I had a very interesting discussion that manifested itself as Duane Laflotte and I delivered our popular Hacker vs. Hacker session.  I showed a technique that crashes the hacker’s computer when they try to brute force a web site (not for the faint of heart) and the very popular and legitimate question of whether it is prudent to antagonize the hacker.

Anyone who has met me probably can predict that I deliver a resounding hell yes to that question.  I don’t believe that someone already seeking to attack me (in any regard) is worthy of my backing down.  They are already throwing the first punch.  I want to go for a kill if I can.  Bullies fear those who stand up for themselves and hackers fear those who will prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law.  If I lose then the hacker has just done what I expect they would have done without my intervention, but if I win then they do to prison, lose their job and maybe get banned from ever using technology again.  I call that a bad bet on their part.

No surprise, this is exactly my take on terrorists as well.  You either belive that killing 50 terrorists produces 55 or you don’t (in which case it means 50 fewer terrorist).  Put me in the don’t column.  I think that people who partake in either of these activities are not stable in many regards.  We occasionally get a glimpse of a hacker or terrorist who is completely rational by all other appearance, but this is rare.

Don’t be afraid to vehemently and vengefully defend your turf.  You won’t ever seeing an attacker decide that you are too peaceful and cooperative to attack.