Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2000 16:07:40 +0200 From: Johann Visagie <wjv@cityip.co.za> To: Ben Smithurst <ben@FreeBSD.ORG> Cc: Rahul Siddharthan <rsidd@physics.iisc.ernet.in>, doc@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: hacker v/s cracker Message-ID: <20000828160740.C56078@fling.sanbi.ac.za> In-Reply-To: <20000813173219.X48327@strontium.scientia.demon.co.uk>; from ben@FreeBSD.ORG on Sun, Aug 13, 2000 at 05:32:19PM %2B0100 References: <20000813201719.A4355@physics.iisc.ernet.in> <20000813173219.X48327@strontium.scientia.demon.co.uk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Ben Smithurst on 2000-08-13 (Sun) at 17:32:19 +0100: > > It certainly isn't. I'll change that to "attackers" unless anyone > objects, since that's used a lot elsewhere in the security section and > in the security(7) man page. "Intruder" is also user a lot, but I think > "attacker" sounds more appropriate. In Garfinkel & Spafford's _Practical Unix and Internet Security_ the term "attacker" is used to denote someone who is trying to gain entry to your system / network, i.e. someone who is "knocking on the door", whereas "intruder" is used for someone who has already gained entry and is now doing damage on the inside. A good distinction, I thought, and one which neatly sidesteps the silly hacker / cracker thing. -- Johann To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-doc" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20000828160740.C56078>