Beta
×

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!

A Look Into the Chinese Hacker Underworld

kdawson posted more than 4 years ago | from the fun-and-profit dept.

Security 198

beachels416 writes "The NY Times gained access to a Chinese hacker-for-profit, referred to as 'Majia,' and observed him during one of his nightly 'sessions.' From the article: 'Oddly, Majia said his parents did not know that he was hacking at night [hacking is illegal in China]. But at one point, he explained the intricacies of computer hacking and stealing data while his mother stood nearby, listening silently, while offering a guest oranges and candy.' At another point Majia spoke about the recent Google attacks, and claimed to have particular knowledge of the exact vector used. Nothing too new, but an interesting read nevertheless."

cancel ×

198 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Well now... (2, Funny)

ShaunC (203807) | more than 4 years ago | (#30999404)

That article certainly puts a new slant on things.

Re:Well now... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30999426)

Indeed. Who knew they had oranges in China?

Re:Well now... (1)

Captain Splendid (673276) | more than 4 years ago | (#30999534)

Forget that. Who knew they had 'for-profit' hackers in a communist country? THE MIND BOGGLES!

Re:Well now... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30999708)

Mandarin oranges are smaller than American oranges.

Mandarin penises are smaller than American penises.

No wonder why the slants are so pissed off at us. But they should be careful what they ask for, they just might get my 250-pound wife.

Re:Well now... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31000308)

my 250-pound wife.

Everything bigger in America! - Sterotypical Asian Person.

Re:Well now... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31000590)

You are right on the money, my friend! According to the Asian woman I fucked last night, my American dick was the biggest she had ever seen. Although to be honest, she didn't really see it all that long. She sure as hell FELT it though! Damn girl gushed like a fountain from my cock thrusting and pumping her tiny little sushi pussy. Talk about soy sauce.

Re:Well now... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31000688)

It's mildly amusing that you get sexual arousal by trying to tell dirty stories to slashdotters.

Re:Well now... (4, Funny)

CorporateSuit (1319461) | more than 4 years ago | (#31000192)

Indeed. Who knew they had oranges in China?

Panda Express.

A real hacker... (3, Informative)

MindPrison (864299) | more than 4 years ago | (#30999434)

...newer brags ...you'll never know - ever.

Re:A real hacker... (3, Funny)

MindPrison (864299) | more than 4 years ago | (#30999454)

That should be "Never"...damn dworak fingers

Re:A real hacker... (4, Funny)

MindPrison (864299) | more than 4 years ago | (#30999472)

and that should be "Dvorak"... damn autism...

Re:A real hacker... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30999540)

I'm an autistic that speaks fluent typoese, you insensitive clod!

Re:A real hacker... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30999884)

Reply to yourself ONCE more you faggot. I dare you.

Reply to yourself ONCE more. I dare you! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31001258)

What?

Re:A real hacker... (1)

ascari (1400977) | more than 4 years ago | (#31000330)

And that should be "dyslexia"?

Re:A real hacker... (1)

jmickle (941634) | more than 4 years ago | (#31000994)

quoting from team america.... I'm So Ronery So ronery So ronery and sadry arone There's no one Just me onry Sitting on my rittle throne I work rearry hard and make up great prans But nobody ristens, no one understands Seems like no one takes me serirousry And so I'm ronery A rittle ronery Poor rittle me There's nobody I can rerate to Feel rike a bird in a cage It's kinda sihry But not rearry Because it's fihring my body with rage I'm the smartest most crever most physicarry fit But nobody else seems to rearize it When I change the world maybe they'll notice me But until then I'rr just be ronery Rittle ronery, poor rittle me I'm so ronery

Re:A real hacker... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30999988)

That's an interesting myth... if what makes you a hacker is that you never discuss your exploits surrounding infosec, then under your definition you're clearly labeling every big-name infosec professional a fraud. In other words you're full of shit.

- ShadowHatesYou

Re:A real hacker... (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 4 years ago | (#31000018)

That definition is conveniently circular.

