Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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 ×

178 comments

CmdrTaco's tiny limp dick (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35214086)

CmdrTaco's limp dick is only about .5" when fully erect. It's truly a pathetic sight to behold.

Missed some (4, Insightful)

Capt.DrumkenBum (1173011) | more than 3 years ago | (#35214108)

Script kiddies. (They believe they are hackers)\
The real pros. (The ones you never hear about)
Probably some others.

Re:Missed some (2)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 3 years ago | (#35214120)

Probably some others.

Insert name of government agency here ...

Re:Missed some (4, Funny)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 3 years ago | (#35214484)

You're just being paranoid. Those government agencies don't exist. And if you don't believe me, just ask them.

Re:Missed some (1)

jgagnon (1663075) | more than 3 years ago | (#35214686)

You're a spy and you don't really exist. So where does that leave us?

Re:Missed some (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35215220)

So you all really don't exist, whats the purpose of being here then?

Re:Missed some (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35214544)

Don't forget the US Government sponsored 'hackers' that devote every day to generating mod points on /. to mod commodore64_love and his other accounts down. He must be silenced for the good of the liberals!

Re:Missed some (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#35214676)

It doesn't have a name.

Gotta Have Catchy Nicknames for Them Though (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35214164)

Yeah but you need a catchy name like 'hacktivists' or else no one will publish your oversimplified crappy little classification rant that ends with you saying 'know thine enemy' and making ROGER GRIMES look like a badass hacker hunter.

Here are your suggested nicknames:

Script kiddies.

The Can't-Somebody-Else-Code-It? Hacker

The real pros.

The Gingerbread Men

Re:Gotta Have Catchy Nicknames for Them Though (1)

wmbetts (1306001) | more than 3 years ago | (#35214556)

The term as been around over a decade now. If I remember correctly it was first used to describe the milw0rm attacks on the Indian nuclear program.

Re:Gotta Have Catchy Nicknames for Them Though (2)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#35214696)

Script kiddies.

The Can't-Somebody-Else-Code-It? Hacker

"There's a hack for that."

Re:Gotta Have Catchy Nicknames for Them Though (3, Interesting)

skids (119237) | more than 3 years ago | (#35215154)

The seven types of useless speculation-based throwaway tech articles:

1) Those that try to classify things
2) Those that list traits of things or people
3) Those that troll-bait old tech holy wars
4) Those that recycle old ideas as new and revolutionary
5) Dups from this-day-last-year because the byline didn't display the year
6) Shameless FUD
7) Those that ego-stroke the intended audience by telling them how unique they are.

Re:Missed some (1)

iammani (1392285) | more than 3 years ago | (#35214240)

Probably some others.

You mean He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named.

Re:Missed some (0)

Capt.DrumkenBum (1173011) | more than 3 years ago | (#35214852)

He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named.

I will name him dammit!!!
Monkey boy himself, Steve Ballmer.

We have all know all along that it was him! Why else would MS make such a hackable OS?

Re:Missed some (1)

Scarletdown (886459) | more than 3 years ago | (#35215022)

Probably some others.

You mean He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named.

Hastur is a hacker?
Hastur never really came across as a hacker type.
Hastur is... (oh shit!)
*** Transmission terminated at the source ***

Re:Missed some (1)

DarthVain (724186) | more than 3 years ago | (#35214372)

Security Experts.

Re:Missed some (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35214394)

Probably some others.

Cowboy Neal?

Re:Missed some (2)

El_Muerte_TDS (592157) | more than 3 years ago | (#35214508)

Don't forget: those who won't be named.

You know, the people that $^#!***LOST CARRIER

Re:Missed some (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 3 years ago | (#35214520)

Script kiddies. (They believe they are hackers)

Doesn't that fall under #7 (put by itself on the second page, so it's easy to miss):
"Malicious hacker No. 7: Rogue hackers There are hundreds of thousands of hackers who simply want to prove their skills, brag to friends, and are thrilled to engage in unauthorized activities. They may participate in other types of hacking (crimeware), but it isn't their only objective and motivation. These are the traditional stereotyped figures popularized by the 1983 film "War Games," hacking late at night, while drinking Mountain Dew and eating Doritos. These are the petty criminals of the cyber world. They're a nuisance, but they aren't about to disrupt the Internet and business as we know it -- unlike members of the other groups."

