When we think of the people who make our lives miserable by hacking into computers, or spreading malicious viruses, most of us imagine an unpopular teenage boy, brilliant but geeky, venting his frustrations* from the safety of a suburban bedroom.

Actually, these stereotypes are just that — stereotypes — according to Sarah Gordon, an expert in computer viruses and security technology, and a Senior Research Fellow with Symantec Security Response. Since 1992, Gordon has studied the psychology of virus writers.

“A hacker or a virus writer is just as likely to be the guy next door to you,” she says, “or the kid at the checkout line bagging your groceries. Your average hacker is not necessarily some Goth type dressed entirely in black and sporting a nose ring: she may very well be a 50-year-old female”.

The virus writers Gordon has come to know have varied backgrounds; while predominately male, some are female. Some are solidly academic, while others are athletic.

Many have friendship with members of the opposite sex, good relationships with their parents and families; most are popular with their peers. They don’t spend all their time in the basement. One virus writer volunteers in his local library, working with elderly people. One of them is a poet and a musician, another is an electrical engineer, and others work for a university quantum physics department.

Hackers and virus writers are actually very different, distinct populations. “Hackers tend to have a more thorough knowledge of systems and a more highly developed skill set,” Gordon says, “whereas virus writers generally take a shallower approach to what they’re doing.” Hackers tend to have a much deeper knowledge of individual applications and are still regarded as being somewhat “sexy” in today’s counterculture, while virus writing is looked down upon, mostly for its random damage and lack of required skill.

*venting his frustrations – getting rid of feelings of anger or resentment.

Neil Anderson. Active skills for reading: Book 4.
Thomson/Heinle, 2002, p. 17 (with adaptations).

When we think of the people who make our lives miserable by hacking into computers, or spreading malicious viruses, most of us imagine an unpopular teenage boy, brilliant but geeky, venting his frustrations* from the safety of a suburban bedroom.

Actually, these stereotypes are just that — stereotypes — according to Sarah Gordon, an expert in computer viruses and security technology, and a Senior Research Fellow with Symantec Security Response. Since 1992, Gordon has studied the psychology of virus writers.

“A hacker or a virus writer is just as likely to be the guy next door to you,” she says, “or the kid at the checkout line bagging your groceries. Your average hacker is not necessarily some Goth type dressed entirely in black and sporting a nose ring: she may very well be a 50-year-old female”.

The virus writers Gordon has come to know have varied backgrounds; while predominately male, some are female. Some are solidly academic, while others are athletic.

Many have friendship with members of the opposite sex, good relationships with their parents and families; most are popular with their peers. They don’t spend all their time in the basement. One virus writer volunteers in his local library, working with elderly people. One of them is a poet and a musician, another is an electrical engineer, and others work for a university quantum physics department.

Hackers and virus writers are actually very different, distinct populations. “Hackers tend to have a more thorough knowledge of systems and a more highly developed skill set,” Gordon says, “whereas virus writers generally take a shallower approach to what they’re doing.” Hackers tend to have a much deeper knowledge of individual applications and are still regarded as being somewhat “sexy” in today’s counterculture, while virus writing is looked down upon, mostly for its random damage and lack of required skill.

*venting his frustrations – getting rid of feelings of anger or resentment.

Neil Anderson. Active skills for reading: Book 4.
Thomson/Heinle, 2002, p. 17 (with adaptations).

When we think of the people who make our lives miserable by hacking into computers, or spreading malicious viruses, most of us imagine an unpopular teenage boy, brilliant but geeky, venting his frustrations* from the safety of a suburban bedroom.

Actually, these stereotypes are just that — stereotypes — according to Sarah Gordon, an expert in computer viruses and security technology, and a Senior Research Fellow with Symantec Security Response. Since 1992, Gordon has studied the psychology of virus writers.

“A hacker or a virus writer is just as likely to be the guy next door to you,” she says, “or the kid at the checkout line bagging your groceries. Your average hacker is not necessarily some Goth type dressed entirely in black and sporting a nose ring: she may very well be a 50-year-old female”.

The virus writers Gordon has come to know have varied backgrounds; while predominately male, some are female. Some are solidly academic, while others are athletic.

Many have friendship with members of the opposite sex, good relationships with their parents and families; most are popular with their peers. They don’t spend all their time in the basement. One virus writer volunteers in his local library, working with elderly people. One of them is a poet and a musician, another is an electrical engineer, and others work for a university quantum physics department.

Hackers and virus writers are actually very different, distinct populations. “Hackers tend to have a more thorough knowledge of systems and a more highly developed skill set,” Gordon says, “whereas virus writers generally take a shallower approach to what they’re doing.” Hackers tend to have a much deeper knowledge of individual applications and are still regarded as being somewhat “sexy” in today’s counterculture, while virus writing is looked down upon, mostly for its random damage and lack of required skill.

*venting his frustrations – getting rid of feelings of anger or resentment.

Neil Anderson. Active skills for reading: Book 4.
Thomson/Heinle, 2002, p. 17 (with adaptations).