a very good statement and to back you up when most places have new wiring and new computers installed they just get rid of the old ones by either giving them to the installers to get ride of or by just tossing them. most of the time I can just call up the company that is doing the installing and ask them if they have any comps off a job they are getting rid of for them if they do most of the time they will just say come pick them up if you want or they will give you the number of someone you can call in the company they are redoing and they will hook you up. My point is most of these computer still have all the data that was on them so if they have any sensitive material on them you can just take it.

not in my case. we run DoD data wipe procedures of all machines before disposal or donation. you should see what we do to tape backup media.

if you see that stuff going on - there is a "real" opportunity for contract work there. just offer to DoD wipe they old machines for them. it a crappy & tedious job - but needs to be done and will pay real $$$.