mirror of
https://github.com/fdiskyou/Zines.git
synced 2025-03-09 00:00:00 +01:00
168 lines
7.1 KiB
Text
168 lines
7.1 KiB
Text
![]() |
==Phrack Inc.==
|
||
|
|
||
|
Volume 0x0b, Issue 0x39, Phile #0x04 of 0x12
|
||
|
|
||
|
|=-------------------=[ THE PHRACK EDITORIAL POLICY ]=-------------------=|
|
||
|
|=-----------------------------------------------------------------------=|
|
||
|
|=--------------------------=[ phrackstaff ]=----------------------------=|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
"Scholars and academics naturally tend to believe that formal
|
||
|
knowledge is the most important way of knowing, and perhaps
|
||
|
they are right, yet even so it is not formal but common
|
||
|
knowledge which informs nearly all the day-to-day decisions
|
||
|
and actions people take, even the most learned among them."
|
||
|
|
||
|
- William Gosling [Gosling, 1995]
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
----| 1. Introduction
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
Because the editorship of Phrack has moved from being solely under the control
|
||
|
of one person (route) to a group of "phrack staff", it is valuable to reiterate
|
||
|
the editorial policy for the magazine.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Please note that it is not the intention of this article to describe
|
||
|
requirements for what we will or will not accept for publication. The goal is
|
||
|
to provide a number of pointers for authors which they will hopefully find
|
||
|
useful when writing articles that they intend to submit.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Firstly, we wish to stress that we are dedicated to continuing and improving
|
||
|
the reputation Phrack has for publishing interesting and original articles.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Articles published in Phrack have always fulfilled two general criteria:
|
||
|
|
||
|
1. The research described in the article is original and new.
|
||
|
|
||
|
2. The article is well written.
|
||
|
|
||
|
This has always been what Phrack is all about and it will remain that way.
|
||
|
Each of the sections below describe things to keep in mind if you intend
|
||
|
writing and submitting an article for the magazine.
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
----| 2. Subjects for Research
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
We will never specify particular technology areas that authors should
|
||
|
concentrate on. What you choose to write about is entirely up to you, assuming
|
||
|
of course that it is related in some way to information security!
|
||
|
|
||
|
Many articles published in Phrack in the past have concentrated on an
|
||
|
individual concept or an individual technology and we would like to see
|
||
|
articles that combine concepts to create new ideas. For example: distributed
|
||
|
denial of service tools exist because of work done on network agents that can
|
||
|
be remotely controlled. What other ways can network agents be employed?
|
||
|
Certainly for distributed password sniffing (roll your on Echelon...) and
|
||
|
distributed network scanning, but also for worms and even as agents programmed
|
||
|
to perform autonomous network penetration. We are as interested in the
|
||
|
evolution of existing ideas as we are in research on entirely new subjects.
|
||
|
|
||
|
A good example of this type of thinking is the editorial written by route in
|
||
|
Phrack 53. His article describes the properties of server-centric attacks
|
||
|
that most people are familiar with. In addition however, he talks about
|
||
|
client-centric attacks - an idea which only seems obvious in hindsight and that
|
||
|
certainly deserves much more attention.
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
----| 3. Writing in Plain Language
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
Multiple Phrack articles have been "put into plain language" for general
|
||
|
consumption by third-parties such as online news outlets. They have taken
|
||
|
the ideas presented in Phrack articles and described them using language and
|
||
|
analogies that their readers can understand. With concepts such as
|
||
|
distributed denial of service and buffer overflows it is not necessary for the
|
||
|
reader to understand the subject at a very technical level in order to
|
||
|
understand the underlying idea.
|
||
|
|
||
|
It is a fact that as subject matter becomes more technically esoteric and
|
||
|
complex the audience that can understand that type of information gets smaller
|
||
|
and smaller.
|
||
|
|
||
|
When writing about technical subjects it is tempting to write in highly
|
||
|
technical language (and I admit that I am sometimes guilty of this myself), but
|
||
|
please take into consideration the fact that the audience for Phrack is at
|
||
|
varying levels of technical competence; this is a fact of life. In addition,
|
||
|
many of the readers of Phrack may not have English as their first language and
|
||
|
this makes it especially important that articles are clear so that we can
|
||
|
maximize the readership. There is no shame in writing in simple language.
|
||
|
|
||
|
For these reasons we encourage submissions to Phrack to be written in language
|
||
|
that is not excessively technical. We appreciate however that this is
|
||
|
difficult to do when writing about subjects which are technical by their very
|
||
|
nature.
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
----| 4. Full Expansion of Ideas
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
A good article becomes a great article when the idea being presented is carried
|
||
|
through to its full and logical conclusion.
|
||
|
|
||
|
For example: Phrack has published a number of articles on evading network-based
|
||
|
intrusion detection systems (IDS). Assuming that we have a new technique to
|
||
|
document that allows us to bypass most IDS; of course the article must include
|
||
|
a description of the theory behind the technique, but to make the article
|
||
|
complete is should also include:
|
||
|
|
||
|
* A description of what fundamental mistake the designers of the IDS made to
|
||
|
allow the technique to work.
|
||
|
|
||
|
* A section in the article on what can be done to mitigate the risk of the
|
||
|
technique. For example: a patch or a change in the way an IDS is deployed
|
||
|
or used.
|
||
|
|
||
|
* A discussion of other technologies that may be affected by similar
|
||
|
techniques. For this example this could be firewall technology that
|
||
|
attempts to perform signature-based content analysis or even anti-virus
|
||
|
software based on a misuse-detection model.
|
||
|
|
||
|
We encourage ideas to be presented fully and in a way that does not simply look
|
||
|
at the technology in isolation.
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
----| 5. Using References
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
Putting references to other pieces of work has become almost standard practice
|
||
|
for Phrack articles. This is a very good thing because it allows the reader to
|
||
|
continue their research into the particular subject.
|
||
|
|
||
|
At the end of your article, the list of references should include the author,
|
||
|
the title, the date of the work, and also a URL for where it can be found
|
||
|
online. For example:
|
||
|
|
||
|
[Stewart, 2000] Andrew J. Stewart, "Distributed Metastasis: A Computer
|
||
|
Network Penetration Methodology", September, 1999. http://www.
|
||
|
securityfocus.com/data/library/distributed_metastasis.pdf
|
||
|
|
||
|
In addition to references for related pieces of work, we would like to see
|
||
|
references to any materials that you found useful when performing your research
|
||
|
for the article. This could include books, manuals, materials found online,
|
||
|
and so on.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Any suggestions that you may have for follow-on work should be included.
|
||
|
Perhaps you are aware of a related technique that might work but have not had
|
||
|
the time to investigate it: include this in your article.
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
----| 6. Conclusions
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
This article should in no way be viewed as an attempt to force people into
|
||
|
writing Phrack articles a certain way. These are simply some observations
|
||
|
about what has been done in the past and could possibly be improved upon in the
|
||
|
future. Happy writing!
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
----| 7. References
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
[Gosling, 1995] William Gosling, "Helmsmen and Heroes - Control Theory as a
|
||
|
Key to Past and Future", 1994.
|
||
|
|
||
|
|=[ EOF ]=---------------------------------------------------------------=|
|
||
|
|