Jump to content

Talk:Security hacker

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lukjad007 (talk | contribs) at 17:37, 13 April 2008. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Citation

I have no idea how to put a citation on this page, I noted that it asked for one. There is a book: Software Forensics: Chapter 2 -- The Players: Hackers, Crackers, Phreaks, and Other Doodz Written by Robert M. Slade; published by McGraw-Hill 03.29.2004 that covers a lot of this material. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.165.122.205 (talk) 02:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Hats

I was under the impression that a Grey_hat was a cracker just trying to figure out if he can do it, i.e. there is no ulterior motive for the cracking in question (I don't really like the term Hacking for this, it's too general. BB code could be considered hacking :) 202.180.83.6 05:52, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Article name

Hi. I created this article and i'll be the first to admit the title Criminal hacker is awful. I'd change it to "black hat", but really the article covers black hats and white hats, (all network security related). Any other term would be appreicated. "Cracker" has other, more common meanings (like software cracking). "Black hat" doesn't cover white hats. "Computer criminal" or "computer intruder" sound kinda quaint to me. Maybe security cracker? Suggestions welcome or just move the page.

It would be nice if there was a good page for an article like Rooter to link to when it says:

"A rooter is a fill-in-the-blank who searches for exploitable web servers and hacks into their root directory".

Hacker is too broad, Criminal hacker is too narrow. White hat or black hat or grey hat hacker is too cumbersome. Hatted hacker sounds like something from alice in wonderland. Rooter is just an example, there are many other pages like it.

Pengo 12:45, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It needs to be mentioned that heavy security measures are useless unless the computer can be physically secured to the same level. Unfortunately, such a high degree of physical security is too expensive for the average homeowner. In this day and age of hackers/cat burglars, nothing short of an armed guard 24 hours per day will suffice for a high level of security. And don't all the guards change shift at once. Remember Murphy's law. If something bad is going to happen, it will happen when the guards change shift. (It's like when nurses change shift at a hospital. Don't do it all at once. That is called negligence.) Shift changes need to be staggered. -- 130.94.162.61 14:16, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Article name changed to Hacker (computer security). Enjoy. —Pengo 14:10, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if its worth any mention, but there has been attack on sites by a person named after the character of [Nights into Dreams]. I came upon this information recently. www.sonicretro.org is my source for this claim. If this isn't worth mention tell me and delete this. Recent idiot

Phoenix

Should Phoenix be listed under his real name? The convention in this article seems to be to use real names as they are available. --Thedangerouskitchen 04:24, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Avenger/Polymorphic viruses

The entry for Dark Avenger states: "Bulgarian virus writer that invented polymorphic code in 1992"

The cross-linked article on polymorphic code (currently) states: "The first known polymorphic virus was written by Mark Washburn. The virus, called 1260, was written in 1990. A more known polymorphic virus was invented in 1992 by the Bulgarian cracker Dark Avenger."

This is obviously contradictory and should be resolved, I would guess by editing and or expanding the entry on Dark Avenger.

--RKT 11:54, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hacker vs. Cracker

I'm sure this has been covered before, but should some distinction be made between "hacker" and "cracker"? Most crackers (black hat) would strongly object to being called hackers. The way I see it is a "hacker" is someone who hacks their own computer or network to generally improve things, and a cracker is someone who attacks someone else's computer with intent to gain unauthorized access, e.g. to capture sensitive data (such as credit card numbers).

I, personally, do not care whether I am considered a cracker or hacker, as I am rather gray-hat myself. --SheeEttin 02:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blue hat

Not sure if this can be confirmed, but if anyone can: was "blue hat" inspired by the blue badges Microsoft-employed code monkeys wear? I can't remember where I read this, but if anyone else did... --SheeEttin 02:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reference; someone with better knowledge of proper wikiformat can link it in properly, but I'm too lazy to learn. Abb3w 22:53, 16 July 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Horatio Huxham

I sincerely believe that the link and entry for Horatio Huxley does not deserve to be here. It was probably added by himself as some kind of self promotion stunt and reads like a CV. His entry on Wikipedia previously contained false claims of his association with cDc, but this was removed. He is a relatively unknown character in South Africa who has only one claim to fame, and that is that he managed to write yet another logger to demonstrate that you can capture online banking passwords (and mouse clicks). In fact, what he demonstrated in 2003 was already demonstrated previously by Nic Roets in 2001 and was covered by a national television station.

He managed to get a major South African news paper to do a story on this, and this same story was echoed in other publications. Otherwise, he is relatively unknown in the South African information security and hacker community and his entry and his references for credibility (dr_juz and Justin Shaw) are either fictional or insignificant. There are quite a number of black and white hat hackers in the South African scene who are certainly more noteworthy than this character and I wouldn't even go as far as saying any of them really deserve to be mentioned as notable hackers or security professionals on an international level.

Josip "Ewolix"

I believe this is also a cheap self promotion stunt and he does not deserve to be listed among other, really significant security hackers. Google doesn't know anything about this person, there is no slovenian whitehat community and the URL www.fistnet.com redirects to www.whitehats.si which is a amateurishly done flash page with no significant information.