Re:A real hacker... (1)

MBGMorden (803437) | more than 4 years ago | (#31000686)

No True Scotsman fallacy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman [wikipedia.org]

The reality is that tons of hacking is done explicitly FOR bragging rights. That doesn't make it any less "real" than hacking done for monetary gain, or any other purpose.

and again (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31000992)

i'll tell you all it was not the chinese govt
thats all im going to ever say
and its about as much proof as the "other" side has said.

case dismissed "i don't know who to believe"

Re:and again (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31001146)

lol wut

In later news.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30999458)

Chinese authorities shot computer hacker who talked to Western Media.

Lots of content (4, Insightful)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 4 years ago | (#30999482)

To sum up the article for those too lazy to read it

A chinese guy works a day job, works as a hacker at night. Likes to stay anonymous and take money from people's bank accounts.

I guess the fact that this is a chinese guy is shocking to some new york times readers?

Re:Lots of content (3, Funny)

PFactor (135319) | more than 4 years ago | (#30999530)

Ooh, you forgot the part where he says he...WRITES CODE! Riveting stuff, really.

Re:Lots of content (1)

sourcerror (1718066) | more than 4 years ago | (#30999574)

A chinese guy works a day job, works as a hacker at night.

Wake up, Neo. Welcome to the real world.

Re:Lots of content (1)

Pharmboy (216950) | more than 4 years ago | (#31000880)

I think you meant "Neo-son", if we are going to stereotype, after all.

Re:Lots of content (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31001054)

Except you mean "san" and that's a Japanese honorific.

Re:Lots of content (3, Interesting)

timeOday (582209) | more than 4 years ago | (#30999898)

Actually, even your negative synopsis of the piece flies in the face of conventional wisdom, which is that attacks of Chinese origin are all a carefully orchestrated by the ruthless and scheming Chinese government to displace America from its "rightful" place of world dominance. So, yeah, the idea that a lot of it might just be petty white-collar criminals who live with their moms is quite a different phenomenon.

Re:Lots of content (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31000168)

Don't you understand? It's only okay for us to attack all of their companies (which we totally do, all of the time) and pretend that we didn't when we're caught red-handed.

Re:Lots of content (4, Insightful)

blitzkrieg3 (995849) | more than 4 years ago | (#31000250)

Actually, even your negative synopsis of the piece flies in the face of conventional wisdom, which is that attacks of Chinese origin are all a carefully orchestrated by the ruthless and scheming Chinese government.

Security researchers have identified the attacks against Google to be largely from the Chinese government [arstechnica.com] , as were the politically motivated attacks [slashdot.org] against the Dala Lama and other Tibetan exiles. There is almost no doubt that the majority of the hacking that goes on in China (and elsewhere) is of the sort that TFA reports on, but linking it to the recent attacks on Google and other US government contractors is disingenuous.

Re:Lots of content (2, Insightful)

HolyCrapSCOsux (700114) | more than 4 years ago | (#31000574)

Or this piece is a Chinese govenmet sanctioned bit of propaganda. They WANT you to think that it's some individual...

Re:Lots of content (1)

HNS-I (1119771) | more than 4 years ago | (#31000392)

A chinese guy works a day job, works as a hacker at night.

Let me guess:
He has a social security number, pays his taxes, and helps his landlady carry out her garbage.

Re:Lots of content (1)

daveime (1253762) | more than 4 years ago | (#31000972)

Flied Lice ? It is "Fried Rice", you plick !

Re:Lots of content (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 4 years ago | (#31000784)

I was expecting the Chinese hacker to be Russian.

Re:Lots of content (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31001418)

I guess the fact that this is a chinese guy is shocking to some new york times readers?

China is like the Matrix. What you are probably not aware of is that the mother, standing silently nearby offering the visiting guests oranges and candies, was not the hacker's mother at all, nor was she even visible to him. She was a government monitor generated to appear precisely as the visitors would expect her to. All communications that took place were relayed back to those who take interest in such things.

