Headline FeedsLinuxInsider Talkback
|
|
See Full Story
The Hacker Underground is dead. Long live the Hacker Underground! In the most recent issue of Phrack Magazine, I read an article titled "The Underground Myth," that makes a number of astute points about the demise of the hacking scene of the last few decades. The author describes a technical landscape in which the technology security industry and a diminishing number of obvious exploits conspired to destroy the scene as it existed throughout the 1980s and '90s.
I thought that common (misinformed) misconception was that hackers (those who hack) were mistakenly seen as crackers (those who crack); hacker=good guy, cracker=bad guy...
This article somehow plays along with this misconception.
I've seen that even with bigger companies e.g. Norton, in their ad for their AV software ("... against hackers...").
Am I wrong..?
This article somehow plays along with this misconception.
I've seen that even with bigger companies e.g. Norton, in their ad for their AV software ("... against hackers...").
Am I wrong..?
I've had the same impression for quite a while now. As far as I'm concerned, I'll continue to make that distinction; hacker == good - cracker == bad.
A cracker is someone who breaks into someone else's computer system, often on a network; bypasses passwords or licenses in computer programs; or in other ways intentionally breaches computer security. A cracker can be doing this for profit, maliciously, for some altruistic purpose or cause, or because the challenge is there. Some breaking-and-entering has been done ostensibly to point out weaknesses in a site's security system.
The term "cracker" is not to be confused with "hacker". Hackers generally deplore cracking.
The term "cracker" is not to be confused with "hacker". Hackers generally deplore cracking.
