The Hacker Matrix

33 points by naish 14 years ago | 9 comments

albedoa 14 years ago |

Since they're looking for feedback, I'd suggest changing either of the "Simple" or "Innovative" labels, as those words are not necessarily antonyms.

Perhaps "Simple" and "Complex" if that's what they're going for. Or "Traditional" and "Innovative" if they are referring to the novelty of the method.

codeodor 14 years ago | |

Along the same line, the "Good, Bad, or Murky" value judgements are dependent on the POV, so it would be nice to see them explain how / why certain attacks got labelled one way as opposed to the others.

dmooney1 14 years ago | |

Perhaps a third dimension? Certainly there are simple and innovative hacks. Certainly there are complex, traditional hacks.

hammock 14 years ago | | |

You mean fourth. The third dimension is good/bad/murky.

turbojerry 14 years ago |

They definitely have things wrong here, for example LulzSec is way on the Simple side where as Gary McKinnon is on the Innovative side, Gary looked for blank passwords whereas LulzSec did much more complex cracks. So while the IEEE do lots of good work which I respect, here they have at best made a mistake and at worst are taking a political position which is contrary to the facts to help get Gary extradited. If it is the former, I hope they swiftly correct the error and if it the later, then they have lost me as a customer forever.

danohuiginn 14 years ago |

The 'high impact' hacks are mostly 'bad', the 'low impact' ones are mostly good.

This may of course be accurate; it's easier to destroy things than to improve them.

p4bl0 14 years ago | |

There's also so many diffrent kind of impact. Like albedoa and codeodor said, the graphic is poorly labeled and the data poorly categorized.

murz 14 years ago |

> Note: If you're using Internet Explorer 7, the dots on the chart will not appear in the correct place.

Go figure.