It gets the tech ALMOST right, but it's still off in annoying ways. They talk about Raspberry Pis when they aren't an appropriate solution. They use real terminology and then do stupid things like destroy RAM along with storage. They sound like script kiddies. I think that's even WORSE than normal hacker shows. The hacking is only superficially accurate, but it acts like it's a documentary. It sounds like the writers are trying to show off how much research they did rather than writing a good story. I would PREFER a standard Hollywood Hacker since at least they don't pretend to be realistic.
Same goes for the references to Anonymous and Occupy Wall Street. Those are groups that nerdy liberal college kids love and it really plays them up. It comes across as trying too hard to be trendy rather than trying to tell a meaningful story.
It's pandering to the sort of people who go to makerspaces and coding boot camps. It tries to hard to be nerdy and trendy and winds up falling short.
That said, I did enjoy it. The atmosphere and characters are cool. The plot, while trying too hard to be nerdy and trendy, is interesting. But I wouldn't call it /g/. I think a /g/entooman would enjoy it LESS than most people. To most people it looks realistic, but I recognize the flaws and it ends up in something of an uncanny valley.
>>52619763 I'm sure they did a lot of research and had advisers. The problem is that the writers weren't good enough. They used real programs, hardware, and techniques, but the hacking stories were unbelievable and the way they talked shop was awkward.
They had superficial facts that made the details accurate rather than a deep understanding that shaped the story and characters.
>>52618495 Yes. It's suprisingly acucrate and shouldn't trigger your 'autism' too much.
Also, they ripped off story elements from good sources and therefore final effect is good as well. It's just a good show - told from beginning to the end, with nice twists, proper pacing and just the right amount of tension/tragedies. Worth it.
>>52619309 >The hacking is only superficially accurate
Why the hell does everyone say this? It is FAR more then 'superficially' accurate. I feel like when people say this they don't actually know things about stuff to be honest.
I mean would you have ever imagined that any show, ever, would bother with OSI to the degree that Mr. Robot does, for example? Something that in the reality of penetration testing is EXTREMELY important but would be written off as absolutely boring for TV/film?
The mere fact that social-engineering plays such a gigantic role in the show is astounding and something no one ever cares to mention when they are talking about the hacking in Mr. Robot; which again sends off flags that they don't understand how hacking works or something since they completely disregard the attention to 'realistic hacking' that is shown by putting social-engineering front and center all the time.
The scripts they show on screens are real, the code in general is real, etc. etc.
And what is wrong with using a Raspberry Pi to control the (networked) HVAC system at Evil Corp? I'm not saying it's the ONLY way but what makes you say it isn't 'an appropriate solution'. If you can physically put a friggin' Raspberry Pi running Kali (or whatever OS/tools you want) directly on the network and netcat into it/SSH into it/whatever you choose why the hell would you not do that, especially for the situation they were in where they were dealing with an offline data-farm?
Disclaimer: I AM NOT SAYING IT IS HYPER MEGA REALISTIC, just that people downplay it's realism A LOT.
It seems that every-time I am in the actual world of security/penetration testing professionals they are praising the show (with restraint of course as they realize it isn't perfect) for how surprisingly accurate it is. Only on /g/ do people go out of their way to lump it in with completely unrealistic hacking shows.
Mr. Robot is a show genetically engineered to appeal to imdbspawn /v/edditors with no sense of sophistication who laud meme dialog, which supports upvote groupthink mentality and meme acting with a good movie pandering reddit tier post-capeshit "entertainment" sensibilities and a meme aesthetic.
This is a comedy at best and is rightfully deemed as pleb trash every time it gets brought up on /tv/
>>52620377 firstname.lastname@example.org He's pretty friendly. Try to make it interesting to him, though. Ask him about how the show portrays GNU/Linux and the community surrounding it or that sort of thing, not just "what do you think of this show."
