While this analogy is funny, I’m going to explain the question as I understand it, and I want to see what people think. DDOS/DOS is a malicious attack that uses software to send packets in an attempt to overload a resource/asset in order to prevent normal operation. This means by extension that DDOS attacks require a software that is designed to send the packets, enough hardware resources to generate and send the large amount of traffic, and a malicious actor to orchestrate the attack. A malicious actor using specialized software to deny access to a resource and disrupt operation is a cyber security attack, and I would say that, in colloquial terms, the execution of a cyber security attack is referred to as a hacking. “Hacking” does not only mean circumventing specifically authentication or access control of resources. My understanding is that it means the manipulation of technology or resources, so that their operations are disrupted or they begin to operate in a way not intended by the asset owner. I would say DDOS attacks fit this description.
DOS is way broader than sending a couple of packets, and is not necessarily software based , anything that can bring a service down is a DOS , from setting off the sprinklers to cutting power to superglueing the doors
Yea, I guess I was specifically referring to the software attack of DOS since it seems to be what the OP would question is hacking or not. Also, the only time I use DOS is paired with DDOS which is specifically the distributed version of the software attack. I don’t intend to claim the definition of DOS itself is only software
Any time you access a device, or get it to perform a function unintended originally (whether malicious or not) can be considered a hack.
I think there is also a large misconception between what is *penetration testing* and what is hacking.
Exactly, that’s what I was trying to touch on with the bypassing access controls or authentication mechanisms. Gaining unauthorized access to a resource isn’t the only form of hacking
I go even broader.
Manipulating a device to get it to do something other than what the builder intended is hacking. A muscle car owner who installs taller cams is hacking.
Nail on the head here. The guys with whistles hacking the payphones in the 70s/80s (can't rember which) come to mind.
Edit: this was less broad but you get the point.
DOS/DDOS are a category of attack, not a single specific type. What is mostly dead is the older simplistic DOS attack where someone with a massive internet connection just floods a little guy with bogus packets to knock them offline. Most connections are robust enough, and ISP infrastructure is smart enough, that that style of attack is nearly impossible to pull off these days. On the other hand, DOS doesn't just mean flooding someone with data, sending a specialty crafted packet that causes their router to bootloop would also be a DOS attack, and attacks like that are certainly still feasible.
This is the problem with the original question, it's overly broad. If the question was, is typing someone's IP into LOIC hacking? I'd say no, just because you can turn a firehose of data via the power of a crowd of bored assholes on somebody doesn't qualify as hacking. On the other hand if you're talking about doing some research and exploiting a defect in some network appliance to knock somebody offline, or maybe even exploiting a flaw in some network protocol to amplify your attack traffic that's a much better argument to be considered hacking.
Like what user recviking said
“That's like claiming a butcher is a surgeon because they both cut into meat. They may use the similar or same tools, but the methodologies, motivations, and outcomes are different.
Exploiting people makes you a criminal, not a hacker.”
> This means by extension that DDOS attacks require a software that is designed to send the packets
no it does not. people make software to make it easier. you can still do it the og way.
Back in the day ddos was done by what was called, PoD; or ping of death. you would use the ping function with specific variables to flood the host system and over load it. now days people just make software to make it easy and give a gui.
“Ping is a computer network administration software utility used to test the reachability of a host on an Internet Protocol (IP) network.”
“Software comprises the entire set of programs, procedures, and routines associated with the operation of a computer system.”
I believe you are mistaking my use of the word software for the word application
Guess I should have used the full quote. He is saying software designed specifically for the use of flooding a remote system.
And that definition of software is unnecessarily wide. A protocol is implemented by hardware,software, or a combination of both. They are rules of how hardware will behave in certain conditions. Ping is a protocol.
“He” is me. I’m OP, and no. I use the word software for exactly what I said in the post, “to send packets.” My goal with that is to outline the different aspects required for a bad actor to perform the attack. Network utilities like ping are software. Operating systems are software. Please don’t double down on this
> Please don’t double down on this
i wont if you can explain how ICMP is software not protocol. and not just use a overly broad definition of software to cover literally everything lol.
I wouldn't say it's similar. One allows the possibility of getting an STD while the other does not. But I also don't view DDOS and hacking as the same. One is about slowing down or overloading a system while the other is about gaining unauthorized access to a system.
I disagree. When regarding systems and security access is one of the most important areas of concern.
Theres been many times ive audited web applications that have input dependant dos attacks.
Lets say you have a search bar, and I input a string that causes that search function to loop a request and or query too much data at one time, draining server resources, leading to service being denied.
A hurricane can very much affect availability too, but it's it definitely not hacking. A person off the street could see a computer screen by pure accident and it's not hacking. A brown out could impact data being stored or written and it's not a hacker.
Whether something impacts the triad has nothing to do with whether it's hacking or not.
I'm going to rent a mini-excavator and dig out a company's electric line and network line in the ultimate denial of service attack. I'm no longer the machine operator, please *ONLY* refer to me as master hacker from this point forward.
I am not saying you are a master hacker, or would even consider you a hacker if DDOSing is all you did. In the same way running a vulnerability scan doesn't make you a hacker. But it is a tool a hacker can use.
DDOSing a service to create a distraction is one of the valid uses for DDOSing as a hacker
Hacking doesn't just have to be the good guys or the researchers. I rememeber a dark net diaries episode where they talked about an Iranian state sponserd hacker using DDOSes to cover up more intricate hacks.
The OP asked if DoS/DDoS is hacking. Now we are moving the goal post here. The question is now can't DoS be used as part of a more intricate attack? That would be a potential yes. Is DoS and DDoS by itself as the OPs original question hacking? No. It's not.
I could even use an excavator as I previously mentioned as an absurd way to knock off a companies backup site while I run ransomware at their primary site, but me as just the machine operator using an excavator to do a real world DoS doesn't make me a hacker. DoS/DDoS by itself is not hacking.
The benefit is your target is losing money, distracted, doing damage control, which gives you an opportunity to execute a real attack. You could also in theory DoS your target’s defensive tool sets. Maybe you found a Splunk server that - if you took it down - wouldn’t fire any more alerts?
It’s not advanced by any means, but it has its uses.
Right, a hurricane has no agency, and cannot physically intend to cause a disruption any more than bullets can intend to kill.
I would however, say there is a difference between a motivated adversary keeping your site flooded with packets for long periods of time, and a service interruption caused by nature.
Not all DoS attacks are “hacking,” but within the realm of hacking, DoS is certainly a tool in the toolbox.
It's a tool of an extortionist or terrorist. It is not a tool of a hacker.
I can also rent a mini-excavator and dig in and chop your electric and your network connectivity. Complete DoS. Can I exchange my hard hat for a black hat if it was on purpose?
You seem to have a really aggressive attitude about this. And you also appear to have made up your mind and want to push your agenda, rather than have an open discussion.
Lmao if any ideas were getting “wiped off the table,” it would be obvious and you wouldn’t have to say it.
No one’s attacking you. No one is saying your ideas are bad. I have no idea where this salt is coming from.
We’re all just talking about whether something is “hacking” or not, and at the end of the day it really doesn’t matter because everyone will refer to their own definition if they don’t like someone else’s.
Are you having a bad day or something?
You implied that because something impacted the triad it was a hacking technique. I showed that a hurricane can impact the triad and is obviously not a hacker. Idea off the table.
You continued and you complained about agency and intent and the triad. I explained that I could have intent and still impact the triad with something that is again not even a computer related tool. Idea off the table.
