quote:

---

I didn't bring up Mudge as a paragon of hacking.
I intended for him to be an example for good hacking spirit. A smart guy who makes the energizer bunny cringe.

---

To you, mudge is some combination of myth, legend & hero. To me, he's an old friend who made choices that had consequences he didn't forsee. We all make mistakes. I hope to guide others past that path (don't try to make sense of that, I'm not talking to you).

quote:

---

As for the guest, Its ok. It appears as if they are a bit fixated on the clothes making the man.

---

Ah, the suit thing; took a minute to puzzle out what you meant. No, I wear suits on occasion too.

In any event, mudge is not the point. Finding a better way is the point. But this doesn't seem to be the place for that.

Guess I'll be on my way.

s/n:r

quote:

---

And you, please stop polluting an otherwise civil discussion by turning to personal attacks instead of actual argumentation to make your point.

---

My frame of reference is very different from yours. That doesn't make it wrong. I lose patience more easily than I used to, trying to bridge that gap. I guess I'm tired of doing all the heavy lifting.

s/n:r

void hack(... //mmmhhh ok, ok, change of language

Public Function Hack() As Boolean
rem Bobby->DoWilson();
rem or was
rem Wilson->DoBobby();
rem ???
Bobby.DoWilson
End Function

// Is Bobby Newmark 'round here?

}
// Oops, I forgot to clean up my room

mostly arrogant script kiddies with ereet vhosts on irc.... who don't stand for anything except themselves

then again some i have read about truely freak me out with their expertise, very well thought out attacks and they actually make them themselves

overall, maybe im just bitter about the majority who are jerks and don't want to admit it and believe me i have met a great deal of them

of course all of this depends on perception of the meaning of the word hacker/perception of what it means to be cyberpunk/perception is the key and i know no set syntax to filter a personality through to determine whether or not they are cyberpunk

blah. reasonable people would say they are cyberpunks i suppose but most hackers probably dont even know what it is

if technical = cyberpunk then a fat nerdy guy eating donuts at a computer.....
if attitude = cyberpunk then what does this entail?

im just rambling, flame me @ /dev/null

Maybe I can take this in a more civil direction. IANAH, but... it seems to me that there *may* be some overlap, in that younger hackers may have consumed some cyberpunk products. Certainly the ealier hacker 'era' seemed to me (through my reading) to be much more communitarian and hippie-ish. Cyberpunk communities, at least in literature, seem a much crueler, indifferent sort of thing.

In the term itself, I'm not sure what 'Cyber' means, other than perhaps indicating the intersection (or fusion?) of man and technology. 'Punk,' when one jettisons all the posturing and fashion crap and desperate attemps to prove 'authenticity' by looking and acting identically with everyone else in your tribe that has accreted around it ('I was a punk before you were!'), to me is all about DIY. Real hacking seems largely about DIY, too.

And Guest - if you're still lurking around - if you weren't talking to the person you were replying to, why reply? At least with such vauge remarks? I wish you were talking to him/her, the subject matter was interesting. Regardless of the level of niavete of the poster you were replying to, there are others reading, too. Stick around, see if you can get more comfortable communicating with people who don't necessarily know where you're coming from as well as you may be used to - I've enjoyed some of your posts. But chill, even hackers like the l0pht fellas have teeth, and can benfit from dental plans. A day job does not diminish one's glory ;-)

ps. just after posting, I of course notice the dates on the earlier posts. Oh well...

'Cyber'= of technology, esp. computers, and other electronic gadgets

'punk' = non-conformist; anti-establishment; challenging status quo; progressive; hack; unconventional

Cyberpunk = bohemian lifestyle enabled by/dependent on cutting-edge technology; technology hacked and adapted for 'street' use.

---------------------------
I am addicted to

big.brother, I find those definitions lacking. where did they come from? cyber is from cybernetic, btw:

'The theoretical study of communication and control processes in biological, mechanical, and electronic systems, especially the comparison of these processes in biological and artificial systems'

see - i, too, can visit dictionary.com ;-)

[This message was edited by toadgod on February 07, 2003 at 09:08 AM.]

quote:

---

Originally posted by toadgod:
And Guest - if you're still lurking around - if you weren't talking to the person you were replying to, why reply? At least with such vauge remarks?

