Talk:Script kiddie

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Computer Security / Computing  (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computer Security, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computer security on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.
 

Comments[edit]

The Tactics, Tools and Defense sections all all contain information that is not actually specific to script-kiddies. This stuff belongs in security articles. Oddity- 14:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


Would a person who uses programs made by other people not for random destruction, but for certain targets like fps game cheaters or other disturbing people be considered as a script kiddie?

Well I say: each to their own if they want to talk in text type or Leet. You do not have to read it and I don't think it is nice for you to call them wankers as well...

I don't think anyone did, well, not yet. user:sjc

Is it just me, or does this article make being a script kiddie sound like some kind of diagnosable medical condition... Eurleif 05:23 Dec 24, 2002 (UTC)

This page is very poor - the author keeps on talking as if there has been some major study into script kiddies - "social analyses", "history suggests", but provides no info on this (link, title of a study, names...). Seems to be bullshit to me. Cgs

I rather like the author's description. Although it is cold, sometimes sounding as though it is medical in origin, it sure helped me understand what was going on. Granted, the style might serve to slughtly obfuscate things, I enjoy seeing these things from a view not clouded in pop-culture myth and urban legend.

I dont know if this has anything to do with the new "?" marks on the Veritaserum site but it is freaking me out.

"Script kiddies typically hate to be called script kiddies – which is one reason why the term has become popular, as they are frequently looked down upon by crackers." To the average American, that would look as though white people looked down on them. I reworded it. -Josh, October 10, 2005, 8:52 AM EST


Alot of script kiddies dont know they're script kiddie, they incorrectly think they're very skilled hackers. Common behaviour among script kiddies is to be cocky and packet people as soon as slightlest conflict occur.


Not everyone who uses programs made by other people are script kiddies. NMap, John the Ripper, and Ethereal are all examples of programs used by hackers (and crackers). Why reinvent the wheel? Go to defcon and I'm sure you'll find plenty of the celebrities there running programs made by other people. I'm sure they can code what they want themselves... but why waste your time reinventing the wheel?

Lots of hackers/crackers hack/crack because they're curious. The most famous example I can think of is Kevin Mitnick. He wasn't what I'd call a script kiddy... and a lot of what he did was just because of curiosity. I'm sure Linus Travold was curious about a number of things... now thanks to him we have the Linux operating system.


The really funny thing about this is the fact that a lot of hackers use other's tools. Most little kids that are actual script kiddies (skids) think they are "l33t h4x0rs" because they can use an SQLi Helper or something along those lines to do the work for them. I for one, can't stand little kids like that. I began hacking in 2006 and that was just SQLi. I had no coding experience and the most I could do was break into a Windows XP based PC. Now I know a few programming languages including: C, C++, Java, PHP, HTML5, Javascript, and basic XML. I no longer consider myself as one of the little "Skids." The bottom line is, this article doesn't do justice to the true definition of a "Script kiddie" or "Skid." - MagiiKz — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.146.199.188 (talk) 01:48, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

this is an incorrect page![edit]

Many of the things on this page confuse script kiddies with Black hat hackers! --Xer0X

Is there a relation between mIRC scripts and script kiddies?

That's like saying Is there a relation between latex gloves and criminals? Well, I'm sure many criminals have used latex gloves in the past to aid them in their crimes, but they are used by a lot of different people for a lot of different things. Script-kiddies who use IRC usually have mIRC scripts -- but most people who use mIRC scripts aren't necessarily script-kiddies. Oddity- 23:22, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I started hearing the term script kid in IRC (Undernet, circa 1997), so I always associated it to kids who had mIRC war scripts, who used flood attacks, channel overtake and ICMP spoofing tools. Most of them were integrated with mIRC via those war scripts.

In this article the script term seems biased to Unix scripts/exploits, which I regard as being part of the more knowledgeable and underground cracking scene...

So, what type of scripts really does the term script kid refer to?

It used to refer to Unix scripts. Oddity- 23:22, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Not always. It usually is referring to already made hacking programs and viruses script kiddies use and say they did it themself. Zeeded- 23:46, 28 November 2008 (UTC-8) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeeded (talkcontribs)

Notes & Citations[edit]

Umm, I might be blind but where did all the notes and citations go? I click on a note but it doesn't transport me to the bottom of the page for more info... Maybe someone took it out... Just thought you'd like to know.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.42.23.112 (talkcontribs)

I've cleaned up the references and added new ones. Should be much better now. Chasingsol (talk) 07:19, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

DoS Attacks[edit]

I removed the statement "***THIS IS NOT A DoS ATTACK!***" from the DoS Attacks, buffer overflow attack section. Primarily, because it does not comply with Wikipedia standards. Secondly, although a buffer overflow attack does not have to be a DoS attack, it can be used as one. Rossj81 12:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

They're not really in the same category. DoS describes something done to a network in order to degrade performance (to zero if possible), buffer overflow describes something done to a program, be it an application or an operating system component, at least to crash it but more profitably to get access rights as the program to execute one's own code. The result of exploiting a buffer overflow may well be the installation of tools to do DoS but that's an entirely secondary matter, and the tools have nothing to do with the original breaking-and-entering. Other results of breaking a program may be the installation of tools for spamming, phishing, man-in-the-middle attacks, trojans (for direct exploitation or to facilitate money laundering), proxying (for sharing files of nefarious types) etc., all for the purpose of financial gain, so DoS is by no means a natural consequence of buffer overflows. The owner of the machine thus breached may not even notice anyting until his bank account is empty or a SWAT team is entering through his windows, whereas the target of a DoS is definitely going to notice - that's the whole point of the exercise. :D Anonymous coward - 62.66.213.110 22:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Buffer overflows can be DoS attacks without needing the "installation of tools to do DoS' through some sort of code execution exploit. You could simply crash the server with the overflow and not bother writing a code execution exploit. That'd be a very clean and neat denial-of-service attack with no messy side-effects. --71.236.164.204 (talk) 13:01, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

would like to say[edit]

i think this article is kinda, someones opinion of scriptkiddies. it doesnt really sound like a article from an encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.136.233.204 (talk) 19:13, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

request for aliasing[edit]

could someone who knows how to do it please add a forwarding alias to this lemma for 'scriptkid', 'script kid', 'scriptkiddy' and 'script kiddy' Arakrys 22:10, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Subjective title[edit]