Doesn't say anything about skill there.

The real pros. (The ones you never hear about)

Seems like focusing on a group that is defined as "the ones you know nothing about and therefore have no idea how to counter them or even if they exist" is a good way to do nothing more than stress out. Seems like the steps you'd take to counter the other ones are about all you can do.

Doctors treat symptoms mostly, once you know you have a disease, you know how to fight it (hopefully). Preventative steps like vaccinations, diet, exercise, and being on the lookout for symptoms are about all you can do for your health otherwise. You have to realize that you, right now, may have some horrible disease or cancer that hasn't gone symptomatic yet. Worrying about that is pointless though. Seems like the same would be true of uber hackers you don't know about. Take the steps to prevent the other ones, and common sense steps. Don't spend a lot of time worrying that you have an evil Iranian 007 infiltrating your security unless you have evidence that there is. You can always find something unfounded to be paranoid about.

Re:Missed some (1)

ShakaUVM (157947) | more than 3 years ago | (#35215052)

>>These are the petty criminals of the cyber world. They're a nuisance, but they aren't about to disrupt the Internet

TFA that wrote that was amazingly stupid. Robert Morris took down the internet, and he was basically the stereotypical rogue hacker described in the article. Ditto the guys that wrote Melissa (David Smith), Sasser (Sven Jaschan), and so forth.

Over the years, there have been multiple ways found to "disrupt the internet" and some have been exploited (negative routing table entries being a famous way) and some haven't been.

Or, in other words, the author is stupid.

Re:Missed some (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 3 years ago | (#35215270)

I'd assume he's actually just oversimplifying things for his target audience. I got the impression that this was a list to be forwarded to someone's CEO or boss who didn't understand that norton antivirus wasn't protecting against corporate espionage. A primer for getting people used to thinking about there being different types of dangerous types online. Such people hopefully wouldn't have much reason to be concerned with script kiddies shutting down more than their own website. If this list is meant for people who design networks (which I don't understand the first thing about) then I'd hope such people had much more in-depth knowledge about the dangers here than the list presents. Maybe I'm being wildly optimistic due to ignorance, but I'd hope a head engineer type person at, say, Cisco would have already heard of script kiddies and wouldn't be reading this list and would take steps.

Re:Missed some (1)

c0lo (1497653) | more than 3 years ago | (#35214792)

Script kiddies. (They believe they are hackers)

TFA

Malicious hacker No. 7: Rogue hackers
There are hundreds of thousands of hackers who simply want to prove their skills, brag to friends, and are thrilled to engage in unauthorized activities.

They may be "hacking stupid", but they are legion... just as the populace bearing arms...
Because we are yet to see them being persistent, it doesn't mean it cannot happen to make a mass transition from the "rogue" category to the "low-tech hacktivists" one.

Re:Missed some (1)

microbee (682094) | more than 3 years ago | (#35215302)

The legendary hot female hackers.

They only exist in fairy tales, and dreams of /. readers.

The common thread (2)

GodfatherofSoul (174979) | more than 3 years ago | (#35214122)

They all think they're the "good" kind.

Re:The common thread (3, Informative)

jayme0227 (1558821) | more than 3 years ago | (#35214854)

Nah. Some of them know they are criminals. Their moms probably think they're good boys, but these guys who are actively participating in organized crime know that they are bad guys.

That's it? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35214130)

What about "Curious kids"?

Re:That's it? (1)

gearsmithy (1869466) | more than 3 years ago | (#35214650)

or stupid users

Re:That's it? (1)

izomiac (815208) | more than 3 years ago | (#35215134)

That'd probably fall under "Malicious hacker No. 7: Rogue hackers". I really want to disagree with the statement "they aren't about to disrupt the Internet and business as we know it", because that's exactly what used to happen. Sadly, I don't think I've seen much evidence for this group's competence as of late.

