What is Hacking
In
the Cyber security world,the person who is able to discover a weakness
in the system and manages to exploit it to accomplish his goal(Good or
bad) is referred as a "Hacker",and the process is referred as Hacking.
Nowadays,People
think that hacking is only hijacking Facebook accounts or Defacing
websites. Yes,it is also part of hacking field but it is also part of
hacking field but it doesn't mean that it is all there is. This is not
event the tip of the iceberg.
So
what is exactly hacking and what should you do to Become a hacker? That
is exactly what this app is for.The only thing you need to become a
hacker is interest and dedication.You should always be ready to learn
something new and learn something new and learn to create something
newer.
Hacking
is the practice of Modifying the features of a system or finding a
loophole, in order to accomplish a goal outside of the creator's
original purpose.
Due
to the mass attention given to the so called "Blackhats" or
"Crackers" from the media, the reputation of all hackers ,even the good
ones damaged. That is what is for this is -To turn the image
around.Hacking is always viewed as something shrewd and illegal.This is
almost never the case. A few bad guys doing a few bad things has put a
bad name for the entire community.This doesn't have to be so,which is
why I've made this blog.
Well, won’t it be in the ‘national interest’ of a country to say, take over the world? In my opinion, they should start by giving remotely useful answers. Anyways, say if the US government had received surveillance on the 9-11 bombers and had been able to remove that threat, it would have definitely saved thousands of lives. That makes surveillance look quite important on paper, in practice not so much. We will probably never know what all similar instances are/were stopped by government surveillance. While it tends to infringe on our freedoms at times, it is still arguably necessary in the right circumstances, however few they may be. That is the only ‘good’ and unless the government can walk this fine line, it’s going to be terribly wrong.
Let’s take an example, say a lot of internet traffic from all over the world passes through one country. Does that mean that country has the right to tap every line and go through millions of private messages to see if they can spot a terrorist? First of all this takes a thick wallet (not to mention forgetting the constitution). The country needs to decide whether this money can be used elsewhere. No matter what the pros and cons, it just comes down to whether or not they are willing to sacrifice the population’s privacy to protect them and whether or not they are willing to do something bad to protect against something worse. And that’s the main problem, we can’t say yes to surveillance because that would mean a direct invasion of privacy for the entire population and we can’t say no because it does have a very real potential to be quite useful in some situations. For example, OsamaBinLaden’s location was found after a decade of search, through satellite surveillance and some undercover ground missions. We’ll be circling the same stuff over and over again when it comes to government surveillance. It’s good only when done EXACTLY right. Keeping the citizens aware about at least the outlines of any surveillance program should be step 1.
Come to think of it, eventually an average person won’t care if some fat old government official is reading his emails. But that’s because, the average person doesn’t discuss ways to crash a plane in a building and the government will probably not find anything useful so it’s not even worth looking into. All in all, are we willing to neglect the possibility that a major terror incident may be prevented because of government surveillance? You decide.
(Although terrorists probably don’t discuss terror tactics on facebook or gmail, their messages, if any, go through the same internet wires as any normal messages. Perhaps they use TOR email services, not that I would know. Anyways, these can be tapped and the messages can be decrypted which may provide the government valuable intel.)
Say, some government official leaks information that clearly indicates that the ruling party is planting false ideas and facts against the opposition party, isn’t this crossing the line? Perhaps they may even be paying large and trusted facebook groups to spread false facts that favour their own party. Although there is no evidence to support this possibility, there’s no evidence against it either.
The advancements in technology have also made it very easy for government agencies to abuse the power of surveillance. This technology, when used in the wrong manner, could become detrimental to the freedoms that we enjoy and love. Enabling government surveillance will mean a direct invasion of our privacy.
The Good:
The question remains, is government surveillance good or bad? Critics would say that surveillance has the potential of creating a lot of good for the country. And while whistle-blowers tend to demand full transparency from the government, there may be times when quiet surveillance is needed and warranted and times where it is just an unnecessary invasion of privacy. The government says surveillance is important for catching terrorists and protecting ‘national interest’, whatever that means.
