5 ms·
Mandatory relevant XKCD: http://xkcd.com/932/ http://xkcd.com/932/
by zombio 13y ago
Mandatory relevant XKCD: http://xkcd.com/932/ http://xkcd.com/932/
- GhotiFish 13y agoI never understood that comic. You would think preventing traffic reaching a website would be harder than tearing down a poster. edit: Wrong direction.
- krapp 13y agoThe point is that the "poster" (or website) is an irrelevance and "tearing it down" amounts to minor vandalism.
- 8ig8 13y agoHacking the NSA website is not hacking the NSA. Hacking a website is relatively easy and not that interesting to people who deal with servers day-to-day.
- GhotiFish 13y agoRight, see. When you say "Relatively easy" do you mean: "it is just subtly easier that compromising the NSA itself" or: "I'm surprised it doesn't happen every day" because I think you meant the former.
- isaacb 13y agoI suspect the difference between hacking the NSA website and hacking the NSA's central computer system is more than subtle
- philwelch 13y agoWell, more to the point, it doesn't imply anything about the business end of the agency's systems being compromised. If you hacked into the actual CIA or NSA as in having similar access to an authenticated agent, that would be quite bad for them. Taking down their website is something they don't really care about.
- phaus 13y agoThe point isn't whether its easier or harder to deface a website. The point is that a public facing website is a more or less static advertisement for an organization (like a poster), thus taking it or even the server that hosts it down doesn't impact the operations of the organization in any meaningful way.
- znowi 13y agoTrue. However, it's the what people hear part that is the goal. Hence, from a PR standpoint, it's quite effective.
- evanlivingston 13y agoThe comic, while one of the more notable ones to me, dismissed the issue that the act is subversive, and that's what is important in the case of hackers taking down a website. Furthermore, it downplays the significance somewhat. Graffiti on the white house or pentagon would likely make it to the news.
- krapp 13y ago> Graffiti on the white house or pentagon would likely make it to the news. Still not in the same league. Tagging the white house or pentagon would mean breaching a secure perimeter, whereas this was probably just a minor inconvenience to a sysadmin somewhere for a couple of hours. Nobody would have to assure the public that the President's life was never in danger because someone took down the white house's website. Sneak close enough to touch the windows and survive and it's a different story.