(Another anonymous one)
i read a document which arrived in my mailbox in which you
comment on
the ability to access finger via telnet. you said that
many telnet
programs for the pc don't support telneting to a port.
i only have one, in addition to the undocumented telnet at
the win95 dos
prompt. it is netscan tools 2.40a from northwest performance
software
(kirk v. thomas) i tried telnet <hostname> 79 with
this program and i
got a connect to port 79. couldn't get any response out
of port 79 but
that's just me.
by the way i like this shareware program very much.
it has it all,
finger, traceroute, server lookup, ping, the whole shebang (sp?).
i
forget what i paid for it but it was sort of trivial ($25?).
(more anonymous)
Here's an update of sorts for you, re W95 (hey, some of us
gotta produce
text and spreadsheets too! Not to mention QUAKE!)
You said:
> >You need a telnet program on a computer that runs
some sort of Unix. I've
> >tried the telnet program in Windows but it refuses to
let me telnet to a
> >specific port. The Compuserve and America Online telnet
programs won't
> do it.
While its best to learn the ins and outs of Unix at the least
so one can
perpetrate, ahem, use the resources at say, that community library
down
the street, one may want to try at home or office too.
If the task of
telnetting to a port is difficult, then sysadmin'g linux will
be a task
of biblical proportions. Sooooo...
In win95 you have two options: Get run off of the start menu.
Type
telnet (no need for dir path) and hit enter. The choose
Connect |
Remote System. Type the domain in the top box (Host Name).
Type the
port in the Port edit box. hit enter, and boogie. **NOTE**
You have to
be a good typist because there is no local echo in this mode;
for ports
25 and 79 anyway. (I defer the question of port 69).
If you want a local echo then set up Hilgraeve's Hyper Terminal
program. Once you have a VT100 shell connection you can
use your local
host's telnet, and have local echo. (For OS2'ers, you've
got Hilgraeve
too.)
For unix meddling, Hilgrave, versus the MS telnet, is my personal
fave.
BTW-- I prefer this to be distributed confidentially if at
all. Thanks
for taking my risks, Ms. Meinel.
aloha,
Neurocracy (Sure, finger me and find out who I am, but why ruin
the
drama?)
PS: If I have my history right, MS-DOS is a sort of Unix,
albeit SCO or
System V's inbred, illegitimate and developmentally malfunctional
relative.
(Moderator's note: Let's end this loooong missive on a happy
note. If you
would like to get several high tech humor items emailed to you
every week,
you can subscribe to me humor list by emailing with
message "subscribe humor". Following is a sample, sent
in by Academy award
winning computer animation researcher and Pixar co-founder Loren
Carpenter.
Yes, Mr. Renderman, Juarssic Park and Toy Story animation guru
himself!)
X-Loop: cmeinel.com
Date: Wed, 4 Dec 96 11:50 PST
From: loren@pixar.com (Loren Carpenter)
To:
Subject: Don't know if you've seen this..
Top Ten Reasons Why the Star Wars Characters Would Kick Butt
in the
Star Trek Universe
10) In the Star Wars universe, weapons rarely, if ever, are
set on
"stun".
9) The Enterprise needs a huge engine room with an anti-matter
unit
and a crew of twenty
just to go into warp-- the Millennium Falcon does
the same thing with
R2-D2 and a Wookie.
8) After resisting the Imperial torture droid and Darth
Vader,
Princess Leia still
looked fresh and desirable-- after pithy Cardassian
starvation torture,
Picard looked like hell.
7) Jabba the Hutt would eat Harry Mudd for trying to
cut in on his
action.
6) Luke Skywalker is not obsessed with sleeping with
every alien he
encounters.
5) One word: lightsabers.
4) The Federation would have to attempt to liberate
any ship named
Slave I.
3) The Death Star doesn't care if a world is class "M"
or not.
2) Darth Vader could choke the entire Borg empire with
one glance.
1) Picard pilots the Enterprise through an asteroid
belt at
one-quarter impulse
power. Han Solo floors it.
Loren Carpenter
| Imagination is the true ground
of being.
loren@pixar.com
|
Wed Dec 04 21:46:09 1996
From: "T.Q.D.B." <tqdb@feist.com>
Subject: Re: GTMHH's worth
On Wed, 4 Dec 1996 jericho@dimensional.com wrote:
> Imagine yourself trying to teach all of your superiors
about
> unconventional warfare. That is exatly what is going on
here. :)
I don't think that Carolyn is so self-absorbed
as to believe that she
can teach knowledgable hackers very much. As far as I've
seen, she
pretty much claims to target the 'newbies' or curious non-hackers.