Well, won’t it be in the ‘national interest’ of a country to say, take over the world? In my opinion, they should start by giving remotely useful answers. Anyways, say if the US government had received surveillance on the 9-11 bombers and had been able to remove that threat, it would have definitely saved thousands of lives. That makes surveillance look quite important on paper, in practice not so much. We will probably never know what all similar instances are/were stopped by government surveillance. While it tends to infringe on our freedoms at times, it is still arguably necessary in the right circumstances, however few they may be. That is the only ‘good’ and unless the government can walk this fine line, it’s going to be terribly wrong.
Let’s take an example, say a lot of internet traffic from all over the world passes through one country. Does that mean that country has the right to tap every line and go through millions of private messages to see if they can spot a terrorist? First of all this takes a thick wallet (not to mention forgetting the constitution). The country needs to decide whether this money can be used elsewhere. No matter what the pros and cons, it just comes down to whether or not they are willing to sacrifice the population’s privacy to protect them and whether or not they are willing to do something bad to protect against something worse. And that’s the main problem, we can’t say yes to surveillance because that would mean a direct invasion of privacy for the entire population and we can’t say no because it does have a very real potential to be quite useful in some situations. For example, OsamaBinLaden’s location was found after a decade of search, through satellite surveillance and some undercover ground missions. We’ll be circling the same stuff over and over again when it comes to government surveillance. It’s good only when done EXACTLY right. Keeping the citizens aware about at least the outlines of any surveillance program should be step 1.
Come to think of it, eventually an average person won’t care if some fat old government official is reading his emails. But that’s because, the average person doesn’t discuss ways to crash a plane in a building and the government will probably not find anything useful so it’s not even worth looking into. All in all, are we willing to neglect the possibility that a major terror incident may be prevented because of government surveillance? You decide.
(Although terrorists probably don’t discuss terror tactics on facebook or gmail, their messages, if any, go through the same internet wires as any normal messages. Perhaps they use TOR email services, not that I would know. Anyways, these can be tapped and the messages can be decrypted which may provide the government valuable intel.)
The Bad:
Obviously, government surveillance is not all good and causes many problems for the people. The first major concern is the fact that government surveillance may limit the creation of new and controversial ideas amongst the people. This is a direct hit on the intellectual freedom of the people. The next thing we need to realize is the shift of power that government surveillance creates.
Say, some government official leaks information that clearly indicates that the ruling party is planting false ideas and facts against the opposition party, isn’t this crossing the line? Perhaps they may even be paying large and trusted facebook groups to spread false facts that favour their own party. Although there is no evidence to support this possibility, there’s no evidence against it either.
The advancements in technology have also made it very easy for government agencies to abuse the power of surveillance. This technology, when used in the wrong manner, could become detrimental to the freedoms that we enjoy and love. Enabling government surveillance will mean a direct invasion of our privacy.
News Feed
A Few Months Back, Microsoft impressed the world with 'Microsoft loves Linux' announcements, including, development of a custom Linux-based OS for running Azure Cloud Switch and selecting Ubuntu as the operating system for its Cloud-based Big Data services.
Also Read: Microsoft Drops a Cloud Data Center Under the Ocean.
Also Read: Microsoft Drops a Cloud Data Center Under the Ocean.
Now, a renowned Windows Hacker and computer expert, who goes by the name ‘WalkingCat’, discovered that the latest version of Windows 10 may have a Linux subsystem secretly installed inside.
According to his tweets, hacker spotted two mysterious files, LXss.sys and LXCore.sys, in the most latest Windows 10 Redstone Build 14251, which are suspected to be part of Microsoft’s Project Astoria.
also known as Windows Bridge for Android, is a toolkit that allows running Android apps on Windows 10 Mobile devices.
The naming convention for latest discovered files is very similar to the Android Subsystem files from Project Astoria, i.e. ADss.sys.
So, the "LX" in these name, however, can only be taken for one thing,
and that is LINUX, which suggests the Windows 10 will have access to a
Linux subsystem also.
Why a Linux Subsystem?
Since Windows 10 has been introduced as a Universal Operating system for
all devices, so it might be possible that Microsoft wants to expand
Project Astoria from mobile devices to desktop users.
If this comes to be true, adding a Linux subsystem will be beneficial in
case Microsoft has plans to offer support for Linux applications,
especially servers related technology and software.
Isn't this exciting?
Isn't this exciting?
No comments:
Post a Comment