>>> 10-20 years back a term hacker had a close relation to a certain morale conduct emphasizing freedom of knowledge.
Agreed.
There was a certain "code" people adhered to. Even groups like LOD wouldn't release exploits because they feared people would use them for nefarious purposes.
This is batshit revisionist bullshit. Anyone who close-held an exploit did so to keep the bug alive longer. People routinely burned exploits when they found their rivals using them, not by alerting vendors but by circulating exploit code on #hack
8/ Not sure what you're referring to here... Although gobbles is the only 'organized' (to use that term loosely) full disclosure group from that era that I remember off the cuff, plenty of people posted their (working) exploit code to even 'respectable' lists as bugtraq, not to mention people copy and pasting exploits to IRC the minute they had it working. Any I'm not even talking about joe schmoe's abandoned sourceforge project either - wuftpd had exploits posted and thousands of people got defaced in the hours/days after such a release, complete with defacing archives to keep score (yes I realize the exploit writers weren't usually the defacers).
In short, in the 1990's there were huge amounts of full disclosure, and even those trying to work with vendors were usually snubbed by those vendors. It was a completely different landscape.
Yeah but blackhats ala lod / h0no / el8 routinely released exploits that were leaked or stolen. They just hated full-disclosure with a passion as they saw it as too corporate.
Agreed.
There was a certain "code" people adhered to. Even groups like LOD wouldn't release exploits because they feared people would use them for nefarious purposes.