Реферат: Hackers Essay Research Paper The Computer UndergroundThe

💣 👉🏻👉🏻👉🏻 ВСЯ ИНФОРМАЦИЯ ДОСТУПНА ЗДЕСЬ ЖМИТЕ 👈🏻👈🏻👈🏻

The beginning of the electronic communication revolution
that started with the public use of telephones to the emergence
of home computers has been accompanied by corresponding social
problems involving the activities of so-called “computer
hackers,” or better referred to as the computer underground (CU).
The CU is composed of computer aficionados who stay on the
fringes of legality. The CU is composed of relatively intelligent
people, in contrast to the media’s description of the ultra
intelligent and sophisticated teenage “hacker.” The majority have
in common the belief that information should be free and that
they have “a right to know.” They often have some amount of
dislike for the government and the industries who try to
control and commercialize information of any sort. This paper
attempts to expose what the CU truly is and dispel some of the
myths propagated by the media and other organizations. This paper
also tries to show the processes and reasons behind the
criminalization of the CU and how the CU is viewed by different
organizations, as well as some of the processes by which it came
into being. What the CU is has been addressed by the media,
criminologists, secuity firms, and the CU themselves, they all
have a different understanding or levels of comprehention, this
paper attempts to show the differences between the views as well
as attempt to correct misunderstandings that may have been
propagated by misinformed sources. The differences between the
parties of the CU such as, “hackers,” “crackers,” “phreaks,”
“pirates,” and virus writers have rarely been recognized and some
deny that there are differences thus this paper attempts to give
a somewhat clearer view and define exactly what each party is
and does as well as how they relate to one another.
Every individual in the CU has a different level of
sophistication when it comes to computers, from the height of the
advanced virus writer and network hacker to the pirate who can be
at the same level as a novice computer user. The prevalence of
the problem has been dramatized by the media and enforcement
agents, and evidenced by the rise of specialized private security
firms to confront the “hackers.” The average person’s knowledge
about the CU has been derived mostly from the media. The media
gets their information from former CU individuals who have been
caught, from law enforcement agents, and from computer security
specialists. The computer underground, as it is called by those
who participate in it, is composed of people adhering to one or
several roles: “hacker,” “phreaker,” “pirate,” “cracker,” and
computer virus developer. Terms such as these have different
meanings for those who have written about the computer
underground, such as the media, and those who participate in it.
The media’s concept of the Computer Underground is the main
cause of the criminalization of the activity and has largely
occurred as the result of media dramatization of the “problem”
(Hollinger and Lanza-Kaduce, 1988). In fact, it was a
collection of newspaper and film clips that was presented to the
United States Congress during legislative debates as evidence of
the computer hacking problem (Hollinger and Lanza-Kaduce, 1988,
p.107). Unfortunately, the media assessment of the computer
underground displays a naive understanding of CU activity. The
media generally makes little distinction between different types
of CU activity. Most any computer- related crime activity can be
attributed to “hackers.” Everything from embezzlement to computer
viruses have, at one time or another, been attributed to them.
Additionally, hackers are often described as being sociopathic or
malicious, creating a media image of the computer underground
that may exaggerate their ability for doing damage. The labeling
of the CU and especially hackers as being “evil” is well
illustrated by these media examples. The first is from Eddie
Schwartz, a WGN-Radio talk show host.
