>>you're all wrong, how about that? (yes iain...you're wrong!
hmm, it was me who posted that ;)
>>Just about every true whitehat hacker will tell you a cardinal rule is to NEVER, EVER, EVERRRR break into a system without permission
like I said before: If you're allowed to try and get in that is fine, if the admin says you can try, go a head and have fun. But if the admin doesn't want that: stay out, don't try.
>>first you'll probably want to send an email to the admin of the system warning him of the flaw. If he gives you the go-ahead to check it out, then delve on.
How many times will that happen. What kind of admin will let an unknow person on the internet check out an fault in his security
>>Pretty simple stuff. Also, who's so stupid as to even attempt cracking into a bank and then publish, to the admin, from your own email address, what you've done
He didn't mailed it with his own address. If I remember correctly, it lasted a few weeks before they could catch him
>>Black-hat = evil, illegal, malicious hacker (as seen in the movies).
I liked hackers.
No sorry, I liked Angelina Jolie in Hackers:p
fair enough, i just dont see the harm of someone just looking and not touching.
>>>>you're all wrong, how about that? (yes iain...you're wrong!
Actiualy that was not me who posted that sentence, it was KEN, but I think what he ment was:
you're all wrong, how about that? (yes maes...you're wrong!
the reason why I think that is because he quoted me and have put that sentence under it, so I think it was ment(sp?) for me
But he has deleted it know so it doesn't matter any more. So iain, it wasn't me who said that and I doubt it was ment for you;) because you and Ken seems to having the same points of view
hmm, an interesting, intelligent and refreshing view expressed by "da-l33t-won". read it, its well worth it.
security forum at www.forums.iainpb.com
I can kinda understand not being mad about being hacked non-destructively, but - wouldn't you be a little mad if you found someone poking around on your computer, even if they didn't hurt anything?
My computer is like my house. You try to come in without my permission and I will use all my ability to keep you out, or track you down and go crazy ape s*** bonkers at your ISP.
Hackers don't only go where allowed. The whole point is to be able to go where others can't.
If you have a DSL/cable look at you firewall report. Bet you have been sniffed in the last hour.
>>youd need Unix (preferably with Root access),
Or XP, both have raw sockets with root access. Both can launch SYN attacks without third party drivers. (unfilterable high speed floods attacks)
Ok, I don't really know what you're talking about but, you said something about XP, and I just got that myself, so is XP easier to hack or easier to hack from than any other Windows before it?
To keep it backward compatible M$ decided to include raw sockets (without Win2000 priveliges to stop all apps gettting root access). In other words an system where the Admin is not present to restrict a programs ability to manipulate data or the OS.
Raw sockets can use the IP layer bypassing the TCP shell.
When your computer wants to establish a connection thru a port, you send a SYN packet, the server responds with an ACK+SYN and you return them to finalise the connection.
Now you can send the smaller SYN packet, spoof the IP and at the other end the computer is sending both SYN and ACK packets that it will have to wait for them to run out of TTL (time to live). As it has to send more than you, and wait for your response to its ACK, you can easily flood it off the net. Not possible as far as I know to filter them out as you would a DDoS / DoS, especially as you can easily change the spoofed IP.
IP spoofing is possible but harder under Win2000 (though there are skripts available).