×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

183 comments

But i thought... (2, Interesting)

scubamage (727538) | more than 5 years ago | (#25354275)

...that federal law precludes an ex-con from profiting off of their crimes by doing things like writing books, and making movies? I see no issue with him writing a book on computer security, but how is him writing an account of his criminal actions that got him arrested not a breach of this law? Am I missing something? Not trying to be an armchair lawyer, just interested in why.

Re:But i thought... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25354323)

Probably because Canada is not part of the US yet?

Re:But i thought... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25354567)

whoever modded this flamebait is a dolt. It's the right answer to the question.

Re:But i thought... (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25354633)

It might be flamebait, but it is true. This guy is Canadian, living in Canada. US Federal law ? What about it?
As to whether he has such a gap in judgement, he was 15 at the time of the hack. Who does not have gaps of judgement at that age?

Re:But i thought... (5, Funny)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 5 years ago | (#25354763)

Hell, I'm 93 and I still have gaps of judgement.

Oh wait, those are gaps of memory.

Get off my lawn!

Re:But i thought... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25355431)

Please tag "extortion". thanks.

Re:But i thought... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25355561)

Senator McCain, is that you?

Re:But i thought... (1)

gary_7vn (1193821) | more than 5 years ago | (#25355417)

They have the same law in Canada, not sure how his book relates exactly to the law. There are loopholes though, even in America. Buhs has written a book and profited from it. "By precluding convicted offenders from profiting from their crimes, Bill C-220 would reinforce a fundamental value of Canadian society that criminals should not profit from their crimes. It would also reinforce and give effect to the adage that "crime does not pay." The bill would deem the proceeds received for accounts of criminal acts to be "proceeds of crime" for the purposes of Part XII.2 of the Criminal Code, thus subjecting such proceeds to a forfeiture order under section 462.37. It would also disentitle offenders from having copyright in their works, thus preventing them from receiving royalties from book sales, movie deals and televised interviews. Bill C-220 would not prevent offenders from telling their story. It would simply ensure that they derived no benefit from it."

Re:But i thought... (5, Informative)

gary_7vn (1193821) | more than 5 years ago | (#25355497)

Here is the loophole. In Canada a young offender's record is expunged after a period of time, after which they are allowed exactly the same rights and privileges as any other Canadian. This protects them from the self-righteous, who would seek to punish them - forever. "...the bill would apply only to accused persons "convicted" of the offence, thus excluding from its reach offenders who were found "not criminally responsible" by reason of a mental disorder or who were "found guilty" as young offenders, or who were granted an absolute or conditional discharge under section 730 of the Criminal Code."

Re:But i thought... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25355307)

Probably because Canada is not part of the US yet?

Got to love how Canadians write a statement... that ends with a question mark.

Re:But i thought... (4, Funny)

SuperSlug (799739) | more than 5 years ago | (#25355769)

Probably because Canada is not part of the US yet?

Got to love how Canadians write a statement... that ends with a question mark.

Probably because Canada is not part of the US yet, eh?

There fixed it for ya.

Re:But i thought... (2, Insightful)

pegr (46683) | more than 5 years ago | (#25354339)

Today he he works as a legitimate security consultant
 
I believe the problem word here is "legitimate"... If one has that large of a gap in judgement, most "legitimate" employers won't hire you. And that's the way it should be.

Re:But i thought... (1, Insightful)

Nerftoe (74385) | more than 5 years ago | (#25354691)

If one has that large of a gap in judgement.. ...When he was 15. Everyone does crazy stuff when they are 15. I know I did. Didn't you?

Re:But i thought... (2, Informative)

thermian (1267986) | more than 5 years ago | (#25354851)

If one has that large of a gap in judgement.. ...When he was 15. Everyone does crazy stuff when they are 15. I know I did. Didn't you?

No.

Re:But i thought... (4, Interesting)

pegr (46683) | more than 5 years ago | (#25354883)

Even as a teenager, I had a strong self-preservation instinct. I knew the difference between a felony and a misdemeanor.