I say "sadly" for a couple reasons. First, I like to believe that self taught amateurs can do amazing things, good or evil. And second, people take security more seriously when worms take out parts of the internet and viruses flash your BIOS. The current lineup of malware is pathetic compared to the malware of old. Kinda like the difference between yearly influenza and the 1918 flu.

Run! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35214134)

Pro tip: When ever you see "APT," run in the other direction. That term belongs to Marketing now.

Re:Run! (1)

Scarletdown (886459) | more than 3 years ago | (#35215046)

Pro tip: When ever you see "APT," run in the other direction. That term belongs to Marketing now.

apt-get install...

you missed one (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35214162)

called the your a fooken lamer poster

There's Cool, Groovy, Hip and Square (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35214166)

And than you become one of those "Groovy" hackers. Groooooovy.....

Wait A Second (5, Insightful)

mattwrock (1630159) | more than 3 years ago | (#35214194)

I always considered myself a hacker in its original sense. Someone who modded an existing piece of hardware or software to suit their needs, or to work around an existing issue. My latest and most simplest "hack" is getting Froyo on my phone, since my carrier wouldn't send the update. Where am I on the list? Certainly not Hackivist. I guess I am now a "modder" or "homebrewer". I am afraid that the previous terms will be added to the hacker list, with the word criminal added in front.

Re:Wait A Second (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35214306)

He lists malicious hackers!

Re:Wait A Second (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35214424)

Although I guess "Rogue" would be the catch all category

Re:Wait A Second (1)

Khashishi (775369) | more than 3 years ago | (#35214868)

Then hactivist doesn't belong in there either., since activists are not motivated by malice.

Re:Wait A Second (4, Insightful)

jgrahn (181062) | more than 3 years ago | (#35214466)

I always considered myself a hacker in its original sense. Someone who modded an existing piece of hardware or software to suit their needs, or to work around an existing issue. My latest and most simplest "hack" is getting Froyo on my phone, since my carrier wouldn't send the update. Where am I on the list? Certainly not Hackivist. I guess I am now a "modder" or "homebrewer". I am afraid that the previous terms will be added to the hacker list, with the word criminal added in front.

You're a hacker in my book. Those others are not. And I'm surprised that Slashdot has started using the word *exclusively* to mean criminals.

Re:Wait A Second (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35214884)

Reverse /. effect on technical jargon? Is it possible for /. to Godwin itself?

These are the questions we must have answered, lest the crackers win!

Re:Wait A Second (2, Insightful)

Mister Whirly (964219) | more than 3 years ago | (#35214986)

You can't fight city hall indefinitely without just throwing in the towel at some point. I get sick of having a 5 minute conversation every time the subject comes up (sometimes the same conversation multiple times with the same person), so i just let it go now. Language evolves and once a phrase is out there publicly, used correctly or not, you can't put the toothpaste back in the tube. Coincidentally, the folks misusing "hacker" also seem to be the ones that call their desktop towers "CPU" or "hard drive" when referring to their entire tower, or refer to any brand of MP3 player as an "iPod".

The Dictionary (1)

QuincyDurant (943157) | more than 3 years ago | (#35215414)

...still supports the original sense as the primary meaning:

hacker |hakr|
noun
1 informal an enthusiastic and skillful computer programmer or user.
  a person who uses computers to gain unauthorized access to data.

And, believe it or not, there are other meanings:

1.
: one that hacks
2
: a person who is inexperienced or unskilled at a particular activity
3
: an expert at programming and solving problems with a computer
4
: a person who illegally gains access to and sometimes tampers with information in a computer system

Since there is no other convenient synonym for Definition #4, it's hard to blame writers for using "hacker" as shorthand.

Re:Wait A Second (3, Interesting)

trollertron3000 (1940942) | more than 3 years ago | (#35214506)

Do you code? If not then how do you hack anything? You just load ROMs. So you're a modder. Now you may love the lifestyle, but in my not so humble opinion if you don't write code you really can only "hack" mechanical things because you can't alter the software of anything controlled by code. You can get other people to write it for you and run it. But does that really meet the definition? If so then I'm a mechanic. If that's the bar then half the world can be listed as hackers for jail breaking their phone. No sir you are a scenester. Which is okay I guess If you just want to look like you're a bad ass. Like those guys with all the Celtic tattoos on 50k "motorcycles". It's okay I guess. But it ain't no 1%er.

