It was hardly 'hacking' was it?

Forums › Off topic › It was hardly 'hacking' was it?

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7

1556 posts

Uber Geek

#1110029 17-Aug-2014 18:49

not hacking and not backdoor as Cunliffe said. TV1 news tonight Cunliffe said National went through a back door. His own words. Labour left the front door open. Was it right for National or anyone to take advantage of it ? To me THAT is the question. Personally I dont think it was right to take advantage. Labour made a mistake and it should have been made aware of the problem not taken advantage of. I dont know if it was legal to take advantage as I am no lawyer. I do think it was ethically and morally wrong.

HTPC Intel Pentium G3258 cpu, Gigabyte H97n-wifi motherboard, , 8GB DDR3 ram, onboard graphics. Hauppuage HVR 5500 tuner, Silverstone LC16M case, Windows 10 pro 64 bit using Nextpvr and Kodi

networkn

Networkn
32349 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1110031 17-Aug-2014 18:51

sir1963:
networkn:
nate:
jeffnz: so back to topic what is the legal standing on this, is it hacking or not

I don't think so.

Why aren't Labour jumping up and down at the staff member/contractor that didn't secure their web server correctly?

Well that's simple. Labours entire premise is based on no requirement for personal responsibility.

Yet another attempt to blame the victim.

You believe girls who get raped are at fault because of what they wear ?

I presume you also believe it is Slaters fault for his stuff being hacked, he too obviously did not employ enough security...

Heh, ok fella, calm yourself down. I never once mentioned rape and conclusions you have drawn to the same are incredibly offensive to me.

I think there is a difference between stuff being accessible by a rank amateur due to gross incompetence and requiring special tools and skills to obtain information.

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
79250 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#1110046 17-Aug-2014 19:20

As above. One thing is having the door unlocked and someone taking advantage (webserver incorrectly configured exposing file system) the other thing is someone picking a lock to get through the door (using a XSS or SQL injection to get the information that would otherwise be hidden from plain view).

MrJonathanNZ

54 posts

Master Geek

#1110047 17-Aug-2014 19:24

This goes back to the WINZ issue a year or two ago, what was the governments tone then?

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
79250 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#1110049 17-Aug-2014 19:29

Of course there are many definitions of "hacking". One is the skills people use to develop programs (as in "hacking code" and "hacktons). The other applies to people who deeply understand how a system work and are capable of using it to the max (legal or illegal, for example phreaking). And lastly the one that is the mainstream (even though I don't agree) is someone using tricks, social engineering, system exploits to illegal access data.

Under these definitions, yes it was a hack. But I wouldn't classify it as a high end hacking - no deep exploits required, no social engineering applied to steal someone's password, no keylogger installed, etc.

So, it can sway both ways here.

sir1963

3260 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#1110072 17-Aug-2014 19:56

networkn:
sir1963:
networkn:
nate:
jeffnz: so back to topic what is the legal standing on this, is it hacking or not

I don't think so.

Why aren't Labour jumping up and down at the staff member/contractor that didn't secure their web server correctly?

Well that's simple. Labours entire premise is based on no requirement for personal responsibility.

Yet another attempt to blame the victim.

You believe girls who get raped are at fault because of what they wear ?

I presume you also believe it is Slaters fault for his stuff being hacked, he too obviously did not employ enough security...

Heh, ok fella, calm yourself down. I never once mentioned rape and conclusions you have drawn to the same are incredibly offensive to me.

I think there is a difference between stuff being accessible by a rank amateur due to gross incompetence and requiring special tools and skills to obtain information.

My point being as soon as you need to blame the victim to justify what has been done, you have automatically put yourself in the wrong.
There was no call for National or its supporters to be there, and even less for them to exploit a flaw in security. Honest people don't do this.
Equally I object to anyone getting at Cameron Slaters information.

I was bought up to know the difference between right and wrong

networkn

Networkn
32349 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1110095 17-Aug-2014 20:19

sir1963:
networkn:
sir1963:
networkn:
nate:
jeffnz: so back to topic what is the legal standing on this, is it hacking or not

I don't think so.

Why aren't Labour jumping up and down at the staff member/contractor that didn't secure their web server correctly?

Well that's simple. Labours entire premise is based on no requirement for personal responsibility.

Yet another attempt to blame the victim.

You believe girls who get raped are at fault because of what they wear ?

I presume you also believe it is Slaters fault for his stuff being hacked, he too obviously did not employ enough security...

Heh, ok fella, calm yourself down. I never once mentioned rape and conclusions you have drawn to the same are incredibly offensive to me.

I think there is a difference between stuff being accessible by a rank amateur due to gross incompetence and requiring special tools and skills to obtain information.

My point being as soon as you need to blame the victim to justify what has been done, you have automatically put yourself in the wrong.
There was no call for National or its supporters to be there, and even less for them to exploit a flaw in security. Honest people don't do this.
Equally I object to anyone getting at Cameron Slaters information.

I was bought up to know the difference between right and wrong

I am not doing that, it's a side fact to the issue. The "facts" aren't concrete in my eyes at this stage, and I am unsure the truth will ever really come out.

Equinox IT

Cloud spending continues to surge globally, but most organisations haven’t made the changes necessary to maximise the value and cost-efficiency benefits of their cloud investments. Download the whitepaper From Overspend to Advantage now.

turnin

509 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#1110100 17-Aug-2014 20:31

The big issue is not the hacking, it's the blackmail.
Clearly those talking about the hacking issues, like the media, have not read the book.