Re:But i thought... (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25354899)

There are two types of people: people who did crazy shit when they were 15 and

FUCKING LIARS!!

Re:But i thought... (1)

billcopc (196330) | more than 5 years ago | (#25356619)

I get mod points 6 days out of 7, and today by some rift in the time-space /. continuum, I have none.

+99 Truthiness

Re:But i thought... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25355591)

I pity you.

Re:But i thought... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25356209)

How the hell did you get +3 informative for simply answering 'no'? Ugh, these mods.

Re:But i thought... (2, Funny)

banffbug (1323109) | more than 5 years ago | (#25356397)

its' +4 now. Maybe I'll get a +5 for pointing that out. and one of the hidden comments was actually a score 5. wtf...

Re:But i thought... (2, Insightful)

dfghjk (711126) | more than 5 years ago | (#25354997)

It's natural to excuse your own behavior by claiming everyone else does it too. Doesn't make it true.

No, not everyone does "crazy stuff" when they are 15. Many know better.

Re:But i thought... (1)

happycat64 (558599) | more than 5 years ago | (#25355503)

So this guy, who fucked up when he was 15, should never be employed by a "legitimate" employer? Nearly everyone deserves a chance for redemption.

Re:But i thought... (3, Insightful)

LandDolphin (1202876) | more than 5 years ago | (#25356173)

He should not have said "Everyone". It opens up for responses like yours. A better thing to have said was that "most" do "Crazy stuff" when they are young. That way, the people that have never run with scissors don't need to chime in.

Felony or Marketing? (1)

MrMarket (983874) | more than 5 years ago | (#25355883)

I wonder how many 15 yr olds see high-profile hacking felonies as their golden ticket into the "legitimate security consultant," career path? Is this the best way to get street cred as a consultant?

Re:But i thought... (1)

corbettw (214229) | more than 5 years ago | (#25356225)

There's a world of difference between staying out after curfew or getting drunk enough to throw up on your dad when he confronts you as you try to sneak in through the patio door, and knocking a major Web portal offline. Any 15 year old should understand the difference between those two, let alone a 30 year old pining for when he was 15.

Re:But i thought... (0, Flamebait)

magawr (824481) | more than 5 years ago | (#25354975)

Yes, I agree. If he hasn't given the profits to help eliminate crime then he should be prosecuted for this under the federal statute. Or has our learned fathers saw fit to provide a loophole so that they might profit from such an endeavor.

Re:But i thought... (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25355909)

BY ALL MEANS, LET US PROSECUTE THEM DAMNED CANUCKISTANIS!!!

Why do so many Americans have trouble understanding that "US law" != "world law"? I live here, and most of the folks walking around here aren't so profoundly retarded, are there enclaves of profound idiots somewhere to bring the average down??

Re:But i thought... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25356595)

Why do so many Americans have trouble understanding that "US law" != "world law"?

It's only a matter of time dude.

Whether it's Old Man McCain or B'rock Obama -- all your base are belong to the US.

Just kidding - chill dude;-)

Why did I go to college? (4, Interesting)

penguin_dance (536599) | more than 5 years ago | (#25355839)

While the rest of us were going to college, this guy had the formula to quick success.

Hack into large company web sites
Get a slap on the wrist
Become a reformed hacker/security expert
Write book on exploits
$PROFIT!

WARNING! (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25354279)

I bought this book, but it intentionally contained too many pages and overflowed my bookcase. It fell off the end, and gave my cat a fatal error. While I was in the back garden burying Muffins, he sneaked into my house and stole all my stuff!

Re:WARNING! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25354625)

This was the best reply to post ever!

Re:WARNING! (5, Funny)

YttriumOxide (837412) | more than 5 years ago | (#25354913)

I bought this book, but it intentionally contained too many pages and overflowed my bookcase. It fell off the end, and gave my cat a fatal error. While I was in the back garden burying Muffins, he sneaked into my house and stole all my stuff!

