Chinese Arabic French German Italian Japanese Korean Portuguese Russian Spanish Chat!
Hacker's Database
This site is dedicated as a repository for "hacking" programs for Windows and Linux. Please note that hacking means nothing but tweaking or cleverly resolving a problem. Use the programs as you wish, but this site or its provider are not responsible in terms of how you use these programs, (i.e. for educational purposes only).
The way this site works is as follows. I will update the database to the best of my capability, to a point. You, the community, may upload whatever you feel is relevant to the site in terms of security, docs/videos, etc. Then, I will eventually review each submitted item, and add it to the database.
READ THE T.O.A. BEFORE PROCEEDING! It contains valuable information!
News Updates - Subscribe to the RSS Feed
I have just posted two new tutorials/rants about DRM and Linux Distribution of Preference, which may be found below, and in the tutorial section, here. Check them out. 
Of course there are many different Linux “cores” available; i.e. Debian, Gentoo, Red Hat, Fedora, SuSE, et cetera; all are quite good choices, since they all avoid the implementation of a Windows kernel (of course, anything other than Windows is normally a wise choice). But where do we begin when deciding what Linux distribution is best for me? First off, a few things need to be explained. First off, what is Linux? Linux is a derivative of UNIX, (developed by Bell labs) by Linus Torvalds, hence the “Lin” and then the “ux” representing the part of UNIX. In terms of the actual coding, the Linux kernel (or core, the heart of the operating system) was written for the most part in c89, C. Why do people prefer Linux over Microsoft, and why should I migrate to a foreign operating system? Linux is generally free (minus certain distributions, such as Novell Suse) and is open source. Open source means that the source code (pre-compilation where everything is in binary) is open to the community to tweak, and to make “better” if they so choose; though they may not take full credit, need to follow certain rules, etc. (GNU, or what have you). The reason most people migrate is to avoid one of many things. The first thought that comes to mind that first hits the conversation is the idea that it is free, and most software that is installed is free as well. Then comes the reliability/stability argument, lacking the Microsoft name that some extremists consider tyranny (this is a separate rant) the massive support, and the speed of the computing. I feel that it is necessary to go through each example a tad bit more thoroughly; starting with the idea of “free software.”
Free:
The idea of “freeware” or “shareware” has been around forever, but no where near to the extreme that is Linux development. Almost all projects that are open to the community are indeed free to use, and manipulate. The idea of not being bound to a company’s software is always a pleasant thought (see article “DRM – The Ethical Point of View”).
Reliability/stability:
Since the Linux kernel is constantly being revised, and tested by such a wide range of people where contributions are constantly being made (just like most open source software projects) it enables more eyes to see what is going on, and more people to “proof read” the code, and more people to test it, etc. Thus, such a mentality encourages the idea of stability and superior performance, than to closed source software where only certain individuals who work for the given company may view the code. Also, the most efficient language (in my opinion anyway) is used to program the kernel, and recompiled into assembly for the initial OS, etc. (make reference to “How the Microprocessor Works” article for further information).
Microsoft Label Lacking:
Now we all know that many people (sadly enough) switch to Linux/UNIX purely for the intent to “look cool” or just to stray from the pack for reasons that are are unknown/most likely silly. Yes, I do realize that numerous people will disagree with me with such a hasty generalization, but the fact remains, and so do my experience with many individuals who act as such. But for the select few that disapprove of Microsoft, or any company that wishes to charge obscene figures for software that is insignificantly different than the last, this is when people make their move (or “the move”). Of course Microsoft software do have their “up’s” as well as many “down’s,” though one must admit, since most companies have seceded to developing their games/software for Windows, they do hold the market share (especially the large support for directx, whereas Linux supports OpenGL, with the exception of the usage of wine). But with the lack of the cost in software, and the lack of a “label” of a company, there seems to be a lot more freedom, and “wiggle room” if you will for the average end-user, all the way to a programmer, or system administrator.
Support:
Contrary to popular belief, there is an enormous community of people online who partake in helping with development, problems, or what have you with any individual who seeks knowledge in the Linux realm. Albeit what distribution you are having difficulties with, there is some community, forum-like site out there to help you, and whatever odd error you are getting, it has been posted somewhere, along with most likely a resolution.