Haha. Just kidding. Actually, reality can be even stranger than that in China. People will often tell you seemingly contradictory things (such as claiming that mom knows nothing about it when she's standing right there listening to everything being said) and it's quite deliberate. What he meant was that his parents must not know anything from an official standpoint. Hacking may be illegal in China, but it's also some people's government jobs.

I say MEH to you sir. MEH indeed. (1)

Em Emalb (452530) | more than 4 years ago | (#30999506)

Harrumph!

A true 133+ |-|4[|3R would never sit around in their mom's house reppin' kuh-nowledge bout no goog hack. They'd be too busy climbing out from under the giant pile of soaked panties they'd have thrown at them.

Dude = fake.

Re:I say MEH to you sir. MEH indeed. (1)

Em Emalb (452530) | more than 4 years ago | (#30999544)

Another thing, a true "leet speaker" wouldn't have mangled frogging leet hacker the way I did.

Oh well....me goes back to my precious networks...oh, the hacking, it burns....

Slashdot requires you to wait between each successful posting of a comment to allow everyone a fair chance at posting a comment.

It's been too damned soon since you last successfully posted a comment

How to deal with Chinese hackers (2, Funny)

arcite (661011) | more than 4 years ago | (#30999576)

If you read the following I'll have to kill you (kindly leave your gps coordinates in my inbox).

Look, its a simple process of elimination. First we coordinate the offender using black-ops satellites circling above the Himalaya. Once the hacker is pin-pointed in his bunker we upload a 'spike' directly to his IP address, which is gained by triangulating his cell phone signature via wi-fi antennas of surrounding Starbucks coffee shops. The 'spike' will immediately disrupt use of his cerebral cortex, thus rendering said malicious and poorly misguided comrade into a defenseless and innocuous teddy bear.

Re:How to deal with Chinese hackers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30999792)

Done

Re:How to deal with Chinese hackers (1)

nebaz (453974) | more than 4 years ago | (#31000474)

Did I fall asleep?

Re:How to deal with Chinese hackers (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31001044)

Did I fall asleep?

For a little while.

Re:How to deal with Chinese hackers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31000708)

Yeah, like that will work. The hacker will obviously be behind a firewall. When you spike his IP address millions of people around the world sitting at 192.168.0.2 will go zombie. You should think before you post that sort of stuff.

Re:How to deal with Chinese hackers (1)

dgatwood (11270) | more than 4 years ago | (#31001194)

GPS coordinates:

38.9522,-77.144752

:-D

I can't help but ask (0, Offtopic)

Steauengeglase (512315) | more than 4 years ago | (#30999586)

Is kdawson obsessed with China or is kdawson obsessed with a China obsessed NYT?

Re:I can't help but ask (2, Funny)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 4 years ago | (#30999788)

Or is China obsessed with kdawson? We can never know.

Re:I can't help but ask (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30999986)

In Soviet Russia, kdawson and China are obsessed with each other!

Re:I can't help but ask (2, Funny)

daveime (1253762) | more than 4 years ago | (#31001002)

Come on, everyone knows the Great Firewall of China is only in place to filter out kdawson posts.

Perspective check (5, Insightful)

abbynormal brain (1637419) | more than 4 years ago | (#30999622)

The article highlights two important facts
1. Fun
2. Profitable

It's been a long time since I broke into my grade school's soda/chips/candy closet from a skylight on the roof. Sitting there drinking soda and enjoying chips, I can clearly remember how exciting (breaking in) and rewarding (chips/soda) it was. Later, I learned to respect other people's property.

So what now?
If you park a trailer in an accessible area ... expect the back doors to be open and the cargo gone. It's very exciting - it's very rewarding. Is it wrong - sure. Are the thieves the ones to blame - no. Not exactly. The thieves are not the ones to blame - the thieves are to be expected. It's an ongoing game where we square off with human nature - make it furn for the security side - keep building better mouse traps. Don't like this perspective? Ok - change human nature then. Good luck.

Re:Perspective check (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30999686)

When you get out of juvenile hall please do let us all know.

