Weekly Edition
Return to the Security page
| |||||||||||||
Linux Format censored over 'Learn to Hack' feature (bit-tech)
Bit-tech reports
that Barnes & Noble pulled the last issue of Linux Format magazine
because of an article featuring hacking techniques.
"Issue 154 of Linux Format magazine had as its cover feature a piece entitled 'Learn to Hack,' walking readers through the use of the Metasploit Framework exploitation toolkit to gain access to computer systems running a variety of operating systems. The article also covered password cracking, network sniffing, and man-in-the-middle attacks over encrypted protocols.
More importantly, the guide also covered how best to protect your systems
from the self-same attacks, providing readers with information that the
publication hoped would help keep them safe from the ne'er-do-wells
inhabiting the seedier sides of the net." Future, Linux Format's
parent company, has made the article
available online.
(Log in to post comments)
Linux Format censored over 'Learn to Hack' feature (bit-tech) Posted May 4, 2012 20:38 UTC (Fri) by juliank (subscriber, #45896) [Link]
Well, that's correct. The title should not be "Learn to Hack". If you want to stay in mainstream speech, it should have been "Learn to Protect against Hacking". The first one would be illegal, the second one legal.
Linux Format censored over 'Learn to Hack' feature (bit-tech) Posted May 4, 2012 20:48 UTC (Fri) by mcg (guest, #66950) [Link]
This is the same Barnes & Noble's that has issues of 2600 on the shelf?
Linux Format censored over 'Learn to Hack' feature (bit-tech) Posted May 6, 2012 23:28 UTC (Sun) by euske (subscriber, #9300) [Link]
It wouldn't sell as much if the article was named "Learn to Protect" though. They obviously tried to push their limit, so it's not only B&N to blame here. Maybe it's us, readers, who tend to be attracted toward sensational things.
Linux Format censored over 'Learn to Hack' feature (bit-tech) Posted May 4, 2012 21:51 UTC (Fri) by fredrik (subscriber, #232) [Link]
It is the least that ought to to be expected of Barnes & Noble, that they pull a article that is as severely mislabeled as this one!
Of course it should have been named "Learn to Crack", not "Learn to Hack".
Any proud hacker or professional programmer that deserve their title, would also expect nothing less than a sincere and profound apology - and a honest promise to never again misrepresent mere cracking as an act of genuine hacking - from both the editors of Linux Format magazine and Barnes & Noble.
Linux Format censored over 'Learn to Hack' feature (bit-tech) Posted May 6, 2012 21:16 UTC (Sun) by orev (subscriber, #50902) [Link]
You don't get to choose how language is used. The ship on "hacker" sailed long ago. Fighting it now just makes you look foolish.
Linux Format censored over 'Learn to Hack' feature (bit-tech) Posted May 7, 2012 6:29 UTC (Mon) by Seegras (subscriber, #20463) [Link]
No it should NOT.
Because before RMS or whoever started this campaign, "cracking" referred to "breaking copyprotection or cryptographic/DRM-systems". And it's is still used in that original context of "cracking ciphers".
While the association of "hacking" with "breaking into computer systems" is unfortunate, it doesn't justify to try to associate "cracking", which already meant something else, with it.
Linux Format censored over 'Learn to Hack' feature (bit-tech) Posted May 4, 2012 23:14 UTC (Fri) by sciurus (subscriber, #58832) [Link] According to The Verge, this didn't happen: 'Barnes & Noble has told The Verge that it "did not pull this magazine." We've also confirmed that the digital version of issue 154 of Linux Format is still available from the Nook newsstand.'
Linux Format censored over 'Learn to Hack' feature (bit-tech) Posted May 5, 2012 0:25 UTC (Sat) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330) [Link] Perhaps a local store manager pulled it, someone would need to ask the original writer where he/she got the info.
Linux Format censored over 'Learn to Hack' feature (bit-tech) Posted May 5, 2012 4:03 UTC (Sat) by JoeF (guest, #4486) [Link]
My understanding is that this was the e-reader version.
So, maybe somebody at the e-reader division overstepped, but got soon overruled by his or her bosses. It could also be that the author of the original piece just didn't find it for some reason, but that the magazine was there. These days, with B&N cooperating with MS, the conspiracy theories are never far away, and somebody may have been too quick to assume bad things... Anyway, my local B&N carries 2600, and has for as long as have lived in the area.
