Comment Re:Curious (Score 0) 802
"all the applicants did was change a URL, it's not like they used some root kit to break into Harvard's servers."
NOT TRUE. Check out the EIGHT steps that the original hacker posted [see poweryogi.blogspot.com's blog entry at: http://poweryogi.blogspot.com/2005/03/hbsapplyyour self-admit-status-snafu.html ]. The LAST thing they did was just "change a URL".
Don't get me wrong, after reading the WHOLE thread at /. I still haven't changed my mind: security via obscurity is dumb, irresponsible, and may here be legally actionable; and I think Harvard's reaction is blatantly unfair and further diminishes the institution, as well as in a funny way confirming a view that they are, seemingly, in the continuing traditions of their more storied graduates :-), the unethical party in this matter.
I certainly wouldn't class the 119 as "unethical". However, with the range of "not wise", "lack of judgement", "broke the rules", "unethical", "immoral", or "illegal" in one hand, and a view of the details of the procedure the 119 employed in those EIGHT steps, in the other [and at 8 steps it IS a procedure], I would say the 119 were "unwise" and lacked judgement. Hardly a reason though to eviscerate their futures (if already admitted), though what's sh*t and what's not is never really clear when it's coming down.
After looking at the instructions I myself wouldn't have tried them (and I am pretty curious) - not because I wouldn't be curious, and not because I think having information about yourself and only yourself 'they' have already packaged to send to you is unethical or stronger, but at least because the instructions as published look elaborate enough that one would [should!!] immediately suspect a trace would be left, a journal entry posted, darn it, a mistake made!
At a glance the instructions are sufficiently detailed, exact, and requiring unique personal info (password stuff), that it appears foolish to try to satisfy one's curiosity where, with a moment's thought, the stakes for getting noticed appear so obviously high. (If you're known or seen by Harvard to have asked someone openly and without inducement about whether or not you've been admitted that seems instinctively okay; if you're known or seen by Harvard to follow these 8 steps would you be okay with that?). The other thing I wonder about is if anybody else who has looked at the instructions has noticed something funny??
As someone once observed on coming upon a Mayan temple in the Yucatan jungle, "the odds of a pile of stones having randomly assembled themselves into such a reasoned structure were not so good". The instructions are too intricate and interdependent for anyone to have just "stumbled" upon them, let alone whittled a URL down - okay, so the first guy actually did a soft hack (more like tweaking and rearranging once you understand how the parts of the protocol work together), and then left a detailed recipe. That he did something other than simply mod a URL is plainly obvious once you reach the steps instructing you how to view and modify the web page source. That the 119 did not (could not?) see/feel/intuit that is curious (hence the lack of judgement).
It made me wonder, though, if indeed a different kind of "set up" hasn't occurred, and not just the present story of a disgruntled applicant. Any thoughts?
NOT TRUE. Check out the EIGHT steps that the original hacker posted [see poweryogi.blogspot.com's blog entry at: http://poweryogi.blogspot.com/2005/03/hbsapplyyou
Don't get me wrong, after reading the WHOLE thread at
I certainly wouldn't class the 119 as "unethical". However, with the range of "not wise", "lack of judgement", "broke the rules", "unethical", "immoral", or "illegal" in one hand, and a view of the details of the procedure the 119 employed in those EIGHT steps, in the other [and at 8 steps it IS a procedure], I would say the 119 were "unwise" and lacked judgement. Hardly a reason though to eviscerate their futures (if already admitted), though what's sh*t and what's not is never really clear when it's coming down.
After looking at the instructions I myself wouldn't have tried them (and I am pretty curious) - not because I wouldn't be curious, and not because I think having information about yourself and only yourself 'they' have already packaged to send to you is unethical or stronger, but at least because the instructions as published look elaborate enough that one would [should!!] immediately suspect a trace would be left, a journal entry posted, darn it, a mistake made!
At a glance the instructions are sufficiently detailed, exact, and requiring unique personal info (password stuff), that it appears foolish to try to satisfy one's curiosity where, with a moment's thought, the stakes for getting noticed appear so obviously high. (If you're known or seen by Harvard to have asked someone openly and without inducement about whether or not you've been admitted that seems instinctively okay; if you're known or seen by Harvard to follow these 8 steps would you be okay with that?). The other thing I wonder about is if anybody else who has looked at the instructions has noticed something funny??
As someone once observed on coming upon a Mayan temple in the Yucatan jungle, "the odds of a pile of stones having randomly assembled themselves into such a reasoned structure were not so good". The instructions are too intricate and interdependent for anyone to have just "stumbled" upon them, let alone whittled a URL down - okay, so the first guy actually did a soft hack (more like tweaking and rearranging once you understand how the parts of the protocol work together), and then left a detailed recipe. That he did something other than simply mod a URL is plainly obvious once you reach the steps instructing you how to view and modify the web page source. That the 119 did not (could not?) see/feel/intuit that is curious (hence the lack of judgement).
It made me wonder, though, if indeed a different kind of "set up" hasn't occurred, and not just the present story of a disgruntled applicant. Any thoughts?
