×

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!

Hacking: The Art of Exploitation

samzenpus posted more than 6 years ago | from the protect-ya-neck dept.

Book Reviews 59

David Martinjak writes "Hacking: The Art of Exploitation is authored by Jon Erickson and published by No Starch Press. It is the anticipated second edition of Erickson's earlier publication of the same title. I can't think of a way to summarize it without being over-dramatic, so it will just be said: I really liked it. The book, which will be referred to as simply Hacking, starts by introducing the author's description of hacking. Erickson takes a great approach by admitting that the common perception of hacking is rather negative, and unfortunately accurate in some cases. However, he smoothly counters this antagonistic misunderstanding by presenting a simple arithmetic problem. A bit of creativity is needed to arrive at the correct solution, but creativity and problem-solving are two integral aspects of hacking, at least to Erickson. The introduction chapter sets an acceptable tone and proper frame of mind for proceeding with the technical material." Below you'll find the rest of David's review.Chapter 2 enters the subject of programming. The first few sections in the chapter may feel a bit slow to readers who have been coding for any legitimate length of time. Erickson explains some fundamental, yet essential, concepts of programming before finally moving into some actual code. Some readers may choose to skip these few pages, but they are necessary for brave new adventurers in the dark realm of development. The remainder of the chapter certainly compensates for any perceived slow-start. Each of the remaining sections presents a sufficient quantity of technical information, accompanied by descriptive, yet straightforward explanations.

I don't mean to disrupt the chronological progression of the book review, but it is important to highlight the excellence of the explanations provided in Hacking. Throughout the book, the writing provides adequate details and the content is to the point. Many sources on exploit techniques supply sparse information, or are too wordy and often miss the relevant and important concepts. Erickson does a phenomenal job in Hacking of explaining each subject in just the right manner.

The third chapter is the staple of the book. This chapter covers buffer overflows in both the stack and the heap, demonstrates a few different ways that bash can aid in successfully exploiting a process, and provides an essentially all-encompassing elaboration of format string vulnerabilities and exploits. As I said, this is the main portion of the book so I don't want to give away too much material here. Undoubtedly, though, this chapter has the best explanation of format string attacks that I have ever read. The explanations in Chapter 3, like the rest of the book, are of substantial value.

Chapter 4 focuses on a range of network-related subjects. At first I wondered why the chapter starts with rather basic concepts like the OSI model, sockets, etc. Then I realized it was consistent with the earlier chapters. Hacking presents some core concepts, then moves on to utilizing them in exploits. In this case, these specific concepts and techniques just hadn't been covered yet. The exploit toward the end of this chapter includes some of the concepts in the previous chapter, which also helps to cement the reader's understanding.

I will mention two main shortcomings. First, the material in the "Denial of Service" section of the Networking chapter was unnecessary for this book. Attacks like the Ping of Death, and smurfing were interesting developments when they were first discovered, and effective on a large scale. Now in 2008, almost all of the items in the "Denial of Service" section are either outdated or have been covered to an excessive extent. Rather than denial of service, I would have preferred to see a section on integer attacks. This would have fit perfectly with the book's theme as there are several issues surrounding numeric types in C of which many programmers are unaware. Considering the fact that the book is about hacking and much of the code is in C; integer attacks seem like a natural component to include. The second pitfall in this review is through a fault of my own. I cannot compare this second edition of Hacking with its original, first edition release as I unfortunately do not own the first edition. Hacking finishes out the second half of the book with chapters on shellcode, countermeasures, and cryptology. The chapter on cryptology is especially interesting as it contains a good mix of information without being too hardcore on the mathematics involved. There are plenty of gems in the shellcode and countermeasures chapters, as well. Specifically, Erickson does a stellar job of explaining return-(in)to-libc attacks, and dealing with the address space layout randomization in Linux. He covers the exploit technique for linux-gate.so in a randomized memory space before it was fixed in 2.6.18, then proceeds to demonstrate a different technique for successful exploitation on kernels at 2.6.18 and later.

Undeniably, Hacking: The Art of Exploitation is one of the quintessential books for its subject. A book this good is a rare find, and certainly worth the read for any individual interested in security.

David Martinjak is a programmer, GNU/Linux addict, and the director of 2600 in Cincinnati, Ohio. He can be reached at david.martinjak@gmail.com.