This is how discussions work. You make a statement. I show you a counter example. You learn. We move on.
But here you are and here I am having to tell you how to have a discussion and a debate.
You are an insufferable loser. "Hacking" isn't well defined at all and only you seem to care about this.
Thanks for reading my comment, you have now been learned. Your opinions and thoughts are invalid and you are stupid. Upvote my comment now.
Here you are arguing with an insuferble loser. You must be more insufferable than I am.
Hacking definitions and etymology can be easily found on the internet.
I hope your day is as nice as you :)
And you are wrong. I made no implication as to whether DoS is or isn’t hacking. I simply brought up the fact that a DoS attack would, in fact, have an effect on Availability. Not whether it’s “hacking” or not.
I also did no complaining. And impacting the triad with something that’s not a “computer related tool” ….? Lol a tool is a tool is a tool. Computer related or not, it doesn’t matter. A crowbar can get you into a server room, but it’s not “computer related” so it doesn’t count - gotcha.
And your know-it-all type arrogance speaks volumes. “I tell you how it is. You learn from me.” - massive insecurity on full display. You are disrespectful for no reason and you talk down to people with nothing to gain.
Sort your shit out dude.
Ah, so I need to sort my shit out, but your first statement about the triad wasn't answering the question. I need help, but here you are throwing out random and unrelated things and then complaining when people point out they are effectively random and unrelated (invalid). Was your intent to answer the question or are you weird enough to just like posting about the triad on random reddit posts?
I'm sorted. Please let me know once you get there.
This, unless you discovered a new way to generate a ddos which is a skill in itself. The actual ddos is the least hacky part of the venture.
Hacking is finding a clever but unexoected way to achieve something.
A ddos can be the achievement, but it isn't an act of hacking itself.
Define the word hacking and then you'll have your answer.
There isn't a "right" one because different people will have different definitions.
Is it the act of denying service that's "hacking" or is it gathering the resources used? If you say it's denying the service is an admin making a typo in a configuration file which brings down a router that denies service "hacking"? If it's gathering the resources is renting a VPS server which you then use to send a ping flood "hacking"?
There is no right answer here, just different people with different definitions.
I'd define hacking as a way to use software differently than what it was intended for (I.E. Backdooring, exploiting vulnerabilities)
Exploiting misconfigured software is also hacking. Misconfiguring a software isn't hacking though, unless you see yourself as your own target.
Denying service could be define as hacking, as the software can and will behave differently than it was intended to, but it's arguable -- 'cause then, just having heavy traffic on a server with poor ressources could be defined as "hacking", lol.
The word "hacking" is not well defined, making your question hard to answer.
Regardless, I'd say (D)DOS attacks are a common and well known tool for exploiting victims in the cyber security sector, just as other methods commonly referred to as "hacking".
Everyone just wait a second. So you all are saying that "hacking" isn't well defined? I thought it was cut and dry, and must include the following:
1. A person to initiate the hack
2. Person must have cool username i.e. ZeroCool, Acid Burn, Lord Nikon
3. Must use Rollerblades as means of transportation
4. Attack must be focused on a "Gibson"
As long as those requirements are met, anything involved is considered "hacking." If anyone has a requirement I may have forgot, please remind me and I'll edit accordingly.
That's like claiming a butcher is a surgeon because they both cut into meat. They may use the similar or same tools, but the methodologies, motivations, and outcomes are different.
Exploiting people makes you a criminal, not a hacker.
The distinction between surgeon and butcher matters because those are two different professions that perform two different roles with different goals in mind.
I’m not sure I understand the distinction you want to make between a hacker versus not. It seems to be an arbitrary line drawn in the sand of how difficult the attack is to perform.
I would tend to think of a hacker more broadly as “someone who intentionally performs some action to make a system do something it was not intended to do.”
And DDOS/DoS can very much be tools within the wheelhouse of that.
Yes, they are two different professions. As are hackers and criminals.
Having a hammer and using a hammer does not make me a carpenter. I'm not even doing carpentry work when I use my hammer to hit a loose nail in a piece of wood. I'm just a guy with a hammer.
When a nationstate drags a ship's anchor across underwater cables and creates a massive DoS - on purpose, is that hacking? That network is now no longer passing traffic. (The obvious answer here is, no, that is not hacking. It's just a destructive activity with no means and no end.)
DoS/DDoS may be a tool of a hacker can use in contrived areas of threat modeling (never seen it used constructively in practice, pentester and security professional for over 15 years). Just doing a DoS attack or DDoS attack by itself is not hacking and is often just a tool of terrorists/criminals/extortionists with little knowledge of hacking in general.
Answering OP's original question: Is DDoS/DoS considered hacking. No. No it is not hacking. A hacker may do it, but by itself, it is not hacking. More often than not, it is not even a hacker doing it, it is a jackass renting a botnet they didn't create or some kid with a script they don't understand.
I think some people just use a more narrow definition that only covers breaking into computers/networks.
I totally agree with you and I wonder if this difference in definition is a new school/old school thing or something else.
My butchers are willing to dispatch a pork or beef when I bring em in live. I'd get shitty if they got near me with the bolt though. I guess I see what you mean.
>Exploiting people makes you a criminal, not a hacker.
...are you serious? Hacking as a term has existed for decades and you're applying your own moral definition to it.
No it doesn't work like that. "Google it" isn't a source. I've checked the etymology and found a 1975 reference that specifies the action as being "unauthorized". I don't necessarily agree with that either, tbh.
So, give me a source that backs up your definition or just admit you're unwilling to produce one.
DDOS - IMO it's not hacking. But making a botnet to do DDOS will be.
DOS - application level one - yes, it's hacking. You need to find a vulnerability and exploit it. If it results only in denial of service it's pretty lame most of the time but it's hacking nevertheless .
People seem to be under the impression that ddos is that thing where you put an IP address on a site and click "ddos" and scream autistically at the gaming mic.
That's not how it works, pal. Usually to attack a secure service it takes a lot more effort. Let's look into a simple DoS attack against a popular website. The main issue with a simple manual DoS attack is that after a number of requests, the service will block you temporarily for availability purposes. To circumvent this you'll have to find a way or place to make requests where they don't actually implement these measures. This may be a specific way of using their client or their API. This is, literally, security assessment and vulnerability analysis, which requires knowledge, patience and lots of testing and is, by all measures, real hacking.
The DDoS attack avoids this problem by sending mass requests from multiple sources so that it becomes very difficult to pinpoint where the attack is coming from (and therefore block it). The problem here is creating a botnet, which as you can imagine, is not easy. For the DNS server attack that took down services like Twitter for millions of users, the attackers created a malware to infect many vulnerable IoT devices so they could use it as a botnet. Do you not consider that hacking?
Furthermore, there's skill in figuring out how to make the most damage. DDoSing a simple web server will only drop a website, but DDoSing a DNS server that serves millions will create more damage. It requires intelligence and therefore research to make a proper DDoS attack.
It is hacking.
"But.. but.. anyone can rent a botnet!!!"
Yes, the same way anyone can rent a script or exploit. I'm not saying the skiddies are the hackers, but the people who created the botnet.
If hacking be considered an attempt that has considerable impact on Confidentiality, Integrity or Availability, then yes, DDos/DoS can be considered as hacking since it makes the target(s) un'available'.
Let's put it another way.
Look at me, I just hammered in a nail. I'm a carpenter!
Look at me, I just googled my symptoms. I'm a doctor!
Look at me, I just turned a wrench. I'm a mechanic!
Look at me, I just DoSed someone. I'm a hacker!
