Talk:Computer Hacking

This is all stupid.
Yep. --Cyberman 11:19, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

BTW i'm in an arguing mood.

"For all those who're confused with the fact that a hacker merely enjoys exploiting the weakeness of any security system.." Really?! I'll be damned.. so white hats aren't excited they can keep their job by finding a weakness and improving on it? MAYBE... you should work on your English? OMG I found a security flaw in your writing. Pwned.

Vandalism / cleaned up
I reverted the talk page due to vandalism, and cleaned it up a bit. Remember to sign your comments. RoceKiller 21:52, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Why "Koibhi"?
Why is this wikibook called Koibhi?--Hyperlink 04:40, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

(empty header)
鼠 says: Pssh.. Hacking is hacking. I don't understand where people get off defining hackers by white hat and black hat. White hats should just be called Digital Defenders and black hats hackers. Hacking is hacking whichever way you look at it. Hacking does not equal protecting. It means breaking into a security system within an illegal manner. I don't hack into things, I just find flaws in systems and use them to my advantage. It's not hacking, it's just using what they forgot to cover up. By the way, you spelled text,organizing, and many other things wrong.

I think I have to strongly agree with you there. Hacking is hacking, there is no point implying they should categorised them into some kind of a 'how bad is a hacker' barometer. The real issue how can others protect their security from hackers, that's the real issue! Of course, being aware of the tactics used by hackers, how they operate and deploy their tricks would be an advantage to anyone. For that being certified as a ethical hacker is important. But wait. What would happen if ethical hackers suddenly confounded black hat hackers, where consequently some kind of a 'team ethical hackers world police' version? I suppose one other major key issue would be to enable users to be aware of flaws in their systems. Perhaps this is why some hackers argue they are not hacking they just acute enough to pick up flaws to their advantage. The issue of raising awareness in this subject matter has always been something strongly advocated by Firebrand Training, formerly known as the Training Camp. Thank you for your pointsTbarbosa (talk) 14:50, 19 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Orignal Creator says: 'Ahem. If you find this book interesting, please edit what you want to be better. Yet I (the first author, who created it) would find it very pleasing not to delete whole sections of tekst without noting so. At least help orginising the book, it'll be a compensation for the deleted stuff. Many thanks for helping (in advance).'

There is a qaulification called certified ethical hacker if it helps this is a link to a course that leads to it. Hope no one minds the commercial link. Dolive35 19:32, 22 April 2006 (UTC)Tbarbosa (talk) 14:50, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Hacker...nothing to do with breaking a security system
For all those who're confused with the fact that a hacker merely enjoys exploiting the weakeness of any security system..you're absolutely wrong..a hacker is just a guru of some field. Well, in the case of computers, a hacker, knows the ins and outs of any computer system. its operating system, how it connects over the network, the method deployed in transfering files over various protocols, etc. etc. and so can in a way, play tricks on those who dont know the details of the former to their advantage. Obviously, with great powers, come great responsibility ;) - i know i know..spiderman..so when a person is gifted with such knowledge, the better way to exploit a loophole in a system, is to inform the party and tell them a fix. Sadly, not everyone is responsible, and some use it to gain money. Some use it to create havoc. We call em hackers..or script kiddies. In essence a hacker, is a respected member of a community. check out this link. http://catb.org/%7Eesr/faqs/hacker-howto.html This will give you an idea of what a hacker is ..and how to become one..if you are really competent to be one.. I now advice not to further argue over who or what or whether its moral to be a hacker, and provide technical information on computing, and..hacking in a general way.

I will add a couple of articles i've bin working on soon. In the meanwhile..those who are interested in reading good stuff...then try this http://www.insecure.org


 * Thanks for helping out anyway you can. Be constructive and I think, even if hacking is hacking by using a forgotten flaw, you should be considered a grey hat for doing that. Anyways, thanks for correcting my problems. Though, do not that I prefer en-UK over en-US. So, maybe that's the issue. Anyways, I'll be waiting up just about any constructive edit. May the souce be with you (Tux?).xy 19:07, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The grammar is just terrible:

From: "A perspective view on hackers"

"Don't skip this part if you want to obtain an objective view on hacking. First of all, the definition of hackers is redefined, since a lot of commercial put it in a rather commercial perspective (so to say). Then, their history is covered. This 21 century hold many 'miracles', so hacking should be casted in the world of technology if people were to understand them. Yet the hacking-culture is covered in a seperate chapter. This is due the not-so simple way in which hackers tend to work. Finally, ethics, shared by most hackers are covered so that you know what hackers stand up for."

I mean, Jesus Christ! Not only is there the horrendous grammar, there's the advocacy of the item being described... it just needs to be thrown out.

Come ON...
--Genobeeno 20:14, 2 Jul 2005 (UTC)

The grammar is just terrible:

From: "A perspective view on hackers"

"Don't skip this part if you want to obtain an objective view on hacking. First of all, the definition of hackers is redefined, since a lot of commercial put it in a rather commercial perspective (so to say). Then, their history is covered. This 21 century hold many 'miracles', so hacking should be casted in the world of technology if people were to understand them. Yet the hacking-culture is covered in a seperate chapter. This is due the not-so simple way in which hackers tend to work. Finally, ethics, shared by most hackers are covered so that you know what hackers stand up for."

I mean, Jesus Christ! Not only is there the horrendous grammar, there's the advocacy of the item being described... it just needs to be thrown out.

Reverse Engineering merge (redirect)
I think we should probably move this page into a book with a little bit more form and function. Also, the way this "book" stands now, it is more likely to be deleted then it is to be expanded. If we merge this page into a more respectable book, we won't need to worry about this thing being deleted. We can discuss the issue here. -- 19:56, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree, I vote that this page be merged. - brmwk 2/10/06

I also agree, this would work better with some heavier editing and a merge into the larger Reverse Engineering work. Lorax 01:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I strongly disagree, the reverse engineering book is focused on a specific area knowledge, this book should be retained as a more general overview. There are many topics that would be overlooked by a merger with reverse engineering, and reverse engineering would suffer from too many segways. Links would be more appropriate.
 * I understand the disagreement, but I just want everybody to keep in mind that this kin of book, especially if it focuses on illegal activites, could very easily be deleted as per wikibooks policy. Wikibooks administrators (myself included) have already deleted other books that were flagrantly illegal. I just want to present some options for this book to legitimize itself, so that it doesnt fall on the chopping block later. --Whiteknight (talk) (current) 16:18, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Disagree (or at least I disagree with this redirect) - I just clicked on 'Computer Hacking' and it took me to 'Reverse Engineering'. That doesn't make any sense. You can't just redirect two unrelated topics, just because the development of the book was not going very well. If some content from the Computer Hacking book was rescued to the Reverse Engineering book, then we should make a page saying so, and saying that the rest of the book has been deleted because it was rubbish. -- (just visitor to wikibooks) 10:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Unite
I am pretty new to wikipedia (just joined today 29/1/06!). And I think this is a wonderful site with a great mission. Imagine: 'free' access to 'any' type of knowledge within 5 years or so. But we must unite and stop condemning the grammar or any other idea! If you know something about hacking I think you can always edit or contribute in someway. It's easy to comment than to take responsibility. Together we can make this book a great resource. So, let's Unite!

Collaborate
Grammer is essential to coherent communication. This is why computer languages have structures that must be followed for the parser and compiler to be able to do anything other than spew errors.Lorax 01:48, 29 March 2006 (UTC)