You can purchase Hacking: The Art of Exploitation, 2nd Edition from amazon.com. Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews -- to see your own review here, read the book review guidelines, then visit the submission page.

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

59 comments

Good Book (5, Informative)

WatersOfOblivion (1215490) | more than 6 years ago | (#22492222)

I have the first edition, and it is a fantastic book. I highly recommend it.

Re:Good Book (-1, Offtopic)

WatersOfOblivion (1215490) | more than 6 years ago | (#22492290)

Oh yeah, and first post...

Frosty Piss (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22492460)

Frosty Pissing: The Art of Urination is an exciting look at the world of urinology and delves into various types of frosty piss from steaming and foaming all the way up to just a simple, clean crisp piss. Don't let this one whiz by you... grab a copy today!
 

Re:Frosty Piss (1)

dynamo (6127) | more than 6 years ago | (#22498014)

For a split second, this was funny. At least, the title.

But I'd read it incorrectly. I thought it said Frothy as the first word. Somehow that seems like ten times funnier.

Re:Good Book (2, Informative)

MadMidnightBomber (894759) | more than 6 years ago | (#22492330)

Just in the middle of it now and I definitely agree. The other great book I've just read is Zalewski's Silence on the Wire (he of p0f fame).

Re:Good Book (1)

hal9000(jr) (316943) | more than 6 years ago | (#22493088)

Silence on the Wire is a great book. It reminded me of the kind of analysis I used to do back in the 80's when I was automating office applications by hacking DOS programs and figuring out coordinates to do screen scrapes. This was back before we had these fancy windowed UI's. I wasn't doing security work, but I had to really know how the PC behaved and write code flexible enough to handle arbitrary screen sizes and what-not.

Man, I miss that gig.

There's a lot better available (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22493508)

I have this book, and it certainly is a passable introduction for the complete novice. However, it's simply too cursory and outdated to impart any practical knowledge of exploit development or vulnerability discovery. Fortunately, there are still a few good books out there on the subject. If you want to understand exploit development I highly recommend Koziol's "The Shellcoder's Handbook". (Although you can pick up a used first edition since the second didn't seem to add much.) If you want to understand vulnerability discovery I strongly recommend Dowd's "The Art of Software Security Assessment" (which has quickly become the bible on finding security bugs). Between those two books I rarely ever open the 20+ other books I have on hacking and security. Although, I really wish Halvar Flake would put out a book on reverse engineering. That would complete my three-volume hacker's dream library.

Re:Good Book (1)

bladesjester (774793) | more than 6 years ago | (#22493586)

Okay, a new edition being out explains the book review. I saw this one and went "WTF? I've had this book for probably 4 or 5 *years* now. It's a little late to do a review isn't it?"

Agreed that it's a good book.

Re:Good Book (2, Interesting)

ChromeAeonium (1026952) | more than 6 years ago | (#22496790)

If I may ask a dumb question, what sort of prerequisite knowledge would you recommend learning before reading this book?

Re:Good Book (1)

rocket22 (1131179) | more than 6 years ago | (#22611048)

I already knew the book for almost two years... It looks great.

One question: is the author the same Jon Erickson who runs Dr.Dobb's?

Inappropriate Title? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22492226)

The title would be better if it read "Cracking: The Art of Exploitation," notwithstanding any introduction and definition that attempts to skirt the issue.

Re:Inappropriate Title? (2, Interesting)

ZiakII (829432) | more than 6 years ago | (#22492362)


The title would be better if it read "Cracking: The Art of Exploitation," notwithstanding any introduction and definition that attempts to skirt the issue.
To my understanding cracking meant simply using a tool/program to exploit a bug in a program that someone else written (usually having no idea how and why it works), while hacking was looking for those exploits and understanding how they work and developing your own tools. If the second case is correct, then this book's title lives up to it's name by explaining to the reader on why and how these exploits work, and what they can do to prevent these flaws in their programing.

Re:Inappropriate Title? (1)

Shade of Pyrrhus (992978) | more than 6 years ago | (#22492708)

From the description you use that'd be more like being a "script kiddy" instead of a cracker. Cracking, from my understanding, is simply either performing a malicious act after having found the flaws.

There's a whole slew of terms that seem to have been lost as the term "hacker" has become mainstream (different types of crackers, specific roles, etc). Unfortunately, because of how mainstream this use has become, I doubt anything can be done to change this misnomer.