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
79250 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#1110101 17-Aug-2014 20:33

As pointed out, this "hacking" in the OP is from 2011. If people want to discuss the new book Dirty Politics, please use the existing thread.

jeffnz

2870 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1110102 17-Aug-2014 20:33

sir1963:
networkn:
sir1963:
networkn:
nate:
jeffnz: so back to topic what is the legal standing on this, is it hacking or not

I don't think so.

Why aren't Labour jumping up and down at the staff member/contractor that didn't secure their web server correctly?

Well that's simple. Labours entire premise is based on no requirement for personal responsibility.

Yet another attempt to blame the victim.

You believe girls who get raped are at fault because of what they wear ?

I presume you also believe it is Slaters fault for his stuff being hacked, he too obviously did not employ enough security...

Heh, ok fella, calm yourself down. I never once mentioned rape and conclusions you have drawn to the same are incredibly offensive to me.

I think there is a difference between stuff being accessible by a rank amateur due to gross incompetence and requiring special tools and skills to obtain information.

My point being as soon as you need to blame the victim to justify what has been done, you have automatically put yourself in the wrong.
There was no call for National or its supporters to be there, and even less for them to exploit a flaw in security. Honest people don't do this.
Equally I object to anyone getting at Cameron Slaters information.

I was bought up to know the difference between right and wrong

I think your post belongs more in the other thread, honestly its about whether it is hacking or not regardless of where people want to drag it. Personally I think its not hacking in the wider sense of the term but under current NZ law is it illegal?

Galaxy S10

Garmin Fenix 5

CB_24

366 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1110103 17-Aug-2014 20:35

My main point for starting this post was more around everyone saying the site was 'hacked' when it wasn't really?

I was looking more on the technical side than all this Hagar/WhaleOil/blackmail drama.

BarTender

3606 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1110104 17-Aug-2014 20:43

IANAL but I think it's pretty clear cut in the crimes act.

http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2003/0039/latest/whole.html#DLM200269

Or

http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2003/0039/latest/whole.html#DLM200273

It wasn't hacking, but it wasn't accessing a computer for honest purposes or was authorised either.

Linuxluver

5828 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Subscriber

#1110115 17-Aug-2014 20:58

freitasm: Bringing back some stuff from 2011?

Sure, there was no "hacking" (if you define hacking as using exploits, social engineering) back then as because of a badly configured web server some content was visible in plain sight. But was it ok to grab it?

If you leave your house unlocked and someone walks in, is it ok for your TV to be gone?

My comment is not specifically aimed at WhaleOil but it is a general question. If YOU go to a website and by chance it's not serving the pages but showing a directory would you grab credit card numbers if available and start using them?

Also perhaps this video would be better posted in the Dirty Politics book discussion going on now?

A better analogy would be:

If someone leaves their TV on in the lounge and the curtains open...it is ethically OK to stand on the footpath out front with a pair of binoculars and watch the TV? You're intruding by looking at it....but they are making the content clearly visible to any passer by.

_____________________________________________________________________

I've been on Geekzone over 16 years..... Time flies....

JWR

821 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1110142 17-Aug-2014 21:50

freitasm:

Of course there are many definitions of "hacking". One is the skills people use to develop programs (as in "hacking code" and "hacktons). The other applies to people who deeply understand how a system work and are capable of using it to the max (legal or illegal, for example phreaking). And lastly the one that is the mainstream (even though I don't agree) is someone using tricks, social engineering, system exploits to illegal access data.

Under these definitions, yes it was a hack. But I wouldn't classify it as a high end hacking - no deep exploits required, no social engineering applied to steal someone's password, no keylogger installed, etc.

So, it can sway both ways here.

I think the term 'Hacking' is meaningless now.

I would call it exploiting a security vulnerability.

The discovery of the vulnerability isn't the issue. It is what was done with the knowledge.

Also, too many analogies in this thread.

Analogy, is used to simplify something for easier understanding and not used to turn it into something else.

Too much something else.

mattwnz

20141 posts

Uber Geek

#1110170 17-Aug-2014 22:11

JWR:
freitasm: Of course there are many definitions of "hacking". One is the skills people use to develop programs (as in "hacking code" and "hacktons). The other applies to people who deeply understand how a system work and are capable of using it to the max (legal or illegal, for example phreaking). And lastly the one that is the mainstream (even though I don't agree) is someone using tricks, social engineering, system exploits to illegal access data.

Under these definitions, yes it was a hack. But I wouldn't classify it as a high end hacking - no deep exploits required, no social engineering applied to steal someone's password, no keylogger installed, etc.

So, it can sway both ways here.

I think the term 'Hacking' is meaningless now.

I would call it exploiting a security vulnerability.

The discovery of the vulnerability isn't the issue. It is what was done with the knowledge.

Also, too many analogies in this thread.

Analogy, is used to simplify something for easier understanding and not used to turn it into something else.

Too much something else.

Wouldn't anyone who is 'exploiting a security vulnerability', be something illegal? The keyword is 'Exploiting', which means 'to derive benefit from'.
Compare this to a house where a door has a faulty lock on it, where it doesn't lock. So even though the owner thinks they locked their front door, it doesn't mean that you can then go up to their house open the door and access their house, just because the door wasn't locked. Analogies are needed due to the medium, and in court they would also use analogies to get a clear understanding.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7