Here Schwartz is addressing “Anna,” a self-identified hacker
that has phoned into the show: You know what Anna, you know what
disturbs me? You don’t sound like a stupid person but you
represent a . . . a . . . a . . . lack of morality that
disturbs me greatly. You really do. I think you represent a
certain way of thinking that is morally bankrupt. And I’m not
trying to offend you, but I . . .I’m offended by you! (WGN Radio,
Another example is from NBC-TV’s “Hour Magazine” featured a
segment on “computer crime.” In this example, Jay Bloombecker,
director of the National Center for Computer Crime Data,
discusses the “hacker problem” with the host of the show, Gary
Collins: . . . are they (hackers) malicious in intent, or
are they simply out to prove, ah, a certain machismo amongst
their peers? Bloombecker: I think so. I’ve talked about “modem
macho” as one explanation for what’s being done. And a lot of the
cases seem to involve proving that he . . . can do something
really spiffy with computers. But, some of the cases are so evil,
like causing so many computers to break, they can’t look at that
as just trying to prove that you’re better than other people. GC:
So that’s just some of it, some kind of “bet” against the
computer industry, or against the company. JB: No, I think it’s
more than just rottenness. And like someone who uses graffiti
doesn’t care too much whose building it is, they just want to
GC: You’re talking about a sociopath in control of a
computer! JB: Ah, lots of computers, because there’s thousands,
or tens of thousands of hackers. (NBC-TV, 1988)
The media’s obsession with the computer underground, that is
generally labeled as hacking, focuses almost entirely upon the
morality of their actions. Since media stories are taken from the
accounts of the police, security personnel, and members of the
computer underground who have been caught, each of whom have
different perspectives and 20 definitions of their own, the
media’s definition, if not inherently biased, is at best
Criminologists, are less judgmental than the media, but no
more precise. Labels of “electronic trespassers”(Parker, 1983),
and “electronic vandals” (Bequai, 1987) have both been applied to
the CU’s hacking element specifically. Both terms, while
acknowledging that “hacking” is deviant, shy away from labeling
it as “criminal” or sociopathic behavior. Yet despite this
seemingly non-judgmental approach to the computer underground,
both Parker and Bequai have testified before Congress, on
behalf of the computer security industry, on the “danger” of
computer hackers. Unfortunately, their “expert” testimony was
largely based on information culled from newspaper stories, the
objectiveness of which has been seriously questioned (Hollinger
Computer security specialists, on the other hand, are often
quick to identify the CU as criminals. Similarly, some reject the
notion that there are different roles and motivations among the
computer underground participants and thereby refuse to define
just what it is that a “hacker” or “phreaker” does. John
Maxfield, a “hacker expert,” suggests that differentiating
between “hackers” and “phone phreaks” is a moot point, preferring
instead that they all just be called “criminals.” The reluctance
or inability to differentiate between roles and activities in the
computer underground, as exhibited in the media and computer
security firms, creates an ambiguous definition of “hacker” that
possesses two extremes: the modern-day bank robber at one end,
the trespassing teenager at the other. Thus, most any criminal
or mischievous act that involves computers can be attributed to
“hackers,” regardless of the nature of the crime.
Participants in the computer underground also object the
overuse and misuse of the word hacking. Their objection centers
around the indiscriminate use of the word to refer to computer
related crime in general and not, specifically, the activities of
the computer underground: Whenever the slightest little thing
happens involving computer security, or the breach thereof, the
media goes *censored*ing bat*censored* and points all their fingers at us
‘nasty hackers.’ They’re so damned ignorant it’s sick (EN,
message log, 1988). . . . whenever the media happens upon
anything that involves malicious computer use it’s the “HACKERS.”
card.” What someone should do is tell the *censored*en media to get it
The difference between the different elements of the
computer underground has been generally obscured by the media.
Terms such as Cracker, Phreaker, Pirate, or Virus writer have
been generally replaced with the all encompassing word “HACKER”.
Each element is associated with the computer underground and some
are bigger players than others but none of them can qualify
individually as the total sum of all the elements. There are
major differences between the elements of the CU that is rarely
understood by someone on the outside.
The use of the word “hacker”, which is now generally
accepted to be part of the CU, has gone through drastic changes
in definition. “Hacker” was first applied to computer
related activities when it was used by programmers in the late
1950’s. At that time it referred to the pioneering researchers,
such as those at M.I.T., who were constantly adjusting and
experimenting with the new technology (Levy, 1984. p.7). A
“hacker” in this context refers to an unorthodox, yet talented,
professional programmer. This use of the term still exits today,
though it is largely limited to professional computing circles.