Re:Inappropriate Title? (1)

Shade of Pyrrhus (992978) | more than 6 years ago | (#22492796)

While I remember to post - the differences are generally just described nowadays as different "hats". Black hat (crackers), white hat (security experts and the like, paid or charity), and gray hat (curiosity).

Re:Inappropriate Title? (1)

HouseArrest420 (1105077) | more than 6 years ago | (#22502504)

While I remember to post - the differences are generally just described nowadays as different "hats". Black hat (crackers), white hat (security experts and the like, paid or charity), and gray hat (curiosity).
Anyone can give various meanings for these terms. The way I've heard it, and the way I explain it:

Black hat-tends to live on breaking into systems they have no right to be in, with no real interest in the outcome. This is the "hat" the media is often refering to when they describe hackers as cyber criminals. An example: someone that hacked into your bank account, no matter the reason for doing so, and would have no issues with posting that info on the net. if you're into D&D you'd be familiar with the term chaotic evil.

White hat-tends to live on following the rules. Only breaking into systems where they are testing security with permission. This type of hacker doesn't believe the info in your bank account is free for all and wouldn't even think about trying to view it....unless your bank asked them to. In d&d terms good.

Grey hat- tends to believe most information should be freely available to all, but they do have a that inner voice that tells them it very well may be teh wrong thing to do. So they have no issues (other than the legal worries) with cracking into a for profit company and distrubuting thier source codes. Most, if not all, of the illegal things they do are for personal benifit alone. They normally wouldn't think about giving out you're banking information on the net, if they had the interest in getting into it in the first place. In d&d terms chaotic neutral.

I've only played d&D 2-3 times, so these terms may be off a bit...but i figured most of you would get the idea.

Re:Inappropriate Title? (1)

Cairnarvon (901868) | more than 6 years ago | (#22494546)

I'd say the topic of this book is just where hacking (in the traditional sense) and cracking overlap. Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be a term for that that doesn't piss at least one group of people off.
I personally tend to stick to ``(white|black|gray) hat hacking'' for this overlap, and ``script kiddie cracking'' for all the cracking that falls outside it. It may not please everyone, but at least it's less ambiguous.

Re:Inappropriate Title? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#22542094)

From The Jargon File:
hacker [catb.org] : A person who enjoys exploring the details of programmable systems and how to stretch their capabilities....
cracker [catb.org] : One who breaks security on a system.....
script kiddies [catb.org] : [very common] The lowest form of cracker....

From RFC 4949 [rfc-editor.org] :

$ cracker
            (I) Someone who tries to break the security of, and gain
            unauthorized access to, someone else's system, often with
            malicious intent. (See: adversary, intruder, packet monkey, script
            kiddy. Compare: hacker.)
            Usage: Was sometimes spelled "kracker". [NCSSG]

$ hacker
            1. (I) Someone with a strong interest in computers, who enjoys
            learning about them, programming them, and experimenting and
            otherwise working with them. (See: hack. Compare: adversary,
            cracker, intruder.)
            Usage: This first definition is the original meaning of the term
            (circa 1960); it then had a neutral or positive connotation of
            "someone who figures things out and makes something cool happen".
            2. (O) "An individual who spends an inordinate amount of time
            working on computer systems for other than professional purposes."
            [NCSSG]
            3. (D) Synonym for "cracker".
            Deprecated Usage: Today, the term is frequently (mis)used
            (especially by journalists) with definition 3.

$ script kiddy
            (D) /slang/ A cracker who is able to use existing attack
            techniques (i.e., to read scripts) and execute existing attack
            software, but is unable to invent new exploits or manufacture the
            tools to perform them; pejoratively, an immature or novice
            cracker.
            Deprecated Term: It is likely that other cultures use different
            metaphors for this concept. Therefore, to avoid international
            misunderstanding, IDOCs SHOULD NOT use this term. (See: Deprecated
            Usage under "Green Book".)

Re:Inappropriate Title? (5, Insightful)

cromar (1103585) | more than 6 years ago | (#22492392)

"Cracking" would imply that the author's intent is malicious and that he wants to teach people how to use the information maliciously. The pursuit and understanding of information (especially exploits) is an essential part to hacking. If you can't secure your box, you ain't a (computer) hacker!