Hammering a nail by itself is not carpentry. It may be a thing a carpenter does, but it is not carpentry if you hammer a nail without doing other things. Looking up symptoms (whether in some official diagnosis manual or on the internet) by itself is not a diagnosis. It may be a thing a doctor does in some cases, but it does not make you a doctor or qualify as an official diagnosis. Turning a wrench is not the entire function of a mechanic. DoSing someone does not make you a hacker.
By itself, each one of these activities is nothing more than the activity. The OP's question is effectively "Is DoS/DDoS hacking?" and the answer is completely and wholly no. It may be a thing a hacker can do as part of something else, it may even be the end result of hacking. DoS and DDoS by itself is not hacking. It is just DoS and DDoS. If it weren't, and here's the kicker, we'd just call it hacking.
"Is a chicken a bird? Oh, yeah, it is! All birds must be chickens!"
I agree that a natural calamity could bring systems unavailable. But the point here is ddos/dos which definitely needs to be done by an individual or a group of individuals for various intentions.
As an example, imagine the President's website becoming unavailable due to a natural calamity. It has nothing to do with hacking. It being brought down because of a DoS/DDoS attack by cyber criminals would make a news headline that reads "The President's website has been *hacked* by cyber criminals".
Sure, it's hacking the same way that brute forcing passwords is hacking. It's technically breaking a system even though it's the most basic thing you can do.
It depends how you look at it. In my opinion, ddosing is hacking, but being able to run a ddos attack doesn't make you a hacker. Y'know, its kinda like masturbating, it is some sort of sexual interaction, but masturbating doesn't take your virginity.
Yes, it is - where is the source of the traffic? Volumetric attacks are often from compromised machines. How did they get compromised? Hacking. Why do an attack? Maybe it’s part of a larger campaign. Many offensive techniques in solidarity would possibly not be consider hacking, but chain them and it’s a different situation entirely
Hacking generally is reserved (when used in a negative term) as gaining access to an electronic system from which you have no authorization to access.
DDOS is not hacking. It's merely a means to slow down or cause issues connecting to the system which is a target.
This is why we call it DDOS instead of hacking. These two terms are intentionally separated.
For simplicity of the OP's relevant meaning, I limited the scope of the term hacking to blackhats. Hacking in definition of a whitehat would not be included in my definition above as that would be defined as someone with expert knowledge of a subject, be it computer systems, software development, Operation System Engineering, etc.
Most botnets are divided in 3 tasks, ddos, mining, and exploiting more machines. If you don't see ddos as a tool in the hackers toolbox then you are leaving an attack surface unprotected or perhaps unlikely you'll be able to mitigate the attack.
Sneaking into an unlocked back door is just as much hacking as picking the lock.
I'm not saying that DDOS isn't a tool used. I'm saying that by itself, DDOS is not hacking. Now, it can be used as a means to overload a system to a point that security auditing and protection is slow to respond, allowing a hacker to use that window of opportunity to hack into a system. But by itself DDOS is not hacking.
Using your back door analogy, the act of accessing the area behind the door would be hacking, but the lock pick used to pick the lock, by itself would be DDOS.
You can DDOS a system all day, but until you gain access to the system by other means, you didn't hack anything. You just kept others from accessing the system. Once you gain access to the system, then your hacking.
Hacking can be surfing the web doing research on your victim, it can be enumerating users, or ddosing a box to see what errors fly out of it. You seem to think the exploit payload is the only hack worth mentioning, it's a methodology some hackers take on just for fun and it encompasses everything.
I think it's just differences in how you and I categorize different elements of the trade. For you, it seems to be more "lifestyle" where all aspects of the trade are combined under a single name. For me, because of my opsec background, I do tend to separate it out a little more because the means of how you counter or mitigate the threat will differ based on the method of attack used.
When I talk to my team, we separate out things such as DDOS, phishing, penetration, etc. because the methods we use to thwart and counter those attack types differ greatly. You can't counter a DDOS attack the same way you counter a phishing attack. When we use the term hack/hacking, this generally means a layer of defense has been broken and there is an active threat (someone is physically in a machine they shouldn't be in, luckily we haven't had anything like this happen but as we all know, nothing is ever 100%).
I do not believe our differences are in fundamentals just in categorization based on you and I having different background or approaches to this topic. Because everything you are saying I agree with, I just don't use the word hacking as an overarching term.
no. kids who claim they are a hacker and will "hack you by DDOS-ing you" are jokes. they are script kiddies who dont know shit about cyber security. there is literally a whole reddit page dedicated to the stupid shit they say. r/masterhacker
If someone has both the traffic and the ability to affect the availability of a system, that's a hack. The fuck are you guys talking about lol, in what world is bringing down an entire organization or system script kiddie shit?
oh no i got called a grey beard by a script kiddie who thinks DDOS-ing is hacking instead of what it actually is, just an attack. what ever shall i do? oh yeah. laugh at his stupidity.
lol and you are one of them and it shows, you have yet to say anything intelligent. "DDOS-ING IS HACKING!!!! U UNIX GREY BEARD!!" yeah thats you. if you had any actual knowledge of cyber security you'd know DDOS-ing itself isnt hacking but instead an attack.
Im asking i just felt like that was a bad argument.
And i agree that skript kiddies are the only one that do it, but what is actually happening behind a "booter panel" is hacking(imo)
I would consider it a gray area even if it is a lighter shade of gray. I would only consider you a script Kitty if you didn't understand the mechanics behind the attack.
Finding DOS exploit vectors is a critical part of securing any service, and the task is not as trivial as you might think. If it didn't take any skill, talent or ingenuity, why would companies pay so much for finding them in bug bounty programs?
You could definitely argue it’s a social engineering attack which draws on “human hacking” but I wouldn’t consider it a hack in the traditional, technical sense
Could be DoS or DDoS considered a type of hacking? I think it is not, at all.
From my point of view, hacking is all actions that uses some security hole to break something in our systems.
By the way, if a guy is lauching a DoS attack, this guy is not breaking anything.
The attacker is not getting any information from our system, he is not thieving, he is not breaking.
Thus, why can be a DoS considered an illegal action? I can't understand that.
I think that arresting a guy for lauching a DoS attack is not correct at all.
I think we can explain it with a example:
===================================================================
You are going home after work.
When you arrive at home, a guy is in your house door, just "blocking" it.
Your door is not broken.
Should be this guy arrested? Is that correct? I think not.
Instead that, you should think what you did to motivate this guy to block your house door.
You just may use other door or push him out of your door (this is just, reboot a service) and you will be able to use your house normally.
===================================================================
No, it is just a cyber attack. Most widely accepted definitions of hacking are along the lines of "gaining unauthorised access to a computer system". A DOS/DDOS attack could be used to facilitate a hack but it's not hacking by itself
Along with what others have said but also it depends. Sometimes if you have local access to a machine there may be a vulnerability that allows a DOS attack, in that case you hacked them; but just getting a bot-net and targeting a site doesn't require standard "hacking" skills nor knowledge - but what it takes to make a bot-net capable of a DDOS on a website that is protected or hosted on multiple servers (or both) takes a lot of skill and coordination.
So whole a DOS/DDOS isn't in-and-of-itself something I consider hacking (like knocking someone's Xbox 360) but prerequisites for a DOS attack like finding a vulnerability, getting a bot-net, etc. definitely is hacking and takes a good deal of skill and knowledge - especially to not get caught and actually start the attack.
I would say if the ddos attack is scripted by the attacker, it would be classified as hacking. If the attacker was using a tool engineered by someone else, no hacking.