Re:Perspective check (0)

brian0918 (638904) | more than 4 years ago | (#30999776)

The fact that there are examples of people stealing doesn't imply that it is human nature to steal - there are, after all, people who don't steal. Instead, humans have the *capacity* to act rationally or irrationally - to steal or not steal. *That* capacity to choose is in human nature.

So if someone does steal, they are to blame, because they had a choice in the matter. They chose to act irrationally - to steal. Claiming that they are not to blame because it is "in their nature" is an argument for determinism, which is easily falsified in this instance by the simple fact that not everyone acts in this way.

Re:Perspective check (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30999886)

That implies that stealing is the irrational choice. Is it always?

Re:Perspective check (4, Insightful)

ArbitraryDescriptor (1257752) | more than 4 years ago | (#31000118)

You desire something X much. Your perception of the consequences finds them to be of Y severity.
if(X>Y){
stealing = rational
} else {
stealing = irrational
}

You may be wrong about Y, but given the set of information you behaved rationally. In other words: If you feel you would benefit a net life-improvement by taking the object, it seems rational to do so. Doesn't mean it's ethical, but the debate of moral absolutes and human nature is another subject entirely.

Re:Perspective check (2, Insightful)

brian0918 (638904) | more than 4 years ago | (#31000380)

You may be wrong about Y, but given the set of information you behaved rationally.

Reason doesn't occur in a vacuum, just as your actions don't occur in a vacuum. The rational choice is that which is objectively determined to be in the interest of your life. Thus, theft is always irrational, as it is never in the interest of your life to steal - you violate the rights of others, you make yourself dependent on the failures of others, you cannot pretend to know enough to properly assess the situation (Y), and you encourage others to violate your rights in the process.

Re:Perspective check (1)

ArbitraryDescriptor (1257752) | more than 4 years ago | (#31000782)

The rational choice is that which is objectively determined to be in the interest of your life. Thus, theft is always irrational, as it is never in the interest of your life to steal - you violate the rights of others, you make yourself dependent on the failures of others, you cannot pretend to know enough to properly assess the situation (Y), and you encourage others to violate your rights in the process.

Nonsense. This is a simple cost-benefit analysis. Suppose I'm homeless and penniless. If the penalty for stealing 10 million dollars from an endangered money tree is a fine of $100,000 and a year in white collar prison trading high-fives with my fellow inmates, and I get to keep the money, then I would be up $9,900,000. That is an objectively measurable improvement in my circumstances, end of story.

Re:Perspective check (1)

brian0918 (638904) | more than 4 years ago | (#31000986)

If the penalty for stealing 10 million dollars from an endangered money tree is a fine of $100,000 and a year in white collar prison trading high-fives with my fellow inmates, and I get to keep the money, then I would be up $9,900,000.

As I said - and you ignored - you 1) can't pretend to know ahead of time that you'll definitely get away with such an action, 2) make yourself dependent on the failures of others, and 3) encourage others to violate your rights in the future.

As for your specific incident, 1) your money would be confiscated when you were caught, 2) your penalty would increase with repeated incidents, and 3) your ability to get a job or do any interaction with society would be completely destroyed. And what do you do with your money? Assuming people are acting rationally and unwilling to trade with someone who is well known for stealing from the money tree, you would be unable to buy from anyone. Thus you depend on the irrationality of others, and so are objectively acting contrary to your interests.

Re:Perspective check (1)

ArbitraryDescriptor (1257752) | more than 4 years ago | (#31001404)

As I said - and you ignored - you 1) can't pretend to know ahead of time that you'll definitely get away with such an action, 2) make yourself dependent on the failures of others, and 3) encourage others to violate your rights in the future.

1)Don't have to, the penalty is acceptable.
2) You're welcome to explain whatever that means, because it sounds like you're saying that trying to buy a foreclosed home is somehow irrational because your success depends on the failure of others to pay their mortgage. It sounds like an ethical quandary, not an objective valuation.
3) I encouraged them to exploit the legal loophole surrounding money trees. I will put my money in a bank.

