Interview

Deepak Daswani

Hacker and cybersecurtiy expert

“Start changing your password”

The main difference between a hacker and what’s known in the trade as a cracker is THEIR REASON FOR DOING IT
And that the password is robust: more than eight characters, letters, numbers, symbols NOTHING PREDICTABLE, LIKE YOUR NAME FOLLOWED BY 12345

I’m sure you know what you’re doing. You have dif­fer­ent pass­words for your mail, Twit­ter, In­sta­gram... and change them fre­quently. And you’re on the ball when it comes to the per­mis­sion you grant apps, and you would never think of try­ing to steal your neigh­bours’ wi-fi data. Yet, cy­ber­crime is real. The net, like every­thing else, can be used for good or evil. And we can’t be naïve about these things. Deepak Daswani, an ex­pert in cy­ber­se­cu­rity, has been in Barcelona pre­sent­ing his book pub­lished by Edi­ciones Deusto: The Hacker Threat. In fact, he him­self is a hacker. Care­ful though, as hacker is not syn­ony­mous with some­one who acts with bad in­ten­tions, or what’s known in the cy­ber­se­cu­rity world as a cracker.

The term hacker is often still used to talk about peo­ple act­ing in bad faith. Dic­tio­nar­ies some­times even only use that con­no­ta­tion of the term. Can you clear it up for us?
The main dif­fer­ence be­tween a hacker and what’s known in the trade as a cracker is their rea­son for doing it. Hack­ers are peo­ple who ob­vi­ously want to go fur­ther, want to break the bound­aries of tech­nol­ogy, want to enter where they are not al­lowed to, but their mo­ti­va­tion is the per­sonal chal­lenge. What they have is a thirst for knowl­edge, a pas­sion for fur­ther­ing some field, mak­ing progress in the knowl­edge of any mat­ter. In the most ro­man­tic sense, it could be ap­plied to sci­ence or to arts, pol­i­tics, eco­nom­ics... Being a hacker is an at­ti­tude, but ob­vi­ously it’s as­so­ci­ated with the tech­no­log­i­cal field, be­cause it was first con­ceived in this world.
It’s being cu­ri­ous.
Cu­ri­ous, rest­less. The term hacker de­fines a per­son who wants more than to just send hearts through What­sApp, one who wants to gain ad­vanced knowl­edge of tech­nol­ogy, break bar­ri­ers and iden­tify holes in se­cu­rity, with the goal of strength­en­ing tech­nol­ogy, mak­ing sys­tems more se­cure, prov­ing their abil­ity. Then, those who use this knowl­edge, the fruits of the re­search by dif­fer­ent hack­ers to do evil, they are cy­ber­crim­i­nals.
The line that sep­a­rates the two is a very thin one. Ex­plain to me how this works with de­tect­ing se­cu­rity prob­lems and no­ti­fy­ing com­pa­nies of them.
Yes, it’s a very thin line... Es­pe­cially when you in­ves­ti­gate a se­cu­rity prob­lem and you think you’ve iden­ti­fied one in an or­gan­i­sa­tion and you de­cide to in­form them so they can rem­edy it. Let’s take a closer look. There are large com­pa­nies, such as Google, Yahoo and Apple, which have re­ward pro­grammes, and there are more and more small com­pa­nies that are hacker friendly. They thank you for re­port­ing the vul­ner­a­bil­i­ties, be­cause it’s as if you were doing a free audit.
Hack­ers would leave it there, with­out look­ing for any eco­nomic rec­om­pense from the find. You don’t look for a re­ward, then?
When you iden­tify a se­cu­rity prob­lem in an or­gan­i­sa­tion with­out them ask­ing you to, you hand over the in­for­ma­tion so that they can cor­rect it with­out look­ing for any­thing in re­turn. There are cases whereby you in­form them and they thank you, and there are other cases in which you in­form them and they don’t lis­ten to you, and then it’s a dis­ap­point­ing ex­pe­ri­ence.
You’ve had some dis­ap­point­ing ex­pe­ri­ences, like the one with the Club De­portivo Tener­ife web­site, as you ex­plain in the book. Any oth­ers?
I had one re­lated to a sports cen­tre app. A com­pany in Alme­ria de­vel­oped an app for gyms. My gym’s on it. I in­ves­ti­gated it and found that you could hack into the reser­va­tion sys­tem for ac­tiv­i­ties, and that it was vul­ner­a­ble to cer­tain at­tacks via wi-fi... The most crit­i­cal of all, how­ever, is that you could ac­cess all the train­ing rou­tines of users of the app: name, sur­name, coach, rou­tine. Imag­ine the num­ber of gyms that use the app, around 1,600! That’s about 10 mil­lion po­ten­tially af­fected clients. The most se­ri­ous thing are other data be­yond the ac­tiv­ity rou­tine. The data con­tained in the client’s re­port, with a photo in­cluded, which is done pe­ri­od­i­cally after re­view­ing their phys­i­cal progress: meta­bolic age, body flu­ids, per­cent­age of fat, body mass index... I could ac­cess my re­port and those of the other 10 mil­lion users. I don’t care if any­one sees my re­port, the re­sults are good! But jok­ing aside, the re­ports con­tain pri­vate, sen­si­tive in­for­ma­tion. I in­formed the com­pany and ex­plained that crit­i­cal in­for­ma­tion was being ex­posed.
One thing that is clear from your book is that per­fect se­cu­rity does not exist. And, in fact, if there is cy­ber­crime it’s be­cause some­one has not pro­tected them­selves.
Yes. There is cy­ber­crime be­cause there is a vul­ner­a­bil­ity some­where, a tech­ni­cal or human error.
We’re all vul­ner­a­ble, start­ing with those who use the same pass­word for every­thing and never change it.
Start chang­ing your pass­word!
We are very ex­posed!
Yes! We are all vul­ner­a­ble: users, in­di­vid­u­als, or­gan­i­sa­tions, small and large, gov­ern­ments, states... We are all, by using tech­nol­ogy, ex­posed to a se­ries of risks. And what is safe today may not be to­mor­row, be­cause some­one can un­cover a se­cu­rity prob­lem and take ad­van­tage of it. Ex­ploits [pro­grams de­signed to at­tack sys­tems, de­vices or tech­nolo­gies once a vul­ner­a­bil­ity has been de­tected] are one ex­am­ple, but there are a lot of risks that can be avoided if you fol­low the code of good prac­tices that I pro­pose, and you can then live with rel­a­tive con­fi­dence in your level of se­cu­rity.

in­ter­view

It’s better to be an engineer

Computer science engineer, hacker, cybersecurity expert. Canary Islander Daswani went solo in 2017. Before that he worked for the National Security Institute and Deloitte, among others. A conference speaker and lecturer, he is co-founder of the Hackron Cybersecurity Congress. Much of his work is geared towards raising awareness of security. Could anyone be a hacker? Is it better to go through formal education? “I know great hackers who have not been to university and I know engineering graduates who have got nowhere. I’m an engineer and I recommend doing the degree, because that certifies you have some knowledge. In addition, the degree provides you with a solid foundation, which is important if you want to learn hacking, such as basic knowledge of operating systems, programming language, software engineering... And there are many alternatives for training in hacking and cybersecurity. There’s a lot of training available to make a career choice.”

Sign in. Sign in if you are already a verified reader. I want to become verified reader. To leave comments on the website you must be a verified reader.
Note: To leave comments on the website you must be a verified reader and accept the conditions of use.