{sofixit}
Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome.
Abb3w 05:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

To quote myself:

While examples from the Google Groups archive of USENET should be explicitly included as references, the content of this article is fundamentally sound. Given this, I can can imagine no justification for this edit made by Comperr, nor the movement "Hacker (computer security)" to "Cracker (computer security)2". Historically, the Hacker-Cracker distinction is limited only to a subset (admittedly large but proper) of the post-1983 computer expert community. The distinction was never made prior to 1983, and is seldom recognized by any other social community. Until comprehensive and authoritative sources for such a claim to a "correct" definition can be supplied, such changes can only be assumed as based on personal prejudice and reverted accordingly.
And yes, I consider myself a hacker in the non-intruder sense, and restrict my very intermittent cracker work to systems that I either have legal title of ownership on, systems I have been made responsible for operating and administrating by the holder of such legal title, and work on pencil-and-paper theoretical attacks. My desire for the rest of the world to understand the difference in terminology does not make the technical jargon usage "correct". Abb3w 20:17, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia evidently prevents non-administrators from making such revert moves. I'll also note, having checked, that Comperr's User talk page history includes mention of a prior block (for reasons unknown) and an attempt to eradicate his user talk page by requesting speedy deletion of same. In my (limited) experience, anyone who attempts to discourage community interaction at their user page (such as the comment "DO NOT CHANGE" in the aforementioned history) has been unhelpful to the Wikipedia community. While I am not suggesting any sanction to the user, given the existance and nature of the Hacker definition controversy this move-back seems essential to maintaining NPOV. Abb3w 20:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved the article back to Hacker (computer security) and blocked any further moves until they're discussed. —Pengo talk · contribs 02:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon me a moment of unencyclopedic unprofessionalism: WOOHOO!
Thank you. =)
Abb3w 02:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 2: The Next Generation

In my limited experience with the hacking (and cracking) community at large I would like to make this suggestion: Set up a page so that all links formerly directed to the "Hacker (computer security)" page be sent to a page that discusses the differences between the terms "hacker" and "cracker". Then perhaps a separation of the two subjects into two different pages linked to this one. I know that this is an awful large project to undertake but I think it would make the reading much easier and please most people.

Luke

hacking tutorial

anyone got any good hacking tutorials? include urls. thanks. H4xxz0rz 08:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Asking that is like asking for someone to shoot you. the answer is to this is NO. Recent idiot

in response to "anyone got good hacking tutorials?": Are you serious? What the hell are you smoking? Have you realised that asking that is like asking "does anyone know a site for people who have tutorials on how to murder and rape someone in less than 5 minutes?". Its just not a very intelligent question. How can you be so stupid to ask something like that?

Go ask the CIA how to weaponize Anthrax while you're at it....

Firewall as "Hacker literature"

I would debate that Firewall is actually a "hacker" movie. The movie may be about hackers, but it is not widely accepted by the hacker community. People don't hold it close to their heart (like they would Wargames, for example). I don't feel it has a place in this article. For comparison, Live Free Die Hard was also a movie "about hackers", but again, it's not accepted as hacker gospel either. I am going to remove "Firewall" from the list. --Othtim (talk) 03:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notable intruders and criminal hackers without a main Wiki article

It's very easy for someone to add an entry for a "legendary" hacker responsible for all manner of exploits. Without the lack of a main Wiki entry, however – where the normal citation and inclusion of verifiable facts would be included – they all look very dodgy. A list of "notable" hackers requires that each would have a main Wiki article that would meet the obligations of Wikipedia:notability and where verifiable sources would be cited. I have therefore deleted some recent additions that look particularly dubious. Grimhim (talk) 21:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It also seems very much so like an opportunity for hacker "gangs" and script-kiddie "gangs" to brag. 66.214.244.188 (talk) 02:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

redirect problem

h4x0r redirects here, with no mention of leet. Is there a way to make this page show the leet link at the top when people redirect from h4x0r, but not when they come directly to Hacker (computer security)?Jwray (talk) 05:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your better option is to remove the redirect from h4x0r, explain briefly what h4x0r is and then put the link to both "Hacker" and "Leet" within that article. Grimhim (talk) 06:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hacker Group(s)?

Earlier today when I went to a website, there was the following message:


Hacked By [Pseudonym] For Türkiye Spysecurity.org -- imhatimi.com --- Spyhackerz.com


Curious--as who would not be who didn't already know anything--I did a search for 'spysecurity.org' for starters, and found ten pages of almost identical citations, some by the same name as I've omitted above. There was more of that sort of thing than any objective news or information, but I did find a few messages on forums by people reporting that their site had been hacked by this group; one was dated 2005 so apparently 'they' have been around for some time. After briefly looking at the site for "spyhackerz.org" (It said 'com' in the message but perhaps it varies)--there was a page of hacker-related software but little else--I came to Wikipedia but there's nothing. They might be from, or based in, Turkey. I should add that I didn't do a general search for "hacked by..." to see if there are other organized hacking groups doing the same thing.

Judging from the variety of hacks they've accomplished (or perpetrated) and the bewilderment of the people whose sites were hacked, I can find no reason to think that the members of "spyhackerz.org" are 'white hat' hackers working for Web sites or firms to test their security. Are they 'black hats' with criminal intent? or 'gray hats'? I can't judge. In any event, there doesn't seem to be a category in this article for what appears to be "An organized group whose members exploit insecurities in Internet sites, specifically or at random, and hack these sites for no apparent reason other than for the hell of it." or perhaps "An organized group, etc., which hacks sites in order to persuade site owners to buy or use its security software to prevent people like them from hacking the owners' sites." I'm aware that such additions would have to be verifiable, so someone would have to find news reports, etc. like ORGANIZED GROUPS HACK SITES AT RANDOM TO SELL SPYWARE, or somesuch. If anyone wants to do the work, I'll be happy to read the resulting edit. --JWMcCalvin (talk) 00:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requests?

Are there any well-recognized sites where hackers take requests? For example, the History Channel claims the dredges at The World (archipelago) are computer controlled. Is there somewhere you can go to ask please, please, pretty please, I'm begging you, someone hack one of those dredges to bury a celebrity's super 50 million dollar estate under a pile of muck... ;) Wnt (talk) 19:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]