Talk:Black hat (computer security)
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
I agree that a cracker is either one who circumvents some protection, or otherwise brute forces some type of password file
I can't help but think the terms 'black hat' and 'white hat' must come from the Hollywood tradition (in the old cowboy movies) to have the bad guys wear black hats and the good guys white hats. I think this would be important to include if it can be verified. Neil --18.104.22.168 (talk) 14:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- It could be Spy v Spy, too. --- tqbf 14:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Expand and split?
Why not expand this thread, and split it to refer to the multiple terms? I know that this'll lead to another annoying disambiguation page, and annoying links to fix all over the place, but it should patch up the needs of a few things. And I believe that the whole "Merge" idea has been shot down. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 21:16, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Apparently a compromise has been reached. There is a separate disambiguation page and a link to that page, but most of the content of Black hat (disambiguation) is replicated here. I wonder who thought this was a good idea.--126.96.36.199 (talk) 22:27, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
- IMO Black Hat should be a DAB, similar to White Hat. The list of movies is already duplicated at Black hat (film) and should stay there. Andrewa (talk) 18:00, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Both the articles Black hat and Black hat (film) have now been stable, with almost 100% duplication and no further comment, for some months. I'm going to WP:be bold and merge to Black hat (film), similarly to White hat (film), and leaving Black hat to eventually become the DAB. Andrewa (talk) 18:26, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- Hmmm, except I see a problem... Black Hat (film) would mean a film by the name of Black Hat. True, it wouldn't be Black hat (film), but is the case of the H really enough disambiguation? Andrewa (talk) 01:56, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what happened to this article but it really does need to be fixed.
- The reason it is so difficult to define, unlike that of the grey hat (which deals solely with it's truly neutral view of ethics, where laws may or may not be broken, although when doing so it is done simply because, and not an underlying reason) or white hats (the general IT Security population and its core ethics as well as others who follow corporate requested guidelines and shy away from any activity which could be classed as legally dubious), black hat hackers come in largely broad range insofar as the public definition thereof. For example, someone who uses a sqli to grab a password dump from an online credit authorization company and sells or uses the data for monetary gain could be considered a black hat. Compare this to, for example, the black hat who uses web defacements for political statements. The latter, while illegal, is ethically viewed by the black hats involved not as a crime, but a form of protest not unlike it's real world counter parts, of chalking the side walk, carrying signs around in front of a building and stopping people from entering, and so on. Parallels in this case of black hat hacking can be seen in pretty much all of their actions. Compare a distributed denial of service to protest by sit ins. This is both in action and technical case, synonymous. If a website can only handle 500 requests per second and so you provide 600 with a ddos attack, this differs little in the mind of the activist black hats from sitting in 50 chairs in the waiting lobby of some bank. Legally it is obviously different, but this isn't about legality, it is about the ethics of the black hat in question, to exemplify why "black hat" as a term is so difficult to define.
- The issue at hand is thus, the black hat title as per the varying public definitions can be use to describe almost any aspect of hacking that ignores the law, regardless of intent and ethic, while white and grey hat definitions are very strict in all or implicit lack thereof. This article needs some serious work as it doesn't even have any coverage of the the security field. I'd write something but, I don't exactly have a neutral point of view.
- What I suggest is that someone take some look at actual research into black hat culture. The problem is it seems that everyone is reverting to the media's black hat definition, which is hyperdefined by television/news/movies as the term black hat seems to imply villain and so they sell it as such with some pickups from the actual black hat culture found on the net. This doesn't occur with white hat and grey hat definitions, since they are industry defined and don't have the selling points that the scary technological nightmare or mystery and intrigue that the medias black hats can belt out. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 01:30, 15 April 2012 (UTC)