 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] dev null> wrote:
> >>> Yup, a bunch of 14 year olds in their mom's basements who want to be
> >>> hackers without knowing the first thing about it.
> >
> >> Required CAD quote: http://www.cad-comic.com/cad/20030606
> >
> > OTOH, how do you define "hacking"?
> I think the necessary criterion is that it's any activity requiring
> technical knowledge and skill.
It may be necessary, but not sufficient. I can write a program that
calculates the mandelbrot set, but that's not usually considered hacking.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 16/03/2012 2:38 PM, Invisible wrote:
> And then of course, in everyday culture "hacking" refers only to
> technical activities which are in some way /illegal/. :-P
I will go with that definition ;-)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>> OTOH, how do you define "hacking"?
>
>> I think the necessary criterion is that it's any activity requiring
>> technical knowledge and skill.
>
> It may be necessary, but not sufficient. I can write a program that
> calculates the mandelbrot set, but that's not usually considered hacking.
Well, I would consider that hacking. But I guess the fundamental point
is that the word lacks a coherent definition...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> >>> OTOH, how do you define "hacking"?
> >
> >> I think the necessary criterion is that it's any activity requiring
> >> technical knowledge and skill.
> >
> > It may be necessary, but not sufficient. I can write a program that
> > calculates the mandelbrot set, but that's not usually considered hacking.
> Well, I would consider that hacking. But I guess the fundamental point
> is that the word lacks a coherent definition...
One rather usual characteristic is figuring out how something works
(usually something related to computers, and usually more specifically
something related to software) and using it or modifying it in an unusual
and unintended way.
"Hacking into" a system usually means figuring out how to get past
security measurements by studying how it works and what its weaknesses
are. However, that's only one of the many things that are considered
hacking.
Writing a program that does something mundane isn't usually considered
"hacking".
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 16/03/2012 03:42 PM, Warp wrote:
> Writing a program that does something mundane isn't usually considered
> "hacking".
I don't know. People seem to use the phrase "I was hacking on XYZ" to
mean the same thing is "I was working on the source code for XYZ",
without any particular requirement that the code or the coding activity
is anything remarkable.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 03/16/2012 11:42 AM, Warp wrote:
> Invisible<voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>>>>> OTOH, how do you define "hacking"?
>>>
>>>> I think the necessary criterion is that it's any activity requiring
>>>> technical knowledge and skill.
>>>
>>> It may be necessary, but not sufficient. I can write a program that
>>> calculates the mandelbrot set, but that's not usually considered hacking.
>
>> Well, I would consider that hacking. But I guess the fundamental point
>> is that the word lacks a coherent definition...
>
> One rather usual characteristic is figuring out how something works
> (usually something related to computers, and usually more specifically
> something related to software) and using it or modifying it in an unusual
> and unintended way.
>
> "Hacking into" a system usually means figuring out how to get past
> security measurements by studying how it works and what its weaknesses
> are. However, that's only one of the many things that are considered
> hacking.
>
> Writing a program that does something mundane isn't usually considered
> "hacking".
>
Don't you think substituting "hardware" for computer related is a
possibly a better fit in the above context?
Back in the day we had the "top" spectrum analyzer ... and our closest
competitor would buy one of our boxes and reverse engineer large
portions of the instrument. I remember going into production and finding
their order, and tagging the box, so we could follow it through the
process. I was like we made DARN sure it was tuned to the tightest
tolerance possible, and dared them to replicate. We had them over a
barrel with certain proprietary micro circuits. Single source for those
components. Once they came out with their new model, we'd in turn buy
one of there boxes and take it to the lab to see if we could catch them
in any copy-right violations.
Doesn't something like that fit the term "hacking"?
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 16/03/2012 4:01 PM, Invisible wrote:
> On 16/03/2012 03:42 PM, Warp wrote:
>
>> Writing a program that does something mundane isn't usually considered
>> "hacking".
