Bruce Marshall wrote:
> I tend to think better of those hackers who do have some sort of
> rules in regards to their deeds.
To pervert the saying "there's no such thing as a good virus", I think
it's dangerous to look at hackers who have no destructive or fraudulent
motive as somehow nicer. The problem is the "proof of concept". If
someone hacks into sendmail (why? because it's there... :) using some
arcane exploitation of a bug, but doesn't do anything "bad", they've
set a precedent. The various people who *are* out to do bad things can
now add this attack to their repertoire.
> That is what I would refer to as the
> Robin Hood syndrome (stealing was okay if it had a moral justification).
Just to play Devils Advocate, Robin Hood attempted to even out the
wealth distribution based on his own notions of who was wealthy and
who wasn't. While RH might have been above reproach, it is easy to
see this kind of system abused. No legal recourse, no checks and
balances, just one person who thinks you have too much money and I
have too little...
Dermot Tynan +353 91 754608
com DTN: 822-4608
Digital Equipment International BV, Galway, Ireland