somebody <x### [at] ycom> wrote:
> > There's nothing to prove.

> Ah, that's the crux of the matter: A hacker proves his superiority!

  No, the hacker proves that there's a concrete security hole which
should be fixed.

> If the admins invited him to hack, that would be fine. As it is if you
> invite a locksmith to pick your lock.

  So as long as he didn't ask permission it's better that the sysadmins
are kept ignorant of the security flaw in the system.

  Basically the situation is that the sysadmins *benefited* from the
hacking, and as a reward, the university sues the person who performed
the hacking.

> >   Upgrading the security of a house is expensive. Security upgrades of
> > a computer system are usually part of the software license (ever heard
> > of free security patches?)

> Again, completely immaterial how expensive or cheap it is to fix something.
> Having said that, it's not necessarily cheap to fix security flaws either.

  Which is not the fault of the hacker, really. He shouldn't be punished
because fixing a security hole (which was not created by the hacker) is
expensive to fix.

> >   A malicious robber breaking into a house causes damage to the owner
> > of that house only. A malicious hacker breaking into a university computer
> > can potentially cause damage to thousands of people.

> That makes no sense whatsover. If anything, you are legitimizing breaking
> into institutions instead of houses. Maybe I should change my example to
> breaking into a business, a hospital, a school, a military bases... etc. I'm
> sure courts will then give me even bigger medals of honour for doing the
> public a service which affects many more people.

  No. If you break into a big institution and then make a report on how
you did it and which flaws you exploited, the institution will benefit
from it (because they will be able to fix those flaws), and you will be
rewarded with jailtime.

  Of course nobody breaks into institutions for the sole reason of
reporting how he did it. Too much work for no benefit.

  Hacking a computer, however, is a hobby.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
news:48cc040e@news.povray.org...

>   Basically the situation is that the sysadmins *benefited* from the
> hacking,

Hardly. They'll likely get into trouble themselves, if not fired. You may
think that's justified since they didn't do a perfect job, but it's
disingenuous to present the hacker as the victim and everyone else as
ungrateful beneficiaries.

[...]

>   Hacking a computer, however, is a hobby.

Everyone's entitled to their own opinions, but it's this type of thinking
that glorifies something that which in actuality is a crime.

Post a reply to this message

somebody a écrit :
> "Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
> news:48cc040e@news.povray.org...
>>   Hacking a computer, however, is a hobby.
> 
> Everyone's entitled to their own opinions, but it's this type of thinking
> that glorifies something that which in actuality is a crime.
> 

Besides, that's hardly a justification. Martial arts are one of my 
hobbies, and yet I don't go attacking people randomly just to prove them 
that their self-defence training is lacking... Even without causing 
significant harm (which would be possible) it would be illegal and 
normally prosecuted without any discussion of this sort happening.

-- 
Vincent

Post a reply to this message

somebody <x### [at] ycom> wrote:
> "Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
> news:48cc040e@news.povray.org...

> >   Basically the situation is that the sysadmins *benefited* from the
> > hacking,

> Hardly. They'll likely get into trouble themselves, if not fired.

  Why would they get fired?

> >   Hacking a computer, however, is a hobby.

> Everyone's entitled to their own opinions, but it's this type of thinking
> that glorifies something that which in actuality is a crime.

  Perhaps you understood incorrectly my sentence. "Hobby" did have a
completely neutral meaning in it.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Vincent Le Chevalier <gal### [at] libertyallsurfspamfr> wrote:

> > "Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
> > news:48cc040e@news.povray.org...
> >>   Hacking a computer, however, is a hobby.
> > 
> > Everyone's entitled to their own opinions, but it's this type of thinking
> > that glorifies something that which in actuality is a crime.

> Besides, that's hardly a justification.

  I didn't say it as a justification. Put it in the original context
of my post, rather than taking that one sentence alone.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
news:48cc1a36@news.povray.org...
> somebody <x### [at] ycom> wrote:
> > "Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message

> > >   Hacking a computer, however, is a hobby.