Re:Inappropriate Title? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22493054)

Since when is hacking all about security? Since when is a knowlege of security essential to being a hacker?

The constant evasiveness around terms in in the computer hacker/cracker/security expert/whatever field only lends credence to the belief of outsiders that people involved are up to no good. Using defense as an excuse to learn methods of offense is a sketchy excuse used by such illuminaries as gun nuts and rabid national-security types.

To be clear:
'Hacker' describes an outlook on and method of dealing with problems of a technical nature, implying creativity and inventiveness. Not limited to computers. 'Computer hacker' is simply someone who's especially clever re: using computers, IMNSHO
'Cracker' describes a computer criminal (for fun or profit) (web site defacement, bank fraud, etc)

After that, you have your generic types of computer experts:

'Security guru' describes someone who's v. knowledgeable about the ins and outs of securing a computer
'Network guru', 'real programmer', db expert', etc, etc, are all people who are specialists in their field of computer science / administration

Re:Inappropriate Title? (1)

cromar (1103585) | more than 6 years ago | (#22493286)

So you are saying that

someone who's especially clever re: using computers
is not going to secure their box? That's ridiculous.

Re:Inappropriate Title? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22493536)

Maybe, at a cursory level - turning on a firewall and choosing a decent password, for example - but not at any sort of expert level; not at a level that the book we're talking about would teach.

Writing efficient code like John Carmack would qualify you as a hacker: how would that imply that you need to learn about exploits, or have any particular interest in computer security at all?

Re:Inappropriate Title? (1)

cromar (1103585) | more than 6 years ago | (#22493864)

What I am saying is that exploits should be important to anyone who wants to follow the hacker way. It's important to look beyond the design of a system - learning about exploits is a perfect way to do this. If one truly is a "computer hacker" one should be able to understand computer exploits. That being said, if you're a code hacker you wouldn't necessarily need to know a ton about security, although it would be somewhat foolish not to. A big part of coding is security, like it or not.

Re:Inappropriate Title? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22494334)

I agree, as long as 'exploits' is being used as a general term for unintended behavior that's beneficial to the exploiter in some way. That is, exploits aren't necessarily security related: think cutting a hole in a 5 1/5 disk to make it double sided.

Secure code, though, can be written as long as good habits are used: keeping track of pointers, using minimal privileges. I'd admit, though, that this is less true when you're talking about networked apps.

Re:Inappropriate Title? (1)

ClosedSource (238333) | more than 6 years ago | (#22499620)

I'd say being cautious and being clever are orthogonal. I "hacked" (in the classic sense) the Atari 2600 many years ago (given the primitive hardware, almost all 2600 programmers were hackers) that shouldn't lead to any conclusions about how well I protect my computer.

Re:Inappropriate Title? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22493506)

gun nuts

gun^W liberty from our power-mad government nuts

If guns are such a big fucking problem, why do the gun-hating limeys need 3500 surveillance cameras in downtown London alone, not to mention the near-saturation of the rest of their country by cameras? Short answer: total control of the citizenry.

Re:Inappropriate Title? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22496784)

To be clear:
'Hacker' describes an outlook on and method of dealing with problems of a technical nature, implying creativity and inventiveness. Not limited to computers. 'Computer hacker' is simply someone who's especially clever re: using computers, IMNSHO
'Cracker' describes a computer criminal (for fun or profit) (web site defacement, bank fraud, etc)

After that, you have your generic types of computer experts:

'Security guru' describes someone who's v. knowledgeable about the ins and outs of securing a computer
'Network guru', 'real programmer', db expert', etc, etc, are all people who are specialists in their field of computer science / administration

.

Christ, you're not just incredibly pompous in trying to lay your silly little distinctions on your betters, but you're also unbelievably tedious.

Piss off, child.

Re:Inappropriate Title? (1)

cbiltcliffe (186293) | more than 6 years ago | (#22538354)

Using defense as an excuse to learn methods of offense is a sketchy excuse used by such illuminaries as gun nuts and rabid national-security types.
No, learning offensive techniques is a critical step to ensuring that your own infrastructure is properly defended. If you assume everybody's coming in the front door, and you put dozens of locks, bars, alarms, etc, on your door, but leave your window wide open, your security is going to be bypassed in a matter of seconds.

Without knowing how the criminals are breaking in, it's impossible to secure your computer/car/house/boat/whatever against them.