It took me three readings of that to parse that "Muffins" was the name of your cat. My first impression of your post was a lot more surreal.

7 years ago two planes flew into the Twin Towers (-1, Flamebait)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 5 years ago | (#25354293)

When you put it in perspective, Mafiaboy's exploits are pretty minor compared to the damage wrought by the reaction to the terrorism of 9/11.

Re:7 years ago two planes flew into the Twin Tower (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25354337)

You guys really need to bury this one, put away your 9/11 record.

Not like its gone on for hundreds of years. One incident and its all over.

Re:7 years ago two planes flew into the Twin Tower (5, Insightful)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 5 years ago | (#25354455)

Every time I fly, I am reminded just how much we lost in the years following that day.

Re:7 years ago two planes flew into the Twin Tower (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25355829)

You should remember the people you kill in Irak and middle-east. They're much more than 3,000 US citizens... Not trolling, just saying the truth.

Re:7 years ago two planes flew into the Twin Tower (1)

kirbysuperstar (1198939) | more than 5 years ago | (#25354347)

Sure. But.. what does that have to do with anything?

Re:7 years ago two planes flew into the Twin Tower (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25354589)

Well, there's no literal connection...

7 years ago one plane flew into the Pentagon (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25354357)

When you put it in perspective, Mafiaboy's exploits are pretty minor compared to the damage wrought by the reaction to the terrorism of 9/11.

Re:7 years ago two planes flew into the Twin Tower (2, Insightful)

speroni (1258316) | more than 5 years ago | (#25354413)

When you put it in perspective, Mafiaboy's exploits are pretty minor compared to the damage wrought by the reaction to the terrorism of 9/11.

Is there a something similar to Godwin's law for 9/11? I don't really see the connection to this article here.

Re:7 years ago two planes flew into the Twin Tower (0, Offtopic)

physicsphairy (720718) | more than 5 years ago | (#25354533)

We can maintain generality by assuming that Hitler caused 9/11.

What's "Osama" hiding underneath that beard, anyway?

Re:7 years ago two planes flew into the Twin Tower (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25355499)

> What's "Osama" hiding underneath that beard, anyway?

A little square moustache! The secret is out!

What a joke. (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25354317)

Sounds like he paid for his crime...

Oh wait. He is being paid for his crime?

WTF

Re:What a joke. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25356339)

He's got it totally figured out..

1: Search for some lame script kiddy files
2: Execute these files
3: Take down high profile site.
4: get arrested ...
PROFIT!!!!

I just shake my head.

Words of Wisdom from a Script Kiddie (5, Interesting)

tecopa03 (1086983) | more than 5 years ago | (#25354419)

Oh lord.

Chapter two, "I installed the win32 exe called 'zombie', next I clicked on the Dee DOS button and took out CNN"

Re:Words of Wisdom from a Script Kiddie (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25354613)

When the name came up, I just remembered hearing about the script kid. His acquaintance gave it to him and told him never to use it. He used it anyway, and took out a few major websites. But he wasn't a hacker.

Re:Words of Wisdom from a Script Kiddie (1)

ceoyoyo (59147) | more than 5 years ago | (#25355717)

He was on the news the other day. Apparently he can't remain quiet about computer security anymore. He mentioned that online banking seemed "crazy" to him.

Re:Words of Wisdom from a Script Kiddie (0, Flamebait)

tecopa03 (1086983) | more than 5 years ago | (#25355897)

Of course he's going to say that. He's now going to live off of FUD (fear uncertainty and doubt).

He's a kiddie, and will always be a kiddie. And his opinion is just that.

Once again (1)

Vinegar Joe (998110) | more than 5 years ago | (#25354421)

Proof that crime really *does* pay.

Re:Once again (2, Insightful)

zappepcs (820751) | more than 5 years ago | (#25354731)

Actually, crime does pay... until you get caught. And according to the US justice and political system, if you have made the right friends and spent some of your money in the right places (campaigns) then even if you do get caught, crime continues to pay. Just remember to forget how many houses you have.

