On Fri, 06 Feb 2004 12:09:47 GMT, Ishikodzume <ishikodzume@beneath.plus.com> said: > I think we can learn just fine by ourselves, thanks. > There is no worry of some 'art' being lost when security experts die > off. The talented ones will always learn with or without the help of > others - is this not one of the things in the very definition of a > hacker? "If I have seen further than others, it is because I stood on the shoulders of giants" -- Isaac Newton "If we can't see as far as others, it's because we're busy standing on each other's feet" -- the security industry Sure. You can re-learn and re-invent. But personally, I like having all the basic stuff like fire and agriculture not getting re-invented each generation. > Did the current old timers need constant mentoring to get to their > current level of knowledge? No. Then why should a younger generation > of hackers? Actually, if you go back and actually learn about the history of the net, a *large* part of it was sucessful precisely *because* there was a high level of interchange with places like Stanford and the MIT AI Lab and the like. Find out why MIT AI Memo 239 was issued in early 1972. Hint: It was released for the same reasons that Solar Designer released "Smashing the Stack for Fun and Profit". > It is my belief that this kind of thing can only be taught effectively > by oneself, anyway. Hmm.. how long would it have taken you to figure out the concept of a buffer overflow without Solar's paper, or some other similar hint?
Attachment:
pgp00026.pgp
Description: PGP signature