What a wonderfully deceitful juxtaposition the Daily Telegraph has gone for this morning with the headline "Paedophile hacker who scared girls into sending him photos gets 10 years". In that single statement the term hacker and paedophile have been put lumped together in a perjorative way, and the worst thing is if you read the article the so-called "hacking" is anything but.
According to the article he used a "sophisticated virus to take control of victims' computers... backed up his threats by moving their cursor around, switching on and off their monitors and opening and closing the disc drive." Sophisticated virus to take control of computers? What, you mean like the Windows XP Remote Desktop feature?
Or maybe it was the aged and decrepid NetBus from 1998, which was the first of many backdoor trojans (not viruses, trojans) that allow such actions but are based upon the need fot the traget to arbitrarily run code on their computer first? This point, incidentally, is the key to why there is nothing sophisiticated about what this guy did. He sent girls something and they - stupidly - executed it on their systems. He did not "hack" into their computers at all, they opened the door and let him in.
What this guy did subsequently was of course wrong, and frankly, pretty disgusting. I am not in anyway saying that the girls brought it upon themselves. What's important though is that we avoid making this guy out to be something that he's not. He is no hacker.
2 comments:
Try explaining this to the herd and blank stares abound didnt these girls
have anti virus or firewall software? a basic need i would think.
hi there i agree with dizzy hes no hacker and it realy gives a bad name to hackers as they have then already for instance a hacker is not someone who breaks in to your system and messes about thats a cracker and there is no brains needed for that you download pre made trojan and the victim does the rest crackers are what we call hacker wannabees hackers like challeng fixing things e.g xpm os has a bug a security issue then we fix that we dont go in anyones computer or do anything like that we got stigmarta like firewalls anti hacker they should be anti cracker coz the difference is a hacker could get past all of your firewalls but wouldnt wish to a c5racker carnt but would love to this guy prayed on little kids becouse maybe he used to like animals or something he feels in power with weaker people and he needs a good ki**ing any kid would fall for it at that age it is scary for you cd drive to open on you when i was a kid and gave cheak to someone he would say i no who your dad is i would be scared to death he never had a clue realy its up to us to protect the young look out for them but we carnt watch them all but while im on the net i will always educate the young and try and catch the paedophile and in cases such as that yes i think i would a,shut hes comp down b,trace him and give details to the police good look all merry xmas hazy j,nesta
Post a Comment