---

There's people who might know what I mean, who might wander through here. I took advantage of that opportunity to leave something for them. Sorry if that's confusing to you, that's just how it is.

quote:

---

I wish you were talking to him/her, the subject matter was interesting. Regardless of the level of niavete of the poster you were replying to, there are others reading, too. Stick around, see if you can get more comfortable communicating with people who don't necessarily know where you're coming from as well as you may be used to - I've enjoyed some of your posts.

---

Thanks. I'm sticking around, though I'm likely just to respond to posts from others that catch my fancy. I'm not ready to put the effort into more than that yet.

quote:

---

But chill, even hackers like the l0pht fellas have teeth, and can benfit from dental plans. A day job does not diminish one's glory ;-)

---

All I'll say is, just accept that that's not what I meant.

s/n:r

quote:

---

Originally posted by toadgod:
big.brother, I find those definitions lacking. where did they come from? cyber is from cybernetic, btw:

'The theoretical study of communication and control processes in biological, mechanical, and electronic systems, especially the comparison of these processes in biological and artificial systems'

---

Of course, any layman will know that Cyber- came from 'cybernetics'. But the compound word has taken on a different meaning, and the 'cyber-' in 'cyberpunk' has less to do with the feedback loop.

likewise, why 'cyberpunk' and not 'technopunk'? 'Cos the prefix 'cyber' sounds more exotic and cutting edge...till the dot.com era blunted it.

---------------------------
I am addicted to

big.brother, when I said I didn't know what cyber means, before offering my own take on it, I guess I meant that it could mean different things to different people (and, apparently, does).

We've drifted far enough away from the point of my original post, in which I speculated that hacker and punk philosophies may have similarities, that I'm not interesting in bickering futher with you about it -- especially if you're going to call me names. This isn't the place for it.

"Don't stand chattering to yourself like that," Humpty Dumpty said, looking at her for the first time, "but tell me your name and your business."

"My name is Alice, but -- -"

"It's a stupid name enough!" Humpty Dumpty interrupted impatiently. "What does it mean?"

"Must a name mean something?" Alice asked doubtfully.

"Of course it must," Humpty Dumpty said with a short laugh: my name means the shape I am -- and a good handsome shape it is, too. With a name like yours, you might be any shape, almost."

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in a rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master -- that's all."

(Lewis Carroll, 1871).

---------------------------
I am addicted to

I personally would liken some select blackhats to Gibson's 'console cowboys' more than any other. I don't mean the people that hack for purely destructive purposes necessarily, but the "greedy" ones, who either hack for money like Levin, or by distributing data to 3rd-parties, like MOD. Bobby Quine might've been an asshole, but Automatic Jack seemed to be anything but, and he still went ahead and did a hack for money. You can rationalize by saying that by 'burning Chrome', they weren't hurting anyone legitimate, and that is a worthy goal, much like Lestat's of the Rice novels, but the end result is the same. He hacked for cash. White hats to me are people who want to be hackers, but are mortally afraid to do anything "wrong", so they approach it from another angle. Even the famed hackers of MIT in the '60 broke the (modern)law now and then, gaining themselves root on remote systems for their own experiments. Was that wrong? Not in the slightest. The internet was intended to become the ultimate in open-source, a very communist community indeed, and what of it? So if I decide I wanna deface a site because I think their ideals are wrong, and I wanna put up a message for everyone to see, am I wrong? Yes, to some people, no to many others. What if I steal money via credit cards? Who do I really hurt in the end? The insurance companies. And don't they just make money based on the fact that people only die once, and a lot less of them from accidents than natural causes? Face it, insurance companies have made themselves an absolute in a market that doesn't even need them. I too, can rationalize hacking for profit.
Does that make me a console cowboy or a cyberpunk? I hope so. I have a wonderful love/hate relationship with computers, and an intense loathing of the 'powers that be' coupled with a desire for change. Anarchistic I might be. A law-breaking I may also be. But a cyberpunk? I am.

