in reply to Lorenzo Franceschi-Bicchierai

mastodon - Collegamento all'originale

Lorenzo Franceschi-Bicchierai

I should have added: we don't consider "hacker" a word with a negative connotation. It's a neutral term that context should help define for the reader.

techcrunch.com/2025/04/25/tech…

The TechCrunch Cyber Glossary | TechCrunch

This glossary includes the most common terms and expressions TechCrunch uses in our security reporting, and explanations of how — and why — we use them.
Zack Whittaker (TechCrunch)

Claudia reshared this.

in reply to Lorenzo Franceschi-Bicchierai

mastodon - Collegamento all'originale

Cybarbie

Like it or not, for a general audience 'hacker' absolutely does have the connotation of hoodied basement dwellers working alone, and _not_ of some DPRK team, or an Israeli cyber company, an IRGC OT crew, some pig butcher scammer or a Nigerian prince. I guess if you know enough to nail attribution on an 'hacker' in the common parlance and not somebody else entirely then ok... but I do think this is what we call courageous reporting. 😂
in reply to Lorenzo Franceschi-Bicchierai

mastodon - Collegamento all'originale

Pierre H.

I’m a hacker. I’m not a threat actor. Attacker? Exploit vendor? A threat actor is also the entity and not necessarily just its engineers but the company itself.

Depending on the context when I talk to “mere mortals” even at work I use “attackers”, “offensive companies”, “criminals”, depending on what matches the context best. (I consider the last two to be refinement on the purpose of the exploits being developed and “attacker” to be the generic term)

⇧