Google Aids Hacking

In a UK national paper ¦ More Backlash

[ukgimp]

I had the nasty experience of catching a bus this morning :) and was intrigued to read an 1/3 page article in Metro. For those not familiar with the paper it a free paper that you can pick up all over the uk in places like bus and train stations and from annoying geezers who thrust them through your car window at traffic lights.

Back on topic the article title was:

Want to get hacking? All you need to use is Google

In my best paraphrasing, hackers get all the information they need to hack from Google, they don’t actually have to visit the intended site before they start to hack. Before Google hackers had to visit the site to find vulnerabilities but now they can find them with Google. Using the cached version of the page they can get the information they need without alerting the website owners. Some geezer called Danny Sullivan tells it more like what it is, that Google can aid the hacker as well as the user.

This has also been reported in the New Scientist [newscientist.com]

So two very public articles on the street, sort of mis-informing the world and Joe Public. This sort of information can only aid backlash articles and comments we are seeing more of.

I know many people on the street who will misinterpret this so when someone says "why not use Google?" I expect to hear, "No! they aid hackers, I read it in the paper". Before long the brand will be tarnished further.

Could Google alleviate this by removing the caching feature? Not sure, but they need to do something.

Cheers

[Made In Sheffield]

I disagree that hackers crack systems but don't do damage, that is not what hacking is about at all (to me).

This argument could go on forever as security consultants/programmers tend to disagree on this.

Here is some of the definition I agree with:

=-=-=-=
There is another group of people who loudly call themselves hackers, but aren't. These are people (mainly adolescent males) who get a kick out of breaking into computers and phreaking the phone system. Real hackers call these people `crackers' and want nothing to do with them. Real hackers mostly think crackers are lazy, irresponsible, and not very bright, and object that being able to break security doesn't make you a hacker any more than being able to hotwire cars makes you an automotive engineer. Unfortunately, many journalists and writers have been fooled into using the word `hacker' to describe crackers; this irritates real hackers no end.

The basic difference is this: hackers build things, crackers break them.
=-=-=-=

and here's the full run down for those interested:

http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/hacker-howto.html [catb.org]

Cheers,
Nigel

[bcolflesh]

Hacker:
info.astrian.net/jargon/terms/h/hacker.html

Cracker:
info.astrian.net/jargon/terms/c/cracker.html

[John_Creed]

Hackers explore and search for security holes, crackers are malicious, and programmers are the one's who "build" things.

This "hacker vs. cracker" debate is brought up every single time someone mentions hacking in a negative light.

The term hacking has been mis-used so often that the definition should be changed to reflect the new meaning.

To be honest, *all* hacking is bad. I didn't give this hacker permission to "explore" anything of mine, so whether or not he's going to do any damage is irrelevant. He's hacking/cracking.

The only ligitimate hacking are hackers who are paid to search a system to help with security. And those guys are usually called other things.

So IMO calling a cracker a hacker is appropriate, and the "real hackers" just need to find a more respectable vocation.

Google related Info:

Actually, Google does accidently help aid hacking. If a hacker knows what kind of filetypes to look for, he can find sensitive info that's not intended to be in search engines. Which is one of the reasons why Google has the emergency contact thingy for removing sensitive info ASAP.

There was an article about that a while ago and it's what I expected to see when I clicked this thread.

[Herenvardo]

>> To be honest, *all* hacking is bad.
Don't agree. Absolutely wrong! :(
This is no more than a linguistic discrepance.
>> The only ligitimate hacking are hackers who are paid to search a system to help with security.
And what about the hackers who enter systems and notify secrity holes to the administrators without being asked to?

The following definitions are of my own, but they reflect many ideas from the ones posted here and in many other sites:
to hack:v, trans;to explore or search a system for security holes.
hacker:noun;someone able to hack. system expert.
cracker:noun;a hacker that harms the systems s/he enters.

So not all hacking is bad. Not all hackers are bad. But there are some practices of hacking that actually are bad. Among these, the worst practice is the cracking.

And about the main topic:
Really google cache can aid hacking, but this help is to little to have to care it: any "attack" that can be done through google cache can also be done through other methodes with only a little more effort.

Greetings,
Herenvardö

[claus]

say i break into your home and leave again posting a message for the world to see that your alarm system doesn't work... now that's not bad at all is it?

Oh.. is it better if i just tell you... anonymously of course?

/claus

[Herenvardo]

claus:
Somebody could try, only for curiosity, to open my home's lock and to take a look at my home. If my alarm does not work, I'll be thankfull if you let me know, not caring how have you found out it.
In other words, I prefer that a hacker enters my system and tells me some holes s/he finds that leaving them uncared and receiving, laterly, a worse visit, like a cracker, through these holes.
Or do you prefer that the alarm that does not work gets unnoticed until a thief enters the house?

Herenvardö

[ukgimp]

>>Somebody could try, only for curiosity, to
>>open my home's lock and to take a look at my home

They want to hope that I did not hear them trying or they may meet with Mr Baseball bat.

[bcolflesh]

They want to hope that I did not hear them trying or they may meet with Mr Baseball bat.

Mr Baseball Bat should be cautious or he may come face-to-face with Mr Smith and Mr Wesson.

[Herenvardo]

Incredible!
I thought that in modern world violence was no more the solution for opinion differences!
Really are you able to hit to someone who doesn't want in any case to harm you?
Are you able to hit with a baseball bat to someone who is unweaponed?

I will add something: I'm sure that you would never hit someone because s/he enters your house. You would do it instinctively to prevent her/him of attacking you or your family or stealing your possessions.
But I think that you wouldn't attack her/him if you were sure that s/he wants only to help you improving your lock or alarm.
Of course, you can never be sure of this. And if your system is visited by a hacker, you can not be sure of what has s/he done there. Even if s/he lets a note telling how to improve your security, it could be a trick: s/he already has taken what s/he wanted and s/he left the note to dissuade you of pursuing her/him.
But I only said that there are good hackers. I'm not asking you to recognize them among the bad ones because this is not possible. But remember, they exist.

Herenvardö