anybody going to defcon in a few days?
isn't that the hacker convention?
I would go if I had enough money (or it was closer to where i live). Sounds like it's going to be a blast, especialy the speakers that are going to talk about wardriving.
Pretty much. Here's the website: http://www.defcon.org/
Is it legal?
Yes it's legal. In fact the often have FBI and other law enforcement officials there(microsoft reps even showed up once). Very beneficial to security experts and as a tool to determine how to secure networks. Nothing illegal goes on at the convention (offically anyhow;)
I'd love to go- would even pertain to the work I do, but it's too short of notice for me- maybe next year...
*Sigh* Another brain washed by the media. It's a shame how hackers have been labeled as thieves and have such a bad reputation, when the truth of what they do is contrary. The original meaning of a hackers is just a person that is good with computers. Hackers aren't malicious. Hackers aren't the ones that deface your websites and unleash internet worms, the politically correct term for those people are crackers. In fact, white hat hackers even use their knowledge to protect systems. It's about keeping knowledge free. Of course knowledge of wardriving, server exploits and encryption holes can be used for evil, but a lot of the time they can also be used to make systems more secure. Hackers are the pioneers of the digital age. They scale the mountain ahead of the rest and point out faults in the rock so the people below can steer clear of them in the future.
Making knowledge "free" certainly has its ups, as well as its downs. A server can only become so secure until somebody discovers a way to break through the new security... Making knowledge free only allows for training new hackers with the skill to find their way around network security, which is of course what hacking is all about.
A hacker has good intent. A cracker is malicious and does it purely for destructive intent or self-gain
What about my personal information, is that supposed to be "Free" as well?
You know perfectly well that's not what i meant. When someone says that they are against censorship does that mean they want your social security number? of course not! In fact, if you read my post more closely you would realize that hackers aren't malicious. In fact, i would not doubt that there are hackers at work now at your credit card company securing your infomation.
Your post offers NO evidence that Hackers are not malicious, none what-so-ever other then you saying it.
Aside from that, how do they know that the information that they are viewing, isn't someone else's, and needs be kept secure, for reasons that they don't even know, and they now know the info......what then??
And please DO NOT tell me what I know, "Perfectly well" or otherwise.
OH yes, the PS Computer Programers and Engineers were/are the pioneers of the digital age.
Article A. By definition of the word, hackers aren't malicious.
Article B. There was an article on msnbc awhile back that showed a kid using his talent to good. He cracked his school's computer root password to demonstrate how insecure it was. He recieved praise for showing the fault so other malicoious crackers could not exploit it in the furture
Ariticle C. I myself have alerted websites of their security holes so they could patch it before a cracker got to it.
Article D. This site even acknowledges the difference between a hacker and cracker. Notice how people that behave badly on this site get the title "cracker" and not "hacker"
I don't understand this quote. What information are you talking about?
By definition programmers and engineers can be concidered hackers.
Human, by definition........NOT Malicious..but like most things, NOT an absolute, neither, as I recall, was the origins of the Idea of "Hackers" simply because you end up with, well, who's definition of what results as being "Good"?
Simple reality is that that is why we have things like the 'authorities', to ensure that the recognizable structuring of actions that are "pre-seen" as resulting in 'good' results, Hackers must cross that line, and the outcome has no assurance of an adherance to the law, by the Hacker, as to ensure that all of the rest of us are, in actuallity, and reality, protected.
As evidence, a lot of security experts recruited by security firms are ex-hackers.
From my own experience, there is as much, if not more creativity involved in hacking as there is in programming or engineering. Programmers/engineers create the systems, and hackers expose weak points to improve them. That's apples and oranges. If programmers/engineers are the poineers laying the tracks across the old west of the US, then hackers are the ones following behind to make sure all the spikes are tapped in and the rails are straight.
Not quite so certain about that, as it seems that I recall reading an article about a group testing the security of there product and they simple split themselves into two teams, Red and Blue, and went at it that way.
Aside from that, you then end up with some arbitrary standard (legality) of differentiation between 'Hackers' and 'Crackers', which then makes the two groups difficult to separate and further difficult to separate in any kind of 'time deterministic' manner. (The 'Cracker' simply keeps switching hats to Hacker/Cracker/Hacker/Cracker, such that, we have no real clue what we are actually playing with.
I find it quite easy to distinguish the two.
The hacker exposes security bugs and other holes to alert the companies and manufacturers.
The cracker exploits these bugs and what not for solely malicious action and for whatever gain he can get.
There is a difference between exposing and exploiting.
Yes there is, but why is this "unknown person" (Craker OR Hacker) allowed to see this information in the first place?
They may use subversive means to aquire that info, but who do you want that information in the hands of? the good guys(ie the hackers) or the bad guys (crackers)?
Why are either allowed to see the information? Because there are security flaws in the system. The hackers find them and report them so that the crackers can't find the same flaws and exploit the system. It is essentially fighting fire with fire.
The simple question I have already asked, why should I have to trust either of the two groups of people? If I am required to trust someone, secretly seeing my information, I would prefer it to be a "legal authority", hence accountable, and responcible to others/somebody!
Separate names with a comma.