Speed:
Ah, I smell another ra(n)t approaching. Alright, since we understand that the Linux core is written in the most efficient manner, since it is widely proof-read, etc. what makes it run so much better than Windows? Well, there are numerous reasons besides pure coding, but the architecture. Simple reasons such as the file system (Linux ext2, ext3, etc. never need be defragmented, by virtue of how the file systems are set up) the lack of a registry (an atrocious design by Microsoft that includes way too many vulnerabilities, but this is a separate rant) how the kernel is compiled upon every boot (Gentoo) amongst many other ideas/brilliant designs. These are only a few ideas, and many are left out.
Now for the theory, please take this as a grain of salt. Between Intel and Microsoft, I feel a common trend line that has been in the works for many years. Ever noticed that the simplest of software requires more memory than say if it were made a few years prior? Also notice how Linux can run on a 300mhz machine with no problems? This is why people call Microsoft “bloatware.” It has been speculated numerous times that Microsoft has a deal with, oh say, Intel. The “I scratch your back, you scratch mine.” If Microsoft makes more “bloated” resource-heavy software, then Intel will be able to develop more “heavy” more intricate software to support the aforementioned bloatware. Therefore, both companies make quite a wonderful profit. If nothing else, this would be a classic business tactic that may be abstractly found in other scenarios. I will let you speculate the rest. [/rant]
It is important to keep in mind why you desire to make the change, is it any of the prior mentioned reasons, or can you make your own case?
On to the beef of the article (or if nothing else, why you are most likely reading this, to hear my opinion). As mentioned earlier, there are hundreds, if not thousands of distributions of Linux available, and each flavor suits each individual nicely. It all depends on what you wish to do. As a practicing network security auditor, I feel that Gentoo is the best “core” of choice. Besides the fact that it is recommended by Kevin Mitnick, (when I met with him early last year, the owner a a network security company) I feel this to be the most cleanly written core. It screams efficiency, security (pseudo BSD) and gives much room for optimization/configuration upon installation. It is almost as if you are given all of the car parts, and asked to build your dream automobile; all it takes is a bit of intelligence. Gentoo is free, has much online support (even though the forums don’t always consist of the friendliest lot, but for the most part is good) and highly efficient. Considering the fact that the kernel is compiled every time among each boot-up, and tailored specifically for your given hardware, this is by far a men among men of operating systems. I find it to be quite a secure operating system, considering the network configuration that is available upon pre-installation – options appear to be virtually endless.
Now, for the weak/timid at heart. If one does not feel like compiling Gentoo, or what have you, never fear, Sabayon is here. Sabayon is a distribution of a pre-compiled rendition of Gentoo, where upon installation, it optimizes the software where it best fits your hardware for you, amongst many other “tweaks” here and there, thus making it quite efficient. Not only does Sabayon come “packed” if you will with all software of desire, you may include/exclude whatever software you please upon installation with a user-friendly installation GUI. In terms of the GUI environment, you may choose between KDE, Gnome, or Fluxbox. From the superficial point on out, it is fairly similar (setup wise/environment appearance wise) to any other Linux distribution that does not require massive amounts of command-line configuration; similar to Ubuntu, Knoppix, Open Suse, and so on.
In the end, there is not one distribution that is right for all, but one may certainly take any distribution, and make it their own, to suit their needs. But, all I have given is my mere opinion, take it however you want. Hopefully, I have helped some individuals narrow down their distribution, and why Linux may be a good choice for them (or possibly not). Good luck, and happy compiling!
-leetupload
Continue ReadingDigital Rights Management - may this be conceived to be a legitimate action to protect against copyright infringement, or is this a new wave of monitoring what we do, and control how we use the item(s) that we purchase, restricting our will? But first, we must preface with what Digital Rights Management actually is, what it is loosely tied to, and so on so we may fully grasp why this is such an issue.