The computer professionals maintain that using “hackers” (or
“hacking”) to refer to any illegal or illicit activity is a
corruption of the “true” meaning of the word. Bob Bickford, a
professional programmer who has organized several programmer
At a conference called “Hackers 4.0″ we had 200 of the most
brilliant computer professionals in the world together for one
weekend; this crowd included several PhD’s, several presidents of
companies (including large companies, such as Pixar), and
various artists, writers, engineers, and programmers. These
people all consider themselves Hackers: all derive great joy from
their work, from finding ways around problems and limits, from
creating rather than destroying. It would be a great disservice
to these people, and the thousands of professionals like them, to
let some pathetic teenaged criminals destroy the one word which
captures their style of interaction with the universe. (Bickford,
The more widely accepted definition of “hacker” refers to one who
obtains unauthorized, if not illegal, access to computer systems
and networks. This definition was popularized by the movie War
Games and, generally speaking, is the one used by the media. It
is also the definition favored by the computer underground. Both
the members of the computer underground and professional
computer programmers claim ownership of “hacker,” and each defend
the “proper” use of term. However, since computer break-ins are
likely to receive more media attention than clever feats of
programming, the CU definition is likely to dominate simply by
A “computer hacker” could be defined as an individual,
associated with the computer underground, who specializes in
obtaining unauthorize access to computer systems. “Hacking”
refers to gaining access and exploring computer systems and
networks. “Hacking” encompasses both the act and the methods used
to obtain valid user accounts on computer systems. “Hacking” also
refers to the activity that occurs once access to another
computer has been obtained. Since the system is being used
without authorization, the hacker does not, generally speaking,
have access to the usual operating manuals and other resources
that are available to legitimate users. Therefore, the hacker
must experiment with commands and explore various files in order
to understand and effectively use the system. The goal here is to
explore and experiment with the system that has been entered. By
examining files and, perhaps, by a little clever programming, the
hacker may be able to obtain protected information or more
powerful access privileges. Once a hacker has managed to gain
access to a computer system he will generally try make sure that
his activities are hidden so that he can keep access on the
system. This is the difference between hacker and cracker. Unlike
the hacker a cracker is only really interested in “cracking” the
machine/system and once the feat is accomplished he is generally
disinterested and leaves, he could be called the tourist of
the hacking element. (Bill Landreth, Outside the Inner Circle)
Another role in the computer underground is that of the
“phone phreak.” Phone phreaking, usually called just “phreaking,”
was widely publicized when the exploits of John “Cap’n Crunch”
Draper, the “father of phreaking,” were publicized in a 1971
Esquire magazine article. The term “phreaking” encompasses
several different means of getting around the billing mechanisms
of telephone companies. By using these methods, long distance
phone calls can be placed without cost. In ma y cases the
methods also prevent, or at least inhibit, the possibility of
calls being traced to their source thereby helping the phreaker
to avoid being caught. Early phreaking methods involved electro-
mechanical devices that generated key tones, or altered line
voltages in certain ways as to trick the mechanical switches of
the phone company into connecting calls without charging. This
method of phreaking is generally called “(color) boxing,” where
the type of box is referred to by a color such as “blue boxing.”
However the advent of computerized telephone-switching systems
largely made these devices obsolete. In order to continue their
practice the phreaks have had to learn hacking skills. Phreaking
and hacking have just recently merged, because now, the telephone
companies are using computers to operate their network. So, in
order to learn more about these computers in relation to the
network, phreaks have learned hacking skills, and can now
program, and get around inside the machines (AF, message log,
For most members of the computer underground, phreaking is
simply a tool that allows them to call long distance without
amassing enormous phone bills. Because the two activities are so
closely related, with phreakers learning hacking skills and
hackers breaking into “telco” computers, reference is usually
made to phreak/hacking or p/hackers.” Those who have a deeper
and more technically oriented interest in the “telco” (telephone
company) are known as phreakers. They, like the hackers discussed
earlier, desire to master and explore a system that few outsiders
really understand: The phone system is the most interesting,
fascinating thing that I know of. There is so much to know. Even
phreaks have their own areas of knowledge. There is so much to
know that one phreak could know something fairly important and
the next phreak not. The next phreak might know ten things that
the first phreak doesn’t though. It all depends upon where and
how they get their info. I myself would like to work for the
telco, doing something interesting, like programming a switch.