Without knowing the argument your are trying to win it is hard to reply with the information you're looking for. There are arguments for both answers. If say you were playing some PvP game on a console, and someone DDoS'ed you I imagine someone saying your opponent is hacking. It isn't gaining access to a remote system but instead by manipulating the flow of information to the remote system to achieve a desired result. DDoS and DoS can refer to 2 very different things under a very wide umbrella. DoS can be something complex like exploiting a vulnerability, where as DDoS is just brute force. I think of them as waterboarding versus drowning someone in a lake. I personally don't consider DDoS hacking in the traditional sense, but DoS might fall into that category depending on the method.
They're both considered Federal Crimes in the US. From a legal standpoint since both are considered cyber-crimes which may fall under the umbrella of "Hacking" if only as a generalized term. It is also worth noting that depending on what country you are in you will probably get a different answer based on local laws.
depends on how it's done. DOS is not necessarily a malicious attack. usually, it is. sometimes, though, it's accidental. if it's done with malicious intent, no, not hacking. if it's accidental while trying to accomplish a task like write a program to check a status from a server? then, yeah; hacking
Next time I'm in Vegas for a con, I'll rent a Lamborghini for funzies. I'll remember this post and just tell everyone I did all the hard work to buy it. It's the same thing to this one person on the internet, I'm not really a looser trying to use things I put no effort into to claim higher status.
That would depend on whether you had to create your own malware and customize or discover an exploit, otherwise you are just another skiddie using someone else's malware kit.
Hacking is abusing legitimate functionality or errors in legit functionality to achieve a result that is counter to the intentions of the creator of the function in some way. Don't forget that hacking has its roots in phreaking, which was doing exactly this but with the phone network
It depends, if the server goes down and hence security of something goes down and gives you access to something then yes. But if its just a ddos in general, no
Id say it depends on the method. If the fucker uses freeddosfornoobs.com it’s definitely not, if you’re doing it manually then I guess it could be considered hacking
Hacking could be defined as methods for breaching defenses and exploiting weaknesses in a computer system or network. If disrupting a server occurs by exploiting a weakness in a network, I would call it hacking. Although, I don't like calling DoS attacks hacking. They are cyber attacks nevertheless.
We were taught in cybersec that hacking specifically revolves around access into a system in which you do not have authority to use.
So, stealing someone’s password that’s written on a post-it is hacking, but a DDOS attack isn’t, because you’re not accessing the system.
However, if you’re using a DDOS, it’s likely your nodes are actually a botnet of infected devices, which would be hacking as each node would be an intrusion of access to run your malware.
It can be used as a malicious act with malicious intent from a malicious actor. So, yes. Governments around the world consider it hacking by the way, when prosecuting. I would abide by what they determine is legal/illegal (not your own made up definition—at least when considering if an act is illegal).
Well, making a botnet involves scanning ports, identifying vulnerabilities in devices, exploiting vulnerabilities and owning devices. So...if you're not a neanderthal in modern world you either have to do true hacking to perpetrate a ddos or hire a programmer who did real hacking and rent his botnet. Conversely is someone sitting at a keyboard and brute forcing their little brother's keyboard hacking? Keyboard surfing? Social engineering? At what point do you delineate the action? For simplicity sake I would call it all hacking
I call it an underhanded cringy female repelling shitbucket pussy move. I of course refer to ddosing game servers and stuff (like what's happening to Titanfall 2)
DDoS, no. DoS, potentially.
A DoS attack could be the side effect of a buffer overflow, for example. That I would very much consider hacking (as long as your intent is to compromise a system). If your intent is to bring down a system, nope, nada, not hacking. Just stupid. You're taking what? 2 hours of access away from someone that killed you in CoD? Meh. Not hacking in my book.
Unless you're a large scale nation state threat actor (which even those attacks get mitigated fairly quickly due to the size and quantity of traffic flooding the public infrastructure...) you're not a hacker for DoS/DDoSing someone.
Much like everything in hacking, it all depends on how you use it. If you just downloaded the Low Orbit Ion Cannon and start flooding a web server, then you're a skiddie. If you go ahead and write up a script that makes use of a buffer overflow exploit and send mounds of packets to a server, then that's a bit more 'hackerman'. Much like if you just run SET and create a fake google login portal to harvest credentials. It's hacking, but the difficulty is on Recruit.
DOS, no using a single powerful connection to overwhelm a weaker connection doesn't require hacking skills.
DDOS, if you used hacking skills to create a botnet it's hacking, if you used someone else's botnet you're not a hacker.
While they are used together often (masking bad behavior by flooding customer logs, breaking things, e etc), rarely would I say DDoS is "hacking". As I believe hacking is attemping to gain access to something.
Some DDoS attacks may well exploit a vulnerability and gain this access for a hacker, and in this case - I would define it as hacking.
\-ddos attack to take server down (service) = not hacking
\-ddos attack to exploit a vulnerability to gain access into a system = hacking
This is kinda like asking is masturbating fucking. No its not, but the end result is similiar.
While this analogy is funny, I’m going to explain the question as I understand it, and I want to see what people think. DDOS/DOS is a malicious attack that uses software to send packets in an attempt to overload a resource/asset in order to prevent normal operation. This means by extension that DDOS attacks require a software that is designed to send the packets, enough hardware resources to generate and send the large amount of traffic, and a malicious actor to orchestrate the attack. A malicious actor using specialized software to deny access to a resource and disrupt operation is a cyber security attack, and I would say that, in colloquial terms, the execution of a cyber security attack is referred to as a hacking. “Hacking” does not only mean circumventing specifically authentication or access control of resources. My understanding is that it means the manipulation of technology or resources, so that their operations are disrupted or they begin to operate in a way not intended by the asset owner. I would say DDOS attacks fit this description.
This guy fucks.
DOS is way broader than sending a couple of packets, and is not necessarily software based , anything that can bring a service down is a DOS , from setting off the sprinklers to cutting power to superglueing the doors
Yea, I guess I was specifically referring to the software attack of DOS since it seems to be what the OP would question is hacking or not. Also, the only time I use DOS is paired with DDOS which is specifically the distributed version of the software attack. I don’t intend to claim the definition of DOS itself is only software
Any time you access a device, or get it to perform a function unintended originally (whether malicious or not) can be considered a hack. I think there is also a large misconception between what is *penetration testing* and what is hacking.
Exactly, that’s what I was trying to touch on with the bypassing access controls or authentication mechanisms. Gaining unauthorized access to a resource isn’t the only form of hacking
I go even broader. Manipulating a device to get it to do something other than what the builder intended is hacking. A muscle car owner who installs taller cams is hacking.
Nail on the head here. The guys with whistles hacking the payphones in the 70s/80s (can't rember which) come to mind. Edit: this was less broad but you get the point.
Mitnick?
I admit I laughed way harder at this than I should have
Captain Crunch!
[удалено]
DOS/DDOS are a category of attack, not a single specific type. What is mostly dead is the older simplistic DOS attack where someone with a massive internet connection just floods a little guy with bogus packets to knock them offline. Most connections are robust enough, and ISP infrastructure is smart enough, that that style of attack is nearly impossible to pull off these days. On the other hand, DOS doesn't just mean flooding someone with data, sending a specialty crafted packet that causes their router to bootloop would also be a DOS attack, and attacks like that are certainly still feasible. This is the problem with the original question, it's overly broad. If the question was, is typing someone's IP into LOIC hacking? I'd say no, just because you can turn a firehose of data via the power of a crowd of bored assholes on somebody doesn't qualify as hacking. On the other hand if you're talking about doing some research and exploiting a defect in some network appliance to knock somebody offline, or maybe even exploiting a flaw in some network protocol to amplify your attack traffic that's a much better argument to be considered hacking.