Should've made an account first.
:edit: law-breakER

quote:

---

Originally posted by Val:
I personally would liken some select blackhats to Gibson's 'console cowboys' more than any other. I don't mean the people that hack for purely destructive purposes necessarily, but the "greedy" ones, who either hack for money like Levin, or by distributing data to 3rd-parties, like MOD. Bobby Quine might've been an asshole, but Automatic Jack seemed to be anything but, and he still went ahead and did a hack for money.

---

Haven't read enough of Gibson's books to know all the references (his style tends to grate on me), but from my experience people who hack for commercial advantage or destructiveness & those who do it for its own sake don't mix. You're pretty much one or the other, not both. Though there are exceptions, like the Phonemasters.

quote:

---

White hats to me are people who want to be hackers, but are mortally afraid to do anything "wrong", so they approach it from another angle.

---

To be a White Hat is to approach security without taking on the mindset. It doesn't work that way.

quote:

---

Even the famed hackers of MIT in the '60 broke the (modern)law now and then, gaining themselves root on remote systems for their own experiments. Was that wrong? Not in the slightest. The internet was intended to become the ultimate in open-source, a very communist community indeed, and what of it?

---

There are people who see networks as a way to create communities, and those who see them as something new to exploit and control. The former need to find a way to firewall out the latter.

quote:

---

Does that make me a console cowboy or a cyberpunk? I hope so.

---

Don't know what the phrase "console cowboy" means. Something from Gibson I assume.

quote:

---

I have a wonderful love/hate relationship with computers, and an intense loathing of the 'powers that be' coupled with a desire for change. Anarchistic I might be. A law-breaking I may also be. But a cyberpunk? I am.

---

By that definition, I'm there too. We have to find a better way.

s/n:r

First of all, I don't think that hackers (and crackers -- I will use that terminology to distinguish them so bear with me) actually are attached to some kind of culture and can have their ideas and motivations squeezed to be matched any work of literature or a genre of it. While there certainly is some influence, I can assure everyone that reading Neuromancer does not make anyone any close to being a hacker, cracker, computer security professional, etc. comparable to, say, "The C Programming Language" or "Unix Network Programming".

I can see the groups that can be described as:

0. Joe Blow User. Has an old computer, uses it for a limited set of activities. Completely unaware of any security problems until the moment when his hard drive is wiped out and then since the moment the computer booted after being reinstalled. Believes in lack of any responsibility that comes with the use of computers, blames Black Hats for everything. If read Neuromancer, understood everything literally, believes that modern firewalls are one and the same with ICE, and thinks that it is somewhere in his computer or a modem.

1. Computer-aided Poser (corporate). Someone who studied something computer-related at school or crash course expecting to get a good job without realizing either the sophisticated nature of work, nor responsibility that comes with it. Does not understand the ethical problems with his actions, confident enough to get into middle management, too dense to go upper. Usually is a targer of both hatred of programmers co-workers, and (anonymously) users that got into trouble thanks to his irresponsibility. Whatever he manages at work, is a good target for all kinds of intruders.

2. Computer-aided Poser (social). Owns a single brand-name computer and shows it off to all his friends. Knows nothing about maintenance, security-related procedures, etc. beyond "run antivirus", however this is compensated by downloading massive amounts of executables off Kazaa. Runs ZoneAlarm yet is constantly infected by email-borne viruses. Sometimes attacks others like a skr1pt kiddi3 would. Imagines himself being in a Gibson novel yet has no idea which one and which character.

3. Skr1pt Kiddi3. Same as social Computer-Aided Poser, plus more tendencies to do something destructive and vast arsenal of pre-made scripts at his disposal, yet with no clue about any details of their operation. Most likely read some of Gibson works, yet got nothing from them but the desire to be cool and impression that it's easy to do cool things by causing trouble. May be subscribed to Bugtraq however does not understand anything in it except exploits -- and those exploits still work due to the previous three categories being widespread on the Internet.