As for your specific incident,

1) I stipulated that the money is not confiscated.
2) Irrelevant, there won't be repeat incidents; nor would any be required.
3) Demonstrably false/irrelevant: I'm rich, don't need a job. Not everyone is going to know, or even care about what I did, some people would even see it as a plus (like my hypothetical homeless chums).

And what do you do with your money? Assuming people are acting rationally and unwilling to trade with someone who is well known for stealing from the money tree, you would be unable to buy from anyone.

That is incredibly naive.

Look, the scenarios that could be labeled "theft" comprise an incredibly complex set of data with nigh infinite variation. To claim that each and every one of those scenarios comes out as a net loss is just silly on the face of it. To claim that not a single antagonist in that dataset could have objectively determined his net gain before hand (ie: rationally) is beyond preposterous.

Re:Perspective check (1)

CannonballHead (842625) | more than 4 years ago | (#31001254)

You ignore morality. Some people refuse to do things because they believe they are wrong.

Re:Perspective check (1)

BitHive (578094) | more than 4 years ago | (#31001452)

You need to look into prescriptive vs normative decision making.

Re:Perspective check (1)

radtea (464814) | more than 4 years ago | (#31001344)

Doesn't mean it's ethical, but the debate of moral absolutes and human nature is another subject entirely.

Don't confuse "moral absolutes" with "moral concretes".

"Stealing in wrong" is not just absolute (context free), it is also concrete (it describes the absolute in terms of a particular, very narrowly defined act.)

It is quite possible to believe that there are no concrete moral absolutes, while continuing to believe in abstract moral absolutes. Concrete moral absolutes are like engineer's rules, or Aristotelian physics. They describe particular, limited systems in very concrete terms. Newtonian physics describes those same systems in much more abstract terms, but no one would claim that Newtonian physics is not absolute (at least not within its domain of application, which is so vast it took 200 years to find exceptions.)

This is a question that has confused me for a long time, becuase it seems to me obvious that there are moral absolutes--the regularities we observe in human behaviour would be incomprehensible if there were not. But they exist at a sufficiently abstract level that they are not obvious, and ethics has been stuck in the equivalent of the Aristotelian phase of physics for a long time.

That we only have a vague idea of what the abstract moral absolutes are does not mean they don't exist. Only intellectually bankrupt nihilists like Zeno argued that our imperfect understanding of the laws of motion implied that there weren't any.

Re:Perspective check (1)

brian0918 (638904) | more than 4 years ago | (#31000300)

That implies that stealing is the irrational choice. Is it always?

Yes. Irrational actions are contrary to your life as the fundamental standard of value. Theft is an act of force against another individual, and so violates their rights. Theft is irrational, because it is not in the long-term interest of your life. Not only can you not pretend to know that your theft will succeed, but you also make yourself dependent on the failures of others. In addition, you encourage a society of theft in the process, making it more likely to impact your own life in other situations.

For a more thorough explanation, I would check out Ayn Rand's essay Man's Rights [aynrand.org] .

Re:Perspective check (1)

timeOday (582209) | more than 4 years ago | (#31000024)

Claiming that they are not to blame because it is "in their nature" is an argument for determinism, which is easily falsified in this instance by the simple fact that not everyone acts in this way.

That argument doesn't falsify a thing, just as billiard balls are not proven to exhibit free will simply because the 8 ball falls into the corner pocket while the 3 ball goes off to the left.

Re:Perspective check (1)

brian0918 (638904) | more than 4 years ago | (#31000514)

The only way you can claim they are not to blame is to say they had no choice in the matter, which is what the original poster was attempting to do by claiming that it is in everyone's "nature" to steal. In reality, what is in one's nature is the ability to choose how to act in every situation - to act rationally or not. So the simple fact that they have a choice means they are to blame.

Trying to use the word "blame" as the original poster does is simply dropping the context of what that word refers to.