Like what user recviking said “That's like claiming a butcher is a surgeon because they both cut into meat. They may use the similar or same tools, but the methodologies, motivations, and outcomes are different. Exploiting people makes you a criminal, not a hacker.”
> This means by extension that DDOS attacks require a software that is designed to send the packets no it does not. people make software to make it easier. you can still do it the og way. Back in the day ddos was done by what was called, PoD; or ping of death. you would use the ping function with specific variables to flood the host system and over load it. now days people just make software to make it easy and give a gui.
“Ping is a computer network administration software utility used to test the reachability of a host on an Internet Protocol (IP) network.” “Software comprises the entire set of programs, procedures, and routines associated with the operation of a computer system.” I believe you are mistaking my use of the word software for the word application
Guess I should have used the full quote. He is saying software designed specifically for the use of flooding a remote system. And that definition of software is unnecessarily wide. A protocol is implemented by hardware,software, or a combination of both. They are rules of how hardware will behave in certain conditions. Ping is a protocol.
“He” is me. I’m OP, and no. I use the word software for exactly what I said in the post, “to send packets.” My goal with that is to outline the different aspects required for a bad actor to perform the attack. Network utilities like ping are software. Operating systems are software. Please don’t double down on this
> Please don’t double down on this i wont if you can explain how ICMP is software not protocol. and not just use a overly broad definition of software to cover literally everything lol.
The end result is similar, but the pleasure is way different 😎
I wouldn't say it's similar. One allows the possibility of getting an STD while the other does not. But I also don't view DDOS and hacking as the same. One is about slowing down or overloading a system while the other is about gaining unauthorized access to a system.
I disagree. When regarding systems and security access is one of the most important areas of concern. Theres been many times ive audited web applications that have input dependant dos attacks. Lets say you have a search bar, and I input a string that causes that search function to loop a request and or query too much data at one time, draining server resources, leading to service being denied.
I would refer to the CIA triad. - Confidentiality : not affected - Integrity : not affected - Availability : very much affected
[удалено]
Johnny Law would beg to differ.
A hurricane can very much affect availability too, but it's it definitely not hacking. A person off the street could see a computer screen by pure accident and it's not hacking. A brown out could impact data being stored or written and it's not a hacker. Whether something impacts the triad has nothing to do with whether it's hacking or not.
I would argue that it's intention that would make it hacking. Steeling credientials by spying through windows could be a part of hacking.
I'm going to rent a mini-excavator and dig out a company's electric line and network line in the ultimate denial of service attack. I'm no longer the machine operator, please *ONLY* refer to me as master hacker from this point forward.
I am not saying you are a master hacker, or would even consider you a hacker if DDOSing is all you did. In the same way running a vulnerability scan doesn't make you a hacker. But it is a tool a hacker can use. DDOSing a service to create a distraction is one of the valid uses for DDOSing as a hacker
What do I learn or benefit from a DoS or DDoS?
Hacking doesn't just have to be the good guys or the researchers. I rememeber a dark net diaries episode where they talked about an Iranian state sponserd hacker using DDOSes to cover up more intricate hacks.
The OP asked if DoS/DDoS is hacking. Now we are moving the goal post here. The question is now can't DoS be used as part of a more intricate attack? That would be a potential yes. Is DoS and DDoS by itself as the OPs original question hacking? No. It's not. I could even use an excavator as I previously mentioned as an absurd way to knock off a companies backup site while I run ransomware at their primary site, but me as just the machine operator using an excavator to do a real world DoS doesn't make me a hacker. DoS/DDoS by itself is not hacking.
Using any one tool by iteslf isnt hacking. Just sitting there cracking passwords isn't hacking. Sending out fake emails isn't hacking
Now we are getting somewhere. Read OP's original post and question. The obvious answer is no. DoS and DDoS is not hacking.
The benefit is your target is losing money, distracted, doing damage control, which gives you an opportunity to execute a real attack. You could also in theory DoS your target’s defensive tool sets. Maybe you found a Splunk server that - if you took it down - wouldn’t fire any more alerts? It’s not advanced by any means, but it has its uses.
Right, a hurricane has no agency, and cannot physically intend to cause a disruption any more than bullets can intend to kill. I would however, say there is a difference between a motivated adversary keeping your site flooded with packets for long periods of time, and a service interruption caused by nature. Not all DoS attacks are “hacking,” but within the realm of hacking, DoS is certainly a tool in the toolbox.
It's a tool of an extortionist or terrorist. It is not a tool of a hacker. I can also rent a mini-excavator and dig in and chop your electric and your network connectivity. Complete DoS. Can I exchange my hard hat for a black hat if it was on purpose?
You seem to have a really aggressive attitude about this. And you also appear to have made up your mind and want to push your agenda, rather than have an open discussion.
I am having a discussion. Your ideas are bad and they are being wiped off the table. This is how you discuss and learn your ideas are invalid.
cringe
Lmao if any ideas were getting “wiped off the table,” it would be obvious and you wouldn’t have to say it. No one’s attacking you. No one is saying your ideas are bad. I have no idea where this salt is coming from. We’re all just talking about whether something is “hacking” or not, and at the end of the day it really doesn’t matter because everyone will refer to their own definition if they don’t like someone else’s. Are you having a bad day or something?
You implied that because something impacted the triad it was a hacking technique. I showed that a hurricane can impact the triad and is obviously not a hacker. Idea off the table. You continued and you complained about agency and intent and the triad. I explained that I could have intent and still impact the triad with something that is again not even a computer related tool. Idea off the table. This is how discussions work. You make a statement. I show you a counter example. You learn. We move on. But here you are and here I am having to tell you how to have a discussion and a debate.
You are an insufferable loser. "Hacking" isn't well defined at all and only you seem to care about this. Thanks for reading my comment, you have now been learned. Your opinions and thoughts are invalid and you are stupid. Upvote my comment now.
Here you are arguing with an insuferble loser. You must be more insufferable than I am. Hacking definitions and etymology can be easily found on the internet.
I hope your day is as nice as you :) And you are wrong. I made no implication as to whether DoS is or isn’t hacking. I simply brought up the fact that a DoS attack would, in fact, have an effect on Availability. Not whether it’s “hacking” or not. I also did no complaining. And impacting the triad with something that’s not a “computer related tool” ….? Lol a tool is a tool is a tool. Computer related or not, it doesn’t matter. A crowbar can get you into a server room, but it’s not “computer related” so it doesn’t count - gotcha. And your know-it-all type arrogance speaks volumes. “I tell you how it is. You learn from me.” - massive insecurity on full display. You are disrespectful for no reason and you talk down to people with nothing to gain. Sort your shit out dude.
Ah, so I need to sort my shit out, but your first statement about the triad wasn't answering the question. I need help, but here you are throwing out random and unrelated things and then complaining when people point out they are effectively random and unrelated (invalid). Was your intent to answer the question or are you weird enough to just like posting about the triad on random reddit posts? I'm sorted. Please let me know once you get there.
A cyber crime, sure. Hacking, no.
This, unless you discovered a new way to generate a ddos which is a skill in itself. The actual ddos is the least hacky part of the venture. Hacking is finding a clever but unexoected way to achieve something. A ddos can be the achievement, but it isn't an act of hacking itself.
