It'd be interesting to see if this post gets approved by the moderators of bugtraq. As all of you know, this forum (bugtraq) is constantly monitored not only by crackers and infosec professionals, but also by government and law-enforcement agencies. The reason why I'm posting this message is because I'd like to bring attention to the new laws on hacking. As everyone knows, laws on computer hacking are going tougher. There are however, some negative consequences. "Advanced societies" are updating computer crime laws faster than the rest of the world. This means that new generations of these more "advanced societies" will have no clue about how remote computer attacks are carried out. Future generations of security "experts" will be among the most ignorant in the history of computer security. New generations of teenagers will be scared of doing online exploration. I'm not talking about damaging other companies' computer systems. I'm talking about accessing them illegally *without* revealing private information to the public or harming any data that has been accessed. To me, there is a big difference between these two types of attacks but I don't think that judges feel the same way. Furthermore, I don't even think that judges understand the difference. Now, I'm not saying that I support accessing computer systems illegally. All I'm saying is that by implementing very strict laws on "hacking", we will create a generation of ignorant security professionals. I think to myself, how the hell will these "more advanced societies" protect themselves against cyber attacks in the future? These new tougher computer laws will, in my opinion, have a tremendous negative impact in the defense of these "advanced societies". It almost feels to me like we're destroying ourselves. I know what you're thinking. You can learn about security attacks by setting up you're own controlled environment and attacking it yourself. Well, what I say is that this approach *does* certainly make you a better attacker, but nothing can be compared to attacking systems in real world scenarios. Now, I personally know many pentesters and I can say that most of them *do* cross the line sometimes when doing online exploration in their own free time. However, these guys would *never* harm anything or leak any sensitive information to the public. That's because they love what they do, and have very strong ethical values when it comes to privacy. I would say that most pentesters are "grey hats", rather than "white hats". In fact, I believe that the terms white and black hat are completely artificial because we all have different sides. The human mind is not binary, like black or white, it's something fuzzy instead, with many layers. The terms white and black hat were, in my opinion, created by business people to point out who the "good guys" and "bad buys" are. If I was the technical director of a computer security testing company I would try to find pentesters that are not malicious, but that do cross the line sometimes but at the same time, know when it's a good time to stop exploring. If you hire someone that has never broken into a system, this guy will not be able to produce valuable reports for customers because he will not be able to find vulnerabilities that can't be found running a scanner. In summary, I'd like governments of the world to rethink their strategy when fighting computer crime. Extremism never worked and never will. Remember, many of today's script kiddies will be the infosec professionals of tomorrow.