Re:Wait A Second (1)

BJ_Covert_Action (1499847) | more than 3 years ago | (#35214872)

Someone who modded an existing piece of hardware or software...

I guess you missed that part of his post? Either way, good job at coming off like an arrogant douche in the fine /. tradition of not reading something in detail. =P

Re:Wait A Second (1)

trollertron3000 (1940942) | more than 3 years ago | (#35215100)

He said he loaded a ROM. I read it just fine asshole.

Re:Wait A Second (1)

isleshocky77 (962627) | more than 3 years ago | (#35214518)

I was reading through the comments getting extremely aggravated waiting to see how long it would take someone to point out he's naming types of crackers, not hackers. Stop allowing people to use the word hacker as a negative word without making them informed.

Re:Wait A Second (1)

trollertron3000 (1940942) | more than 3 years ago | (#35214568)

How does one allow another to use a word exactly? Language evolves my friend. Evolve with it or you'll be very very angry in life. You obviously understand the meaning so the message was conveyed properly. So what's the big deal?

Re:Wait A Second (4, Insightful)

_anomaly_ (127254) | more than 3 years ago | (#35214728)

Why exactly do those listed not fall under the category of malicious hackers?
"Hacker" is only used as a negative word in this context because of the adjective "malicious".

Re:Wait A Second (1)

isleshocky77 (962627) | more than 3 years ago | (#35214794)

and on the other hand, you have a point sir. Good call. Please kindly excuse me as I remove my foot from my mouth.

Re:Wait A Second (1)

_anomaly_ (127254) | more than 3 years ago | (#35214848)

No problem. It seems there are A LOT of people making that mistake in this thread.

Re:Wait A Second (1)

gnapster (1401889) | more than 3 years ago | (#35215172)

All the same, it would be good to have 'malicious' included in the title. From the title, I was expecting seven types in the whole spectrum from white hat to black. It's not like the title was getting overly long.

Re:Wait A Second (1)

_anomaly_ (127254) | more than 3 years ago | (#35215486)

I agree, the title certainly is misleading.

Re:Wait A Second (1)

ShakaUVM (157947) | more than 3 years ago | (#35214928)

>>I was reading through the comments getting extremely aggravated waiting to see how long it would take someone to point out he's naming types of crackers, not hackers. Stop allowing people to use the word hacker as a negative word without making them informed.

I was scanning through the comments wondering when people, once again, would blame redneck hicks for all of our criminal computer activity.

Seriously, pedants - "crackers" is a stupid word, and this is why your War on Terminology failed. Black Hats sounds much cooler, and is more popular thereby.

Re:Wait A Second (1)

Lord Ender (156273) | more than 3 years ago | (#35214828)

Hacker in its original sense is "one who hacks," esp. with a knife or axe. The definition you are talking about is little-used. The definition Bruce is talking about is by far the most common definition used in the infosec world. Since he is an infosec expert writing for an infosec blog it's fairly obvious which of the multiple definitions he intended. It's so obvious, in fact, that anyone who complains about the terminology here is just being intentionally thick. Kinda funny, really.

Re:Wait A Second (2)

gnapster (1401889) | more than 3 years ago | (#35215398)

I believe that the reason people complain about the semantics of hacking is this: they value the definition of 'hack' that first became popular at MIT and is codified in the Hacker HOWTO and the Jargon File. To wit, the application of ingenuity to a problem. This is a beautiful concept, and there is no other word which captures it. I would like to talk to people about this concept, but the vocabulary has been diluted, making my goal more difficult. At the end of the day, though, it is probably futile to attempt to coerce the English-speaking masses towards this definition. That saddens me a bit, although I understand that the Psychology community has suffered much more than those in technology.

Re:Wait A Second (1)

Lord Ender (156273) | more than 3 years ago | (#35215494)

Anyone upset that the English language overloads terminology needs to find himself a new language. Whining about this is as silly as whining about water being wet.

