Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!seismo!sundc!pitstop!sun!rayssd!galaxia!dave From: dave@galaxia.zone1.com (David H. Brierley) Newsgroups: news.sysadmin Subject: Re: Security checkup Keywords: security intruder self-help Message-ID: <521@galaxia.zone1.com> Date: 11 Oct 88 04:03:07 GMT References: <167@carpet.WLK.COM> <1454@lznv.ATT.COM> <1834@ddsw1.MCS.COM> <307@mccc.UUCP> <2985@mipos3.intel.com> Reply-To: dave@galaxia.zone1.com (David H. Brierley) Distribution: na Organization: Dave's Very Own Personal System Lines: 30 In article <2985@mipos3.intel.com> woodstock@sc.intel.com (Nate Hess) writes: >In article <307@mccc.UUCP>, pjh@mccc (Pete Holsberg) writes: >>Could we stop calling those people who break in "hackers"? Let's not >>continue to support the public's gross misuse of that once-honorable >>appellation. > >I agree. As an alternative that I would like to see the media pick up >on, how about "cracker"? Why do we need to make up words to add to our already overburdened language when there are many existing words that are perfectly applicable for these people? Instead of calling them "hackers", which many of us regard as a title of some esteem, and instead of trying to get the media to call them "crackers", which brings to mind someone that is mentally unbalanced, how about choosing any of the words from the following list: criminal, hoodlum, thief, burgular, vandal, terrorist, etc. Obviously, not all of the words apply in all cases. For example, it is stretching the point to call a teenager, who is just attempting to show of to his or her friends and has no intention of causing harm to your system or any of the information stored on your system, a terrorist. On the other hand, if you detect a break-in on your machine would you assume that it was "just a kid" or would you assume that it was a vandal/terrorist/industrial spy. I know that I would assume the worst. -- David H. Brierley Home: dave@galaxia.zone1.com ...!rayssd!galaxia!dave Work: dhb@rayssd.ray.com {sun,decuac,gatech,necntc,ukma}!rayssd!dhb