Re:Perspective check (1)

Alpha830RulZ (939527) | more than 4 years ago | (#31000248)

which is easily falsified in this instance by the simple fact that not everyone acts in this way.

If everyone had the same background, geneology, wealth, intelligence, etc, and still acted in different manners, you might have an argument for non-determinism. But that too is an impossible scenario, so we don't really know, do we? Simple birth order has been shown to change behavior between siblings. The brownian motion of society will cause us to have different histories, and thus to be determined differently.

Those of us who do believe in determinism don't automatically rule out the phenomenon of apparent free will. We simply think it's likely a perception, rather than any true capriciousness of man's mind. If you argue this, it's because your history and makeup force you to do so. If you don't, it's because they allow you not to.

It's really hard to -prove- that free will exists. I spent 2 years in philosophy classes listening to people try. It's no more settled than whether some guy 2000 years ago really died for our sins. It's also usually argued with the same level of non-fact based vehemence, too.

Re:Perspective check (1)

brian0918 (638904) | more than 4 years ago | (#31000682)

Those of us who do believe in determinism don't automatically rule out the phenomenon of apparent free will. We simply think it's likely a perception, rather than any true capriciousness of man's mind.

In other words, you believe choice is an illusion, no? Yet the very concept of "illusion" implies that I had a choice, and that I made the wrong choice - where I should have judged that I had no free will, I incorrectly judged that I didn't. The same goes for any other synonym, or even for words themselves. The very words you use, and the concepts in your mind which are represented by those words, imply free will. Anyone attempting to argue that we do not have free will is invalidated by his very attempt to argue.

It's really hard to -prove- that free will exists.

On the contrary, free will is self-evident. Show me an argument against free will, and it will be fallacious in some respect. Until then, the claim that we do not have free will is arbitrary and should be rejected as such.

It's no more settled than whether some guy 2000 years ago really died for our sins.

Well he could not have. There is no imaginable mechanism by which that could have happened, so the claim is (of course) arbitrary, and should simply be disregarded.

Re:Perspective check (1)

linuxrocks123 (905424) | more than 4 years ago | (#31001116)

> In other words, you believe choice is an illusion, no? Yet the very concept of "illusion" implies that I had a choice, and that I made the wrong choice - where I should have judged that I had no free will, I incorrectly judged that I didn't. The same goes for any other synonym, or even for words themselves. The very words you use, and the concepts in your mind which are represented by those words, imply free will. Anyone attempting to argue that we do not have free will is invalidated by his very attempt to argue.

---

#include <iostream>

using namespace std;

int main()
{
     cout << "I have no free will.\n";
     return 0;
}

---

HOLY SHIT!  MY COMPUTER HAS FREE WILL!

---linuxrocks123

Re:Perspective check (2, Insightful)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 4 years ago | (#31000718)

It's no more settled than whether some guy 2000 years ago really died for our sins.

Nah, that's quite well settled. If he existed, he died for pissing off the Roman authorities. Bitch-slapping the money changers and uniting the poor interferes with tax revenues.

Re:Perspective check (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31000112)

expect the back doors to be open and the cargo gone.

Hehehe one time had to go out on a truck with a driver to test some software. Just as we are about to go out he goes 'oh damn forgot my box'. Odd thing to do but ok who am I to argue?

About 4 hours later 'remember that box from this morning?' 'yeah' 'well it is full of rotten chicken. I never lock the doors takes too much time locking and unlocking em to get my stuff out. I leave it right at the back where it is easy to get. Ive only lost the box 3 times. No one ever goes further in as they want to get away quick. Oh lock your door and dont get out here they will rob you blind.'

naaaaaaaaaaasty....

this just in! (0)

nimbius (983462) | more than 4 years ago | (#30999648)

hackers exist outside of MIT! Still stealing data, still subverting mainstream culture!

film at 11!