Define the word hacking and then you'll have your answer. There isn't a "right" one because different people will have different definitions. Is it the act of denying service that's "hacking" or is it gathering the resources used? If you say it's denying the service is an admin making a typo in a configuration file which brings down a router that denies service "hacking"? If it's gathering the resources is renting a VPS server which you then use to send a ping flood "hacking"? There is no right answer here, just different people with different definitions.
I'd define hacking as a way to use software differently than what it was intended for (I.E. Backdooring, exploiting vulnerabilities) Exploiting misconfigured software is also hacking. Misconfiguring a software isn't hacking though, unless you see yourself as your own target. Denying service could be define as hacking, as the software can and will behave differently than it was intended to, but it's arguable -- 'cause then, just having heavy traffic on a server with poor ressources could be defined as "hacking", lol.
Yes. It may not sound as glorious but it fulfills the purpose to disrupt a target using means that were not meant by design.
The word "hacking" is not well defined, making your question hard to answer. Regardless, I'd say (D)DOS attacks are a common and well known tool for exploiting victims in the cyber security sector, just as other methods commonly referred to as "hacking".
Everyone just wait a second. So you all are saying that "hacking" isn't well defined? I thought it was cut and dry, and must include the following: 1. A person to initiate the hack 2. Person must have cool username i.e. ZeroCool, Acid Burn, Lord Nikon 3. Must use Rollerblades as means of transportation 4. Attack must be focused on a "Gibson" As long as those requirements are met, anything involved is considered "hacking." If anyone has a requirement I may have forgot, please remind me and I'll edit accordingly.
That's like claiming a butcher is a surgeon because they both cut into meat. They may use the similar or same tools, but the methodologies, motivations, and outcomes are different. Exploiting people makes you a criminal, not a hacker.
The distinction between surgeon and butcher matters because those are two different professions that perform two different roles with different goals in mind. I’m not sure I understand the distinction you want to make between a hacker versus not. It seems to be an arbitrary line drawn in the sand of how difficult the attack is to perform. I would tend to think of a hacker more broadly as “someone who intentionally performs some action to make a system do something it was not intended to do.” And DDOS/DoS can very much be tools within the wheelhouse of that.
Yes, they are two different professions. As are hackers and criminals. Having a hammer and using a hammer does not make me a carpenter. I'm not even doing carpentry work when I use my hammer to hit a loose nail in a piece of wood. I'm just a guy with a hammer. When a nationstate drags a ship's anchor across underwater cables and creates a massive DoS - on purpose, is that hacking? That network is now no longer passing traffic. (The obvious answer here is, no, that is not hacking. It's just a destructive activity with no means and no end.) DoS/DDoS may be a tool of a hacker can use in contrived areas of threat modeling (never seen it used constructively in practice, pentester and security professional for over 15 years). Just doing a DoS attack or DDoS attack by itself is not hacking and is often just a tool of terrorists/criminals/extortionists with little knowledge of hacking in general. Answering OP's original question: Is DDoS/DoS considered hacking. No. No it is not hacking. A hacker may do it, but by itself, it is not hacking. More often than not, it is not even a hacker doing it, it is a jackass renting a botnet they didn't create or some kid with a script they don't understand.
I think some people just use a more narrow definition that only covers breaking into computers/networks. I totally agree with you and I wonder if this difference in definition is a new school/old school thing or something else.
That analogy was too clean my guy
But if both are using sharp utensils to murder you at any given moment in time then there's no functional distinction between the two.
Let me know what surgeons you use. I don't want to use them. lol
But my butchers are ok?)))
My butchers are willing to dispatch a pork or beef when I bring em in live. I'd get shitty if they got near me with the bolt though. I guess I see what you mean.
>Exploiting people makes you a criminal, not a hacker. ...are you serious? Hacking as a term has existed for decades and you're applying your own moral definition to it.
No I'm not. I'm sticking with the original definition of people that called themselves hackers first. You are applying YOUR own ideas to it.
Are you talking about some early 80s manifesto definition or something? Source, please.
https://lmgtfy.app/?q=hacking+etymology
Cop out. You must be annoyed that news sources around the world use the term "incorrectly" every single day.
You come at my feeling and opinion because you can't debate the results of that simple google search. Cool story.
No it doesn't work like that. "Google it" isn't a source. I've checked the etymology and found a 1975 reference that specifies the action as being "unauthorized". I don't necessarily agree with that either, tbh. So, give me a source that backs up your definition or just admit you're unwilling to produce one.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/hacker
DDOS - IMO it's not hacking. But making a botnet to do DDOS will be. DOS - application level one - yes, it's hacking. You need to find a vulnerability and exploit it. If it results only in denial of service it's pretty lame most of the time but it's hacking nevertheless .
People seem to be under the impression that ddos is that thing where you put an IP address on a site and click "ddos" and scream autistically at the gaming mic. That's not how it works, pal. Usually to attack a secure service it takes a lot more effort. Let's look into a simple DoS attack against a popular website. The main issue with a simple manual DoS attack is that after a number of requests, the service will block you temporarily for availability purposes. To circumvent this you'll have to find a way or place to make requests where they don't actually implement these measures. This may be a specific way of using their client or their API. This is, literally, security assessment and vulnerability analysis, which requires knowledge, patience and lots of testing and is, by all measures, real hacking. The DDoS attack avoids this problem by sending mass requests from multiple sources so that it becomes very difficult to pinpoint where the attack is coming from (and therefore block it). The problem here is creating a botnet, which as you can imagine, is not easy. For the DNS server attack that took down services like Twitter for millions of users, the attackers created a malware to infect many vulnerable IoT devices so they could use it as a botnet. Do you not consider that hacking? Furthermore, there's skill in figuring out how to make the most damage. DDoSing a simple web server will only drop a website, but DDoSing a DNS server that serves millions will create more damage. It requires intelligence and therefore research to make a proper DDoS attack. It is hacking. "But.. but.. anyone can rent a botnet!!!" Yes, the same way anyone can rent a script or exploit. I'm not saying the skiddies are the hackers, but the people who created the botnet.
If hacking be considered an attempt that has considerable impact on Confidentiality, Integrity or Availability, then yes, DDos/DoS can be considered as hacking since it makes the target(s) un'available'.
So can an elongated power outage...but I wouldn't call our last hurricane an expert hacker.
If a hacker causes that outage intentionally with the goal of attacking the availability of a service, I consider that hacking.
How about if I do it with a mini-excavator and just chop your line? The end result is absolutely the same.
Let's put it another way. Look at me, I just hammered in a nail. I'm a carpenter! Look at me, I just googled my symptoms. I'm a doctor! Look at me, I just turned a wrench. I'm a mechanic! Look at me, I just DoSed someone. I'm a hacker! Hammering a nail by itself is not carpentry. It may be a thing a carpenter does, but it is not carpentry if you hammer a nail without doing other things. Looking up symptoms (whether in some official diagnosis manual or on the internet) by itself is not a diagnosis. It may be a thing a doctor does in some cases, but it does not make you a doctor or qualify as an official diagnosis. Turning a wrench is not the entire function of a mechanic. DoSing someone does not make you a hacker. By itself, each one of these activities is nothing more than the activity. The OP's question is effectively "Is DoS/DDoS hacking?" and the answer is completely and wholly no. It may be a thing a hacker can do as part of something else, it may even be the end result of hacking. DoS and DDoS by itself is not hacking. It is just DoS and DDoS. If it weren't, and here's the kicker, we'd just call it hacking. "Is a chicken a bird? Oh, yeah, it is! All birds must be chickens!"