Of
course, from some of the discussions that have ensued due to
inaccurate
explanations in the GTMHH she has come off sounding a little
cocky. In
that aspect she DOES closely characterize most of us hackers,
and I can't
really fault her. We could all probably take lessons in
putting apologies
for mistakes before our pride.
Anyway, being an involved party I should
probably explain my position
for all to read. As I state on my web page where I archive
back copies
of the GTMHH, I "support her efforts to promote the basic
elements of a
technical education that hacking requires." While
a lot of the
information she offers does exist somewhere else it often can
be hard to
find for the unskilled or H/P uninitiated. The underground
community has
long needed more guides to help the beginning hacker learn more
technical
aspects of computers and networking.
There is, of course, a question as to whether
she is giving people
too much information about how to hack without first building
up their
background in actually understanding the technology. In
some cases I
think she does, yet in others I feel she's appropriately vague.
The line
between acceptable and unacceptable disclosures is really one
that we
each define personally which makes it hard to agree upon.
In a sense, I
think that Carolyn is still defining hers based off the reactions
of
established hackers and her peers reading the Guide.
I hope that she continues to provide raw,
and sometimes rare,
information on the innerworking of OSes rather than focus purely
on the
hacking aspects of them. I feel that hacking needs to develop
from the
desire to find out for yourself just how far you can explore
a particular
program or OS function.
Personally, I believe that my days of hacking
started around the time
that I started trying to program viruses on an Apple IIe.
I wanted to push
the computer past the point of what most people considered acceptable
and
that really excited me. Carolyn seems to be in such a point
of her life
right now. She's seen the power and exhilliration that
lies within
hacking and her way of increasing those effects is to share with
others.
Is she qualified to do so? At this point, not to the extent
that she
tries to be. Should experienced people help her out (and
receive credit
where credit is due)? They should if they want to see this
project to
succeed.
Whether this particular projects succeeds
or fails depends on
the participation of knowledgeable people. As Maelstrom
(I believe)
said, a lot of good information comes out of responses to published
GTMHHs. It would be better to have that feedback _before_
they are
distributed to the hundred or so recipients.
To be honest, I don't care too much if
the GTMHH project does fail as
long as something else can take its place. I recall what
it was like
trying to find accurate H/P material as a "newbie"
and because of that I
would like to try and change that aspect of the underground scene.
Call it
wishful thinking if you will.
> We are glad you know.. but we also know there are others
out there that
> might just take her word to be the final word.
If everyone would take ALL their sources
of "facts" with a grain of
doubt the world would be filled with a lot less misinformation..
.TQDB
-=| T.Q.D.B. - tqdb@wichita.fn.net - http://www.feist.com/~tqdb
|=-
"The term 'hacker' is not necessarily derogatory.
A small
percentage of them give the rest a bad name."
--Special Agent Andrew Black,
FBI SF Computer Crime Squad
Thu Dec 05 07:36:09 1996
From: jericho@dimensional.com
Subject: 1.2.rep.hi
[Second in a series of replies to the Happy Hackers files.
Input was taken
from a handful of people and organized by Disorder and
se7en. All replies
should be directed to either dc-stuff@dis.org or hh@cibola.net]
>GUIDE TO (mostly) HARMLESS HACKING
>
>Vol. 1 Number 2
>Heroic Hacking in Half an Hour
Forging email is heroic? Some of us tend to believe that you
being able
to log in and finding out you have been hacked (again) is a heroic
feat in
itself. One aspect of learning to hack is learning system security,
from both sides.
>So how would you like to be able to gain access and run
a program on the
>almost any of the millions of computers hooked up to the
Internet? How would
>you like to access these Internet computers in the same way
as the most
>notorious hacker in history: Robert Morris!
Forging email and writing a sophisticated 'worm' are quite
different.
Typing command line entries into Port 25 is not running a
program. From
what I know about Robert, he has better things to do than forge
email.
And, as stated, his worm was much more sophisticated, and not
relevent to
your discussion. Robert also got into serious trouble for his
activities.
I see the name dropping as an attempt to delude newbies into
thinking
they will become one of the greats by listening to you, so that
people
will listen.
>But Compuserve, America Online and many other Internet
Service Providers
>(ISPs) are such good nannies that they will shelter you from
this temptation.
