|
Nathan Minier wrote: They already do; they just go by the moniker "Penetration Testers".
I believe you accidentally looked up a bridal registry . . .
| Ravings en masse^ |
|---|
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
I've always thought it sounded more like a bad porno name.
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics."
- Benjamin Disraeli
|
|
|
|
|
|
Alas, I do something akin to it for certain types of spammers - made a tool to send out mail via SMTP. Just tell it how many time to repeat.
Also, will spoof source address with random string addresses, with the option to make them all major domains (like gmail.com, yahoo.com, etc.) so they're not so easily blocked.
And, for good measure, to add variations to the subject and body to further ward off the filters for a while.
Use: to get spammers to stop spamming me. I actually get little spam, anyway, as I've too many email addresses via forwards. The Mrs., however, has needed this aggressive defense on a number of occasions.
| Ravings en masse^ |
|---|
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
It's a bit like breaking into a suspected thieves house to nick back the stuff you think he stole, and trashing his living room on your way out.
It's vigilantism to my mind.
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
I say its like kicking the stuffing out of a bully. One doesn't stop a bully by running to mommy.
|
|
|
|
|
No, and calling it 'white hat' doesn't change what it is...
From the article, they 'suspected' the people were guilty, but there was no proof, so they used illegal methods to get the proof.
And, if we suspect the bank is using underhanded tactics, can we 'hack' the bank to read their correspondence in an attempt to prove our suspicions?
|
|
|
|
|
Tim Carmichael wrote: And, if we suspect the bank is using underhanded tactics, can we 'hack' the bank to read their correspondence in an attempt to prove our suspicions?
That of course is exactly what the media in the US is allowed to do. They are allowed to take data that has been stolen (obtained in a method that the owner did not approve) and then read it and then decide if it has any value to be published.
So the media reads it and makes the decision. Not the courts nor any legal entity.
They cannot request that theft but they are untouchable otherwise. Note they do not have to publish either. So if someone hacks a CEOs email for years and then gives it to some online blogger and it has nothing more interesting than a couple titillating emails with the significant other they don't publish. But it was still read.
|
|
|
|
|
According to the article, 'It was effective'. I don't see anything wrong with it...it'd be better if there was some personal pain and suffering involved for the criminals. 
Honeypots are effective as well. I have a FTP server with a read-only FTP account of Administrator and a password of Admin. Dictionary attacks that used to last for an hour are a thing of the past. 
"Go forth into the source" - Neal Morse
|
|
|
|
|
I think a logic bomb would be a much better method of dealing with hackers, perhaps initiated by accessing data from an unauthorized system. That would be more like the ink packs that banks will put in with the cash.
If someone steals data which proceeds to destroy their system, I'm fine with that.
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics."
- Benjamin Disraeli
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, if it involves separating the hackers' heads from their bodies at one of the cervical vertebrae using a large axe. The detached heads should then be mounted on pikes outside the castle walls as a warning to others.
Software Zen: delete this;
|
|
|
|
|
Gary Wheeler wrote: Yes, if it involves separating the hackers' heads from their bodies
 I like this thinking!...sends a clear message...better than just a finger or two! Hope you have a speedy recovery with yours!
"Go forth into the source" - Neal Morse
|
|
|
|
|
I wholeheartedly agree with you!
Get me coffee and no one gets hurt!
|
|
|
|
|
My upvote for you!
Get me coffee and no one gets hurt!
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you sir!
Cornelius Henning wrote: Get me coffee and no one gets hurt!
My policy:
Cup #1: I decide to live.
Cup #2: I decide to let the rest of you live.
Cup #3+: Attitude improves from here.
Software Zen: delete this;
|
|
|
|
|
No, hacking is wrong... plain and simple. (message for those whom I'm wronged)
As a side note, most definitely support it. If it wasn't for hackers politicians and large corporations will be left to their own corrupt devices, and we will be pulling at the shorted end. (already very much like that, but gives them something to think about)
|
|
|
|
|
R. Erasmus wrote: As a side note, most definitely support it. If it wasn't for hackers politicians and large corporations will be left to their own corrupt devices, and we will be pulling at the shorted end. (already very much like that, but gives them something to think about)
I do not think hackers are stopping politicians or corporations........
Hacking is bad in any form. The above argument from Mr/Ms Erasmus is not acceptable.
Just a method to try and justify it.
Hackers are a nasty bug in Internet with is slowly being killed by this infection.
|
|
|
|
|
"I do not think hackers are stopping politicians or corporations........"
Maybe not yet... but it is definitely exposing some of them. In my country at least. And if this corruption keeps on getting exposed and this happens more frequently, people are going to think twice before going down that road.
|
|
|
|
|
I'd much rather see all that effort go into improving security against hacking, or minimizing the damage caused by successful hacks.
|
|
|
|
|
So what are you supposed to do when you're watching them try to hack in, right now? You have to have some way to stop them. I must say though, that the point made above about corrupt corps and such, is a very persuasive argument for hacking, which I really do agree with.
|
|
|
|
|
Charles Programmer wrote: So what are you supposed to do when you're watching them try to hack in, right now?
If you have a system set up that allows you to actively monitor hack attempts and you do so then I am guessing that you probably have a system that isn't going to be hacked. Or at least the chance goes way down.
In contrast many post analysises of hacked systems reveal little or effectively no attention to any security at all. Even those that pay lip service to doing exactly that (google for the security company that was hacked via social hacking.)
|
|
|
|
|
Absolutely!
However, as anything, the concept can be abused and it could be used recklessly ending up on causing damage to people that has nothing to do with it.
To alcohol! The cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems - Homer Simpson
Our heads are round so our thoughts can change direction - Francis Picabia
|
|
|
|
|
Acceptable. This will create a good question for the law enforcement. Who are the hackers to catch?
TOMZ_KV
|
|
|
|
|
Yes. And to those that say "All hacking is Wrong!", wake up and smell the criminal in your house. If someone was holding a gun on you or a loved one, with intent to kill, and if you had the opportunity to kill that criminal before he could pull the trigger, would you hesitate for one instant?
Every individual has the right to self defense, to defend themselves defend themselves and their property. The only sane individual against "hacking back" is most likely to be someone that engages in hacking others to steal from them.
Hackers that get hacked themselves have no right to complain.
Contribute to society and the common good
|
|
|
|
|
Ed Aymami wrote: Every individual has the right to self defense
Err...by definition this is not self defense. The crime has already occurred.
So your analogy is not apt. They already killed your loved one. You are just trying to get the body back.
Self defense would have been to take the time and money to defend the data in the first place.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
