6 ms·

The Fall of Hacker Groups

• jarcane 12y ago
  This article discusses why recently we do not see many hacker groups anymore, and why the ones we do, such as Anonymous and its satellite efforts, do not succeed in having the same cultural impact as their forefathers. Umm, what? I'm hardly a fan of Anonymous, but I think that's a pretty ridiculous statement on its face. The only reason I've even heard of CCC and the like are because I was a huge nerd who read way too many hacker books as a kid. About the only one of the classic groups I recall even getting any mainstream attention was cDc, meanwhile Anonymous routinely make international news.
  • runn1ng 12y ago
    Kids these days... Or, I was a hacker before it was cool
  • joncameron 12y ago
    I would assume that it's referencing cultural impact in a stricter (sub)cultural sense. The decentralized gulf of Anonymous vs. distinct hacking groups with points of view and identity is largely what the article is bemoaning. "Notice this does not concern _collaboration_ as much as it does _collectiveness_."
  • ivraatiems 12y ago
    Anonymous is not a "hacker group." Anonymous is an internet mob which happens to have some members who are hackers. LulzSec was a hacker group. I know that might reek of pedantry, but it's an important distinction because we don't want to contribute to the misconception that everyone associated with Anonymous is a a sooper geenus power user. Large components of the group agree with its goals but don't have special knowledge.
    • lawnchair_larry 12y ago
      Anonymous has no "members" and isn't a group.
      • forgottenpass 12y ago
        Technically, yes. Practically it's a loose collective with pockets of stronger association.
        • syoc 12y ago
          It is practically a identity for any individual or collective to use to it's own liking. It has long lost it's original meaning.
          • wavefunction 12y ago
            Uh, that is its original meaning.
        • soylentcola 12y ago
          I've tended to look at Anonymous as more like a metaphorical "banner" that some people rally around.
  • atmosx 12y ago
    Just a couple of observations: * CCC[1] was not a 'crew'. The CCC IMHO has still a big impact, mostly due to the (extremely?) high technical skill-set of its members. * The OP writes about cultural impact NOT mainstream attention. In order to get mainstream attention you have to do something trivial like DDOS Yahoo! which was way below the average technical ability of these 'crews' to cause havoc (if they'd like to do so) back in the day. [1] http://www.ccc.de/en/ http://www.ccc.de/en/
  • bhaak 12y ago
    > The only reason I've even heard of CCC and the like are because I was a huge nerd who read way too many hacker books as a kid. That tells me that you are certainly not German and probably also not European. Since the 80s the CCC was regularly in national German news as well as European. Some of the hacks made worldwide news, I guess (I'm thinking especially of the NASA-Hack and the GSM-Hack). At least in Germany, one of the reasons we don't see other hacker groups appearing is that the various local CCC groups are the obvious place to go for people who would otherwise found own hacker groups.
  • bigbugbag 12y ago
    I suppose you're not from Europe or are too young, the CCC made the news a number of times over here. It's probably the biggest and most known group. Also anonymous actions are kin to those of femen, designed to grab media coverage for free publicity while the media themselves have become more about sensationalism and at the same time more aware of the digital world.
• deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
• tptacek 12y ago
  From CCC in the early 80s to TESO in the 2000s, through LoD, MoD, cDc, L0pht With the exception of LoD and MoD, these "groups" (brands, really) have nothing in common with each other. And none of them had any common purpose.
  • tedunangst 12y ago
    Well, apparently they all existed in some agrarian free time society, before industrial capitalism crushed our collective dreams. Because nobody cared about money in the 80s.
  • lawnchair_larry 12y ago
    Really, CDC and l0pht had nothing in common? TESO had nothing to do with CCC? No MOD members ended up at X-Force with TESO members? I can draw many lines across all of those groups.
    • tptacek 12y ago
      I know more about cDc and L0pht than TESO and CCC. Maybe you can correct me on the TESO/CCC thing. How seriously do you take cDc and the L0pht? We should probably make sure we're not talking past each other before we try to debate.
    • dpeck 12y ago
      You could probably connect nearly every group through the early 2000s with X-Force as the join.
      • tptacek 12y ago
        You'd miss a good chunk of w00w00/guild, OpenBSD, and Europe that way.
        • dpeck 12y ago
          a quick search shows w00w00 would be connected. Not sure of the others, but I (and I'm sure you do too) know of at least MoD, TESO, ADM folks who came through there. Not saying all groups by any means, but even with being a few years late getting started in the infosec world of Atlanta there were still a lot of old guard hackers hanging around when I got out of school and people still felt comfortable sharing stories from time to time.