There is a difference between 'Online Service' and 'Internet
Service Provider'
you know.
You watch too much "Mike and Maddy." BIG difference,
but maybe not to
you, as your multiple personalities share an email account over
on
Compuserve. (Carolyn Meinel/Eve Serene)
>Newbie note #1; A shell account is an Internet account
that lets you give
>Unix commands. Unix is a lot like DOS. You get a prompt on
your screen and
>type out commands. Unix is the language of the Internet.
If you want to be
>a serious hacker, you have to learn Unix.
This may be simple semantics over words, but I think this
needs to be
pointed out. The only thing that DOS and Unix have in common
is they
both have command line environments.
Unix is not the language of the Internet. TCP/IP would be
a lot better
analogy as the language of the net as TCP/IP is what is somehwat
unique to
Internet-connected systems, whereas the OS can be one of many
things.
>But at least today Netcom will let me do this command.
And just about any
>cheap "shell account" offered by a fly-by-night
Internet service provider
>will let you do this. Many college accounts will let you
get away with this,
>too.
Get away with? You make it sound like they aren't supposed
to let you.
That is one of the purposes of a shell account.
>They'll usually say, "Sure, can do." But lots
of times they are lying. They
>think you are too dumb to know what a real shell account
is. Or the
>underpaid person you talk with doesn't have a clue..
This is a really shallow statement and you are stereotyping
entirely too
much. Most ISPs will flat out tell you "sure" (and
mean it) or
"we don't offer shell access". One of the local ISPs
to me pays their
tech support between 29k - 32k a year. Is that underpaid?
This is yet another example of generalization that has caused
enough
problems to the hacking culture over the years. Once again, generalizations
do nothing in learning how to successfully hack.
>But there is phun in that port 25. Incredible phun. You
see, whenever you
>telnet to a computer's port 25, you will get one of two results:
once in
>awhile, a message saying "access denied" as you
hit a firewall. But, more
Lets be technically accurate here. First off, it doesn't say
"access
denied". Second, if you get a message that implies you are
not able
to access that service, it could be that machine does not have
the
service enabled. There is no rule that states a machine HAS to
run a
mailer daemon of some sort.
Besides, sending mail as "santa" is not exactly
what I would call
incredible fun.
>Getting this list of commands is pretty nifty. It makes
you look really kewl
>because you know how to get the computer to tell you how
to hack it. And it
It makes you look trivial. That's what 'man' pages were created
for - to
give you a list of commands and how to use them effectively.
Getting a
list of them is in no way special by any stretch of the imagination.
Except
your imagination.
>Evil Genius Tip: incoming email is handled by port 110.
Try telnetting there
>someday. But usually POP, the program running on 110, won't
give you help
>with its commands and boots you off the minute you make a
misstep.
Incoming email is handled by port 25. Port 110 is for your
POP client
to come in and GET the mail. ie: port 110 is outgoing so to speak.
> Received: from
merde.dis.org by remarque.berkeley.edu (8.7.3/1.31)
> id MAA23472; Thu,
11 Jul 1996 12:49:56 0700 (PDT)
>Look at the three "received" messages.. My ISP's
computer received this email
>not directly from Remarque.berkeley.edu. but from merde.dis.com,
which in
>turn got the email from Remarque.
Received: from merde.dis.org
People who don't correctly read the headers are your best
friends when
trying to send fake mail.
<LOL> This is why you fail in teaching others this kind
of stuff. As
I said, you need to know what the hell you are talking about
before
trying to teach others something.
(This mail copyright 1996 Damien Sorder - All rights reserved.
You may
respond to this mail and quote relevant parts. You may
not publish
any part of this in print without prior written consent.)
Thu Dec 05 18:51:03 1996
From: "Carolyn P. Meinel" <>
Subject: Happy Hacker Digest
Happy Hacker Digest Dec. 5, 1996
From: "Alan D M" <alandm@hotstar.net>
To: <owner-hh@cibola.net>
Subject: Newbies and the Gleaming Elite
Date: Wed, 4 Dec 1996 22:55:44 -0500
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
Hi Caroline!
Thanks for the Post Of The Day tribute. (I'd like to thank all
the little
people, etc etc etc.) But seriously: Can I make a couple of points
following this prior exchange?
> As to Jericho's comment:
> >I know you can get some of these utils for DOS, but
even then.. it just
> >isn't the same. This is the second time I have seen
you try to justify
> >keeping Windows95 if you want to become a "hacker".