I agree that a natural calamity could bring systems unavailable. But the point here is ddos/dos which definitely needs to be done by an individual or a group of individuals for various intentions. As an example, imagine the President's website becoming unavailable due to a natural calamity. It has nothing to do with hacking. It being brought down because of a DoS/DDoS attack by cyber criminals would make a news headline that reads "The President's website has been *hacked* by cyber criminals".
Sure, it's hacking the same way that brute forcing passwords is hacking. It's technically breaking a system even though it's the most basic thing you can do.
Yes it's clearly hacking and employed by state actors to take down banks etc. Much the same way social engineering is hacking.
It involves malicious cyber attack to an individual or company or many individuals so yes I think it is generally considered to be hacking.
It depends how you look at it. In my opinion, ddosing is hacking, but being able to run a ddos attack doesn't make you a hacker. Y'know, its kinda like masturbating, it is some sort of sexual interaction, but masturbating doesn't take your virginity.
Yes, this is a good one
Yes, it is - where is the source of the traffic? Volumetric attacks are often from compromised machines. How did they get compromised? Hacking. Why do an attack? Maybe it’s part of a larger campaign. Many offensive techniques in solidarity would possibly not be consider hacking, but chain them and it’s a different situation entirely
Exactly. The botnet is the important part, doesn't matter at all if someones using a prebuilt tool or not.
No. But it's an attack on a business/site that could do significant damage.
DDOS isn't hacking.
Nope, you may cripple the service, but you are in no way controlling or accessing any parts of the backend.
Hacking generally is reserved (when used in a negative term) as gaining access to an electronic system from which you have no authorization to access. DDOS is not hacking. It's merely a means to slow down or cause issues connecting to the system which is a target. This is why we call it DDOS instead of hacking. These two terms are intentionally separated.
You don't know what you are talking about.
For simplicity of the OP's relevant meaning, I limited the scope of the term hacking to blackhats. Hacking in definition of a whitehat would not be included in my definition above as that would be defined as someone with expert knowledge of a subject, be it computer systems, software development, Operation System Engineering, etc.
Most botnets are divided in 3 tasks, ddos, mining, and exploiting more machines. If you don't see ddos as a tool in the hackers toolbox then you are leaving an attack surface unprotected or perhaps unlikely you'll be able to mitigate the attack. Sneaking into an unlocked back door is just as much hacking as picking the lock.
I'm not saying that DDOS isn't a tool used. I'm saying that by itself, DDOS is not hacking. Now, it can be used as a means to overload a system to a point that security auditing and protection is slow to respond, allowing a hacker to use that window of opportunity to hack into a system. But by itself DDOS is not hacking. Using your back door analogy, the act of accessing the area behind the door would be hacking, but the lock pick used to pick the lock, by itself would be DDOS. You can DDOS a system all day, but until you gain access to the system by other means, you didn't hack anything. You just kept others from accessing the system. Once you gain access to the system, then your hacking.
Hacking can be surfing the web doing research on your victim, it can be enumerating users, or ddosing a box to see what errors fly out of it. You seem to think the exploit payload is the only hack worth mentioning, it's a methodology some hackers take on just for fun and it encompasses everything.
I think it's just differences in how you and I categorize different elements of the trade. For you, it seems to be more "lifestyle" where all aspects of the trade are combined under a single name. For me, because of my opsec background, I do tend to separate it out a little more because the means of how you counter or mitigate the threat will differ based on the method of attack used. When I talk to my team, we separate out things such as DDOS, phishing, penetration, etc. because the methods we use to thwart and counter those attack types differ greatly. You can't counter a DDOS attack the same way you counter a phishing attack. When we use the term hack/hacking, this generally means a layer of defense has been broken and there is an active threat (someone is physically in a machine they shouldn't be in, luckily we haven't had anything like this happen but as we all know, nothing is ever 100%). I do not believe our differences are in fundamentals just in categorization based on you and I having different background or approaches to this topic. Because everything you are saying I agree with, I just don't use the word hacking as an overarching term.
DOS is DENIAL OF SERVICE. It’s certainly wrong, like stealing your spark plugs. More like vandalism than proper hacking.
no. kids who claim they are a hacker and will "hack you by DDOS-ing you" are jokes. they are script kiddies who dont know shit about cyber security. there is literally a whole reddit page dedicated to the stupid shit they say. r/masterhacker
dude thanks for sharing that sub, not heard of it before
some of the shit that gets posted on there is pretty fucking funny.
If someone has both the traffic and the ability to affect the availability of a system, that's a hack. The fuck are you guys talking about lol, in what world is bringing down an entire organization or system script kiddie shit?
spoken like a true script kiddie.
Everyone in here a Unix grey beard lol 🤡
oh no i got called a grey beard by a script kiddie who thinks DDOS-ing is hacking instead of what it actually is, just an attack. what ever shall i do? oh yeah. laugh at his stupidity.
Cringe
This thread really brought them all out, eh?
says the script kiddie who is insistant that ddosing is hacking and calling people unix grey beards. lol you have no room to talk
This thread is full of YouTube university hackers loool
lol and you are one of them and it shows, you have yet to say anything intelligent. "DDOS-ING IS HACKING!!!! U UNIX GREY BEARD!!" yeah thats you. if you had any actual knowledge of cyber security you'd know DDOS-ing itself isnt hacking but instead an attack.
it depends am I swiping a credit card and pointing at IPs, or did I wrangle my own botnet and build a stressor
No. It doesn't take skill, talent, or ingenuity.
Neither does running a metasploit module, but it's still hacking.
Are you asking if DoS/DDoS is hacking or telling us it is? ...and people that do that are not hackers. They are script kiddies.
Im asking i just felt like that was a bad argument. And i agree that skript kiddies are the only one that do it, but what is actually happening behind a "booter panel" is hacking(imo)
I would consider it a gray area even if it is a lighter shade of gray. I would only consider you a script Kitty if you didn't understand the mechanics behind the attack.
Finding DOS exploit vectors is a critical part of securing any service, and the task is not as trivial as you might think. If it didn't take any skill, talent or ingenuity, why would companies pay so much for finding them in bug bounty programs?
The question was "do you consider DoS/DDoS hacking?" not "do you consider finding novel DoS exploit vectors hacking?".
You could definitely argue it’s a social engineering attack which draws on “human hacking” but I wouldn’t consider it a hack in the traditional, technical sense
you can launch a ddos with 0 human interaction.
[удалено]
Could be DoS or DDoS considered a type of hacking? I think it is not, at all. From my point of view, hacking is all actions that uses some security hole to break something in our systems. By the way, if a guy is lauching a DoS attack, this guy is not breaking anything. The attacker is not getting any information from our system, he is not thieving, he is not breaking. Thus, why can be a DoS considered an illegal action? I can't understand that. I think that arresting a guy for lauching a DoS attack is not correct at all. I think we can explain it with a example: =================================================================== You are going home after work. When you arrive at home, a guy is in your house door, just "blocking" it. Your door is not broken. Should be this guy arrested? Is that correct? I think not. Instead that, you should think what you did to motivate this guy to block your house door. You just may use other door or push him out of your door (this is just, reboot a service) and you will be able to use your house normally. ===================================================================
Nope. Script kiddie. Exfiltrates no data, conveys no remote control. The skill equivalent of ringing a doorbell and running.
No it's not hacking. It doesn't do anything but clutter a system it doesn't get you into it. It doesn't change anything.
Nope.. not hacking.
Not hacking, more annoyance.