No one was censored Posted May 5, 2012 8:04 UTC (Sat) by gowen (guest, #23914) [Link]
Caution: unpopular opinion
No one was censored here. Linux Format were allowed to produce and sell their magazine in whatever way they could accomplish.
B&N took their legitimate right not to sell something they considered morally questionable. Just like Walgreen's don't sell KKK memorabilia or how NPR don't run advertising for the hardcore porn.
B&N's right to choose what they do and not find appropriate to sell is as absolute as Linux Format's right to publish what *they* find appropriate.
No one was censored Posted May 5, 2012 11:04 UTC (Sat) by tialaramex (subscriber, #21167) [Link]
I don't think that opinion is so unpopular as you imagine, it's technically true. However, the global effect of such commercial decisions can effectively add up to censorship. We should pay attention _before_ that happens, because afterwards it can be too late to get it changed without momentous cultural shifts.
The behaviour of the major cinema chains in the US has the _effect_ of distorting the use of movie ratings and making a supposedly private commercial outfit into effectively a government censor. And they seem, if anything, overjoyed to be granted this power.
Or another example, small US states are legally permitted to buy any school textbooks they like, but in practice the textbook makers are most responsive to the rules laid down by the most populous states. If those states don't want a particular element of Geography, History or Mathematics taught, it does not get taught by textbooks even in the states that don't have such rules.
No one was censored Posted May 5, 2012 13:28 UTC (Sat) by clump (subscriber, #27801) [Link]
Very well said. The size and influence of those distributing "content" certainly matters.
No one was censored Posted May 5, 2012 19:04 UTC (Sat) by gowen (guest, #23914) [Link]
So, large commercial entities should be obliged to market things that they do not wish to by (someone) based on (some criteria) as the alternative amounts to censorship.
Fair enough. Care to fill in the brackets? Who is going to tell B&N what they are morally obligated to sell? Would that not make *them* the effective censor, only their criteria would be ... -- something unknown other than commerce?
No one was censored Posted May 5, 2012 19:23 UTC (Sat) by tialaramex (subscriber, #21167) [Link]
"So, large commercial entities should be obliged to market things that they do not wish to by (someone) based on (some criteria) as the alternative amounts to censorship."
No. Care to read more carefully and try again?
No one was censored Posted May 6, 2012 5:40 UTC (Sun) by gowen (guest, #23914) [Link]
Read it again. Still don't know who gets to decide what commercial choices constitute unacceptable censorship.
Perhaps you should write it again more carefully.
No one was censored Posted May 6, 2012 17:18 UTC (Sun) by clump (subscriber, #27801) [Link] However, the global effect of such commercial decisions can effectively add up to censorship. We should pay attention _before_ that happens, because afterwards it can be too late to get it changed without momentous cultural shifts.This is the crux of the argument. I don't read it as suggesting that there be an arbitrator that tells a retailer what's permissible to sell. I read it as a suggestion to be mindful of the size and influence of those we buy things from. I very much agree with this point. Sidestepping political conversation, there are ways to address the issue. As others have noted, you can change the title of the article. You can also apply pressure to the retailer. You can open your own book store. You can work hard to write things that will not offend others. Whether you should have to do those things is another discussion entirely.
No one was censored Posted May 7, 2012 15:39 UTC (Mon) by misiu_mp (guest, #41936) [Link]
Naturally each distributor chooses what titles they want to sell, based on the topic, niche etc.
What happened here is that BnN first agreed to sell the magazine and then pulled a single issue because they didn't like what was written in it. That's much worse than not having the magazine at all in the first place. Once they've promised to sell it, they have an obligation to do it. I would even suspect they were breaching some contracts. It is not the distributors job to arbitrarily censor the content they are distributing. This is wrong in so many ways, I certainly hope it is not allowed by either law or contract. What's next, approving single articles? How about pulling issues that put them in a negative light? This is a plain stupid censorship attempt. I can't believe there are people who would think the magazine has any fault in this for choosing the wrong title.
No one was censored Posted May 7, 2012 17:22 UTC (Mon) by spaetz (subscriber, #32870) [Link]
HELLOOO, does no one read comments or linked articles anymore? According to the Verge (link has been posted), B&N has pulled nothing and the very issue in question is still available in the Nook store. Nothing, repeat, nothing seems to have been pulled.