>>52620426 >It is FAR more then 'superficially' accurate. He remotely opens up all the doors in a prison, which are for some idiotic reason networked. He brute-forces passwords over the Internet by using the name of a guy's dog, for fuck's sake.
That is about a third-grade understanding of hacking. The tools he uses are real, but both of those scenarios are horribly unrealistic.
>And what is wrong with using a Raspberry Pi to control the (networked) HVAC system at Evil Corp? It's too big and power-hungry for that application. It would be harder to hide and set up than a smaller system would be. It's also less versatile than other systems due to the lack of I/O.
The Raspberry Pi would work, but it is not the best tool for the job. An actual professional would find a better tool. Instead they just used a Raspberry Pi because the "makers" and CS undergrads watching would recognize it and praise the show for being well-researched.
>Only on /g/ do people go out of their way to lump it in with completely unrealistic hacking shows. That's just the problem. It isn't cartoonish. Instead it's close enough to be awkward. It's close enough that the characters sound like script kiddies. It's close enough that the dialogue reads like the writers are shoehorning in jargon to show off their research.
It's close enough that the flaws, while smaller than usual, stand out glaringly.
>>52620721 >He remotely opens up all the doors in a prison, which are for some idiotic reason networked.
Not unreasonable. Someone in management might insist that the guards should be able to remotely open cell doors with some wireless tech of some kind. It looks high tech when they get inspections from judges and so on.
>He brute-forces passwords over the Internet by using the name of a guy's dog, for fuck's sake.
You think people usually have sophisticated passwords? It's very unusual, even among security workers. There was a hacker forum that was hacked some years ago. The most common password was something like 'qwerty123' or 'abc123' and so on even among people who do pentesting.
>>52620736 I think the scene was kind of supposed to be awkward, though. The suit is a total creep. His charm is all superficial. I don't think it was intended to sound sincere or natural since it was a ploy, not real friendliness. Bear in mind that Elliot is Mr. Robot. He had met the weird suit before and didn't remember. If you interpret it as an intimidation tactic or some other scheme rather than a normal conversation, it makes more sense.
Or maybe I'm just overthinking it.
Either way, it WAS horribly awkward and almost made me turn the TV off. Even if that was intentional awkwardness, it was still bad TV.
>He remotely opens up all the doors in a prison, which are for some idiotic reason networked. Yes it is simplified and sped WAY up to make for good TV but how is this far fetched and why is them being networked 'idiotic'? Hacking industrial control units is very much a thing, have you even bothered to google any of this?
The main realism of that episode though is the fact that they tried multiple attack vectors, of which some FAILED (something that always happens with penetration testing/hacking but is never really shown), including phishing attacks, leaving rubber duckies in the parking lot, etc.
They showed the thought process of hacking far more then anyone has before; yes of course there is hollywood-ing of it involved but far, far less then you are imagining apparently if you think that industrial control units being networked is some far fetched thing.
>He brute-forces passwords over the Internet by using the name of a guy's dog, for fuck's sake.
That isn't brute forcing, and is very common. You don't start picking locks until you just turn the handle. Again you show you don't have much actual knowledge of penetration-testing.
>It's too big and power-hungry for that application.
No it isn't. You saw how they implemented it, how was it too big? If it was too big it would not have fit where they wanted to put it. It would be harder to hide and set up than a smaller system would be.
>It's also less versatile than other systems due to the lack of I/O.
How does that matter? Why would it need to be versatile? And even if it does they could just use an expansion board; I don't remember the details of that part of the episode (the creation of the malicious Pi).
>The Raspberry Pi would work, but it is not the best tool for the job. An actual professional would find a better tool. Professionals use RaspberryPi's all the time.
>Instead they just used a Raspberry Pi because the "makers" and CS undergrads watching would recognize it and praise the show for being well-researched.
This could be the case but you are holding that against the show; that it is using a popular but real and interesting piece of hardware instead of ridiculous made of fake hardware, just because you don't like some of the people that like Raspberry Pis?
