Xref: utzoo rec.games.mud:2702 alt.security:2038 comp.unix.wizards:24591
Path: utzoo!mnetor!tmsoft!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!cs.utexas.edu!helios!tamuts!n138ct
From: n138ct@tamuts.tamu.edu (Brent Burton)
Newsgroups: rec.games.mud,alt.security,comp.unix.wizards
Subject: Re: Hacking
Summary: what, professional cracking??
Keywords: WARNING
Message-ID: <13835@helios.TAMU.EDU>
Date: 27 Mar 91 22:40:56 GMT
References: <1991Mar26.163720.28379@en.ecn.purdue.edu> <1991Mar27.041126.9886@news.miami.edu> <1991Mar27.173046.29751@decuac.dec.com>
Sender: usenet@helios.TAMU.EDU
Followup-To: rec.games.mud
Distribution: comp,alt,rec
Organization: Texas A&M University
Lines: 21

In article <1991Mar27.173046.29751@decuac.dec.com> mjr@hussar.dco.dec.com (Marcus J. Ranum) writes:
>	If you're feeling "sophisticated" you won't even try a dictionary
>attack. Quelle gaucherie!!
>
>	This dictionary-attack newbie stuff is about IBM-PC BBS-weenie
>level. Sure, it works, but it's nauseatingly amateurish.

I thought this was a ridiculous statement.  Sure, it might be a very straight-
forward easy-to-understand method, but obviously it works.  I don't think it'd
be such a popular method if it didn't work.

I'm not interested in cracking into systems, but if I was, I know that I'd
try the easiest way to do this.  I certainly WOULD NOT spend time researching
an O(xx) cracking algorithm to do this.  I imagine some dedicated cracker
would.


             +----------------------+--------------------------+
             | Brent P. Burton      | n138ct@tamuts.tamu.edu   |
             | Texas A&M University | Computer Science/Physics |
             +----------------------+--------------------------+