That is just wrong.
>
> Carolyn has never said Win95 and the available apps for
it are an
> acceptable substitute for a shell account or running a PPP
connection
> through Linux, but not everyone is as elite as you Jericho.
She has
> merely given solutions for those not able to or not ready
to move up to
> those levels.
>
> Why does it have to be an either-or proposition? Win95
and Linux can
> co-exist peacefully on the same hard drive. ...
1. You come in for some unwarranted attacks for suggesting
newbies like
myself could run Windows and Linux. I'm the one waiting for Santa
to
deliver his Linux. Seasoned, elite hackers seem to think this
is amateur
hour. That gets up my nose.
Caroline, less than a year ago I would have had trouble plugging
a computer
in. It was a major achievement for me to use the right mouse
button.
Customizing the taskbar was occasion to write a snail mail letter
to my son
at Edinburgh university. The point is I've been learning at my
own pace and
while I'm still obviously the object of scorn for people who
insist on
using Ph where f would do, I'm making progress. I'm trying to
learn C. I'm
reading books on Unix (which is like trying to learn ancient
Greek by
reading books in Latin.)
In the past 11 months I've come a long way, mostly through coming
to terms
with my own limitations and trying to expand them. Dare I say
I, in my own
way, have made greater strides than someone who calls him or
herself
Phreakin' 3l33t Hacksaws Deemon Def Con Arteestes? Hmmm?
2. If the avowed intent of all hackers is the spread and sharing
of
knowledge, how come those with most of it sneer so much at those
trying to
learn? Hmmm?
3. If it wasn't for Windows, I wouldn't have gotten this far.
4. If it wasn't for you, I wouldn't have gotten that little bit
further.
I leave it up to you to use my name or not.
alandm@hotstar.net
P.S. The secret of life used to be 42. With tax, I believe
it is now
47.875.
Alan
(Anonymous post)
42 is the ANSWER, But what was the question to the meaning
of life, the universe, and everything? Deep Thought still working
on it in your back room? :^)
Bdog
P.S. The digest form seems to work much better.
At 03:34 PM 12/4/96 -0700, you wrote:
>>On Tue, 3 Dec 1996, **** wrote:
>>>
>>> Ms. Meinel, PLEASE POST ANONYMOUSLY, if you
decide to post. Thanks.
>>>
>>> I often get the message from netscape that a site
isn't secure and the
>>> contents of my form may be seen during transit,
or whatever. My question
>>> is:
>>> how do we do that?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>You can't really do anything but refuse the insecure
transaction. The Web
>>owner should install better software.
>>
>>
>No no no, What I meant was, how would I get to see someone
else's form as
>they are sending it?
>
>
Moderators note: The answer is you use a "sniffer,"
a program that lurks on a computer used to transport Internet
traffic, and sorts through it looking for items of interest.
These programs can also see anything you do when you telnet or
send email, unless your telnet session or email is securely encrypted.
There are lots of sniffer programs publicly available. But since,
IMHO they have no good purpose, I wont hunt any down
for this list. OK, OK, I will grant that under extraordinary
circumstances, a law enforcement agency armed with a search warrant
may have good reason to run a sniffer program.
From: jericho@dimensional.com
Received: from nova.dimensional.com (jericho@nova.dimensional.com
[208.206.176.11]) by blackhole.dimensional.com (8.7.6/8.6.12)
with SMTP id PAA26589; Wed, 4 Dec 1996 15:49:06 -0700 (MST)
Posted-Date: Wed, 4 Dec 1996 15:49:06 -0700 (MST)
Date: Wed, 4 Dec 1996 15:49:04 -0700 (MST)
Reply-To: jericho@dimensional.com
To: hh@cibola.net
Subject: Re: HH: Help for people without a shell account
In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19961204204140.091fc9dc@pop.erols.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.95.961204154612.11028A-100000@nova.dimensional.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
This was sent privately, so I stripped the poster's name and
replied for
all to see.
=-=
> what about running eggdrop bots and having people log
onto your system and
> stuff?
Using eggdrop bots as a backdoor?
If would be quite easy to program any irc bot or script to
install some
pretty basic backdoors allowing a hacker to gain access to your
account.
That is one reason it is recommended that people not irc as 'root'
(the
"superuser" of the system).
Or were you talking about something else?
(Moderators note: a member of this list is working on
a long piece on Internet Relay Chat (IRC). So soon you should
get the entire story. Basically, IRC is much beloved of hackers
because they love to chat in near-real-time over the Internet.