4. Black Hat (amateur). No one knows who they really are, probably overconfident former white hats or skr1pt kiddi3s trying to use their knowledge to make some point, gain some knowledge or simply to get back at their dormer employers. Differs from Skr1pt Kiddi3 by actually having knowledge and ability to develop exploits. Advanced Black Hats do security analysis and develop original exploits, and likely masquerade as White Hats on Bugtraq. Most likely familiar with at least Neuromancer, however realizes that the relation to reality is at most symbolic.

5. Black Hat (professional). Though the closest thing to a "cowboy", not actually confirmed to exist. If actually exists, at most can leech security information from White and Black hats unless is one of them part-time. I can speculate that in real life they are about as "exciting" as real-life spies.

6. White Hat (hobbyist). Has enough knowledge to do his security research or advance others' exploits and fixes. May post results of research and fixes on Bugtraq. May release exploits to get attention however never actually uses them. When tempted to exploit the security weakness of someone's else box usually is afraid that a person equally competent as he is may be listening on the other end, and the temptation becomes much less powerful.

7. White Hat (professional). Same as hobbyist White Hat, but doing the same thing as his job. Feels no urges to cause harm except in extreme situations. Sees Neuromancer as a metaphor that has little to do with his own life.

8. Advanced User. Knows how to build a network, understands security-related concepts, can be a sysadmin. Aware of security threats and understands that in the networked system the best defense is lack of vulnerability. Most likely read Gibson, understands the parallels with reality, can see obvious mismatches but forgives them.

9. Sysadmin. Advanced user with more education, doing system administration for living. Has to shepherd hordes of Joe Blow Users and Posers, and is frustrated by them constantly creating vulnerabilities, and despises them far more than kiddi3s and black hats, therefore often referred as BOFH.

10. Advanced Programmer. Educated in CS at some extent, has sufficient understanding of the concepts that he is dealing with, and experience with things that Posers have no idea about. Writes software for a living and is usually frustrated with requirements and conditions that he works with. Either aware of security problems caused by others' mistakes in the same project, or if has no such excuse writes bulletproof code and devises methods of avoiding security-related mistakes. Blames colleagues and management for all security troubles, and can easily go overboard in doing so. One has to be an Advanced Programmer to be any Hat. May like Gibson but most likely blames uncritical acceptance of what is written by people around him.

12. Cryptologist. Knows enough about encryption to understand how poorly encryption is used by everyone else. If also an Advanced Programmer, becomes a formidable force against stupidity that even Advanced Programmer fear (ex: Dan J. Bernstein). Sees way too many things off-target in everything written about computers to enjoy reading them.

Some categories stand a bit out:

13. Warez d00d. Joe Blow, Poser or Skr1pt Kiddi3 that keeps an archive of cracked warez. May have delusions of being opposed to something, however usually ends up being a conduit for acceptance of expensive software in corporations by feeding cracked copies to potential users.

14. Non-network-related h/cracker. Can be any other category except Jow Blow and Posers, however in addition to all that spends some effort on reverse-engineering hardware and/or software. His purposes are usually harmless or mildly damaging for companies that made something that he sees as a challenge. A constant threat to any DRM scheme that he usually sees as an equivalent of spitting in his face.

quote:

---

Originally posted by snr:

quote:

---

I have a wonderful love/hate relationship with computers, and an intense loathing of the 'powers that be' coupled with a desire for change. Anarchistic I might be. A law-breaking I may also be. But a cyberpunk? I am.

---

By that definition, I'm there too. We have to find a better way.

s/n:r

---

Saying that we have to find a better way is easy, the hard part is to find it.

It would be a "better way" if companies did not try to accomplish the impossible, to get loads of money and control out of the network (those things just aren't there), or to waste money earned on >80%-margin sales of software on trying to expand into areas from where they will be inevitably kicked out, this way or another.

