News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Hackers break into Washington Post servers by Zarathust on Thursday December 19, 2013 @03:07AM (#6933460)
Don't they have the Snowden Leaks? It would be very useful to have internal email conversations about them. There is a great deal of people who would be interested in that around the globe.
Re:Hackers break into Washington Post servers by christianmann on Thursday December 19, 2013 @04:02PM (#6937834)
Do they? I thought that was just The Guardian.
Re:Hackers break into Washington Post servers by cones688 on Thursday December 19, 2013 @04:31AM (#6933661)
"Although company passwords are stored in encrypted form, hackers in some cases have shown the ability to decode such information"

Then they arn't really encrypted are they... this really annoys me as it shifts the blame away from them and their poor security standards and threat models.

Re:Hackers break into Washington Post servers by denibertovic on Thursday December 19, 2013 @05:15AM (#6933792)
Actually encrypted does mean that. What you're thinking about is hashing. Hash functions are a one-way trip, and what is most commonly used for password storing.
Re:Hackers break into Washington Post servers by jagermo on Thursday December 19, 2013 @02:08AM (#6933320)
One would think that after at least two successful attacks, they would beef up security and start using crazy things like hashing and salting. If that happened to another company, they'd have a field day demanding more security.
Re:Hackers break into Washington Post servers by rubiquity on Wednesday December 18, 2013 @10:49PM (#6932743)
Good to know that mainstream media is still failing at distinguishing between hackers and crackers.
Re:Hackers break into Washington Post servers by Don_ on Wednesday December 18, 2013 @11:20PM (#6932848)
To be fair, at this point it is too late to reverse the situation and name things appropriately, specially due to the fact that "cracker" is a well known slang for something else... Using the appropriate terms at this point would just confuse people.
Re:Hackers break into Washington Post servers by gruseom on Thursday December 19, 2013 @03:16PM (#6937526)
The word "hacker" has been ambiguous in the same way since its beginning. Its earliest appearance in print had to to with breaking into phone networks at MIT (sorry, no link handy but it's easy to look up). The two meanings of "clever technical feat" and "getting into someone else's system" have always been intertwined, and it's easy to see why—they're not unrelated.

The whole "distinguish hacker from cracker" thing has always seemed to me a classic effort to control language to suit an agenda. Such things are doomed to fail and rightly so. But I may be reading that wrong, as I've never looked into the history of it (correction is welcome).

Re:Hackers break into Washington Post servers by invalidOrTaken on Thursday December 19, 2013 @01:42AM (#6933250)
Actually I think it's salvageable: just keep using it in the original sense. Bloomberg learned to code; it will catch on.
Re:Hackers break into Washington Post servers by rubiquity on Wednesday December 18, 2013 @11:24PM (#6932865)
Fair enough. Just let me be angry, darn it!
Re:Hackers break into Washington Post servers by lukifer on Thursday December 19, 2013 @12:10AM (#6933030)
The best we can hope for is to push for modifiers to be added: "malicious hackers", "criminal hackers", etc.
Re:Hackers break into Washington Post servers by viraptor on Thursday December 19, 2013 @04:48AM (#6933718)
You mean there was some license-protected application that they cracked? I didn't see that in the article ;)

Seriously though, these words changed their meaning many times. Cracker is not even seen that often and I would really argue against the meaning you expect.

Re:Hackers break into Washington Post servers by shitlord on Thursday December 19, 2013 @01:19AM (#6933195)
Is anyone going to do anything about the SEA? They've been attacking a lot of large organizations recently.