Yeah, go ahead, mark this troll, but it's true.

Books by crooks (1)

philmck (790785) | more than 5 years ago | (#25354501)

Do people here feel comfortable buying books by crooks?

Re:Books by crooks (2, Funny)

Coldness (829686) | more than 5 years ago | (#25354635)

Well, it does have a nice rhyme to it..

Re:Books by crooks (2, Funny)

aproposofwhat (1019098) | more than 5 years ago | (#25355199)

Would you, could you, buy this book,
Aware the author is a crook?
I would not buy this cracker's sham,
I do not like it, Sam I Am!

(apologies to the great Dr Seuss :P)

Re:Books by crooks (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25355047)

No. People here will torrent it.

Re:Books by crooks (1)

The Moof (859402) | more than 5 years ago | (#25355151)

Perhaps.

I'm more interested in how comfortable people are hiring crooks as security consultants.

Re:Books by crooks (1)

perlchild (582235) | more than 5 years ago | (#25356203)

I do feel comfortable(but I won't buy it... saving on dead trees at the moment), but on the other hand, just because I buy the book, doesn't mean I feel obligated to believe what's in it...

Re:Books by crooks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25356353)

If I wanted to read it, I don't need to buy it. I can just go to the library and read it, and have a laugh.

Why? (1)

I.M.O.G. (811163) | more than 5 years ago | (#25354529)

I don't see what makes him any more insightful in this area, aside from some ancient history. Looking at the domain mafiaboy.com I wouldn't expect much of anything from this book.

As for advising the masses in how to stay safe, the rules are so basic for everyday users that I doubt a security consultant could offer anything considerably insightful:

1) Don't run files whose source you don't trust
2) Read prompts before clicking yes, default answer should be no unless you specifically understand what it's talking about
3) Don't provide personal/financial information to anyone but highly reputable vendors/establishments
4) Avoid going to domains you aren't familiar with, as they could contain exploits which can bot your machine without any interaction - stick to reputable sources of information
5) Keep your AV and Firewall up to date
6) Ask your techie friend/relative about switching to Linux, and you can almost completely cross 1, 4, and 5 off this list

Re:Why? (4, Interesting)

onion2k (203094) | more than 5 years ago | (#25354721)

6) Ask your techie friend/relative about switching to Linux, and you can almost completely cross 1, 4, and 5 off this list

Err... no. Assuming you're running Linux (or OSX, BSD, whatever) 1, 4 and 5 still apply just as much as they do on Windows.

1) Don't run files whose source you don't trust

Binaries can be dangerous on Linux, especially if you're a newbie user who runs things as root (and we are talking about newbies here remember). Even compiling your own apps can be dangerous if the source of the source isn't trustworthy.

4) Avoid going to domains you aren't familiar with, as they could contain exploits which can bot your machine without any interaction - stick to reputable sources of information

You're not going to be running into self-installing ActiveX malware, but you're in just as much danger from phishing, XSS or browser exploit hacks.

5) Keep your AV and Firewall up to date

The firewall issue is obvious. You need one even on a Linux PC. Maybe moreso even because Linux often comes with a raft of server and daemon stuff that Windows doesn't. AV is more contentious - but if you're using the computer for anything important, eg work related, and you don't want to pass viruses on to clients then AV is still a useful tool. I'm certain that me passing on a virus to a client would do more damage to my business than actually having my computer affected by one itself.

Your operating system is never enough for you to take a liaise faire attitude to security regardless of what you're running.