But IRC poses lots of problems to Internet Service Providers.
The above post gives one example out of many of why IRC can be
a problem.)
Please post anonymously.
How do I find out the name of a user by their name?
I know a person
who's last name is Lowry, and who logs in at cc.usu.edu.
Short of
fingering for days waiting until she logs in, is there any way
I can find
out what her login is? BTW, our VMS system uses an arcane
naming system
for students: SL and then three random digits or letters.
(Moderators note: I dont have an answer for this
one. Anyone else?)
Another anonymous post:
Howdy
I'm here asking a two questions which i hope i can get an
answer to...
First off, how can i put a subject into the fake mail.....
Up till now i've been going through callisto.unm.edu port 25,
but i noticed
it doesn't except the subject....also i'd like to be able to
enter a name
as to who it is from......
(Moderators reply: Heres how I put all sorts of
headers, including a subject, into fake mail. Note you can use
just about any Internet host. Please dont wear out poor
Callisto!
->telnet slug 25
Trying 198.59.115.24 ...
Connected to slug.swcp.com.
Escape character is '^]'.
220-slug.swcp.com Sendmail 8.6.9/8.6.9 ready at Thu, 5 Dec 1996
18:25:41 -0700
220 ESMTP spoken here
helo
250 slug.swcp.com Hello llama.swcp.com [198.59.115.19], pleased
to meet you
mail from: cmeinel@north.pole.org
250 cmeinel@north.pole.org... Sender ok
rcpt to:
250 ... Recipient ok
data
354 Enter mail, end with "." on a line by itself
subject: Here is how to fake mail a subject header
Received: 12345678qwertyui and a bunch of bs
I figured it out!
.
250 SAA02616 Message accepted for delivery
Now we look at this email in Pine without full headers:
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1996 18:26:58 -0700
From: cmeinel@north.pole.org
Subject: Here is how to fake mail a subject header
I figured it out!
So we got the header in. Next we turn on full headers to see
if my little bit of phun also made it into the header:
Received: from brute.hway.net (brute.hway.net [207.158.192.66])
by
kitsune.swcp.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) with ESMTP id SAA09414 for <cmeinel@swcp.com>;
Thu, 5 Dec 1996 18:28:19 -0700
From: cmeinel@north.pole.org
Received: by brute.hway.net (950413.SGI.8.6.12/951211.SGI)
for cmeinel@swcp.com
id UAA13542; Thu, 5 Dec 1996 20:28:18 -0500
Received: from slug.swcp.com by brute.hway.net via ESMTP
(950413.SGI.8.6.12/951211.SGI)
for <>
id UAA13525; Thu, 5 Dec 1996 20:28:15
-0500
Received: from (llama.swcp.com [198.59.115.19])
by
slug.swcp.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id SAA02616 for ;
Thu, 5 Dec 1996 18:26:58 -0700
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1996 18:26:58 -0700
X-Loop: cmeinel.com
Message-Id: <199612060126.SAA02616@slug.swcp.com>
subject: Here is how to fake mail a subject header
Received: 12345678qwertyui and a bunch of bs
Apparently-To: <script language="JavaScript"><!--
var name = "cmeinel";
var domain = "cmeinel.com";
document.write('<a href=\"mailto:' + name + '@' + domain + '\">');
document.write(name + '@' + domain + '</a>');
// --></script>
See how that funny Received: 12345678qwertyui and a
bunch of bs got into the header?)
2nd) my server allows me to have 1 meg page space and
i was near over that
until i switched address's...how would i get into the files to
check the
space and possibly...umm...change it...
Thanks
anon
Moderators note: log on in the root account and you
can do anything you want. Theres a zillion ways to possibly
do this, one or two of which might work in your case. But it
would be illegal. Depending on where you live, it may even be
a felony.
If you want to learn those zillion ways to get that magic
# prompt on your screen, check out the Bugtraq archives
at http://www.geek-girl.com/bugtraq/. But I promise you its
going to be a lot of work. And please stay out of trouble.
Moderators note: heres another anonymous post.
Guess lots of people dont want to deal with getting flamed
by the 31337 d00dz on this list. Hey, I cant blame you.
But if you have a thick skin, believe me, some of the private
email this list incites is pretty entertaining. Put your email
address on your posts and join the fun!
