Hey so since being laid off (I don’t even want to say how long ago it was) I’ve been regularly inviting all my Linkedin contacts to break my home lab, going as far as giving them updated network diagrams each time. I’ve been in security a while so a good amount are pentesters. I think it’s a good way to keep the linkedin profile active while showing off. It shows our ability to host stuff ourselves and secure them.

What do you say we come up with a hashtag for it? #pwnme?

  • litchralee@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 hours ago

    I’m of the opinion that hashtags are one of the most egalitarian things recently devised, because they require no advanced arrangements to use, can be created by anyone, can by adopted by everyone, and are amplified solely by their enduring usage. It is very much a popularity contest if a hashtag comes into vogue or if it is abandoned and something else is used, or maybe the specific community isn’t as large as imagined. So for any given hashtag, I’d say just try it and see if it sticks. The Internet Police will not issue citations for improper hashtag use.

    As for the underlying exercise of inviting LinkedIn people to break into your homelab, I’m not sure I see their incentive to do so. Why would unsolicited people (as in, not the AI bots) have any interest in doing so? If they had the chops to break into a network, why expend that time and effort for bragging rights, when instead that sort of work is billable?

    As a general rule, I’m not thrilled when there’s an implicit assumption that other people’s labor is being valued at $0.00/hr. There’s a fine line where it might be OK to ask an expert for a bit of help or advice, but the premise of your request is to get pentest professionals to do work for no compensation, and it’s not even for a charitable, educational, or otherwise enriching purpose. Why should they?

    I’m reminded of the email exchange referenced in this blog post, where an “unbreakable” encryption scheme is presented to an audience of highly capable cryptographers, and they proceed to demolish the scheme as being wholly broken, because the person who presented it could not take no for an answer. Do not be like this person.