Background: Digital Rights Management, (DRM in short) as explained before was originally implemented to help cease the pandemic that is known as piracy. This began to surface after the inspirational idea of the “peer-to-peer” (P2P) client, Napster, came to fruition. Many clones followed thereafter, and it was clear that the inevitable needed to be maintained. DRM first came about within the music industry, to help make sure that people paid for the artists’ music. Why music? This is the most easily transferable piece of data; somewhat small, and takes virtually no effort to use once acquired. This would be as opposed to games or any other software, which use deterrents such as cd-keys/serials, online registration/authorization or what have you. As music piracy became more along the mainstream, developers such as Sony (essentially the pioneers of DRM for CD’s; Microsoft and Apple supported a different form of DRM, we will discuss this later) decided to take the wherewithal to produce artists’ music with laced files that included “spyware” which in order to play the CD on your computer, one must had to install the given software, which fed information online back to Sony, et cetera. All of which was unbeknownst to the consumer, which of course led to much debate. One article from HowStuffWorks.com explains the usage of DRM, while in reference to the Sony case. In terms of the spyware installed, as mentioned in the article, it would be nearly impossible (or if not possible at all if knowledge of such an area was limited by the consumer, which of course it is) to uninstall the hidden applications. If one were to explain the essence of DRM in its purest form, it would be to take a new level of protecting the company’s copyright, and to enforce the idea of eliminating illegitimate actions to eventually become non-existent. To place it in the most unbiased manner; “Digital rights management is a far-reaching term. It encompasses any scheme to control access to copyrighted material using technological means. In essence, DRM removes usage control from the person in possession of digital content and puts it in the hands of a computer program.” DRM is more of a principle, rather than an idea. The principle is that companies desperately wish to hold control of the content sold, and not to let piracy occur. Of course, this is the inevitable, since society is far from a utopia where utilitarianism principles may be applied. In summation, companies are infuriated with piracy, not sure what to make of it, so the extreme is taken. This of course is the norm in any situation when one feels out of control of the inevitable. The article proceeds with the understanding (just as mentioned above) about why all of this is coming about.
The stances on the subject are rather clear-cut. Let us proceed with the anti-DRM/RIAA/MPAA/rootkits. The companies do indeed have a legitimate claim, but once again are stepping over their boundaries. But since no boundaries have ever been defined, this makes it difficult to morally conclude that all claims are indeed legitimate. One example stated was the idea of the “fair use” plan, where the owner has the ability to copy a legitimately purchased DVD, for his/her own desire, and not for resale or share. But as mentioned, computers do not have a moral idea whether or not the end result is intended piracy, or merely a backup. Since DRM is a principle, it may be applied to other ideas, such as why “Audio CD’s” and “Data CD’s/DVD’s” are even sold in store. On a level of consideration, what else would an “Audio CD” may be used for? The idea alone of selling such a product is making an infinite amount of implications that seem to contradict the RIAA and the DRM system. Since the whole idea is merely a concept, it may applied very loosely to other areas. One of the other “morally skiddish” places of interest consist of rootkits. A rootkit is an application (normally laced) and upon execution, it installs software and runs a hidden process(es) without the end-user knowing, or agreeing in any form or another. Essentially, in a more succinct manner; “A rootkit is a set of programs designed to corrupt the legitimate control of an operating system by its operators.” The most famous example (also quite recent) was when the Bioshock game came with piece of software as described above. The rootkit installed is called SecuROM, a well known program used to monitor several things, such as how many times a specific program is installed, how many computers it is installed on, if a CD/DVD of the title is in the CD/DVD tray, et cetera. 2K Games decided to subvert a warning message entirely when installing the game (which is a requirement when installing such software of any kind, else proven illegitimate) and proceed to have users install this software without notification. In this case, the rootkit was used to monitor DRM activity, and to limit the user from installing the offline/single player game several times over. This of course outraged most owners of the game/demo. This is one of many examples where companies take it upon themselves to act upon copyright protection, but how far is too far? This begins to skirt along the edge of wire-tapping, in a more technologically advanced sense. One other damning example that not very many people tend to realize is the early implementations of DRM theory within Windows XP Home/Pro. Norwegian computer scientists discovered that whenever the end-user chooses “automatic updates,” Microsoft copies the user’s entire registry hive for their own examination of installed applications on one’s computer. In turn, as pure speculation, if employees who may exam such hives happen to find an illegitimate cd key, they may conceivably report their findings to the company at hand. This is clearly a breach of privacy, and is constantly overlooked. I will not go into detail about DRM OS, (aka Windows Vista) since the entire point of the OS was to monitor all content usage, but this is neither here nor there. Another question arises, is this what is best for society, or for the company? What might come to fruition next, RFID’s to track every action performed, and then sent to a data mining group to help target ads specifically for you? There is no definitive line to be seen from any angle in regards to how far this may go. The first stance may be considered almost a “cop-out” per se, considering the fact that the stance justifies it to be morally permissible by virtue of one wrong plus another wrong becomes perfectly acceptable/legitimate. Even so, it is quite difficult to maintain a perfect moral compass if the so called “morally sound” companies who justify all that is “right,” do not exactly maintain the idea of Utilitarianism. Which in this case would be to constantly apply the exact theory of DRM whilst not eluding to Rule Utilitarianism, (applying whatever one pleases if it is in their own favor, no absolute global constant). While in deduction, it seems as though the interests are geared more towards the producers, and ignoring the needs of the consumer.