Shitty Software (tm), DRM, sweatshop culture in software companies, trade school culture in computer-related education, attempts to impose some asshole's idiosyncrasies on millions of developers through "riders" in what I call "poisoned standards", etc. are truly dangerous, even though fruitless in the long term things. All they do is delaying progress of human thinking, and turn against their originators when the damage is done. After looking at the stream of embarrassing incidents from Melissa to Slapper, from Morris worm to solaris ping reboot ( <19970626000829.28333@atl.eni.net> for everyone who doubts that) to recent BIND history, I can't imagine a better way to expose the stupidity than by demonstrating that suffering inevitably caused by such a stupidity is indeed its product. The lack of targeting on "oppressors" and "enemies" is actually a benefit here -- if fools are getting hit indiscriminately, yet some places are hit more often, maybe they have more fools and therefore should not be trusted?

I don't believe that at this point talking to people who write law gives good results (though Mudge should've been more responsible when making his frightening speeches in front of the Congress -- it's always easy to make things worse), in any country they are by their nature whores and opportunists, and until their propaganda becomes ineffectual, they will speak instead of listening. However just like no one would now suggest to take military budget and split it between NY, LA and DC police to eliminate crime in those areas by beating the population senseless, people are capable of understanding things like "social problem", "control freaks", "bad quality" and "fools in management" if those things constantly bite them in the ass, and knowledge of the problems' nature is widespread.

At this point if something is seriously wrong, it's not the act of biting in the ass, it's the poor distribution of knowledge.

Speaking of Mudge I respect his work, and don't blame him for being a professional, I can only blame him for his professional efforts that involved unproductive scaremongering in the name of marketing of image that -- yes -- mythology and literature helped to create. I don't know all the details but have a strong suspicion that he could just wear a suit, and from the height of whatever "status" he has he can simply proclaim the same thing that everyone in a "computer security community" is accustomed to hear -- "company X did a stupid thing, this is why A-W have vulnerable systems, and Y-Z have means to break them. If company X applied well-known practice of not increasing their margins from 81% to 85% by hiring barely educated newbies to develop critical parts of the system, this would not happen because like in theit goddamn iso9000 certificated procedures is written, programmers must be aware of the lifetime of the object, size of buffers, and have to do code review before passing their compiled nonsense to the QA." I have seen corporate dumbasses of all calibers, yet not a single of them was dumb enough to ignore the situation that crippled his company's work for days, and there is a good and credible explanation who screwed up and how.

Alex, I have to say I find those descriptions somewhat lacking. Everyone of them (of technical substance - the Joe Blow and Poser users excused), is implicitly destructively inclined. Blackhats, Whitehats and Cryptologists are all involved in an area outside the usually more constructive domains of hackers.

What I'm saying is that surely network security (or the lack thereof) is not the be all and end all - where do you class the bsd/linux kernel hackers and other such creatures?

quote:

---

Originally posted by sobriquet:
Alex, I have to say I find those descriptions somewhat lacking. Everyone of them (of technical substance - the Joe Blow and Poser users excused), is implicitly destructively inclined. Blackhats, Whitehats and Cryptologists are all involved in an area outside the usually more constructive domains of hackers.

---

I have only mentioned how they are related to security, and this definitely isn't all that matters. Also I wouldn't call most of those categories "destructively inclined" -- programmers, sysadmins and cryptologists are merely frustrated with stupidity, ignorance and negligence that make destructive things possible.

The actual work of advanced programmers, sysadmins and cryptologists is usually very useful, and follows hackers' traditions pretty well.

quote:

---

What I'm saying is that surely network security (or the lack thereof) is not the be all and end all - where do you class the bsd/linux kernel hackers and other such creatures?

---

They are a kind of Advanced Programmers that participate in those projects for various reasons, but almost always in part because it is one of the areas where their ideas and quality of their work matter, and where they have no excuse for producing bad code. Kernel development is definitely one of those areas, and many other free/open software projects are written with "doing things right" among the goals. Low-quality free/open software is usually produced as a result of poor skills of the well-meaning programmer, or a bad heritage of the project, not because of some blatantly unethical actions.