Re:this just in! (2, Informative)

solafide (845228) | more than 4 years ago | (#31000088)

MIT hackers don't tend to do things that are destructive of property, and in fact tend to spend a good bit of money for temporary appendages to various campus buildings for their hacks. I don't actually know a single cracker here at MIT.

cracking is illegal in any civilized country (3, Insightful)

tokul (682258) | more than 4 years ago | (#30999656)

cracking is illegal in any civilized country. I am pretty sure that if he spends nights hacking, Chinese authorities won't put him in jail unless he tries to hack something in order to circumvent their controls.

Re:cracking is illegal in any civilized country (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30999712)

Wow it took long enough for the pedant brigade to come along and whine about how the term hacker has been co-opted from him and his fellow neckbeards.

Re:cracking is illegal in any civilized country (-1, Flamebait)

the linux geek (799780) | more than 4 years ago | (#30999922)

Not this bullshit again. Language changes. Maybe in the 60's, guys working on the PDP-8's liked to call themselves "hackers," and it meant something else. Now, hacker is a negative term. Get the fuck over it. Have a nice day!

Not if the place you are hacking pays you to do it (1)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 4 years ago | (#31000228)

Not if the place you are hacking pays you to do it.

Cracker, not Hacker (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30999728)

another example of the mainstream not getting it; Hackers are tinkerers, they're good.. Crackers are criminals. Until the media gets it right, how are we to expect the rest to understand?

Re:Cracker, not Hacker (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31000020)

And until you come forward from the 80's and its terminology, how are we supposed to take you seriously?

Wait, the NYT didn't get hold of this guy on... (2, Insightful)

A beautiful mind (821714) | more than 4 years ago | (#30999762)

...IRC? Isn't that how hackers talk when they don't want to be overheard? [youtube.com]

I guess the NYT needs to attach a disclaimer to the story, because whenever a journalist tries to interview a "hacker" I can't decide to laugh or cry. Something like this would do nicely:

The stories and information posted here are artistic works of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact.

Re:Wait, the NYT didn't get hold of this guy on... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31000394)

Well, at least they don't post fiction and falsehood in the stories about stuff you're not an expert in.

Contact the Sales dept... (5, Funny)

fahrbot-bot (874524) | more than 4 years ago | (#30999768)

For less than $6, one can even purchase the "Hacker's Penetration Manual."

Sure, please enter your Credit or Debit card info along with Name, Address ... Allow six weeks for delivery.

Re:Contact the Sales dept... (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30999904)

Pffft, like hackers know anything about "penetration". Fake!

Re:Contact the Sales dept... (5, Funny)

The Archon V2.0 (782634) | more than 4 years ago | (#30999944)

For less than $6, one can even purchase the "Hacker's Penetration Manual."

Sure, please enter your Credit or Debit card info along with Name, Address ... Allow six weeks for delivery.

I did that. Not a very good book. "Chapter One: Social Engineering." is just six pages of "LOL!" repeated over and over.

Shocking! (2, Funny)

TSIGabe (1735978) | more than 4 years ago | (#30999992)

His C# book on his desk that is.

Re:Shocking! (1)

francium de neobie (590783) | more than 4 years ago | (#31000052)

Probably for copying useful code snippets.

But otherwise if you're a hacker and you can't find out how to write C# from the documentations and from Google, it's kinda duh...

Wrong word? (2, Insightful)

humphrm (18130) | more than 4 years ago | (#31000062)

I didn't see anything in the article about hacking. It all looked like cracking to me.

Yes, it is, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31000132)

"Hacking" has been used in place of "cracking" so many times now that nobody really cares - you can thank mass media and script kiddies for that one.

Just let the original definition die, and use "nifty fix" or something similar when you want to say "hack".

Re:Wrong word? (1)

francium de neobie (590783) | more than 4 years ago | (#31000150)

Well, if you happen to be an open source developer, the "FOSS guy" label is much better than "hacker" anyway. None of the confusion, and people still respect you as much.

Re:Wrong word? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31000582)

I'd rather use Windows than be called the 'FOSS guy'!

Re:Wrong word? (1)

nlindstrom (244357) | more than 4 years ago | (#31001284)

None of the confusion, and people still respect you as much.

