Newbies

[Mr_Grey]

Waaait.


Hold up.

Credit card numbers take little skill to get?
I don't need 'proof', I just simply need to know. Are you telling me that -low end- hackers can get that information?
I always thought it was a large number of -high end- hackers whom took them.

[Goatboy]

Never underestimate human stupidity. Credit cards are not "easy" to get per se, but they are a lot easier than most people think.

[Mr_Grey]

Never underestimate human stupidity. Credit cards are not "easy" to get per se, but they are a lot easier than most people think.

Social Engineering?
Fake emails?
Keyloggers?

[Vulpine]

Social Engineering?
Fake emails?
Keyloggers?

All of the above, and more. Even identities are easy to steal now. I'm sure you still see people occasionally use a check at the grocery line. Those have just about everything you could ever want to steal someone's identity and clear out their bank accounts.

[sanddbox]

Viruses, Phishing, Social Engineering, Hacking databases (read up on what Jeremy Hammond got in jail for), etc. I'm not saying credit cards are always easy, but it's pretty damn easy to infect stupid people with viruses - and let me tell you, there are a LOT of stupid people.

[Mr_Grey]

Social Engineering?
Fake emails?
Keyloggers?

All of the above, and more. Even identities are easy to steal now. I'm sure you still see people occasionally use a check at the grocery line. Those have just about everything you could ever want to steal someone's identity and clear out their bank accounts.

Routeing numbers etc..etc.
I'm guessing it's not the effectiveness of one attack but a multiple grouping of them.

[sanddbox]

Routeing numbers etc..etc.
I'm guessing it's not the effectiveness of one attack but a multiple grouping of them.

Exactly. Even if just 1% of the population is stupid enough to fall for viruses/scams/phishing/social engineering, that's still 3 million people just in the United States alone.

[Mr_Grey]

Routeing numbers etc..etc.
I'm guessing it's not the effectiveness of one attack but a multiple grouping of them.

Exactly. Even if just 1% of the population is stupid enough to fall for viruses/scams/phishing/social engineering, that's still 3 million people just in the United States alone.

Yeesh. But what about the ratio of hackers to people? Is this number sufficient for everyone to manage their hacks on the associate in question without flooding it?

-- Sat Jun 19, 2010 11:28 pm --

Okay hold it, speaking on the logistics of something illegal. Stopping this before it goes forward and seems bad.



New subject.
MAC? Useful for cracking or no?

[sanddbox]

Routeing numbers etc..etc.
I'm guessing it's not the effectiveness of one attack but a multiple grouping of them.

Exactly. Even if just 1% of the population is stupid enough to fall for viruses/scams/phishing/social engineering, that's still 3 million people just in the United States alone.

Yeesh. But what about the ratio of hackers to people? Is this number sufficient for everyone to manage their hacks on the associate in question without flooding it?

-- Sat Jun 19, 2010 11:28 pm --

Okay hold it, speaking on the logistics of something illegal. Stopping this before it goes forward and seems bad.



New subject.
MAC? Useful for cracking or no?

This is a perfectly fine discussion. Viruses (particular botnet viruses) will have code that will automatically destroy other viruses so that they're the only ones in control.

Phishing is really just a matter of mass emailing people and getting lucky. Generally, the people stupid enough to post their full email addresses online are the ones stupid enough to fall for a scam like phishing anyway...

[msbachman]

Yeesh. But what about the ratio of hackers to people? Is this number sufficient for everyone to manage their hacks on the associate in question without flooding it?

that depends on what sort of hack is being talked about. I know that there's a site dedicated to finding vulnerabilities using google, and oftentimes on a posted vulnerability people will comment on it, saying that everything has been gobbled up by skiddies (think "h4ckk3d bY CH1N4 GR337Z TO n3cr0t0ps4" sorts of defacement, childish shit). If a hack takes more than this, say a good deal of energy and/or time, likely there will be enough to go around, depending on the amount of vulnerable targets.

-- Sun Jun 20, 2010 1:03 am --

New subject.
MAC? Useful for cracking or no?

The only practical use of MACs that I know of is to get a feel for what machines are nearby, i.e. with the ARP cache. MACs for cracking, idk of any conceivable use for them whatsoever.

MACs aren't even of any use for identifying remote machines. MACs are changed at each hop of the router, so if you check out Wireshark, every incoming packet to your machine is going to come from the same address (i.e. the last-hop router).

Lulz can be had occasionally from this, because it's logical (but totally wrong) to think that both IPs and MACs are unique, and there's one per computer, and that they're both transmitted and kept in the same form en route. So occasionally you'll hear some noob claim to have captured a "mac addy," and you can laugh knowing that they're clueless about what they're doing.