• rasz_pl 12y ago
  I dont know guys. NSA, GCHQ, SEA, GOP, all pretty l33t and active hacker groups.
• deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
  • tptacek 12y ago
    40hex was a zine; you might mean Phalcon/Skism. NewHackCity was about as much a "group" as the cDc "NSF" was: it was a bunch of people who happened to hang out together (or, in NHC's case, live together). I suppose NHC got to look more like a group when they all left the east coast and set up a hackerspace. I guess my point is: if you pick apart just the Boston scene, yes, it's going to look like everyone's interrelated. But that scene has, for instance, little to nothing in common with LoD (a bona fide "competitive" hacking group) or Haggis or whatever.
    • deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
• debacle 12y ago
  It's easier to be a black hat than a gray hat these days. Much less public scrutiny.
  • tptacek 12y ago
    What's a "grey hat"?
    • tedunangst 12y ago
      Someone who insinuates they have unreleased exploits by posting MD5s on twitter.
      • tptacek 12y ago
        Those were SHA256 hashes.
    • debacle 12y ago
      Black hat -> That Romanian teenager that just stole 10k credit card numbers with CVVs from an insecure eCommerce storefront. Gray hat -> Snowden, most of Anonymous's antics, CCC, Schwartz, etc.
      • tptacek 12y ago
        I asked because I figured you'd give a different definition than the one I'm familiar with. Black Hat -> Using vulnerabilities to break into other people's computers. Gray Hat -> Using information gleaned from breakins to other people's computers to find new vulnerabilities. or Gray Hat -> Finding vulnerabilities and supplying them to people who break into other people's computers while retaining deniability about the actual breakins; ie, supplying your friends without wanting to know what they're doing with the exploits. The 1990s "gray hat" would be the guy using leaked SunOS 4.1.3 source to find vulnerabilities. Your distinction isn't invalid; these "hat colors" have always been confusing.
        • deleted 12y ago
• alricb 12y ago
  Wouldn't the decline of groups have more to do with a decline of the "scene" they operated in? "Scenes" were primarily prestige-based, and security work has been profesionalized, with hackers working in the legitimate or illegetimate economy instead of mainly vying for symbolic goods. Symbolic capital isn't dead (disclosing vulnerabilities can be good for career advancement), but it's not the main driver anymore.
• deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
• panzagl 12y ago
  This article totally misses the point, making up a bunch of anarcho-communal/syndicalist hippie crap for what is really a very simple reason: They all got old, and new groups didn't form to join them because what was a lark in the 90's is now considered cyberterrorism.
• at-fates-hands 12y ago
  While I agree with most of what was said in the article, it leaves out some important factors in why hacking groups are less visible today. 1 - The role of government. Once the laws caught up to the hackers, and the CFAA was passed in 1986, it gave the government a lot more teeth to federal laws targeting computer crime. Shortly thereafter, you have what some refer to as the "Hacker Crackdown" from 87-90 which went after LOD, MOD and smaller groups. Some went to prison, others went or tried to go legit. I think hackers realized groups tend to have more visibility with the feds and you're more vulnerable to getting caught compared to just working by yourself. 2 - Size and structure. Since most of the groups are pretty closed by nature, when a group is disbanded or law enforcement breaks them up, there's never enough "new recruits" to take the flame and continue on. Look at LulzSec. They had a huge run, but once Sabu flipped and turned most of his crew into the feds, there wasn't anybody else left would/could carry torch any further. So even when you have a high profile group, once it takes a hit, it's rare for them to bounce back. Anonymous is the exception to this rule, but it seems they like the decentralization approach their structure since it assures the group can carry on if/when the feds start to arrest its members. 3 - Knowledge transfer. Not only does size affect the lack the groups today, but also the lack of knowledge transfer. Back in the late 90's I knew a bunch of college guys who were hackers. You could ask them anything and most of the time, they'd let you in on how they hacked email, how they found open servers, etc. Nowadays, somewhat because of law enforcement, somewhat because people now see their hacking techniques as trade knowledge, they're much less open about how they ply their trade. This means every kid who wants to learn how to hack is on his own. There is no MOD or LOD or LulzSec to prove yourself to, to get entry into the club and get higher levels of knowledge. Hackers, are now, left to their own means to seek out and find their own knowledge. As such, the cycle perpetuates itself because now instead of wanting to share this knowledge, they have the attitude, "I found this by myself, go find it on your own." which makes people less likely to form a group to share knowledge.