The whole article probably has bias all over the place. It says that it's a derogatory term in the first paragraph, gives a definition that usually can't be proven over the Internet, and then proceeds (in subsequent sections) to label certain people as script kiddies. Let's say I wrote an article called "Artard". Would I say that it is a derogatory term and then say what types of people are artards? Would I give examples of what artards "tend" to do? Now replace "artard" with another derogatory term. --Raijinili 17:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I was wondering... Is there a slang word for a person who only knows a small amount about programming, and is just starting to make his own applications, but doesn't want to cause damage to any computer?

Newbie? (And eventually, hopefully, "hacker," seeing as they're interested in learning) 65.183.135.166 18:19, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Hackerdom usually implies skill as well as curiosity, however. Newbie is probably more appropriate. --71.236.164.204 (talk) 13:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

What "Danny Worm"? Who is "Danny Yeap"???[edit]

Under the "Famous Examples" or whatever section, there is mention of the "infamous Danny Worm" and Danny Yeap... I have never even heard of either of these, and a cursory search on Google retrieves no seeming matches, except for this page! Is this entirely made up, or just unpublicized... or am I just uninformed? I became suspicious when I saw that a 15-year-old was given 5 years(!) prison time... 65.183.135.166 18:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

--> UPDATE: And looking at the history for the page, everyone and their brother has been changing the name, the tool and the method for this portion of the text for some time now (vandalism). Is there any way to lock just that section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.183.135.166 (talk) 18:17, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Black Hat (link)[edit]

The "cracker" term of the first sentence is pointing to "black hat". Wouldn't it be more accurate to point the whole "malicious cracker" term to the "black hat" article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Twipley (talkcontribs) 19:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Serious Systemic and Cultural Bias Problem[edit]

This article is biased towards US University-educated IT-related people only and has no right to purport itself as representing world opinion or understanding on the notion of a "hacker". Please read the full explanation for Systemic and Cultural Bias with regard to hacking on the Hacker page. I have temporarily added the {{globalize/USA}} warning marker to warn non-IT related people, and non-native English speakers, of the dangers of interpreting this article in its current form.

Andrew81446 (talk) 10:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I would strongly disagree about system cultural bias / global view. I am fully aware of the term "script kiddie", and its usage, I am in the UK, and I've never been university educated.
This IS a IT related article, and could probably use simplifying, but it IS NOT biased towards US University educated individuals. Kirrus (talk) 12:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup[edit]

I've been bold and removed the citation required tagging. I have added additional references and cleaned up the existing ones, as well as made some minor fixes to the prose. Chasingsol (talk) 07:35, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

malicious hacker? huh![edit]

I don't consider 'script kiddie' to mean a malicious hacker. I'd say it was a derogatory term, used by Computer Scientists and long-in-the-tooth professionals to refer to newby web designers / coders who are programming in a style that ignores most 'best practices'. --—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.63.175 (talkcontribs) 21:46, 16 September 2010

Agreed. This article needs another section or some caveat somewhere. 129.11.104.212 (talk) 21:24, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

LOLWUT. The bulk of book and recent and archive news sources do not agree with the above claim. If you find published, reliable, notable, independent, neutral sources which describe script kiddies as harmless, or benign, or safe, or cute, or merely clueless, great. But the bulk of sources indicate that the bulk of script kiddies mess with sites, or mess with people. The sources tend not to use the word "malice", so this article doesn't either. --Lexein (talk) 01:16, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Alternate definition[edit]

See http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/S/script-kiddies.html: "2. People who cannot program, but who create tacky HTML pages by copying JavaScript routines from other tacky HTML pages." I think this usage may be more common now than the definition on which this article currently focuses. B7T (talk) 08:44, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Maybe, but the source's first definition is "1. [very common] The lowest form of cracker; script kiddies do mischief with scripts...". catb.org is a self-published website, so if other reliable sources support definition #2, and notable instances, then it will have a place in the article as well. In the meantime, check out the Google books search and this 2011 Irish Times article, still using definition #1. --Lexein (talk) 15:17, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Fox News was hacked by this group too[edit]

add the hacking of fox news by this group in the examples.Shivanshu3 (talk) 01:58, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Definition Issues[edit]

I'm not sure I agree with the definition provided. I think it is missing the word "only" - as in "script kiddies are hackers who can only use scripts and exploits created by other, more skilled, hackers." An experienced and. skilled hacker may, from time to time, use pre-existing scripts just to save time and effort. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.2.167.71 (talk) 11:41, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Blankenship info is unsourced, don't re-add[edit]

--Lexein (talk) 05:09, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Netbus example[edit]

I'm having doubts that that example is really suitable here. Besides being easy to use by not so skilled people, the Netbussing in that case appears to have been done by some pedophile or illegal smut peddler/trader rather than your average script kidde who does it to impress someone with his "skillz". Neither of the sources cited seems to mention "script kiddies", and they are in Swedish to boot. That's a suitable example of incident/use in the article for Netbus, but much less so here. Someone not using his real name (talk) 11:57, 28 January 2014 (UTC)