No one was censored Posted May 18, 2012 20:55 UTC (Fri) by steffen780 (guest, #68142) [Link]
True, but the question of whether private companies are permitted (legally or morally) to engage in blatant censorship is a critical question that needs to be answered sooner rather than later. The moral standards of super-mega-fundamentalists are already applied to mobile appstores, e.g. Apple pulled the mobile version of one of the biggest German print publications because they didn't like German law&morality and decided they have a right to tell people what they are allowed to read/see, and what they aren't. This is as unacceptable as it would've been if B&N had done what they were accused of.
Though you are of course right to point out that B&N has apparently not actually done this - nevertheless, it's still not a "nothing to see, move along" thing. This kinda stuff does happens routinely, maybe not by B&N, but Google&Apple certainly do it as SOP.
No one was censored Posted May 5, 2012 19:57 UTC (Sat) by bjartur (guest, #67801) [Link]
B&N aren't obligated to sell anything. In fact it's quite convenient to have a whitelist of books that are more probably worth reading than others. It is however troublesome that someone has the power to add or remove books from a common whitelist without respect to the will of the users of said whitelist. Which is why it's important for debatable removals to be reported on. This reporting will hopefully help to shed light on what motives and criteria control the inclusion and exclusion of books from said list.
What's really bothersome is the bundling of tangentially related services. Even if B&N may have developed an excellent payment system and handy e-readers, they should not be able to and allowed to seize control over the technology to greatly deter users from reading material not on their whitelist.
B&N should of course not be forced to advertise articles on cracking. But we must make sure that if they didn't advertise and distribute articles on cracking, it wouldn't matter unless everyone else on the Internet also decided to neither distribute nor read material on cracking.
Ideally B&N should publish a blacklist of reading material on cracking that you probably shouldn't read. Then whoever doesn't want to read material on cracking can filter that out and keep on with their lives believing that they're computer systems might be secure.
No one was censored Posted May 5, 2012 20:13 UTC (Sat) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link]
It's important to know because while B&N has all the right in the world to be damn stupid, it's also my right to simply not give them my own business.
If I don't know stuff like this then I may make the mistake of thinking that shopping at B&N would be a good ideas.
No one was censored Posted May 7, 2012 6:37 UTC (Mon) by Seegras (subscriber, #20463) [Link]
It's very important that people learn about cracking; with the advent of DRM-systems, cracking cryptographic systems is more important than ever.
Oh wait, were you talking about something else not related to "cracking"?
No one was censored Posted May 6, 2012 0:25 UTC (Sun) by JoeF (guest, #4486) [Link]
This was nothing more than a tempest in a teapot.
B&N didn't stop selling the magazine.
what's the name of this movement? Posted May 6, 2012 10:30 UTC (Sun) by rwst (guest, #84121) [Link]
How do you call it when
* an old-school magician barely palms something and now your attention is truly fixed to the spot where things don't happen
There must be a name for this pattern.
what's the name of this movement? Posted May 6, 2012 18:57 UTC (Sun) by branden (subscriber, #7029) [Link] If I understand your meaning, that phenomenon is called the Streisand Effect.
Shh! Don't tell anyone. Posted May 6, 2012 15:02 UTC (Sun) by acolin (guest, #61859) [Link]
Thanks for keeping us all safe, B&N! If it weren't for the vigilance of those who [attempted to] limit the distribution of this magazine, "password cracking, network sniffing, and man-in-the-middle attacks over encrypted protocols" would enter the realm of public knowledge, and we would all be doomed.
Shh! Don't tell anyone. Posted May 6, 2012 15:07 UTC (Sun) by spaetz (subscriber, #32870) [Link]
Hi there, you have read the comment above?
According to The Verge, this didn't happen: 'Barnes & Noble has told The Verge that it "did not pull this magazine." We've also confirmed that the digital version of issue 154 of Linux Format is still available from the Nook newsstand.' (post by sciurus)
Hold your horses :)
Linux Format censored over 'Learn to Hack' feature (bit-tech) Posted May 7, 2012 18:24 UTC (Mon) by dps (subscriber, #5725) [Link]
What B&N did was to *maxmise* the number of script kiddies that know the techniques in the article, This might not be a good thing because it makes them more dangerous.
While I do not have a MSc in penetration testing I do know such courses exist. Their graduates probably know a lot more than I do in this area, and I already knew about metasploit, etterttcap and most of the other tools.
LWN published a much more "dangerous" article which included demonstration of "pass the hash", which works against most windows servers. I suspect a lot fewer script kiddies read it.
|
|||||||||||||