Re:Wait A Second (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35215408)

The mass media found a new word and a new container to put people into. Hacker sounds all scary and naughty, so that's the end of the old definition for which you would fit. Experienced developers that work up the greasy pole refer to amateur coders as hackers too. I.e. they don't know what they're doing, do a crap job engineering wise, and generally leave a big pile of poo to be fixed when they leave.

If you worked out how to install an OS yourself, without someone pre-packaging the process or a walkthough. 1: you should post the details, and 2: you're a real "hacker", so I guess we should invent a new term, like "rooter". Except that's a device to clean out shit.

Pair tree? (1)

sideslash (1865434) | more than 3 years ago | (#35214196)

"From the partridge-in-a-pair-tree dept" -- did I miss a pun, or was "pear" just misspelled here?

(Yeah, I know, "ja wohl, mein dictionary" and all that.)

Record high trading volume, dow drops 1000 point (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35214198)

may 6, 2010. look for the photo in Wall Street Journal. Vice Admiral Joseph Maguire rang the NYSE opening bell, Maguire is deputy director for Strategic Operational Planning at the National Counterterrorism Center. Record high trading volume, dow drops over 1000 points... someone banked billions in an hour

Re:Record high trading volume, dow drops 1000 poin (1)

c0lo (1497653) | more than 3 years ago | (#35214856)

may 6, 2010. look for the photo in Wall Street Journal. Vice Admiral Joseph Maguire rang the NYSE opening bell, Maguire is deputy director for Strategic Operational Planning at the National Counterterrorism Center. Record high trading volume, dow drops over 1000 points... someone banked billions in an hour

How does it go? Something like "never attribute to malice that could be reasonable explained by stupidity" or something (because it weren't the guys that caused it the ones who banked them billions).

Missing option (5, Funny)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#35214222)

8) Website devs who force simple articles to split unnecessarily across multiple webpages. They're in it for clicks and ad revenue, essentially scamming multiple banner-ad buyers into paying for the same article read. Here's an example. [infoworld.com]

Re:Missing option (0)

Charliemopps (1157495) | more than 3 years ago | (#35214392)

Wheres my mod points when I need them. It's funny because it's true!

Re:Missing option (1)

jcoy42 (412359) | more than 3 years ago | (#35214486)

Also missing: users who have installed Adblock Plus [adblockplus.org] and don't even see the ads.

Re:Missing option (2)

nzap (1985014) | more than 3 years ago | (#35214714)

Also missing: users who have installed Adblock Plus [adblockplus.org] and don't even see the ads.

They don't see the ads, but they still see the inconvenience of imitating the limitations of a paper format.

Re:Missing option (1)

Dr_Barnowl (709838) | more than 3 years ago | (#35215010)

They're beneficial - they weren't going to buy anything anyway, so they've saved the ad server some bandwidth. It's not free, you know.

Re:Missing option (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35214500)

Yeah so, /. takes InfoWorld backhanders. Do you see how many of their stories get posted to the front page?

Re:Missing option (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35215162)

8) Website devs who force simple articles to split unnecessarily across multiple webpages. They're in it for clicks and ad revenue, essentially scamming multiple banner-ad buyers into paying for the same article read. Here's an example. [infoworld.com]

Those website devs aren't hackers, they're just hacks.

Hackers vs. Crackers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35214230)

So I take it we've abandoned arguing that the 'hackers' label is for sophisticated tinkerers and that 'crackers' should be used to label criminals.

Good. It was a stupid argument.

good hackers? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35214270)

Are all hackers really evil? In my book I count all the usual wizards and programers or patchers as hackers. Even if they are helping and not trying to bring you down.

Re:good hackers? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35214416)

re-read the summary: it says malicious hackers, ie the bad/evil guys.

rogue hackers (2)

smitty97 (995791) | more than 3 years ago | (#35214296)

Does Rogue Hackers include all the roguelikes such as Net Hackers, Moria Hackers and Angband Hackers?

Re:rogue hackers (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35214532)

It includes everyone who changes their font in order to look different from other people, but end up looking retarded.