Which is to say, not at all!

Re:Wrong word? (1)

ascari (1400977) | more than 4 years ago | (#31000360)

More like smacking. Of sensationalism.

Yawn (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31000618)

-1 Stale meme

Re:Wrong word? (4, Informative)

Lord Ender (156273) | more than 4 years ago | (#31001370)

Welcome to the English language. When 99% of the population understands a certain word to mean a certain thing, then that word does, in fact, mean that thing.

What you will find even more confusing is that words sometimes have multiple meanings! For example, the word "hacker" could mean both "a clever programmer", "a golfer", and "a person who circumvents computer system security." All three at the same time! It's amazing.

Re:Wrong word? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31001442)

Sorry, grandpa!

Anyone here thinks it's actually a good thing? (4, Insightful)

francium de neobie (590783) | more than 4 years ago | (#31000352)

I guess plenty of Slashdotters learned a bit about computing from minor cracks - almost everyone has changed a save game file with a text or hex editor. Insecure network shares at your school network. Getting your neighbors' insecure Wifi passwords, someone probably thinks MAC filtering alone is safe. Modifying Flash games to give yourself 2^31 - 1 points on the high score board. Getting root on random poorly secured UNIX terminals in tech expos. Getting into someone else's IIS and read his local files via the canonical path bug many years ago. etc.

Sure it's not healthy if all you do are these minor thing and you keep doing these stuff for years. But it's a good inlet for kids to learn computing nevertheless.

I don't get it (2, Insightful)

Xaedalus (1192463) | more than 4 years ago | (#31000402)

Why is this guy living with his mom if he's such a great and skilled hacker? Where's his money? Where's his grandiose lifestyle? What is he doing with all those computers he's woven into a bot-net? If he's making all that money, why isn't he spending it?

I wonder if we're making the Chinese Dragon out to be far more fearsome than it actually is. Why exactly should I be afraid of him, and all his Chinese brethren? Yes, they can hack, yes they can start and fight a cyber-war. But I am underwhelmed by their power if all they do is sit there day after day, coding, hacking, "making money", and not doing anything with it. And if they do eventually start and fight a cyber war, then they will end up losing the only medium that gives their life meaning. What happens to these guys when we counter-strike (because I refuse to believe that my fellow Western neckbeards would take a cyber-ass-whuppin' from the Chinese lying down)? When their networks go down and their computers are infected or taken out, what then? I can get up and leave my computer. Can they?

I'm a naive bumpkin most likely, I just fail to see how these guys are so formidable. Pathetic is more like it, like a boxer with a glass jaw. Their greatest strength is actually their weakness.

Re:I don't get it (2, Informative)

francium de neobie (590783) | more than 4 years ago | (#31000438)

Stealing bank passwords is one thing, how to transfer the money to your account without being traceable is a much bigger problem.

Re:I don't get it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31000480)

Q: where is his money going?
A: prossys and massages.

Re:I don't get it (1)

dwiget001 (1073738) | more than 4 years ago | (#31001148)

O.K., so he was living with his mom.

But, if he was also living in his mom's basement, then be on par with a good portion of Slashdot minions.

If he has also never been laid, and no the new rubber dolls do not count, he would be revered here on Slashdot.

orly? (1)

Taibhsear (1286214) | more than 4 years ago | (#31000566)

[hacking is illegal in China]

Um, isn't hacking illegal pretty much everywhere?...

Re:orly? (1)

daveime (1253762) | more than 4 years ago | (#31001100)

[hacking is illegal in China]

It only illegal if you do it against the Chinese Government. Hacking anyone else is okay.

Re:orly? (1)

zill (1690130) | more than 4 years ago | (#31001242)

[hacking is illegal in China]

It only illegal if you do it against the Chinese Government. Hacking anyone else is okay.

I think you meant "hacking everyone else is encouraged by the government."

sockpuppet (2, Informative)

xandroid (680978) | more than 4 years ago | (#31000894)

"Majia" can mean "sockpuppet" in Mandarin.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>