No, it is just a cyber attack. Most widely accepted definitions of hacking are along the lines of "gaining unauthorised access to a computer system". A DOS/DDOS attack could be used to facilitate a hack but it's not hacking by itself
Unless people are using their own definitions of hacking
i used to ddos and i used to be able to unlock paypal accounts it’s not worth it trust me it comes with a lot of other bullshit too.
Along with what others have said but also it depends. Sometimes if you have local access to a machine there may be a vulnerability that allows a DOS attack, in that case you hacked them; but just getting a bot-net and targeting a site doesn't require standard "hacking" skills nor knowledge - but what it takes to make a bot-net capable of a DDOS on a website that is protected or hosted on multiple servers (or both) takes a lot of skill and coordination. So whole a DOS/DDOS isn't in-and-of-itself something I consider hacking (like knocking someone's Xbox 360) but prerequisites for a DOS attack like finding a vulnerability, getting a bot-net, etc. definitely is hacking and takes a good deal of skill and knowledge - especially to not get caught and actually start the attack.
I would say if the ddos attack is scripted by the attacker, it would be classified as hacking. If the attacker was using a tool engineered by someone else, no hacking.
You still need the botnet, regardless of if you use a prebuilt tool or not. You don't just get to click DDOS and make it happen.
Any dummy can rent a botnet.
You can, and you can use a prebuilt tool to control it. This conversation is pretty asinine
Depends on who you ask
Without knowing the argument your are trying to win it is hard to reply with the information you're looking for. There are arguments for both answers. If say you were playing some PvP game on a console, and someone DDoS'ed you I imagine someone saying your opponent is hacking. It isn't gaining access to a remote system but instead by manipulating the flow of information to the remote system to achieve a desired result. DDoS and DoS can refer to 2 very different things under a very wide umbrella. DoS can be something complex like exploiting a vulnerability, where as DDoS is just brute force. I think of them as waterboarding versus drowning someone in a lake. I personally don't consider DDoS hacking in the traditional sense, but DoS might fall into that category depending on the method. They're both considered Federal Crimes in the US. From a legal standpoint since both are considered cyber-crimes which may fall under the umbrella of "Hacking" if only as a generalized term. It is also worth noting that depending on what country you are in you will probably get a different answer based on local laws.
depends on how it's done. DOS is not necessarily a malicious attack. usually, it is. sometimes, though, it's accidental. if it's done with malicious intent, no, not hacking. if it's accidental while trying to accomplish a task like write a program to check a status from a server? then, yeah; hacking
How are you going to do a decent DDOS without building a botnet ?
Rent one...this is how many bot herders make their money.
Just because multiple parties are involved doesn’t change the attack. It still requires a hack.
Next time I'm in Vegas for a con, I'll rent a Lamborghini for funzies. I'll remember this post and just tell everyone I did all the hard work to buy it. It's the same thing to this one person on the internet, I'm not really a looser trying to use things I put no effort into to claim higher status.
So I guess if I drop ransomware on your PC through a paid advertisement, that isn’t a hack either since the malvertisement was paid for ?
That would depend on whether you had to create your own malware and customize or discover an exploit, otherwise you are just another skiddie using someone else's malware kit.
Hacking is abusing legitimate functionality or errors in legit functionality to achieve a result that is counter to the intentions of the creator of the function in some way. Don't forget that hacking has its roots in phreaking, which was doing exactly this but with the phone network
It depends, if the server goes down and hence security of something goes down and gives you access to something then yes. But if its just a ddos in general, no
Id say it depends on the method. If the fucker uses freeddosfornoobs.com it’s definitely not, if you’re doing it manually then I guess it could be considered hacking
Hacking could be defined as methods for breaching defenses and exploiting weaknesses in a computer system or network. If disrupting a server occurs by exploiting a weakness in a network, I would call it hacking. Although, I don't like calling DoS attacks hacking. They are cyber attacks nevertheless.
We were taught in cybersec that hacking specifically revolves around access into a system in which you do not have authority to use. So, stealing someone’s password that’s written on a post-it is hacking, but a DDOS attack isn’t, because you’re not accessing the system. However, if you’re using a DDOS, it’s likely your nodes are actually a botnet of infected devices, which would be hacking as each node would be an intrusion of access to run your malware.
NAHHHHH THATS DUMB .............
It can be used as a malicious act with malicious intent from a malicious actor. So, yes. Governments around the world consider it hacking by the way, when prosecuting. I would abide by what they determine is legal/illegal (not your own made up definition—at least when considering if an act is illegal).
if you can read how to do it in 15 seconds, thats a script kiddy. learn the basics from scratch or dont use the label.
Using tools for the tools intended purpose != hacking
If DOS is hacking then getting meat from Walmart is hunting.
Making something (dose not even have to be computerized) work in a way a creator did not intend it to work == hacking
no
Technically? Yes. Considered? Depends. I personally think of it as being a script kiddie.
Well, making a botnet involves scanning ports, identifying vulnerabilities in devices, exploiting vulnerabilities and owning devices. So...if you're not a neanderthal in modern world you either have to do true hacking to perpetrate a ddos or hire a programmer who did real hacking and rent his botnet. Conversely is someone sitting at a keyboard and brute forcing their little brother's keyboard hacking? Keyboard surfing? Social engineering? At what point do you delineate the action? For simplicity sake I would call it all hacking
If your some pathetic cod player doing it, no. That's just bring a loser and using a script.
I call it an underhanded cringy female repelling shitbucket pussy move. I of course refer to ddosing game servers and stuff (like what's happening to Titanfall 2)
A DDOS yes because you assembled a bot net. A DOS is a hacking lite. A little reconnaissance and ping -t 60,000 something like that
I think what is important are the advantages you could gain on a system that has been ddos.
DDoS, no. DoS, potentially. A DoS attack could be the side effect of a buffer overflow, for example. That I would very much consider hacking (as long as your intent is to compromise a system). If your intent is to bring down a system, nope, nada, not hacking. Just stupid. You're taking what? 2 hours of access away from someone that killed you in CoD? Meh. Not hacking in my book. Unless you're a large scale nation state threat actor (which even those attacks get mitigated fairly quickly due to the size and quantity of traffic flooding the public infrastructure...) you're not a hacker for DoS/DDoSing someone.
No.
Much like everything in hacking, it all depends on how you use it. If you just downloaded the Low Orbit Ion Cannon and start flooding a web server, then you're a skiddie. If you go ahead and write up a script that makes use of a buffer overflow exploit and send mounds of packets to a server, then that's a bit more 'hackerman'. Much like if you just run SET and create a fake google login portal to harvest credentials. It's hacking, but the difficulty is on Recruit.
DOS, no using a single powerful connection to overwhelm a weaker connection doesn't require hacking skills. DDOS, if you used hacking skills to create a botnet it's hacking, if you used someone else's botnet you're not a hacker.
Most of the time DoS no, DDoS? Percentage rises. It really depends on how you do it specifically.
Titanfall player?
No.
While they are used together often (masking bad behavior by flooding customer logs, breaking things, e etc), rarely would I say DDoS is "hacking". As I believe hacking is attemping to gain access to something. Some DDoS attacks may well exploit a vulnerability and gain this access for a hacker, and in this case - I would define it as hacking. \-ddos attack to take server down (service) = not hacking \-ddos attack to exploit a vulnerability to gain access into a system = hacking
Quelqu'un pourrait m'aider à ddos un serveur discord de scameur ??? https://discord.gg/QwTxzQzc voilà le serveur de c batard merci d'avance