$5000 reward for help with busting mean spirited cracker.

I'm zoning in on data loss more than the hacker.

Did they have backups? If not, Why?

This is something that I see quite a bit. I used to be sensitive to it but there is just too much awareness not to back up data. I don't have the empathy for it anymore. Ezboard should be slapped on the hand if they didn't take precautions....

The cliche is true... "it's not if you will loose data but when."

What about recovery? If it was a simple delete there is a good chance to recover the data off the hard drives.

The following book is a must read for anyone interested in the data lost post: "Dark Ages II" It's a brilliant book that contrasts the burning of the Alexandria library to Modern digital data.

The term "hacker" needn't have anything to do with computer security at all. I, for instance, am a Perl hack (I wouldn't be so arrogant as to call myself a hacker, yet, in that regard). This means I hack Perl code. It is done entirely on my own computer, though when I've written some code I often offer it to others, if it should come up.

A cracker, on the other hand, is one who "cracks" system or network security. That's an entirely separate animal. Let's not confuse the terms.

Ok...$5,000.00 ...well at least we know he or she is white. ;)

Sorry couldn't resist...

;)

Simple as this. EZ board though tremendously active and draws thousands if not millions of posts everyday is not a paid subscription service. Yes, you can donate money. Yes, you can pay for a "premium" account (no ads). Most folks don't. So, I wouldn't be surprised that if they were hacked, EZ board wouldn't have all the lastest and greatest technology available.

Don't get me wrong. I love EZ board as much as the next poster with over 5k in postings on one board alone. This has to be hard on the organization, itself. Personally, I applaud them even being able to come up with $5,000 as it is. For that matter, Sony Online Entertainment (Everquest I, II and Lords) should be throwing in some real money as most every "guild", class and subject matter related to EQ was bounced around on EZ Boards for years and still to this day! They alone have been the recipient of a much more lucretive windfall than EZ Board ever thought of because of those boards.

- beads

Note the alphabetical contiguences; HG & CB.

Makes for an easy mnemonic.

an insatiable curiosity re. the inner workings & hidden mechanisms of things.

Eventually, enough others learned how to use such knowledge to their own personal gain, forever tarnished a once proud moniker.

As an old timer, for me it's still "Hacker, good; Cracker, bad." Or, "HG" & "CB."

Cracker, of course, originated from "safe cracker."

There are also spanning programs that can write to CD/DVD. Given the inexpensive nature of this medium it is a distinct possibility for SMB's.

Can't believe the company did not have off site or at least off system (removable) backups.

This really smells like a vendetta. My guess is that it is either a disgruntled (ex-)employee that has something to prove...and real issues.

I realize that there are destructive crackers out there, but this seems real personal and thorough given they took time to wipe backup systems too.

The other disturbing thing is why no one saw suspicious activity...who was minding the store? I know that it was Memorial Day weekend but that's why God invented monitoring tools and pager interfaces for.

Sigh....

Early on, the only access was via the command console.

With the intro. of System 360, non-interactive access via batch jobs became possible; shortly thereafter, limited interactive access, via RJE (Remote Job Entry) terminals, generally co-located with the mainframe, appeared.

The issue then was not one of gaining unauthorized access to the system, but one of gaining access to those functions which were hidden from the users.

As an analogy, one had permission to use the car, but not look under the hood. Early programmers & operators were quite curious by nature, and hacking then consisted of trying to get under the hood, so as to figure how how everything worked. Bear in mind also that here was then no equivalent of, for example, the [i]Chilton's Manual[/i], so that learning was here very much a process of self-teaching through doing.

As an example, witness the dearth of restaurants offering "all you can eat" specials, relative to 20-30 years ago.

Of the few that still do, the choice of foods is either much more limited and/or the prices have increased substantialy above that born of inflation.

Anytime one offers to fulfill an unlimited demand, for a finite supply of goods or services, at a price below the market's equilibrium point, a buying frenzy will surely ensue.

There's nothing wrong with reverse-engineering, which consists essentially of doing what you're allowed to do (even if in unintended ways) and figuring out what's hidden from you based on the results, but actually doing things to someone else's property that you've been expressly forbidden to do is another story. If you're using someone else's computer, and you're given explicit instructions on what you are and are not authorized to do, deviating from those restrictions isn't strictly ethical. That's just the way it is.

If someone loans you her diary to use as a writing surface to take notes, but tells you you're not allowed to look inside, then the ethical thing to do is to avoid opening it. Period.

"It's just deplorable that these sociopaths have the power to ruin so many lives. Why waste your talents making the world a little bit worse, instead of better."

I agree... Why a little worse than a little better... I think it's horrible what was done.

On the flip side, I think we need a little bit of a slap in the face once in a while to give us a reality check. If an organized union of some type came out of nowhere... we'd be screwed... at least we have some slaps on the hand now and again to remind us that the world isn't always a nice place.

A hacker doesn't steal the car, but he hides in the car so the driver can still drive it. Sure it might be a little slower and it might lose a wheel or two, but in the end the hacker did nothing (on purpose) that was malicious.

A cracker would steal the car and not allow the driver to drive it...the cracker would then bring the car to a chop shop and part it out for his friends.

It's more like this:
A hacker would examine his own car in his own garage to figure out how it works. A cracker would break into your garage in the middle of the night to examine your car to figure out if it works, all without permission. It's not so much the examination of the car that's a problem. The problem is the breaking and entering.

mankind's body of knowledge would be but a small portion of what it now is.

And, the lot of most would be much the worse.

See below post, at
[v]https://www.techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=4&threadID=175947&messageID=1789373[/v]

In the discussion re. IP, you maintained that you had the right to gain from the use of the discovery of another, even tough you lacked his [i]express permission[/i] to do so, on the grounds that one cannot claim title to knowledge.

Yet, here, you take the position that one [i]does require permission[/i] in order to acquire knowledge.

To hold that the acquisition of knowledge be held to a higher standard than the use of such strikes me as contradictory.

By what logic is the presence or absence of "force" pivotal?

And, whose definition of "force" takes priority?