• pakled_engineer 12y ago
  I'd say because of money. There's plenty of money in being a professional hacker working for some nation state or shady corp like VUPEN, there's no money in smurfing each other and vying for the role as most leet, no time to go to meets and hacker spaces because money must be made, no time to sit on IRC either since you need to put together your 'red team' SaaS pentester 3000 tool to shill it at the next security con. Hacking is a business now, you either join a state connected security corp or risk having your whole crew being informants and the state coming after you with counter terrorist bravado. It seemed to have changed right when Shadowcrew forums started in the late 90s.
• canvia 12y ago
  The meatspace maker/hacker scene is booming: http://hackerspaces.org/wiki/List_of_Hacker_Spaces http://hackerspaces.org/wiki/List_of_Hacker_Spaces
  • 2close4comfort 12y ago
    not quite the same thing...
• escape_goat 12y ago
  This is a ideological/philosophical opinion piece scantily clad as an article about something. I know that the author doubtlessly regards his premises as well-founded, but he does not seek to validate these foundations for the reader; he is writing solely for an audience that already shares his opinions. Initially he brushes against the notion that hacking may have grown, as an activity, due to the geometric (?) progression of connectivity, and that the phenomena he is describing is the demise of the 'collective', as a species, rather than the demise of hacking itself. This is sort of a bizarre moment in the essay, because he immediately forgets the notion and plunges into an ideopathological rumination of the decline of creativity and the destruction of collective will by a search for unique individual identity under the oppressive circumstance of the capitalist/existential philosophical apparatus. I describe it thusly to give the click-to-comments-first reader a flavour of the essay, and also because I am making fun of him. I am making fun of him with serious purpose, as he has made the fatal, arrogant error of conflating ideas with facts; an error that has literally killed millions of people. It is interesting that the hacker collectives have declined, and this could have been an interesting essay. It does not seem to me that the raw incidence of hacking has declined. I have no idea why this person believes such a thing. Hacking of all kinds and intentions are reported in a flurry these days. What has declined (I accept his assertion) is the phenomena of the group social identity of hackers. My first hypothesis about this is that anyone who studies graphs and networks could explain it to me without a second's hesitation, and perhaps someone will. My (largely uninformed: I welcome correction) expectation is that the explanation will be directly related to the progression of connectivity: information is no longer rare or exclusive, and so social representation and status-seeking are no longer necessary parts of the driving activity, which is the hacking. This precludes the fetishization (in a pseudo-Marxist sense) of small networks such as the hacking groups. Small networks doubtlessly continue to exist and function quite well with only a fraction of the awareness of their collective identity. I would recommend the Adventure Time episode "Thanks for the Crabapples, Giuseppe" as good contextual background material.
  • jndsn402 12y ago
    > (largely uninformed: I welcome correction) I like your use of colon rather than semicolon. Was that deliberate?
• sumedh 12y ago
  I used to be what real hackers called a "script kiddie" using programs like subseven, back orifice to control my friends computers. Those were the good old days where I was the most popular kid in my group because I had these GOD like powers to control other computers. So if the creators of Subseven, Back Orifice are reading this, I just want to say thanks.
• anigbrowl 12y ago
  |=-----------------------------------------------------------------------=| |=--------------------=[ The Fall of Hacker Groups ]=--------------------=| |=-----------------------------------------------------------------------=| |=--------------=[ Strauss <strauss@REMOVEME.phrack.org> ]=--------------=| |=-----------------------------------------------------------------------=| Hard formatting for 80 character terminals is just annoying because the computing world has moved on to working in paragraphs. If you want to draw boxes then do it properly instead of wasting time doing it in ASCII. Computer networks increasingly made it possible to transmit unlimited and uncensored information across their geographical extent with little effort, with little costs, and in virtually no time. From the communication development standpoint, one would expect that the events that followed the 80s to our days would lead to a geometric progression in the number of hacker communities. In effect, hacking has arguably grown. Hacker communities, definitely not. So what went wrong? The answer is in the first sentence. It's so easy to get information now that you can do it alone in many cases. You don't need a secret society of hackers to curate and distribute it once you have developed good search engine and research skills (which many younger hackers learn in school). Also, if you're in a tech hotspot or even a major metro, it's easy to meet up with other people for casual hackathons, and there are conferences for everything. things like Defcon are large commercial enterprises these days. I bet within 5 years there'll be a 'leakyworld' for people who follow Wikileaks. It's easy to join or abandon forums, whether on the open web or on the deep web via Tor (which feels a lot like the early days of the WWW to me).