>
> I don't know. People seem to use the phrase "I was hacking on XYZ" to
> mean the same thing is "I was working on the source code for XYZ",
> without any particular requirement that the code or the coding activity
> is anything remarkable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hacker_%28term%29#Hacker_definition_controversy
A hack is also the cracked skin that you can get on your fingers due to
cold.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Writing a program that does something mundane isn't usually considered
>> "hacking".
>
> Don't you think substituting "hardware" for computer related is a
> possibly a better fit in the above context?
>
> Back in the day we had the "top" spectrum analyzer ... and our closest
> competitor would buy one of our boxes and reverse engineer large
> portions of the instrument. I remember going into production and finding
> their order, and tagging the box, so we could follow it through the
> process. I was like we made DARN sure it was tuned to the tightest
> tolerance possible, and dared them to replicate. We had them over a
> barrel with certain proprietary micro circuits. Single source for those
> components. Once they came out with their new model, we'd in turn buy
> one of there boxes and take it to the lab to see if we could catch them
> in any copy-right violations.
>
> Doesn't something like that fit the term "hacking"?
You can have "legal hacks" too... I think the word probably has more
than one meaning.
1. To do something skillful. (Computer-related, legal-related, basically
any subject area which requires skill.)
2. Exploiting something in an unintended way. (E.g., patent trolls could
be said to "hack the legal system".)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 16-3-2012 15:57, Stephen wrote:
> On 16/03/2012 2:38 PM, Invisible wrote:
>> And then of course, in everyday culture "hacking" refers only to
>> technical activities which are in some way /illegal/. :-P
>
> I will go with that definition ;-)
>
Yes, it is a form of hijacking. Hacking was a used to mean doing
something skilled. As long as that was among the small in-crowd that was
not a problem. The outside world started noticing this term when there
was interaction with the non-computer world. I.e. when they started
hacking other devices like telephone equipment. When computers became
more important people also started to notice it in the context of
breaking in into computers. Mostly still as a way to show it could be
done, not to cause harm. It is around this time that companies and
institutions that preferred to attack the hackers in stead of fixing the
issues hijacked the term and made it into something that people
associate with illegal.
Nowadays there is still a group of amateur hackers, but the largest
scale hacking is done by governments. If that is still illegal can be
disputed. The chinese are constantly trying to break into every western
company and institution. From e.g. a US POV that is illegal, but they
are doing it from china and there this activity is legal. The same for
US intelligence services trying to hack chinese government sites.
--
tip: do not run in an unknown place when it is too dark to see the
floor, unless you prefer to not use uppercase.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 16/03/2012 5:04 PM, andrel wrote:
> On 16-3-2012 15:57, Stephen wrote:
>> On 16/03/2012 2:38 PM, Invisible wrote:
>>> And then of course, in everyday culture "hacking" refers only to
>>> technical activities which are in some way /illegal/. :-P
>>
>> I will go with that definition ;-)
>>
> Yes, it is a form of hijacking. Hacking was a used to mean doing
> something skilled. As long as that was among the small in-crowd that was
> not a problem. The outside world started noticing this term when there
> was interaction with the non-computer world. I.e. when they started
> hacking other devices like telephone equipment. When computers became
> more important people also started to notice it in the context of
> breaking in into computers. Mostly still as a way to show it could be
> done, not to cause harm. It is around this time that companies and
> institutions that preferred to attack the hackers in stead of fixing the
> issues hijacked the term and made it into something that people
> associate with illegal.
>
> Nowadays there is still a group of amateur hackers, but the largest
> scale hacking is done by governments. If that is still illegal can be
> disputed. The chinese are constantly trying to break into every western
> company and institution. From e.g. a US POV that is illegal, but they
> are doing it from china and there this activity is legal. The same for
> US intelligence services trying to hack chinese government sites.
>
Yes, but not necessarily skilful, in the early days. Just guessing
passwords or trying command codes to see what would happen would be
described as hacking.
One example that I can remember was when I worked offshore and telephone
calls were regulated. It was possible to dial a speed code to a company
PABX without any restrictions applying. So you could use an internal
phone to get international calls. Just someone messing about.
I think that the rest of what you say is true.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