Something that isn’t slave labor bull*censored*. Something that you
enjoy, but have to take risks in order to participate unless you
are lucky enough to work for the telco. To have access
to telco things, manuals, etc would be great (DP, message log,
Phreaking involves having the dedication to commit yourself
to learning as much about the phone system/network as possible.
Since most of this information is not made public, phreaks have
to resort to legally questionable means to obtain the knowledge
they want (TP2, message log, 1988). Most members of the
underground do not approach the telephone system with such
passion. Many hackers are interested in the phone system solely
to the extent that they can exploit its weaknesses and pursue
other goals. In this case, phreaking becomes a means and not a
pursuit unto itself. Another individual, one who identifies
himself as a hacker, explains: I know very little about phones .
. . I just hack. See, I can’t exactly call these numbers direct.
A lot of people are in the same boat. In my case, phreaking is a
tool, an often used one, but nonetheless a tool (TU, message log,
In the world of the computer underground, the ability to
“phreak a call” is taken for granted. The phone companies
allowance the use of the credit cards for billing has opened the
door to wide-scale phreaking. With credit cards, no special
knowledge or equipment is required to phreak a call, only valid
credit card numbers, known as “codez,” are needed to call any
location in the world. This method of phreaking is generally
called “carding,” it is generally looked on as the lowest form of
phreaking as almost no technical skill is necessary. Another
role in the computer underground is that of the software pirate.
Software piracy refers to the unauthorized copying and
distribution of copyrighted software. This activity centers
around computer bulletin board systems, and parts of the internet
that specialize in “warez.” Pirates and phreak/hackers/crackers
do not necessarily support the activities of each other, and
there is distrust and misunderstanding between the two groups. At
least part of this distrust lies in the phreak/hacker perception
that piracy is an unskilled activity. A possible exception to
this are those pirates that have the programming skills needed to
remove copy protection from software. By removing the program
code that inhibits duplicate copies from being made these
individuals, which also go by the name “crackers,” contribute
greatly to the easy distribution of “warez.” While p/hackers
generally don’t disapprove of piracy as an activity, especially
“cracking pirates,” they nevertheless tend to avoid pirate
bulletin boards and internet sites partly because there is little
pertinent phreak/hack information contained on them, and partly
because of the belief that pirates indiscriminately abuse the
telephone network in pursuit of the latest computer game. One
hacker illustrates this belief by theorizing that pirates are
responsible for a large part of credit card fraud. The media
claims that it is solely hackers who are responsible or losses
pertaining to large telecommunication companies and long distance
services. This is not the case. We are (hackers) but a small
portion of these losses. The rest are caused by pirates and
thieves who sell these codes to people on the street (AF, message
log, 1988). Other hackers complain that uploading large
programs frequently takes several hours to complete, and it is
pirate calls, not the ones placed by “tele-communications
enthusiasts” (a popular euphemism for phreakers and hackers) that
cost the telephone industry large sums of money. However, not all
pirates phreak their calls. Phreaking is considered “very tacky”
among elite pirates, and system operators (Sysops) of pirate
bulletin boards discourage phreaked calls because it draws
attention to the system when the call is discovered by the
For the average computer user the most feared of the
computer underground is that of the computer virus creator. Among
the CU computer viruses are generally referred to as “viri.”
