Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Naturegirl1999]

Why is the word soul juice in my head? What would that even be?

[Kagus]

Why is the word soul juice in my head? What would that even be?

"Soul" is a term for and the shortened version of "Soul Music", a music style created by the African American community that combines elements of gospel, R&B, and Jazz. Fruit juice is just fluid fruit jam without the solid bits in it. A jam is a musical improvisational session.

Therefore, obviously, soul juice is just improv music without the chunky bits in it.


/smart

[King Zultan]

If you could squeeze a soul and get juice out I wonder what it would taste like?

[Reelya]

Buffalo soul juice.

[Egan_BW]

If you could squeeze a soul and get juice out I wonder what it would taste like?

Tart, with a hint of pure suffering.

[King Zultan]

Buffalo soul juice.

This makes me think about the potential different flavors of soul juice, like tangy BBQ ranch and extra chunky.

[scriver]

Soul juice? I'm guessing it tastes like spirits.

[delphonso]

Soul juice? I'm guessing it tastes like spirits.

Boo

[Kagus]

Soul juice? I'm guessing it tastes like spirits.

*Standing ovation*

[Naturegirl1999]

The more recent posts in the WTF thread have made me wonder, are there such things as anti-hacking programs, like counter-hacking programs that exit out of the program the hacker is using or deletes the program from the hacker’s computer? I don’t know how hacking works, what are countermeasures against it?

[delphonso]

I guess encryption is the defense - prevent them from accessing the data.

[wierd]

"hacking" is a broad category of methods all under a single moniker.

See also:

Hash collision / rainbow table exploit
Password dictionary attack
Man in the Middle attack
Remote code execution vulnerability exploit
code injection exploit
Phishing / Spear Phishing
Stack Smash exploit
Heartbleed


See also:

Attack surface


A properly performed hack gives the attacker full administrator privileges on a remote system. The remote system believes the hacker is the system administrator. This is the entire point.

Hacking-back is illegal, at least in the US.  Allowing it to be legal would start a thermonuclear hacking war on the internet. Software that tries to do it automatically, would be rife for exploitation by hackers using address spoofing to get that automated software to attack some 3rd party, etc. 

The best defense is proper user education, and a properly managed attack surface.  The PROBLEM, is that most users these days do **NOT** manage their attack surface very well at all!!  That is why the internet is a goddamn hacker's paradise.  (Consequently, because users tend to be so ignorant of infosec in general, many of their consumer network appliances, like home routers, have large attack surfaces and utilize factory-set passwords, and EVEN FACTORY BACKDOORS, which hackers learn of, then exploit.)

[Reelya]

However, I am a proponent of taking down botnets using their own backdoors.

https://malware.wikia.org/wiki/Cheese

In this case an original exploit attacked some machines, then installed a backdoor that listens on a certain port. The other worm just opens those ports and deletes the backdoor. The advantage of spreading this type of "good" hack is that it doesn't actually contain a payload that can be used maliciously. Since it only accesses already compromised systems, it doesn't need to carry any hacking tools itself. It just asks "plz can i get in?" then if allowed it goes "ok now copy me", and terminates the back door behind it. So it doesn't need to do any hacks itself and it's not releasing any dangerous code into the wild that someone else can weaponize.

If regular hacks / viruses are a disease, things like this are comparable to a vaccine: a disabled version of the exploit.

So you can in fact utilize a botnet's own control code to dismantle it in a way they can't further exploit.

[wierd]

Depending on the nature of the grey-hattery, I can get behind it. (some forms of grey-hattery I find unacceptable.)

I tend to favor white-hat modes of operation; Rather than do "Can I get in? -- OK, do this thing, then kill the backdoor. Thx bai!", I would do "Can I get in? I can? OK-- probe WHOIS and ARIN, get administrative contact, send automated email to administrative contact about compromised status, terminate connection."

[Reelya]

The problem there is that some of these systems haven't been patched in years. They're in some sort of don't know / don't care category, uncontactable, or they IoT connected things that the owners can't patch. If a large amount of the problem is stuff that is missing patches from 2012 onwards, for example, then contacting a diligent administrator to fix it isn't a solution. They'd already be up to date if that was the case. Things like that cheese worm were born out of the frustration that nobody was patching their systems, when updates had eminently been available probably for a very long time.

Also, when these machines are being marshalled into botnets then it becomes everyone's problem, so recognizing individual autonomy of the owners of those machines becomes a grey area itself. It becomes akin to a public health issue. Say someone's house is infected with plague rats then the health authorities are entitled to take action to prevent that being a threat to everyone else. However on the net there are no internet police to prevent diseased machines being let loose, so individual action is more justified, the same as vigilante action is more justified if the police didn't exist.