I happened to receive a chance message today from a friend
responding to
another friend who advised that complete anonymity could be achieved
simply by Telnet'ing to port 25 of Microsoft.com and writing
the email.
I did send them enough of a warning, and told them how to do
some
checking around by emailing themselves a test message in order
to look
at the routing headers. I hope they decide to listen. They don't
have a
clue to my interest in hacking....well, up until now. But, I
know of
their vices as well.
Also, I notice that a lot of the home computer advice is for
DOS/Windows. I have to use them at work sometimes, but I have
Macs at
home. My boss won't let me bring the orphaned Indigo home.
The Mac
version of NCSA Telnet 2.5 works fine for pinging, fingering,
and
opening a port. Thought I would pass that along. Telnet 2.5 is
freeware
and is very simple to run. I may try to connect via SoftWindows
doing
the Win 3.11 emulation. If it works, then I'll have to pay attention
to
the Terminal comments on here.
From: "T.Q.D.B." <tqdb@feist.com>
X-Sender: tqdb@wichita.fn.net
To: dc-stuff@dis.org, hh@cibola.net
Subject: Re: GTMHH's worth
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.95.961204132346.7089G-100000@nova.dimensional.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSI.3.91.961204201719.11659B-100000@wichita.fn.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
On Wed, 4 Dec 1996 jericho@dimensional.com wrote:
> Imagine yourself trying to teach all of your superiors
about
> unconventional warfare. That is exatly what is going on
here. :)
I don't think that Carolyn is so self-absorbed
as to believe that she
can teach knowledgeable hackers very much. As far as I've
seen, she
pretty much claims to target the 'newbies' or curious non-hackers.
Of
course, from some of the discussions that have ensued due to
inaccurate
explanations in the GTMHH she has come off sounding a little
cocky. In
that aspect she DOES closely characterize most of us hackers,
and I can't
really fault her. We could all probably take lessons in
putting apologies
for mistakes before our pride.
Anyway, being an involved party I should
probably explain my position
for all to read. As I state on my web page where I archive
back copies
of the GTMHH, I "support her efforts to promote the basic
elements of a
technical education that hacking requires." While
a lot of the
information she offers does exist somewhere else it often can
be hard to
find for the unskilled or H/P uninitiated. The underground
community has
long needed more guides to help the beginning hacker learn more
technical
aspects of computers and networking.
There is, of course, a question as to whether
she is giving people
too much information about how to hack without first building
up their
background in actually understanding the technology. In
some cases I
think she does, yet in others I feel she's appropriately vague.
The line
between acceptable and unacceptable disclosures is really one
that we
each define personally which makes it hard to agree upon.
In a sense, I
think that Carolyn is still defining hers based off the reactions
of
established hackers and her peers reading the Guide.
I hope that she continues to provide raw,
and sometimes rare,
information on the inner working of OSes rather than focus purely
on the
hacking aspects of them. I feel that hacking needs to develop
from the
desire to find out for yourself just how far you can explore
a particular
program or OS function.
Personally, I believe that my days of hacking
started around the time
that I started trying to program viruses on an Apple IIe.
I wanted to push
the computer past the point of what most people considered acceptable
and
that really excited me. Carolyn seems to be in such a point
of her life
right now. She's seen the power and exhilaration that lies
within
hacking and her way of increasing those effects is to share with
others.
Is she qualified to do so? At this point, not to the extent
that she
tries to be. Should experienced people help her out (and
receive credit
where credit is due)? They should if they want to see this
project to
succeed.
Whether this particular projects succeeds
or fails depends on
the participation of knowledgeable people. As Maelstrom
(I believe)
said, a lot of good information comes out of responses to published
GTMHHs. It would be better to have that feedback _before_
they are
distributed to the hundred or so recipients.
To be honest, I don't care too much if
the GTMHH project does fail as
long as something else can take its place. I recall what
it was like
trying to find accurate H/P material as a "newbie"
and because of that I
would like to try and change that aspect of the underground scene.
Call it
wishful thinking if you will.
> We are glad you know.. but we also know there are others
out there that
> might just take her word to be the final word.
If everyone would take ALL their sources
of "facts" with a grain of
doubt the world would be filled with a lot less misinformation..
.TQDB
-=| T.Q.D.B. - tqdb@wichita.fn.net - http://www.feist.com/~tqdb
|=-
"The term 'hacker' is not necessarily derogatory.
A small
percentage of them give the rest a bad name."
--Special Agent Andrew Black,
FBI SF Computer Crime Squad
More--->>