Computer viruses are in themselves a very specific type of
program but to the novice or low sophistication computer user,
which the majority are, they are any program that can take over,
damage or otherwise infiltrate, a computer. Program that qualify
as “trojan horses,” “logic bombs,” or “worms” are often just
called “viruses.” A virus is a self-replicating program that is
capable of carrying a destructive or otherwise annoying payload
while a “trojan horse” is a program that allows easy access to an
already-penetrated system. It can also be used to facilitate a
penetration by being tagged to a legitimate program so that when
the host computer runs the program the trojan put itself in a
position to allow the designer easy access. “Logic” or “time
bombs” are similar to the trojans except that they wait for a
specific circumstances or time to detonate a harmful payload.
Logic bombs are often incorporated into a virus, if it is of
the destructive variety, as their destructive payload. The “worm”
is the most similar to a virus in that it also replicates, but it
is generally designed to infect idle workstations or terminals
on a network. Worms tend to exist in memory and are non-
permanent, one must simply reboot to remove them, while the virus
resides on disk where they are permanent until eradicated.
There are two main types of virus writers, people who’s main
purpose is to create havoc for the computer user doing everything
possible to spread their viruses. Then there are the people who
aren’t interested in spreading their viruses but rather creating
them as a mental exercise that involves figuring out better ways
to evade detection or further empower their programming skills.
The latter will often be composed of software engineers and
highly skilled programmers while the primary tends to be a
younger age group who are relatively unskilled in comparison. An
example of this is a teenage viri writer called “Little Loc” who
“wanted to be the most dangerous virus writer in American,” and
attempted to prove it by writing a virus that became wide spread
and know as the Satan Bug. On the other hand there are writers
like “Screaming Radish,” who is Windows-application developer
from Australia, his purpose in virus development is not
destructive but rather to gain a better understanding of how
anti-virus software works. He likes to “reverse-engineer” anti-
virus software taking them apart to study what signatures it
scanned for and what the software excludes from it’s scrutiny.
Viruses made with that level of sophistication are becoming a
type of digital currency in the computer underground where one
can use them to trade for other information. (Jan Smith, 1994)
Mark A. Lugwig, the writer of virus tutorials, had this to say:
It is inevitable that these books will offend some people. In
fact, I hope they do. They need to. I am convinced that computer
viruses are not evil and that programmers have the right to
create them, posses them and experiment with them. That kind of a
stand is going to offend a lot of people, no matter how it is
presented. Even a purely technical treatment of viruses which
simply discussed how to write them and provided some examples
would be offensive. The mere thought of a million well armed
hackers out there is enough to drive some bureaucrats mad. These
books go beyond a technical treatment, though, to defend the idea
that viruses can be useful, interesting, and just plain fun.
That is bound to prove even more offensive. Still, the truth is
the truth, and it needs to be spoken, even if it is offensive.
Morals and ethics cannot be determined by a majority vote, any
more than they can be determined by the barrel of a gun or loud
The mass media has tended to sensationalize hacking, whilst
soundly condemning it. But there other points of view: for
example, in many instances the breaching of systems can provide
more effective security in the future, so that other (presumably
less well-intentioned) elements of the CU are prevented from
causing real harm. A good llustration of this was the
penetration of British Telecom’s electronic mail system in
1984, by Steven Gold and Robert Schifreen, which resulted in a
rude message being left in none other than the Duke of
Edinburgh’s account! This incident attracted enormous publicity
and led directly to improved security arrangements for the whole
of the Prestel system. Gold and Schifeen were therefore extremely
indignant at being treated as criminals – and this illustrates
the discrepancy between what the law considers to be criminal
behavior and how the CU often perceive themselves. (The
We might therefore ask ourselves whether, for the sake of
balance, a truly democratic society should possess a core of
technically gifted but recalcitrant people. Given that
more and more information about individuals is now being stored
on computers, often without our knowledge or consent, is it not
reassuring that some citizens are able to penetrate these
databases to find out what is going on? Thus it could be argued
that the CU represent one way in which we can help avoid the
creation of a more centralized, even totalitarian government.