Now for the devil’s advocate; from the company’s point of view. DRM is the only way of protecting the producer, and all who are involved in the production of these works. If nothing of the such was implemented, then there would be pure copyright/piracy infringement fury, worse than a plague. Even though almost all infringement limitations have been “cracked”/decoded or what have you (most recently, HD-DVD’s encryption string was discovered) it still serves as a pleasant deterrent. The principle is used as a scare tactic, to help keep society in line. This idea has been found in other walks of deterrents, which help discourage “wrongful” acts of duty. One may think of DRM as an applied method of law, subverted through society to help keep the peace. If we step back and view the issue in its entirety, without bias, are not the companies actions/motives pure? What might Kant think of such a situation? Let us think about the martyr and the hero. If both actions are in purity, and the same result is achieved, then this may be viewed as the “good.” After all, the company is placing itself in the best interest of their shareholders, to hold and protect their data so that they may achieve their pinnacle of success. At the same time, this ensures that the client will remain with the company, and thus becomes reciprocal. The idea of DRM when applied solely to the music industry, and the act of purchasing audio CD’s, may be seen in such a light that a categorical imperative for a universal law is being applied. The maxim being, software is applied to every produced byte of audio data will be laced with copyright management, thus disabling the illegal transfer of audio data to person(s) who did not pay rights to listen/use. Now, every person who purchased the music legitimately may listen to it, whilst illegitimately, they may not. In a perfect/untouched society, this works, and everyone is content.
Finally, back to reality. Digital Right Management as a theory on paper is perfectly morally permissible. But when companies skirt around privacy issues (or in certain cases flat-out trample over the mere idea of privacy without any moral compass) this becomes quite questionable. The second part is a totally different issue all together, and is simply a misuse/misinterpretation of what the theory was originally developed for. Piracy is indeed an issue, and it should not be condoned/taken lightly, but when harsh/irrational actions are taken where no repercussions occur, the line must be drawn at some point. Companies who support the idea, such as Sony, take on the Rule Utilitarianism mindset. Sure, it is perfectly legitimate to install spyware unbeknownst on a consumer’s PC while monitoring usage along with taking other data, but when the shoe is on the other foot, and a mail server of Sony’s is accessed, (once again unbeknownst to the employees) and private data is viewed, obviously this is a whole different story. One cannot “pick and choose” his or her absolutes, write their own rules, and expect everyone to play nicely with such an idea. This defeats the purpose for what is best for society as a whole.
In summation, Digital Rights Management, when efforts/motives are pure (not to reap from the benefits, and to better the society by applying a pure maxim) it is morally permissible. Else, it is blatantly wrong, and not for what is “best” for all. Quite a convoluted concoction of conflicted interests between society and the machine.
-leetupload
Continue ReadingAttention all affiliates - All of your image links have been moved to a separate page, which may be found here: Affiliates
Continue ReadingJust to let you guys know - I added about 2gb of eBooks a few days ago. Check in the Misc/Papers section.
Cheers!
-leetupload
Continue Reading