If you can't see that, then you're a big part of the problem as to why our security in general sucks rocks.

Re:Inappropriate Title? (1)

StikyPad (445176) | more than 6 years ago | (#22493638)

Right, and also I'm not a Janitor, I'm a Field Service Custodial & Micro-Biological Engineer.

You can add all the esoteric bullshit you want, but it doesn't change the fact that the overwhelming majority of English speakers define someone who cleans floors and toilets as a janitor, and someone who breaks into computer systems as a hacker, regardless of any nuance of intent or comprehension. We're not Eskimos.. we don't need 42 words for ice.

Re:Inappropriate Title? (1)

cromar (1103585) | more than 6 years ago | (#22494114)

Oh believe me, I don't worry about what people call it anymore. "True hackers" know what the word means. The general populace doesn't. I gave up after 10 years of no one listening :D

Re:Inappropriate Title? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22512036)

blah blah blah

That thing on the floor, that runs most PCs. The one with the circuitry and storage devices in it.

Many people call that a "hard drive," or a "CPU." I'm pretty sure it's not either of those things, while it does contain them.

Your argument, though, is that since most people call it one of those two things, then it is one of those two things.

Re:Inappropriate Title? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22497420)

the title would be better if it read "Cracking: The Art of Exploitation,"
Ever since at least as early as the 1980's, cracking always referred to the breaking the copy protection on software. Then in the 1990's that ruddy faced historical revisionist, ESR, decided to try to change it to mean breaking into computers and enough newbs believed him that we now get thousands of people who incorrectly use the term cracking whenever they hear others incorrectly using the word hacking.

It is like when a grammar nazi makes a post belittling another persons grammar when the grammar nazi himself is using improper grammar.

First Edition (5, Informative)

Zaphod The 42nd (1205578) | more than 6 years ago | (#22492282)

I actually picked up the first edition of this from a bargain bin on a whim, and I was amazed at the quality of the book. Many of the points in the review of the second apply to the first; each section seems to start a little slow for those of us who know our way around code, but then explodes into well detailed examples and explanations of techniques. I'm almost done with the first one, and after reading several other tomes on the subjects of security and hacking, I can say that this is by far my favorite for the way it is written and the content it covers. I was worried when I got it that it would be either lacking in serious knowledge or focused completely on the ideas and ethics of hacking rather than the actual process due to its small size compared to many security books which are larger than my college textbooks; but this was completely untrue. It also focuses on the why instead of the what; so you're looking at source code and discussing how it was written rather than just being handed an executable and told to run it with this or that perameters to receive certain results. I'd recommend it completely to anyone looking to get into hacking. Now I'm trying to determine if its worth getting the second to see the changes / updates.

Pet Peeves (4, Interesting)

cromar (1103585) | more than 6 years ago | (#22492348)

Hey, good review.

I don't mean to disrupt the chronological progression of the book review
Explaining the chapters in order is rarely the best idea. As in any essay, the order of ideas presented should be geared towards explaining the main idea. In fact, you often don't need to summarize chapters (a common source of redundancy). Eh. It's one of my pet peeves :)

I definitely wanna check this book out.

Re:Pet Peeves (1)

The Clockwork Troll (655321) | more than 6 years ago | (#22492710)

If the book being reviewed did a decent job at "explaining the main idea" in chapter order, why wouldn't you expect a review to do the same?

The Art of Exploitation??? (3, Insightful)

Bob Hearn (61879) | more than 6 years ago | (#22492454)

Erickson takes a great approach by admitting that the common perception of hacking is rather negative, and unfortunately accurate in some cases. However, he smoothly counters this antagonistic misunderstanding ...
Not having seen the book, I think I can still say he would do a much better job countering this misunderstanding by picking a more appropriate title.

Re:The Art of Exploitation??? (1)

garett_spencley (193892) | more than 6 years ago | (#22492650)

"Not having seen the book, I think I can still say he would do a much better job countering this misunderstanding by picking a more appropriate title."

I'll say. At first glance I thought it was about porn.

Re:The Art of Exploitation??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22492826)

Second that.

The only thing the title makes me think of is breaking into computers. None of the more benign usages of 'hacking' are conjured up.

