[LINK] Do as I say....
scott at doc.net.au
Sun Aug 10 14:52:44 EST 2008
Did you actually read the story?
It was a dedicated, wired network (not wireless as you stated) where they
had specifically been told that all forms of hacking were disallowed.
The reporter(s) deliberately used some form of packet sniffing tool(s) to
collect usernames and passwords from at least one other user on the network.
It that is not, in a basic sense at least, "hacking" then I don't know what
is. It's also illegal under US law.
(Apparently it was only one of the journalists involved but the other two
were removed because they work for the same magazine, although the Wired
article doesn't mention that).
On Sat, Aug 9, 2008 at 9:17 PM, Rick Welykochy <rick at praxis.com.au> wrote:
> Jan Whitaker wrote:
> >> Subject: Do as I say, not as I do
> >> Maybe you have to be a computer geek to find this funny. But I
> >> think there are a few of those on the list...
> >> http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/08/french-reporter.html
> I see the irony, I suppose.
> But even as a geek, I cannot understand from what was written
> just exactly what the reporters did to "hack" the network.
> Or if they even did hack it.
> Accessing an open and insecure wireless network is not hacking
> by any stretch of my imagination.
> This article must have been written by a non-geek, for it leaves
> me scratching my head as to just exactly what is meant.
> >> The conference includes a "Wall of Sheep" display on which is
> >> displayed IDs of people discovered to have used the network in
> >> insecure ways that leave themselves exposed to hacking. The
> >> conference attendees' network is advertised as insecure and users
> >> are warned that they may be subjected to hacking. The idea is to
> >> reinforce awareness of the need for secure practices.
> What is a conference attendees' network? Is an attendee a person
> or a media group? imho, attendees are running net clients.
> >> Apparently it was not secure enough to make it harmless
> >> for some of the reporters to have been sloppy about their own security.
> "harmless" makes no sense to me in this context. The entire sentence
> seems written by someone with only superficial knowledge of what
> networking is all about at the coal face.
> >> The offending reporters asked to post their fellow reporters'
> >> identities on the Wall of Sheep but were refused, and instead were
> >> ejected from the conference for the hacking.
> Big leap of illogic here ... or under reporting. I suspect the latter.
> Was it requesting a posting to the Wall that constituted the offense?
> Or did the offense lie in detecting insecure peer wireless connections
> (note the word connections, not networks ... these guys are network
> If the latter, the offense is hardly in the hacking category. It is more
> in the observational category. Since when is that an offence?
> Ironic yes. Offensive, not.
> Rick Welykochy || Praxis Services || Internet Driving Instructor
> The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false-face for the urge
> to rule it.
> -- H.L. Mencken
> Link mailing list
> Link at mailman.anu.edu.au
More information about the Link