Re:Why? (1)

I.M.O.G. (811163) | more than 5 years ago | (#25355073)

Agreed to a point, however your extending my stance beyond where I intended it to reach. "Almost" is a big operative word here. Here are my reasonings for my statement, in hopes it may make more sense. In no way was my statement meant to say you can forget about security altogether, and I stand by it being accurate. 1) There's a completely different paradigm to Linux than there is to Windows. If your using Linux correctly as a newbie user, your installing apps from repository and they are all approved apps. Installing apps from anywhere on the net or running as root are invalid assumptions for this. I say it almost can be forgotten, because in comparison to Windows being thoughtless about your PC usage in this regard is a lot safer in Linux. 4) ActiveX exploits are a huge area of web security to cross off your vulnerability list. One of my other statements was also about being cautious about where you enter personal/financial information - This addresses XSS and browser exploits to a point. If you aren't entering and storing personal data, then XSS and browser exploits are going to be low impact. In contrast to Windows, drive-by exploits are less likely to expose your personal info using a browser on Linux than they are on Windows - an activex script isn't going to own your box. Again, in comparison you can almost forget about it. 6) AV software on a Linux client is a bad idea, and those using it are silly for doing so. If your worried about passing a virus onto a client you should address that in your mail infrastructure, or ensure your using a mail service which handles that for you. Trying to do it yourself on the client is poor design, and the software options for this are lousy at best. I think that's very clear. Software firewall's are garbage also, their only purpose is to prevent things from phoning out - if you aren't running as root, you are installing trusted software from repository, then there's little benefit in wasting resources on a software firewall. Ensure you have a good hardware firewall that your behind on your network, and if you have any reason to be suspicious about traffic on your PC - the netstat tool is simple, unobtrusive, and gives you an accurate idea of what communication is coming into and going out of your PC. AV and software Firewalls have no real place on a Linux client - you can almost forget about them entirely. If you want to stretch it, you can install a software firewall but you'll likely never reap any benefit from it.

Re:Why? (1)

cloakable (885764) | more than 5 years ago | (#25355987)

Maybe moreso even because Linux often comes with a raft of server and daemon stuff that Windows doesn't.

Um, while pretty much all distros have a raft of daemons available, I'd highly recommend you don't install one that installs and starts them on a desktop install. Unless you tell it to, of course. Debian policy is no network listening services on a base install, and that's a good one, IMO.

Re:Why? (1)

Kokuyo (549451) | more than 5 years ago | (#25354767)

4) Avoid going to domains you aren't familiar with, as they could contain exploits which can bot your machine without any interaction - stick to reputable sources of information

How would one realistically do that? Since I wouldn't dare claim I knew every place on the net that I'll ever need, how can you go to only trusted domains when searching for information?

Re:Why? (1)

I.M.O.G. (811163) | more than 5 years ago | (#25355201)

The same way you would do so at the library?

Find a reputable primary source, then follow sources that they cite. For example, if your doing research start with a reputable journal such as the Harvard Business Review, then refer to sources they cite for further detail. More generically, start at CNN.com or wikipedia or some other "large brand" of website, and use it for direction before clicking on any link that comes off google.

By no means a full proof or robust approach, but its a good start. This assumes an awareness that going to random sites bears some inherent risk, and you should build familiarity with good sources of information over time, as well as becoming familiar with where the pitfalls are.

Not worth the time (4, Insightful)

Sun.Jedi (1280674) | more than 5 years ago | (#25354559)

The excerpt [mafiaboybook.com] reads like a pre-teen love story.

I downloaded and then I pressed enter
I installed and then I was online

And thats chapter 5, what the hell does he write about (being all of 9 years old) for the first 4 chapters?

This won't qualify as proper fish wrapping.

Re:Not worth the time (1)

SpinyNorman (33776) | more than 5 years ago | (#25354719)

I guess, not surprisingly, he was just a script kiddie - he downloaded hacks and ran them and thought he was a cool 133t h4x0r.

Doesn't say much for Yahoo if they hadn't protected themselves from known exploits, although I assume they learnt from the lesson.

What I always wanted to ask... (4, Interesting)

information_retrieva (1058952) | more than 5 years ago | (#25354801)

I always want to ask one of these reformed hackers what, if anything, would have deterred them when they were first getting started. Does anyone know if this book attempts to answer that sort of question?

