12/25/2022 0 Comments Hat and beyond contact![]() ![]() Most principal organizations and the White Hats they deploy believe a principal’s contractual authorization of the White Hat to test their own system, network, defenses or security itself should be the legal protection to justify both sides of the hacking equation in this context specifically: (1) is the initial act of retaining or engaging a White Hat sufficient legal justification or protection for what may emerge as questionable moral or legal activities by the White Hat and (2) the White Hat’s belief that because they have a contract with a principal they are legally justified to act in the best interests of the principal. Ī few obvious questions raised by lawyers and among those who employ White Hats is whether their ethical hacking is truly ethical, and why? And, more specifcally, is ethical hacking legal? ![]() Our discussion of various industry self-imposed codes of conduct is. Similarly, the community of professional ethical hackers is relatively new, and self- imposed codes of conducts or ethics are emerging but not universally accepted or applied. The law currently does not provide much of an objective legislative framework, and not much of one in judicial decisions, which ideally should balance potentially unfettered powers of a hacker compared to the principal or organization that owns the system to be hacked for investigation, together with standards for what degree of discretion a hacker should have once engaged to get the job done if the scope of work described in a contract does not adequately address a given situation as it might arise. Presently, a major legal challenge for White Hats is the risk of subjective judicial interpretation about their conduct and intent in performance of their work. Grey Hats frequently hack systems without approval or authorization from a principal enterprise, usually to prove they can, but then usually notify the system or network owner or vendor of any discovered weakness. But White Hats can also have legal exposure and vulnerability to lawsuits, even when they hack systems with good intent, but do so essentially unsolicited or uninvited within the context of a formal contractual engagement by a principal, as we explain below. With the results of penetration testing, an enterprise can identify its own system or network weaknesses and eliminate them before criminal Black Hats can exploit them. White Hats render a straightforward business service, and are generally hired by a commercial enterprise to perform what is called a penetration test a technique intended to determine the relative security of a system or network. White Hats (“Ethical Hackers”) are usually professionals who practice their craft absent criminal intent, and with the contractual approval of a principal enterprise or employer. ![]() Their differences are intent, motive and sometimes, legality.īlack Hats’ self-serving malicious activities range in motive from financial gain to conjuring fear or chaos. By definition as a hacker, all “hats” ferret out or exploit computer system and network weaknesses. In common parlance, there are essentially three classes of “hacker,” each referenced by the different color of their “hat:” Black, White, or Grey. For purposes of this discussion, we limit hacking or ethical hacking to the practice of what is called penetration testing to determine the security or vulnerabilities in the systems or networks of a given enterprise. This discussion addresses hacking or ethical hacking as a narrower discipline than reverse engineering. Our discussion of reverse engineering is a separate discussion, which is here. Our discussion of the main, existing legislation and some judicial decisions that apply to hacking is here. Legal protection for ethical hackers needs development at both a judicial (law) and legislative (policy) level. Technology usually progresses faster than law, and the law and public policies that underpin hacking are currently in their relative infancy, even in relation to other aspects of technology law. Too often “hacking” is associated with social or media efforts to create a predetermined impression or provoke a certain reaction from a non-technical audience who simply equate “hacking” with “bad” - either immoral or illegal.īut the question whether ethical hacking or reversing is “illegal" is usually localized by state or country if the law can be determined at all. Without context, “hacking” has become meaningless. Use of the word “hacking” alone is an abused and somewhat dated term with many different contextual meanings. The terms “hacking,” “ethical hacking,” and reverse engineering (”reversing”) are not synonymous. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |