The Thin Line Between Black Hat and White Hat Hacking

This year’s Black Hat conference is here. For six days beginning August 3, 2024, the who’s who of real-time cybersecurity will huddle up, presenting the latest research on vulnerabilities and advanced security techniques, often unveiling anything from zero-day exploits to controversial findings. Being a hacker collective at heart, Hadrian is also part of the wide range of attendees, including cybersecurity professionals, researchers, corporate security teams, government officials, and even black hat hackers. That brings us to the point of discussion: both black hat and white hat hackers use the same tools and adopt similar techniques. How do we differentiate between the two?

More specifically, how does an ethical hacker stay in the clear legally?

The key distinction between these two hacking activities boils down to one crucial factor: explicit authorization in the form of a written contract or consent – depending on the situation – based on a legitimate, ethical purpose. 

Leveraging the hacker’s perspective in your security strategy is a wise decision. Still, when these activities are performed without permission or malicious intent, they cross the line into illegal territory. Here are six core activities that any hacker worth their salt does. Let’s examine what is the differentiating factor in each of them:

Penetration Testing

Conducting penetration tests to identify vulnerabilities in a company's network with explicit permission is a hallmark of white hat hacking. For instance, a security consultant performing a penetration test on a company's network to identify and report vulnerabilities as part of a contracted engagement exemplifies ethical behavior. In contrast, performing penetration tests without authorization to exploit discovered vulnerabilities is indicative of black hat hacking. 

An example of this is a hacker scanning and probing a company's network without permission, then using discovered vulnerabilities to steal data or disrupt services, like the 2013 Target data breach. Hackers infiltrated Target's network through a third-party vendor, scanned for vulnerabilities, and deployed malware on POS systems to steal credit card information from 40 million customers.

The differentiating factor here is the absence of explicit consent in the form of a written contract, a defined scope of work, and authorization from the target organization.

Phishing Simulation

White hat hackers conduct phishing simulations to test employee awareness and improve security training with company approval. For example, an organization hiring a security firm to send simulated phishing emails to employees as part of a security awareness program is a legitimate and beneficial practice. Conversely, black hat hackers send phishing emails to steal credentials or distribute malware without consent. 

A typical black hat scenario involves a hacker sending phishing emails to employees of a company without authorization, intending to capture login credentials or deliver malicious payloads, like the 2016 Democratic National Committee (DNC) email leak in the US. Hackers sent phishing emails to DNC employees, leading to the capture of login credentials and the subsequent leak of sensitive emails.

The key differentiator is the lack of the organization’s approval and authorization, plus no educational intent and clear communication of results to improve security awareness.

Network Scanning

Scanning a company's network for vulnerabilities as part of an authorized security assessment is a legitimate activity for white hat hackers. For example, a security consultant using network scanning tools to map out a company's network and identify potential security weaknesses, with permission, is an ethical practice. In contrast, scanning networks without permission to gather information for a potential attack is characteristic of black hat hacking. 

An instance of this would be a hacker scanning an organization's network without authorization, collecting data on open ports and services to plan an intrusion, like the 2014 Sony Pictures hack. Hackers scanned Sony's network, identifying open ports and services, and used this information to launch a devastating attack that stole data and disrupted operations.

The distinguishing factors include the lack of permission from the organization, or an agreed-upon scope and purpose.

Social Engineering

Conducting social engineering tests to evaluate the effectiveness of security policies and employee awareness, with explicit approval, is a white hat activity. For example, a security firm calling employees pretending to be IT support to test their adherence to security protocols, with the company's consent, is a legitimate approach. Conversely, using social engineering techniques to deceive individuals into divulging confidential information or gaining unauthorized access is black hat behavior. 

An example is a hacker impersonating an IT support technician to trick employees into revealing their passwords or other sensitive information, without permission, as seen in the 2013 "Robin Sage" experiment. A security researcher impersonated a female cyber threat analyst, "Robin Sage," tricking employees and high-level executives into revealing sensitive information.

The key differentiators are explicit approval from the organization, clearly defined objectives and reporting results to enhance security policies, which didn’t exist in this case.

Exploit Development

White hat hackers develop and test exploits in a controlled environment to understand potential threats and create defenses, with appropriate authorization. For instance, a security researcher developing an exploit for a known vulnerability to demonstrate its impact and help create patches or mitigation strategies, with permission, is an ethical practice. On the other hand, creating exploits to compromise systems and gain unauthorized access for malicious purposes is black hat hacking. 

An example of this would be a hacker developing an exploit for a zero-day vulnerability and using it to infiltrate systems, steal data, or cause damage, without authorization. Case in point: the 2010 Stuxnet worm. Hackers developed and deployed the Stuxnet worm exploiting zero-day vulnerabilities to sabotage Iran's nuclear centrifuges, causing physical damage.

The critical differentiators between both situations include conducting activities in a controlled environment with authorization, aiming to understand and mitigate threats, and sharing results for defensive purposes.

Data Exfiltration Simulation

Simulating data exfiltration as part of a red team exercise to test an organization's detection and response capabilities, with consent, is a legitimate activity for white hat hackers. For example, a red team simulating the process of exfiltrating sensitive data from a company's network to test the effectiveness of security controls and incident response, with authorization, is a beneficial practice. In contrast, stealing data from a network without authorization for personal gain or to sell on the black market is characteristic of black hat hacking. 

An example of this would be a hacker infiltrating a company's network and exfiltrating sensitive customer data without permission, intending to sell it or use it for malicious purposes. Take the 2017 Equifax data breach. Hackers infiltrated Equifax's network, exploited a vulnerability, and exfiltrated sensitive information of approximately 147 million customers to sell or misuse.

The distinguishing factors are the existence of an authorized red team exercise, with clear objectives and scope. Moreover, the white-had situation had a clear understanding that the results would be used to improve detection and response capabilities.

To stay one step ahead of threat actors, security professionals should understand the mysterious nature of a black hat hacker mentality and how it operates. Learn how to enhance cyber resiliency by thinking like a hacker.