Netscapes top story right now is the expected mass hacker attack supposed to happen sunday.
Most of you guys know volumes more that I about computers so who else better to ask about surviving something like that?
So whats the best defence for a little guy to help survive something as ominus sounding as a mass attack?
If by “little guy” you mean “doesn’t have a webserver”, then you have nothing to worry about. This planned attack seems to be a contest for hacking websites.
If you maintain your own webserver, then make sure you have all of the latest secutity patches for your software and OS.
Best defense: Unplug the server from the network.
Hackers have no interest in doing something that’s illegal and, on the whole, rather boring. Hackers would rather develop software or otherwise be creative, not be mindlessly destructive.
Crackers, on the other hand, would gladly use a computer to break a law. Hence their name: cracker, as in safecracker or in the older sense of an annoying person.
Please use the terminology correctly.
Unfortunately, the terminology has been altered by the media in recent years. These days, “hacker” and “cracker” are interchangable for all except the most technical instances. As far as Joe Net Surfer is concerned, hackers are the bad guys, and nothing is going to change their minds.
Usage sometimes redefines words in English, and it seems like this is going to be one of those situations.
To add to my last post, Webster defines “hacker” as
So in normal usage, the word “hacker” has taken over the original meanings both “hacker” and “cracker”.
Christ on a crutch, Derleth! Your view is [list=a]
[li]not held by the majority of the people who use the term (i.e. the standard interpretation in the press and by the masses)[/li][li]not held by the majority of the people who are experts in the field,[/li][li]not in line with the dictionary definition[/li][li]Compeletely irrelevant in virtually every post you place it in![/li][/list=a]
Give it a rest, friend.
Even if the “official plan” is to hack websites, some hackers may just decide to go after any machines they can find. If you’ve got any network shares active, and you’re really worried, disable them for the day.
Quote Derleth
Please use the terminology correctly.
Quote Netscape
Top Story Feds Warn of Mass Hacker Attacks This Sunday
I’ll email Netscape immediately and tell them you said they don’t know what they are talking about. Not.
Quote David Wray, Spokesman, United States Department of Homeland Security (in the article)
“Frankly, hacker challenges occur frequently, and we don’t think they all rise to the level of a warning.” (emphasis mine)
Might want to call the Federal Government while you’re at it, justwannano. If they give you any lip, tell 'em Derleth sent you.
A hacker is supposeldy somebody who is harmless even though that’s not the definition most people use. If Netscape was to use the word cracker instead of hacker most people would just think it was some kind of racial slur.
Hacker, Cracker? So what is it going to be? I’ll look for a link we can all check out
Gee, more posts about word games and definitions than attempting to answer the OP’s question.
It’s almost as bad as arguing about who accidentally started the kitchen fire and allowing the house to burn down, instead of calling the fire department and deal with ego games later.
Sheeesh!
For the little guy, there may be a slowdown in Internet traffic, possibly accessing some web sites; things you have no control.
If you are responsible for a web site (undefined) you might get targeted, could even unwittingly be a launching pad for the attack (are your servers secure?). The same if you have broadband access as a normal user - if your system has holes in its security, your home computer may be a launching pad as well. ATT broadband users (now Comcast) traditionally running Windows 2000 are used by hackers/crachers/whatever for DoS attacks.
I don’t know why, but I’m back to continue this silly hijack debate.
Some consider me “expert” in the network security field. I don’t know if that’s true, but I’ve got some credentials behind me. I’ve been on many “expert” panels, been quoted in network security magazines and written network security articles in magazines, founded some successful network security startups, have a number of patents in network security, including some of the original virtual private networking patents. In the scope of things, I’m a small fry, but I know and have worked with a lot of the real experts; I’m deep in the field. And you know what?
I’ve never – not even once – heard the term “cracker” used by anyone with any sort of respectability. Not even once. When someone of any substance wants to refer to someone who misuses computer knowledge to do evil deeds, they call them a “hacker.”
And this isn’t an issue that the word has been warped over time by the media. The word “hacker” never was, and is not used to mean exclusively a good guy. Never.
Bill H.: You seem to know more about this than I do. I used to be interested in hacking/cracking and every guide I ever saw written by any hacker always gave a def. where a hacker was a good guy and a cracker was out to destroy computers. Of course, why would a self proclaimed hacker say he was bad and out to destroy? I’ll change my definition to a hacker=bad, cracker=non-existent.
As for the OP, don’t worry about it unless you own servers. I’m more worried about West Nile Virus than this attack.
almost 25 years ago when I was a punk kid breaking into computers and such hacker meant someone who illegally entered a computer system. Cracker was someone who defeated protection on software, or cracked codes. It was later that somone tried(unsuccesfully) to sanitize the term to mean programmer or someone really good at computers. In the almost quarter of century i have been into computers, both as a professional and as a annoying antisocial juvie, hacker has NEVER meant just someone really good at computers…NEVER to the security people, and never to the criminals.
Used to be, we called someone who tried to do damage…erase files, bring down systems and such…A crasher…not a cracker.
Hackers, most of them(us, in the old days), tried to go unnoticed for the most part. If you crashed a system, that usually menat that account that you had worked to get into would be turned off. So hackers considered crashers to be the bad guys, and themselves to be the good guys. Hackers still were bad as far as the owners of the systems were concerned(and later became criminal activity). Back then, the law hadnt really caught up.
I had friends who used to break into abandoned industrial buildings(not much breaking really…just would find a way in). While they were technically breaking the law…It was no where near on the same level as someone who broke in and burned the place down. Same kind of thing.
To add to this last post, a crasher was also a hacker…just a bad one.
So… A cracker isn’t a racist comment?
Sometimes a cracker is just a cracker.