"webmaster@takedown.com" Couldn't be more 90s than this, hah.
Challenge accepted.
http://www.takedown.com/sun-thanks.html
"This site is running on two SPARCstation 20 Model 152 workstations, provided by Sun Microsystems."
Takedown (1995)
31–40 of 42 posts
Re: Takedown (1995)
#32Earlier quoted context omitted.
> He seems like more or less the archetype of the modern script kid (he was using other people's exploits --- and in an era where you could exploit a lot of vulnerabilities with simple shell scripts, no less). What makes you think otherwise? "In his 2002 book, The Art of Deception, Mitnick states that he compromised computers solely by using passwords and codes that he gained by social engineering. He claims he did n…
Maybe it's just because I was in this field during the events we're talking about (I got an early start!) but: I don't see how you can be at all familiar with the Mitnick/Shimomura story and think that he didn't use hacking tools. That breakin was famous mostly for introducing the wider world to the concept of TCP sequence number prediction. Unless you think he socially engineered Shimomura's TCP stack. Kevin Mitnick…
Thomas --
These people weren't there and only know what they have read or what has been glamorized. Mitnick had (has?) an evil streak and is in no way some poor little kid who got in over his head. He know what he was doing (in terms of his desire to cause harm) and he got off it. Lots of people had "fun" -- but very few seemed to be truly nasty human beings.
It's far better to create and help than it is to destroy and harm.
Hell, even u4ea popped up recently and doesn't seem like he's held a grudge for 20+ years -- think others can do or say the same?
Re: Takedown (1995)
#33Earlier quoted context omitted.
Were there others as high profile at the time? He might have just been the first widely known when “hacking” and the Net was new for a lot of people.
Yes, and they set an interesting counter-example: Kevin Poulsen, Mark Abene, Elias Ladopoulos, and others took things in a sinister direction. Mitnick wasn't like that, and I think that really set him apart, but because he was the best the government had to make an example out of him.
He wasn't like that? Says who? Him? And you believe this? The Internet in the late 80s to the mid 90s was like the wild west -- there were a few bad actors as Mitnick was one of them. Sorry.
Re: Takedown (1995)
#34I don't get the Mitnick worship. He was an unrepentant script kiddie, and when he harrassed Shimomura, a legitimate genius ( https://www.quora.com/Would-someone-with-an-IQ-of-170-easily... ), he got what was coming.
While I'm sure Shimomura is a genius, however you define that, I can't help but roll my eyes whenever I see another post about IQ on Quora. If IQ truly even measured raw intelligence, that doesn't get you very far in life. To do anything with that intelligence you need to put in a lot of effort and this requires things like time management, stress management, discipline, focus and drive. I'd rather bet on the person who is high in those 5 attributes I just mentioned but with an average IQ over someone with high IQ but who is only average on those 5 attributes.
Re: Takedown (1995)
#35Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've read all three (_Ghost in the Wires_, _Takedown_ and _The Fugitive Game_) and all three were interesting in their own way. The first was from Mitnick's view, the second from the FBI/Shimomura's point of view (and man, does Shimonura come across as a jerk). The last is really from neither (or both) but does tend to fill in details not mentioned by the prior two.
Ah, I've not heard of The Fugitive Game. I will read it. It's not that I think Shimomura is a bad guy or anything, it's just...the writing is very dry for me.
I was in prison at the same time Mitnick was (but not at the same prison), and in about 1997, Justin Petersen (Agent Steal) showed up at the prison I was at, and we got to know each other well. He's one of the other main figures in The Fugitive Game, and he said this book was probably the most accurate of the several books about the Mitnick/Poulsen/Petersen story. I read the book in prison one night and I couldn't put it down until I finished it.
Re: Takedown (1995)
#36It's a shame that all these years later nobody else knows who JSZ is.
Re: Takedown (1995)
#37Thanks, this is nostalgic. I remember reading this several times back around 1996. Mitnick felt like a hero to me back then.
It's nostalgic too, I read Takedown over the Atlantic on my honeymoon.
Re: Takedown (1995)
#38I don't get the Mitnick worship. He was an unrepentant script kiddie, and when he harrassed Shimomura, a legitimate genius ( https://www.quora.com/Would-someone-with-an-IQ-of-170-easily... ), he got what was coming.
the dude wiretapped the FBI. it doesn't get much more badass than that.
Re: Takedown (1995)
#39Earlier quoted context omitted.
To me too in a way. It all looked cool. It was only later then I started to see the way we valorize bad actors as a bad thing about culture. Someone who does bad things is automatically treated as smarter then someone who has good ethics and cares about his impact on others.
I'm not even "why idealize hackers". I remember being a teenager too. I'm saying, why Mitnick ? What about his M.O. was ever interesting?
What I found interesting about his MO when I read Takedown was the idea of social engineering and stringing together scripts. In particular Mitnick was interesting because it was a counter-narrative to the world Stoll portrays in The Cuckoo's Egg, a world where only technical knowledge seemed to matter in relation to technical issues. I suppose I found Mitnick M.O. interesting because it was so much simpler...like the scene in Raiders of the Lost Arch where Jones faces the swordsman [sans violence]. Not that he was my hero or anything. But I never found myself relating Shimomura in the way I did with Stoll. My recollection is that his book felt like a knockoff written with the expectation that I should feel outrage. I didn't.
Stoll was the most interesting character in his book. Mitnick was far and away the most interesting character in Shimomura's book. Stoll was interesting because he was curious. Shimomura was dull because he was just offended. The book did well because Mitnick was interesting, because cloning cell phones was interesting, because breaking into computer systems is interesting...even to people who aren't going to do it.
Re: Takedown (1995)
#40Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can't speak to "Ghost in the Wires", however a book that contemporaneous to "Takedown" that does a better job, I think, is "The Fugitive Game", by Johnathan Littman: https://www.amazon.com/Fugitive-Game-Online-Kevin-Mitnick/dp...
I've read all three (_Ghost in the Wires_, _Takedown_ and _The Fugitive Game_) and all three were interesting in their own way. The first was from Mitnick's view, the second from the FBI/Shimomura's point of view (and man, does Shimonura come across as a jerk). The last is really from neither (or both) but does tend to fill in details not mentioned by the prior two.
Heh, yeah even in Takedown you end up rooting for Mitnik. And why so much detail about food!?