> > Everyone's entitled to their own opinions, but it's this type of
thinking
> > that glorifies something that which in actuality is a crime.

>   Perhaps you understood incorrectly my sentence. "Hobby" did have a
> completely neutral meaning in it.

That's my point, calling it a hobby gives a legitimizing impresion. Hacking
into other people's systems can no longer be called a hobby than robbing
banks can. It's not neutral, it carries a criminal element. Why is it so
hard to understand that certain "bit and bytes" can fall into "other
people's property" category? It's their system, their data. You have no
right whatsoever, even with good intentions, to violate their property.

Post a reply to this message

somebody <x### [at] ycom> wrote:
> That's my point, calling it a hobby gives a legitimizing impresion.

  You still misunderstand my sentence (on its context). Probably on
purpose. You are sticking to one word I used, rather than trying to
aknowledge what I meant with the whole post.

  Fine, if that's the best argument you can come up with, so be it.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Doctor John nous illumina en ce 2008-09-13 08:58 -->
>
http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/city/story.html?id=25110a8f-a73a-43a0-a2a5-1daa08d147d1

> 
> 
> Can't make my mind up on this; is the university right in prosecuting or 
> are they overreacting to cover their own insecure *ssh*les?
> Right now I'm leaning in the direction of overreacting but I'm willing 
> to be convinced otherwise
> 
> John
> 
That guy acted as a "troubleshooter".
What he did was:
I enter your system.
I tell you hwo I did it.
I tell you what the vulnerability is or are.
I tell you HOW to correct the vulnerability I used.

If you act correctly, the result is a safer system, with one or several less 
vulnerability.
If you act foolishly, you procecute the guy, you do nothing about the flaws he 
showed you, and your system is still at least as vulnerable as before.

-- 
Alain
-------------------------------------------------
You know you've been raytracing too long when...
you ever saw a beautiful scenery and regretted not to take your 6" reflective 
ball and a digital camera, thinking "this would have been a perfect light probe"
         -Johnny D

Post a reply to this message

somebody nous illumina en ce 2008-09-13 12:10 -->
> "Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
> news:48cbd5e0@news.povray.org...
>> somebody <x### [at] ycom> wrote:
> 
>>> The question you should be asking is, did anyone ask you to fix their
>>> security in the first place? Spend your time and energy on things that
> there
>>> is a demand for, not on things that you are unwelcome to do.
> 
>>   It's exactly that kind of bastard mentality that causes all the
>> ridiculous lawsuits.
> 
> No, it's the type of mentality that keeps a civilized society running. If
> the society approved of people who sought to fix the problems they perceived
> on others their own way, we would go back to lawlessness and every man fend
> for himself.
> 
> 
In everydays life, you're right... mostly. When you stumble on something wrong, 
you are bound to report it to someone competent on the mather, or correct it 
yourself if you are abilited or competent to do so. If you search for something 
wrong, for any reason, and find something, you must act about it.

In computer world, we NEED hackers to find and report flaws. Why do you think 
patches are isued for every OSs and most applications? Only because some hackers 
hunted for flaws and put them under the noses of devlopers. In the computer 
world, hackers are our private investigators. Many hackers are now paid workers 
at various software firms and security agencies. Calling every hackers 
"criminal" is insanely gross over symplification. It all depend on why he hack, 
and what he does after the hacking.

-- 
Alain
-------------------------------------------------
Don't kiss an elephant on the lips today.

Post a reply to this message

somebody wrote:
> "Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
> news:48cbee01@news.povray.org...
>> somebody <x### [at] ycom> wrote:
> 
>>   This would only lead for the security flaw to never be found and fixed.
> 
> You are guessing.
> 

No more so, given the evidence of how such things "always" lead, than 
"guessing" that the odds of rolling a seven with two six sided dice is 
likely to be higher than rolling a 12.

-- 
void main () {

     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message