Re:What I always wanted to ask... (4, Interesting)

YttriumOxide (837412) | more than 5 years ago | (#25355075)

Well, assuming you posed the question to me (I was convicted of telephone fraud (phreaking) once, and discharged without conviction on charges of breaches of the telecommunications act (unlawful entry to a computer system that wasn't my own (a bank))), I would have to answer as follows:

There is almost nothing you could have done to deter me from those actions. I felt as if I was a part of a "wild frontier", and had control and abilities that very few others possessed (and, I was probably right). The feeling was that of real power - something that most people in their very early teens (when I was arrested for the crimes mentioned) don't often get a lot of... especially as the "geeky kid" at school who got picked on all the time (this was the early 90s in small town New Zealand - not the best place for a geek). Trying to convince anyone to willingly give up that sense of "worth" without getting something equal in return is pretty much impossible.
It's also worth noting that I was caught twice, for what was hundreds, if not thousands, of criminal activities. I still felt pretty bulletproof (especially after the "discharge without conviction" for the bank crack)

I made my mistakes, but honestly, I don't regret it even to this day - my current work has nothing to do with security, although I still keep up in those circles and like to hone my skills against my own systems. But, I've also never had any negative consequences other than the court imposed penalty for the phreaking (which was surprisingly minor - especially in relation to the police recommendation). If a kid were to come to me today and ask if he/she should do it, my answer would be that they should do what they feel is right and accept the consequences if they do something illegal and get caught at it. I'm not 100% sure that even means I would try to discourage them...

Of course, I was a cracker and a phreaker... not a script kiddie. "Mafiaboy" may be a little different.

Deterence... (0, Flamebait)

way2trivial (601132) | more than 5 years ago | (#25355149)

There is almost nothing you could have done to deter me from those actions.

What if the month before a vigilante group of Yahoo fanpunks had made Michael Calce swallow his own testicles and released the video on You Tube?

would you still have been as willing to phreak then?

Re:Deterence... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25355241)

Thus the 'almost nothing' ...

Re:Deterence... (1)

YttriumOxide (837412) | more than 5 years ago | (#25355303)

Well no, but I did say "almost nothing"...
Besides - YouTube didn't exist in the early 90s when I was doing that sort of thing.

Re:What I always wanted to ask... (1, Insightful)

timholman (71886) | more than 5 years ago | (#25355869)

I felt as if I was a part of a "wild frontier", and had control and abilities that very few others possessed (and, I was probably right).

No, actually you were wrong. There are many, many bright people who have the ability to do what you did - far more than you realize. The difference was that they had something that you lacked - the moral judgment not to go breaking into other people's systems, and instead to do something productive with their abilities.

It's like a bunch of teenaged burglars thinking they're "special" because they can do something their peers don't do - break into houses and steal the belongings. But the truth is that almost anyone can become a burglar, provided they choose to do so. It's just that most people make better choices with their lives.

Re:What I always wanted to ask... (2, Interesting)

YttriumOxide (837412) | more than 5 years ago | (#25356255)

There are many, many bright people who have the ability to do what you did - far more than you realize.

Hmmm... as I mentioned, I lived in small town New Zealand, and it was the early 90s. I really don't think there were too many other people around with the same skills that I had. Now, you then said:

But the truth is that almost anyone can become a burglar, provided they choose to do so (emphasis mine)

I never said others couldn't BECOME able to do what I did, simply that very few others actually possessed the required skills. In the early 90s, computer crime wasn't the "cool" thing that it had become after the web explosion in the mid to late 90s. It wasn't unheard of, and was gaining popularity (see movies such as War Games from nearly 10 years earlier), however it was still pretty quiet in general. Compounded with my location, I can be pretty certain I knew everyone locally who could do such things - and that wasn't exactly a lot of people.