Re:rogue hackers (1)

trollertron3000 (1940942) | more than 3 years ago | (#35214536)

The moment I see them I inspect their gear. If they don't use c++ I grief them hard and boot them from the instance.

Re:rogue hackers (1)

nzap (1985014) | more than 3 years ago | (#35214742)

xkcd [xkcd.com]

Re:rogue hackers (2)

ElectricTurtle (1171201) | more than 3 years ago | (#35214570)

Perhaps, but some rogue hackers might have trouble resolving Ancient Domains of Mystery...

Re:rogue hackers (1)

game kid (805301) | more than 3 years ago | (#35215030)

It did, but they all died and they're never coming back.

Re:rogue hackers (2)

thatskinnyguy (1129515) | more than 3 years ago | (#35215504)

No but the font change makes you a scene hacker/tool.

Wikileaks? Really? (2)

Kell Bengal (711123) | more than 3 years ago | (#35214314)

If they're conflating Wikileaks with hackers, then it's pretty clear to me that they either don't know what hackers are, don't know what Wikileaks is, or are riding the Wikileaks-hater bandwagon.

Re:Wikileaks? Really? (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#35214756)

If you include in Wikileaks the people who are stealing the secrets and giving them to the organization, then Wikileaks are hackers. They're quite a bit less technical about their acquisition of data, but they are the most famous representative of the hacktivists subset of (cr|h)ackers that includes those who are more technical. If you prefer, you can always think Sneakers.

I've always broken it down by "hats" (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35214318)

from good to bad...

white hat, gray hat, black hat, and asshat

I don't remember where I originally heard this, known it for years, so sorry to the source.

Re:I've always broken it down by "hats" (2)

camperdave (969942) | more than 3 years ago | (#35214396)

I'd reverse the last two. Black hats are being deliberately malicious and evil, whereas the other is just being a jerk for the sake of being a jerk.

Re:I've always broken it down by "hats" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35215044)

from good to bad...

My "hierarchy of involution" looks like: black/gray/white/ass-hats - with Aaron Barr far beyond the last category.

Re:I've always broken it down by "hats" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35215196)

Yeah, but what they fall short of in evilness they make up for in obnoxiousness.

innacurate re: wikileaks (5, Informative)

Junior J. Junior III (192702) | more than 3 years ago | (#35214340)

From the article:

Malicious hacker No. 5: Hacktivists
Lots of hackers are motivated by political, religious, environmental, or other personal beliefs. They are usually content with embarrassing their opponents or defacing their websites, although they can slip into corporate-espionage mode if it means they can weaken the opponent. Think WikiLeaks.

I'll grant that Wikileaks are activists. I'll also grant that they have some great hackers working for them. But what the article describes as "hacktivism" is not what wikileaks does. Wikileaks employs hackers defensively, to provide a secure system that guarantees anonymity for the sources who leak information to them.

Although there have been allegations made in the press by people who probably don't know anything about information security, I have seen no evidence that suggests that Wikileaks obtains information by cracking into systems. On the contrary, Wikileaks have always claimed to work by receiving information from sources who were privileged with access to the information, and who elected to leak it to Wikileaks out of duty to their conscience.

There has been, to date, no evidence brought forward which suggests that Wikileaks has ever broken into a system to extract information out of it. That isn't the way they do things.

There are "hacktivists" who do things like deface websites in order to publicize a cause, or DDoS attack some target that they disagree with. But that is not what Wikileaks does, either. Misguided sympathizers from "Anonymous" may have done some of these things in an attempt to aid Wikileaks, but that is still not something that Wikileaks does or endorses.

Re:innacurate re: wikileaks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35214514)

Wikileaks have always claimed to work by receiving information from sources who were privileged with access to the information, and who elected to leak it to Wikileaks out of duty to their conscience.

Oh, well as long as they claim to not hack systems, I see no reason not to trust them. I hereby proclaim Wikileaks to be an honest company because that's my opinion so it must be fact!

Re:innacurate re: wikileaks (1)

nzap (1985014) | more than 3 years ago | (#35214790)

Wikileaks have always claimed to work by receiving information from sources who were privileged with access to the information, and who elected to leak it to Wikileaks out of duty to their conscience.