This is one scenario the CU openly entertain. Indeed, we
now know that at the time of the Chernobyl nuclear power station
disaster in the former Soviet Union, hackers from the Chaos
Computer Club released more information to the public about
developments than did the West German government itself. All of
this information was gained by illegal break-ins carried out in
government computer installations.Bibliography
The Australian, 1988, January 26, Hackers found guilty after
cracking Duke’s codes. April 29, Lords clear British Hackers.
Best, Joel and David F. Luckenbill. 1982. Organizing Deviance.
Englewood Cliff, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Bequai, August. 1987. Technocrimes. Lexington, Mass.:Lexington
Bickford, Robert. 1988. Personal communication to Gordon Meyer.
Chicago Tribune. 1989. “Computer hacker, 18, gets prison for
Compuserve Magazine, 1994, Viruses: Gone or just forgotten?
Forester, Tom and Morrison, Perry, 1990, Computer Ethics,
Cautionary Tales and Ethical Dilemmas in Computing.
Hollinger, Richard C. and Lonn Lanza-Kaduce. 1988. “The Process
of Criminalization: The Case of Computer Crime Laws.”
Levy, Steven. 1984. Hackers: Heroes of the Computer Revolution.
Message Logs from a variety of computer underground bulletin
NBC-TV. 1988. Hour Magazine. November 2, 1988.
Bill Landreth, 1985, Outside the Inner Circle. Microsoft
Parker, Donn B. 1983. Fighting Computer Crime. New York: Charles
Rosenbaum, Ron. 1971. “Secrets of the Little Blue Box .” Esquire
Small, David. 1988. Personal communication to Gordon Meyer.
WGN-Radio. 1988. Ed Schwartz Show. September 27, 1988.

Название: Hackers Essay Research Paper The Computer UndergroundThe
Раздел: Топики по английскому языку
Тип: реферат
Добавлен 05:36:14 25 октября 2010 Похожие работы
Просмотров: 4
Комментариев: 8
Оценило: 1 человек
Средний балл: 5
Оценка: неизвестно   Скачать

Срочная помощь учащимся в написании различных работ. Бесплатные корректировки! Круглосуточная поддержка! Узнай стоимость твоей работы на сайте 64362.ru
Привет студентам) если возникают трудности с любой работой (от реферата и контрольных до диплома), можете обратиться на FAST-REFERAT.RU , я там обычно заказываю, все качественно и в срок) в любом случае попробуйте, за спрос денег не берут)
Да, но только в случае крайней необходимости.

Реферат: Hackers Essay Research Paper The Computer UndergroundThe
Реферат Основные Подходы К Осуществлению Сервиса
Курсовая работа по теме Профессиональное саморазвитие педагогов
Курсовая Работа На Тему Разработка Модели Анализа И Объектно-Ориентированного Компонента Для Игры Terrarium 2.0
Магистерская диссертация по теме Политический конфликт в истории человеческих отношений
Реферат Фольклор В Современной Музыке
Лабораторная Работа На Тему Правила Работы В Микробиологической Лаборатории. Методы Изучения Морфологии Микроорганизмов И Строения Клеток
Дипломная работа по теме Использование электронных учебников по информатике в основной школе
Контрольная работа по теме Нормирование расхода материалов
Отчет По Практике В Приемной Комиссии Вуза
Доклад по теме Ханты-Мансийск
Сочинение По Фамусовскому Обществу
Контрольная Работа No 3 За I Четверть
Дипломная работа по теме Природоохранные мероприятия ГПЗ "Лопчинский"
Сочинение На Тему Сформулируйте Тезис
Лабораторная Работа Формулы
Контрольная работа по теме Утилизация и рекуперация отходов
Реферат: Культура античности. Скачать бесплатно и без регистрации
Реферат по теме Правила составления и подачи актов и претензий пассажирами к перевозчикам при нарушении договора перевозки
Реферат по теме Россия в период Великой Отечественной войны
Учебное пособие: Статистическое наблюдение, сводка и группировка данных
Реферат: Vlad Dracula Essay Research Paper Vlad Dracula
Курсовая работа: Маркетинговое обеспечение скульптурных часов
Реферат: Электролиз 3