Hackers, Crackers We always used to distinguish hackers from crackers. But cracking reveals the cracks in a way that nothing else does. It makes them real, sometimes laughably or painfully so. Electronic privacy is currently a joke. It's bad. You need to know what kinds of attacks you're trying to defend against. I used to think those arguments were rationalizations. Now I'm glad there are people who know this stuff, who are actually doing it. Some of "them" are on what I think of as the good side, and "we" need that kind of knowledge, if only as an occasional splash of cold water, a spur (to switch metaphorical, er, horses in mid, um, stream).

[tribble@xanadu.com (E. Dean Tribble)]

And if I shoot you or poison you, I will have vividly revealed to you
your pathetic lack of physical defenses.  Will I have done you a
service?  How about if I just break your windows or doors?

That rationalization for crackers is based on the idea that perfect
security is feasible.  Once you view this from an economic
perspective, then the only things the crackers do is raise the
cost of getting to a level of security such that operation can
continue uninterrupted.

BTW:  I happen to believe that within a trusted infrastructure,
perfect security is possible.  Even so, consider the cost of changing
operating systems, retraining all staff, reproducing familiar
applications on a new substrate.  Even if perfect security is
possible, the use of it is still bounded by economic and social
concerns.

dean

BTW:  feel free to forward to extropians.