Oh, well as long as they claim to not hack systems, I see no reason not to trust them. I hereby proclaim Wikileaks to be an honest company because that's my opinion so it must be fact!

The strawman industry is booming in Trollsville.

Re:innacurate re: wikileaks (1)

c0lo (1497653) | more than 3 years ago | (#35215112)

Oh, well as long as they claim to not hack systems, I see no reason not to trust them. I hereby proclaim Wikileaks to be an honest company because that's my opinion so it must be fact!

Doh, AC... Your proclamation seems a bit redundant (to use a mild term), don't you think?
Or you haven't heard about "Innocent until proven guilty" yet?

Re:innacurate re: wikileaks (3, Funny)

gearsmithy (1869466) | more than 3 years ago | (#35214718)

Well we know Assange isn't a hacker... we have evidence to suggest that he's be laid at least twice.

Hackers? (1)

D Ninja (825055) | more than 3 years ago | (#35214344)

Angelina Jolie is suspiciously absent...

Re:Hackers? (1)

Stregano (1285764) | more than 3 years ago | (#35214724)

That is because she was a crappy hacker. She needed the help of ZEROCOOL a.k.a. Crash Override a.k.a. Dade Murphy. Don't forget about Razor and Blade, they are elite.

Re:Hackers? (1)

c0lo (1497653) | more than 3 years ago | (#35215132)

Angelina Jolie is suspiciously absent...

Currently on active assignment for a job requiring a "Cat4 hacker"... be patient.

Rogue Hack (1)

DarthVain (724186) | more than 3 years ago | (#35214404)

When you're killed by the letter "k"

which type was steve jobs and steve wozniak (1)

decora (1710862) | more than 3 years ago | (#35214462)

when they were selling blueboxes?

"future millionaire" hackers?

Re:which type was steve jobs and steve wozniak (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#35214776)

phreaks

Re:which type was steve jobs and steve wozniak (1)

trollertron3000 (1940942) | more than 3 years ago | (#35214822)

Woz would be a hobbyist hacker. Steve Jobs would be a suit.

Waaaaaaaaaay too complicated. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35214480)

There are only two:

- Fat, preferably beard
- Super-Slim, Glasses

Maybe you should have an editor read this one, Rog (5, Funny)

Minwee (522556) | more than 3 years ago | (#35214530)

"If you think simply having a buffer overflow, fully patched systems, and antivirus will defend against all hackers no matter their objectives, you're wrong."

Um, if you think that a buffer overflow is supposed to defend you, then you're even more wrong.

Re:Maybe you should have an editor read this one, (1)

game kid (805301) | more than 3 years ago | (#35215076)

XD

Re:Maybe you should have an editor read this one, (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35215178)

"If you think simply having a buffer overflow, fully patched systems, and antivirus will defend against all hackers no matter their objectives, you're wrong."

Um, if you think that a buffer overflow is supposed to defend you, then you're even more wrong.

That HAD to be a typo . . . somehow. Not sure how. I think he might have meant "firewall", but I just can't see how "firewall" could morph into "buffer overflow". Unless there's a buffer overflow vulnerability in your firewall? But then, as you so succinctly pointed out, that wouldn't help your network much.

Now all we need (1)

Dachannien (617929) | more than 3 years ago | (#35214952)

...is a list of skill bonuses for each class, and we can start rolling up characters!

The irony . . . (1)

Ethereal.Visage (1990122) | more than 3 years ago | (#35215206)

Oh, the irony. I attempted to read the article, and I get "Site off-line".

Anyone think that he might have just won the "pissed off the hackers" achievement?

The Seven Types of Criminal Hackers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35215328)

Why do reporters and writers everywhere keep doing this?
A hacker is a highly skilled computer programmer who loves doing neat things with computers or other electronic devices.
Just because he has the right skill set doesn't mean that he wants to steal your money/identity.
The correct term for any person that uses a computer in malicious ways is CRACKER. Get your shit together, people!

At this rate, true hackers will have to coin a new term to represent themselves.

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>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...