The difference was that they had something that you lacked - the moral judgment not to go breaking into other people's systems, and instead to do something productive with their abilities.

That is perhaps true - there may well have been others who COULD do it, but didn't, but I think that's pretty unlikely (especially if we're limiting the sample set to people my age at the time), as the only real way to gain those skills was to either actually do it, or study it specifically. Why anyone would study it without doing it, as a young teenager, I couldn't imagine.

Note that I never said "noone", I said "very few", and as a percentage of the population of Earth, I'm pretty positive that stands as true. As a percentage of people my age, or people in my town, I'm completely certain.

Re:What I always wanted to ask... (1)

Inda (580031) | more than 5 years ago | (#25356475)

I used to be a naughty boy in my youth and early twenties. I sometimes discuss my criminal exploits during those late night wine drinking sessions, often with family, sometimes with an ex-copper who always offers some great insight.

"You never get caught the first time"

If people got caught the first time, we'd live in an almost crime free world. The risk of getting caught would be 100% and only crimes of desperation would be undertaken.

So, not wanting to get too deep, and just wanted to answer your question, a risk of getting caught would have been a decent deterrent.

Inda (never caught)

excerpts.... (4, Insightful)

apodyopsis (1048476) | more than 5 years ago | (#25354859)

from the except http://mafiaboybook.com/about-the-book/ [mafiaboybook.com] from the book...

"I had heard you could download versions of even the most popular games for free. This was a type of "warez"--pirated software."

"I realized it was a common occurrence and that it was called punting. Someone knocked me offline by hitting me with so much data that my connection was severed. These punters seemed to have a huge amount of power over others on AOL."

"I wanted to punt someone. Badly. That's when my real hunt for AOL hacking tools started."

"I slowly learned how things worked. I eventually began to modify the applications to meet my needs. This is how kiddies become hackers."

Jesus H Christ! People buy this crap?

One thing is for certain, the target audience is not to be found on /., though I predict we will all get a good laugh off it.

Re:excerpts.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25356361)

It appeals to mass audience.
What would be "Hackers"(the film) be abotu if it was realistic? Think about it.
No what if we sprinkle some realism that would be a "hacker book".But its still creative fiction.

Script kiddie (4, Interesting)

LizardKing (5245) | more than 5 years ago | (#25354893)

Frankly, I'm not surprised that a script kiddie (which is all Mafia boy was) could take Yahoo! down back in 2000. I worked there in 1999 for four or five months, and left in disgust at how poor their engineering was. On my first day I fixed a bug where user input was being used as a format string. This in C code that was written by a "veteran" coder, who clearly couldn't write anything maintainable. There was no documentation (I'm not exaggerating), designs were communicate verbally, hacked together and then forgotten. There was not project management as such, and no middle management - seniority was based simply on who had been there the longest. While this "hacker ethos", of which Yahoo! employees were inordinately proud, may have worked when it was two guys working from a trailer but it was disastrous in a large, international development team.

Re:Script kiddie (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25356381)

You'll be happy to know that things haven't changed all that much since you left then...

I too left last year in disgust

...and (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25355053)

...and he's still an ego jerk :p

Start of the script kiddy revolution (4, Informative)

hkb (777908) | more than 5 years ago | (#25355061)

It should be noted by those of us who still vividly remember, that Mafiaboy and YTcracker were relatively skill-less script kiddies, not hackers. Back then, at least.

Re:Start of the script kiddy revolution (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25355487)

It should be noted by those of us who still vividly remember, that Mafiaboy and YTcracker were relatively skill-less script kiddies, not hackers. Back then, at least.

^^ yea, from what we could tell, the scripts that were used were being used by everyone at the time.

Meh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25356117)

I've been on the wrong end of Mafiaboy's DDoS tantrums. It sickens me that he's employable as a 'security consultant'.

Posted anonymously because I don't want to be targeted again by him.

How sad... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25356481)

MAfiaBoy, the epitome of the "script kiddie" cashing in on his notoriety.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...