Just because what you consider immoral or moral individuals use it doesn’t change the inherent nature of the tool to be used for specific circumstances. You’ll also notice I didn’t put any deterministic language when describing a penetration tester, because regardless of what side of the law they’re on they’re still cybersecurity professionals, it’s just that one side happens to pay better.
A knife can be used to dissect as well as it can be used to mutilate or even vivisect. How a tool is used is determined by the user not the creator.
Complaining that a few people use the item for nefarious purposes when the majority of problematic cases are issues at the developer level for the items being affected (i.e. vehicles) is extremely short sighted. Are you going to restrict all PC’s because they can be used for network intrusion?
Are you going to limit access to the internet because the freely available information can teach anyone to create a dirty bomb?
The premise of your outlook is inherently erroneous in my opinion.
I’m not talking about the uses for the tool, I’m talking about how you used the company’s own website as a point of reference for the tool’s capabilities. They have a profit motive so of course they’re not going to advertise unsavory uses for their product, just like your knife companies aren’t going to advertise that their product can be used for mutilation.
The irony of you saying I am the one being pedantic is seriously hilarious.
You should probably work on your reading comprehension and critical thinking skills.
The entire premise of your argument is ‘only criminals use this tool’ or ‘the majority of users of this tool are criminals’ when that is fundamentally and objectively incorrect.
You clearly lack any serious experience in computer science, let alone cybersecurity, and it shows.
I mean of course the official website isn’t going to say “it’s a great tool for hackers and car thieves”
A tool is just that, a tool.
Just because what you consider immoral or moral individuals use it doesn’t change the inherent nature of the tool to be used for specific circumstances. You’ll also notice I didn’t put any deterministic language when describing a penetration tester, because regardless of what side of the law they’re on they’re still cybersecurity professionals, it’s just that one side happens to pay better.
A knife can be used to dissect as well as it can be used to mutilate or even vivisect. How a tool is used is determined by the user not the creator.
Complaining that a few people use the item for nefarious purposes when the majority of problematic cases are issues at the developer level for the items being affected (i.e. vehicles) is extremely short sighted. Are you going to restrict all PC’s because they can be used for network intrusion?
Are you going to limit access to the internet because the freely available information can teach anyone to create a dirty bomb?
The premise of your outlook is inherently erroneous in my opinion.
I’m not talking about the uses for the tool, I’m talking about how you used the company’s own website as a point of reference for the tool’s capabilities. They have a profit motive so of course they’re not going to advertise unsavory uses for their product, just like your knife companies aren’t going to advertise that their product can be used for mutilation.
But go on with your pedantry I guess.
The irony of you saying I am the one being pedantic is seriously hilarious.
You should probably work on your reading comprehension and critical thinking skills.
The entire premise of your argument is ‘only criminals use this tool’ or ‘the majority of users of this tool are criminals’ when that is fundamentally and objectively incorrect.
You clearly lack any serious experience in computer science, let alone cybersecurity, and it shows.