Re:The Art of Exploitation??? (2, Insightful)

bladesjester (774793) | more than 6 years ago | (#22493666)

Honestly speaking, hacking *is* an exercise in exploiting code in ways that it wasn't originally meant to be used...

While sort of sensationalist in the opinion of some people, it's an accurate title.

Re:The Art of Exploitation??? (1)

teknopurge (199509) | more than 6 years ago | (#22494454)

Everyone needs to move past the title. I've met Jon on several occasions and the first edition was very good. The guy is _brilliant_ with Math and does decent with the ladies.

Regards,

Bootable Linux CD included (5, Informative)

makellan (550215) | more than 6 years ago | (#22492574)

I'm half way through right now and I'm finding it extremely interesting and well written.
Some of the coding bits were easily skipped. Some of the format string exploits are still obscure after two readings, but the author mentions that this class of exploit is exceptionally rare. I look forward to finishing it, but I wish it covered more than just Linux specific hacks. There are no Windows or MacOS examples, though that may stem from something the reviewer didn't mention.
The book has a bootable Linux CD with all the code, compilers, shells and everything you might need to test and perform every one of the exploits mentioned.

Re:Bootable Linux CD included (1)

Zaphod The 42nd (1205578) | more than 6 years ago | (#22494872)

See, thats something I kinda wish the first edition had. I ended up retyping out all the source files by hand. It did ensure that I'd seen every line of code and understood it all intimately, however.

Windows exploitation? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22493330)

I dont know about this edition but the first didnt have much useful information about Windows exploitation. I've been looking for a book that covers Windows exploitations(stack-based overflows, techniques to exploit heap overflows,etc) in detail and I havent found anything interesting so far.

I too have the First Edition... (2, Insightful)

JohnnyCannuk (19863) | more than 6 years ago | (#22493902)

...and yes, it is a great book. it should be requird reading for anyone getting nto programming and IT security.

That being said, what are the differences between the first and second editions? Why should I get this?

So far I've seen nothing but a review of a 6 year old book.

Re:I too have the First Edition... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22495154)

The book has more than doubled in size, from 200 to 450+ pages. Many concepts get fuller explanations (and more hands-on examples) in the second edition, and it also includes an expanded introduction to fundamental programming concepts for true beginners.

With that said, more advanced topics are also expanded: the Networking chapter is greatly fleshed out, and Shellcoding and evading Security Countermeasures get the benefit of complete chapters. And for those looking for Windows-specific exploits, unfortunately, this one isn't for you. But the book does include a Linux LiveCD so Windows users can easily follow along. Check a detailed table of contents [PDF] out right here [tinker.tv] .

And the example code used in the book is up here [nostarch.com] .

Thanks for asking! ~Tyler at nostarch.com

A great book for young people (1)

kintarowins (820651) | more than 6 years ago | (#22496940)

Despite its name and nature this book was very good for me when I was about 17. It made me understand programming and memory concepts better, so if you have mostly learned programming from books and examples, this book isn't just great but essential - almost a necessity.

Authored? (1)

CodyRazor (1108681) | more than 6 years ago | (#22498568)

Nitpicking: Just like that list of banished words said, can we stop using this rediculous bastardization? We dont say someone "paintered" a picture. We already have the word "written" for just this purpose.

Re:Authored? (1)

demallien2 (991621) | more than 6 years ago | (#22499032)

Sure, just as soon as you stop using "rediculous". It, unlike 'authored' is not actually a word...

Re:Authored? (2, Funny)

CrispBH (822439) | more than 6 years ago | (#22499616)

His incorrect what? Oh, you meant "you're", I see. Now you've made a grammatical error too. I'm afraid I'm going to have to revoke your grammar and spelling Nazi badges, the exit's on the left :)

Re:Authored? (1)

HouseArrest420 (1105077) | more than 6 years ago | (#22502732)

You say authored isn't a word, rather a basterdization (sp?), but then chose to link to dictionary.com where it proves your argument false. Taken directly from your link-

Usage Problem To assume responsibility for the content of (a published text). To write or construct (an electronic document or system): authored the company's website.

Can someone please explain to me why people try to prove thier argument is factual.....with links that prove otherwise?

Re:Authored? (1)

CodyRazor (1108681) | more than 6 years ago | (#22513888)

The section at the bottom of that article i was directing to states that the majority of the panel on all occasions rejected that usage of the word in all situations except when referring to computer software.
Check for New 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...