Software

Ask something
Discussion Locked

Cracker "breaks / reverse engineers code"

0 helpful
26 replies

by digidash

Closed to new repliesThis discussion is closed. It stays readable, but it takes no new replies.

FYI, a 'cracker' is NOT a hacker; they are two separate things.
Crackers specialize in 'cracking code.' They may or may not also be hackers. Hackers often assist crackers, and vice-versa. Cracker typically illegally reverse-engineers (is there a 'legal' form of that - actually, yes) and develops 'keygens' or other means to subvert the controls of the application - whether it be MS Office, AutoCAD, etc. Crackers pride themselves in "stealing the keys to the code;" hackers pride themselves in breaking through network security (well, that's one thing they pride themselves in).

26 replies

by santeewelding

Unless you think what you have exceeds the wisdom of all the rest, therefore needing its own, exclusive podium.

Far as I'm concerned, it's run of the mill.

by jackofalltech

Hackers break in purely for the joy of discovery and take pride in leaving things the way they were when they leave.

Crackers are malicious and do it for nefarious reasons.

by digidash

The snide comments about "bit bucket" and /dev/null are completely unwarranted and rude.

[Your] definition of a hacker is not "the end-all, be all" - nor is mine, but that does not make my definition of "hacker" or "cracker" any less relevant nor any "less correct" than yours.

Believe me, you may see it as 'white' and I may see it as 'black' - and we BOTH could be right.

[and, yes, 'Crackers' (with or without peanut butter) often "break in" in order to do their reverse engineering]

So, you may think hackers are 'non-mailicious,' but you would be wrong - only the 'hackers themselves' consider themselves 'non-malicious.' :)

Notice in the definition below, the 'semi-colons' and the 2nd statment within: "bypasses passwords or licenses in computer programs;" - and also notice the -->"or"<-- in the related chain of semi-colons; thus, the cracker might do ONE [or] ALL of those things, but some crackers ONLY 'crack codes' - which was my point.

Many pure 'crackers' only crack codes (per my brother, who is a professional at that), though some crackers also 'hack.' My brother does not 'hack;' i.e., "hack into systems;" he only uses IDA Pro and tools like that to 'crack codes.'

This, showing both of us are correct, from
http://searchsecurity.techtarget.com/sDefinition/0,,sid14_gci211852,00.html
- "A cracker is someone who breaks into someone else's computer system, often on a network; bypasses passwords or licenses in computer programs; or in other ways intentionally breaches computer security. A cracker can be doing this for profit, maliciously, for some altruistic purpose or cause, or because the challenge is there. Some breaking-and-entering has been done ostensibly to point out weaknesses in a site's security system. "

by charliespencer

That doesn't make him one or me right.

Crackers have malicious intent. Hackers are interested in pushing technologies to their limits. If you're using either term in technology circles, you should stick to those basic definitions.

by neon samurai

That would be specific to Security Hackers within there own networks or with permission from the owners (accepting some grey area as nothing is black and white).

Hackers who do not focus on security related areas of interest would not fall within the definition though. They still pursue an area of interest for the joy of discovery but it could be anything from technology through to sociology, biology or any other topic one applies the Hacker mind set to. After all, it is a mind set or mental approach to problem solving and learning more than a focus on any specific topic.

by santeewelding

What kind?

Lord, how many I have tried in my life. Crackers, too. So like Costco to carry a line to which I became addicted (hard, with cheddar dribbled thereon), then to discontinue them. Went good with hummus.

As to beer, I discovered just the other day a light Corona that is called, "Coronita". Meaning, a little 7-oz bottle. You get to down it before it even thinks about getting warm.

by charliespencer

We can't get started until you bring your ... uh, THE liver.

Not 'your', 'the'.

Yeah, 'the'; that's what I meant.

by neon samurai

"One who breaks security on a system. Coined ca. 1985 by hackers in defense against journalistic misuse of hacker (q.v., sense 8). An earlier attempt to establish worm in this sense around 1981--82 on Usenet was largely a failure."

http://catb.org/jargon/html/C/cracker.html

I'd agree that the distinction causes confusion. I see Cracking as breaking security mechanism which can be done by a Hacker or a Cracker. The distinction is ethical though. A hacker may crack encryption for a number of ethical reasons not least of which include education (one's own lab network), protection of others (demonstration with permission), product improvement (QA, Security research), fair use (legally obtained content like DVDs) and reverse engineering (also fair use, consider creating of drivers in absence of vendor provided information or drivers).

The earliest recorded use of Cracker (listed above) uses it to differentiate what one may call an unethical hacker or general criminal with malicious intent be it breaking into someone's system without permission or infringing copyright.

I do also remember when Crack specifically meant a utility that removed DRM protections from games and a Cracker was one who discuvered vulnerabilities and produce the crack packaged with or without the related software. This still falls within the definition of one who breaks security mechanisms with illegal intent.

A Hacker may or may not be a Security Hacker and may or may not know or research methods to break (crack) software mechanisms. If they are one who does know or research methods for breaking software or other security mechanisms, they are still a Hacker provided the intent is ethical.

Mind you, if you have older historical use of "Cracker" outside of the context given in the jargon file, I'd be interested in it.

This discussion is closed to new replies.