>That's just the problem. It isn't cartoonish. Instead it's close enough to be awkward. It's close enough that the characters sound like script kiddies. It's close enough that the dialogue reads like the writers are shoehorning in jargon to show off their research.
Sometimes the jargon does come off as abrasive, I'll agree with you there; but again the show isn't perfect by any means obviously. No show is.
>>52620847 >Not unreasonable. Of course it's unreasonable.
>You think people usually have sophisticated passwords? No. But I think two things: 1. They are not often based on their dog's name. Many passwords are awful things like "football" or "letmein." When I was a kid, my awful password was "dragonballftw." That is unbelievable awful, but Elliot couldn't get it. 2. Facebook would lock the account very quickly. Elliot would get maybe ten attempts before the account gets locked, not the dozens (or hundreds) of attempts he made in a span of seconds. And the victim would be informed of the attempt and change the password.
Not the person you were replying to, but how? Do you mean it's not the best way to do things, or that is is unrealistic? Because I can agree that perhaps it is not the best way to do things but it is NOT unrealistic at all. Some old jails have their cells networked to a single shitty server room.
>>52621089 >No. But I think two things: >1. They are not often based on their dog's name. Many passwords are awful things like "football" or >"letmein." When I was a kid, my awful password was "dragonballftw." That is unbelievable awful, but Elliot couldn't get it.
Again you are missing how the show is realistic. The point isn't that it's a dogs name, the point is that it is EASY to guess with some effort and OSI and is a part of actual, real life hacking/penetration testing.
Not to mention he used OSI tools to formulate the word-list that he used to come up with his guesses, something you are completely disregarding.
Again, and I'm not being a dick here, but I'm not sure you know as much about what you are trying to criticize as you think you do. Especially when you say he essentially 'guessed the dudes dogs name is his password' when it very clearly shows him using OSI/social engineering tools to plan his attack. Again, realism.
Just like you are hung up on hacking the prisons PLC instead of realizing the myriad of other very, very realistic aspects of planning an attack that that episode had.
>>52621089 >Of course it's unreasonable. Sorry. Didn't finish my thought. Of course it's unreasonable that he got into the network. Industrial controllers can certainly be cracked and there are real security concerns, but the idea that this one wasn't airgapped is absurd. The idea that any police officer has the permissions to open ALL door locks is absolutely ridiculous. They couldn't find a plausible way to get the malware on the prison system, so they resorted to bullshit.
>>52621234 >the point is that it is EASY to guess with some effort and OSI Within five tries? Yeah, right. It would take dozens (or hundreds) of attempts. We literally saw him make dozens (or hundreds) of attempts. Yet Facebook never caught on and locked the account, which would happen instantly in reality.
As I said, it's superficial accuracy. OSI exists. Wordlists exist. People use both to crack passwords. But they do NOT do it over the Internet, because that would just get the account locked. He uses real techniques and real software in an utterly implausible manner.
If he had the hash on his machine I would believe that he could crack it using OSI, but that isn't what he did.
Well obviously they have to take some leaps so they have an exciting TV show and can move the plot along, no one is arguing against that.
Saying that a prison cell locks network is connected directly to the server or whatever they did to explain (I forget) is just a plot point; it really undermines all the other realism to you, to the point where you call it 'absurd' and ignore it's relevance?
>>52621156 >Not the person you were replying to, but how? Do you mean it's not the best way to do things, or that is is unrealistic? Because I can agree that perhaps it is not the best way to do things but it is NOT unrealistic at all. Some old jails have their cells networked to a single shitty server room.
>>52621358 >it really undermines all the other realism to you That isn't the biggest problem. The biggest problem is the dialogue.
But yes, it DOES undermine the other realism. The superficial details are realistic, but not the broad strokes. They use real techniques and programs in ridiculous ways. All the jargon in the world can't save a broken plot.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at email@example.com with the post's information.