From: Arnt Karlsen (
Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 23:11:26 +0200

Hi '',
you err in speaking of cracked sites as "hacked" sites.

..for details on your error, see below urls: 

...and advice me when your site has been perfected.

From: security curmudgeon (
To: Arnt Karlsen (
Cc: Heathens (
Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 16:21:25 -0600 (MDT)
Subject: Re:

: '',
: you err in speaking of cracked sites as "hacked" sites.

"The Attrition mirror strives to archive defaced sites with no change."

"We are not in league with the people who hacked your site."

"..take a copy of the hacked page,.."

"Do not tell us who hacked it,.."

We actually refer to it as 'defacing' more than anything else, and were
one of the first sites to do so. That gives it a further distinction
between 'hacking' and 'cracking'. The terms hacking and cracking are so
convoluted and mixed up, it is impossible to clearly use one or the other
in any setting and have it universally accepted. If you are going to take
up this battle, why not try to get everyone to accept the word 'nigger'
one way or the other, since it too has different meanings depending on who
you ask. 

I too was once deluded like you. I thought that if I protested enough,
people would listen. But then I realized that mainstream media had been
using the term 'hack[er|ing]' in various contexts for a long time, as far
back as 1982 or before. The notion that you or anyone else can change the
masses and get them to use 'crack' over 'hack' is absurd. 

: ..for details on your error, see below urls:

A slashdot thread? Geez come on. If you are going to try to prove me wrong
on anything so subjective and completely based on perception, you could at
least quote a little better sources. Hell, why didn't you quote the
articles they no doubt link to that support THEIR arguments?


Someone's personal web page.. unfortunately, their most promising link
goes to a page that says "this article has moved". Bleh.


And this is extra cute(tm). It is very clear you went through our site and
picked one little thing to harp on us about. That doesn't win any points
for you, sorry. 

First, the best argument you could have come up with is saying that "we"
even say hack vs crack yadda yadda and quoted the jargon file we have a
mirror of: Since we link to
that off our front page and you decided to go to a subpage that is read by
very few people (unfortunately), you are doing nothing but being nitpicky
in some bizarre technological turnon for yourself. 

Second, notice the lack of definition for 'deface'? It is clear that the
jargon keepers have not considered a better breakdown of the stale hack vs
crack debate. Since defacing is a specific act and motive for
hacking/cracking/whatever, it is the perfect opportunity to clearly define
it and put it to the world. Then, dorks like yourself can go to the media
or anywhere else and provide this new term which would be accepted a whole
lot faster than the clusterfuck of a debate between hack and crack. 

Third, have you even READ the complete horseshit you quote to me? I
certainly hope you send them pathetic mail after you read this. Let's look
at it shall we?

  Cracker: One who breaks security on a system. Coined ca. 1985 by hackers
  in defense against journalistic misuse of hacker (q.v., sense 8). An
  earlier attempt to establish `worm' in this sense around 1981-82 on
  Usenet was largely a failure.

  First, this definition is vague and describes a hacker AND a cracker
  by their own definition. Oops! Since this didn't qualify and say "on
  a system owned by someone else" (the basis of this whole hacker vs 
  cracker thing), this is the worst thing you could quote to me.

  Second, did you even read the note? An earlier attempt was established
  to change common acceptance/definition of the word and it failed. If
  it failed back in 82, guess what.. it isn't happening today.

  Third, i'd love to see you or anyone else quote 3 instances of
  mainstream press using 'crack' instead of 'hack' between 1985 and
  1990. I'm not saying that you couldn't, but out of curiosity i'd love
  to see if anyone actually did that far back. To the best of my
  recollection, the 'crack' crusade began closer to 1995, not 1985.

: ...and advice me when your site has been perfected.

Oh once again the irony is great here, but you probably don't even know
why since you didn't read most of our site.

There are a ton of things wrong or incorrect on this site. If you are
going to waste both of our time, at least aim for the stuff that isn't
subjective and based on personal interpretation.

And thanks for the 'Going Postal' fodder. Oh wait, doubt you've read that

From: /dev/null (
To: Arnt Karlsen (
Cc: Heathens (
Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 16:00:27 -0600 (MDT)
Subject: Re:

: '',
: you err in speaking of cracked sites as "hacked" sites.
: ..for details on your error, see below urls:
: ...and advice me when your site has been perfected.

Well, excuse us for urinating in your breakfast cereal, but...

We do not 'err', no.  What you are talking about is a question of
semantics; i.e, a section of the hacking population who tries to delineate
between constructive hacking and destructive hacking by giving them
different names.  Some people are happier if they can stick the 'cracking'
label on any hacking done for illicit purposes.

We are not among those people.

The difference between 'hacking' and 'cracking', these days, is semantic.
'Cracking' -used- to apply fairly strictly to those who 'cracked' the
codes of computer games, specifically games with code on them meant to
prevent piracy.  'Crackers' could 'crack' the restrictive code, allowing
games to be traded among friends.  In recent years, as I explained above,
some have tried to apply 'cracking' to a judgement call, as if somehow
hacking into a web server isn't really -hacking- if your motivations
aren't pure; as if I am truly a hacker if I break into a machine as a
security consultant or strictly for educational purposes, but I am not
truly a hacker if I break in and mess with stuff.

As I indicated, we believe that's complete and utter bullshit.

The sites on our list -were- -hacked-.  They were hacked into.  In some
way or other, the boxes were tricked into doing something they weren't
supposed to do, resulting in a defaced page.  That's what hacking's all
about...making stuff do what it wasn't meant to do.  They were hacked.
Most of them were hacked by frothing idiots who downloaded a nifty script
and ran it, which does not make them true -hackers- in the classic sense
of the word, and we generally don't refer to them as hackers (you'll see
us refer to them as script kiddies).  But regardless of whether the
machine was hacked by a script or hacked by someone skilled using a unique
attack method, they -were- -hacked-.

In the future, let me -strongly- suggest against approaching us while
still perched on your high horse with that golf club still inserted in
your rectum.  I imagine our response might be a little more polite.


From: Small Grey (
To: Arnt Karlsen (
Cc: Criminals (
Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 18:37:44 -0400

So Arnt Karlsen [] was all like, and shit:
: Hi

Howdy, brane neighbor!  Hey, could you put on some pants?

: '',
: you err in speaking of cracked sites as "hacked" sites.


: ..for details on your error, see below urls:


: ...and advice me when your site has been perfected.



(lost his reply. relevant part quoted in my reply to him below)

From: security curmudgeon ( 
To: Sioda an Cailleach (> 
Cc: Arnt Karlsen (,
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 13:08:27 -0600 (MDT)
Subject: Re:

: : ..ok.  You may want to chew off your redneck-wannabe
: : colleagueas(?), whose response I dumped out to into url:
: :

What a sissy. I gave you an honest and decent reply. I even told you how 
you could have furthered your argument. In reply.. I got nothing. Throw a
bunch of worthless URLs at us, expect us to change because "they" say it
is right, and don't even bother replying?

Fuckin troller.

main page ATTRITION feedback