White, Gray, Black: Classifying Cybersecurity Professionals Who Have Gone Under the Shadows

[Professor]

Where is the line between a pen tester, a vulnerability researcher, and a carder?​

Introduction: The Ethical Gradient in the Digital Darkness
The world of cybersecurity and hacking is often portrayed in binaries: good "white hats" protect, evil "black hats" attack. However, the reality is a spectrum of ethical and legal nuances along which professionals with the same technical skills navigate. The line between a penetration tester, an independent researcher, and a carder can be thinner than a line of code, and the transition from one status to another is a matter not only of skill but also of personal choice, moral compass, and socioeconomic circumstances.

Chapter 1: The Canonical Triad – Color as a Convention​

• White Hat: A professional who operates strictly within the legal framework. Their activities are sanctioned and aimed at protecting the public.
  • Examples: Penetration tester in an audit company, SOC (Security Operations Center) analyst, employee of the cybersecurity department of a bank.
  • Code of Ethics: Valid only with the written permission of the system owner (bug bounty programs, contracts). Discovered vulnerabilities are responsibly disclosed exclusively to the customer/vendor for fixing.
  • Motivation: Salary, career advancement, professional recognition in the legal community, desire to make the digital world safer.
• Grey Hat: A practitioner who operates in the ethical "turbulence zone," often on the edge of the law or in its "gray" interpretations.
  • Examples: An independent researcher who scans the internet for open systems without obvious malicious intent, but also without explicit permission. They may hack a system to demonstrate a vulnerability and then offer the owner assistance for a fee.
  • Ethical Code: Often guided by the principle "the ends justify the means" in the name of security. May publish vulnerabilities publicly if the vendor ignores the report (full disclosure), which creates risks for users.
  • Motivation: Weak and recognition (often through publishing exploits), money through informal rewards, the thrill of research without rigid bureaucratic frameworks.
• Black Hat: A specialist who uses knowledge for personal gain or harm in violation of the law.
  • Examples: Carder, ransomware creator, hacker who breaks into systems to steal data for sale.
  • Ethical code: Absent or reduced to a "code of honor among thieves" (don't scam your own). Complete disregard for the rights and safety of victims.
  • Motivation: Financial gain, cybervandalism, ideological protest (hacktivism), sometimes a challenge.

The key difference is not in skills, but in intent and authorization.

Chapter 2: Transition Zones: Why and How Does the Hat Change Color?​

Transitions are rarely instantaneous. They are often a process of descending a slippery slope.

1. From White to Gray (and beyond):

• The "Disillusionment" Scenario: A talented penetration tester encounters bureaucracy, the client's dismissal of critical vulnerabilities they've discovered, and feels undervalued and underpaid. They begin seeking recognition and justice outside the contract: they release an exploit publicly to "shame" the vendor, or secretly sell information about the vulnerability to a third party.
• The Curiosity Scenario: A researcher goes beyond the contractually agreed-upon scope of testing to "just see what's out there." He finds something valuable. The temptation is too great.

2. From Gray to Black:

• The "Monetization" Scenario: An independent researcher discovers a critical vulnerability in the banking system. The vendor fails to respond to the report. Instead of publishing, they receive an offer from an intermediary affiliated with a carding group to purchase the information for 100 times the potential reward from a bug bounty. The ethical barrier collapses under the pressure of "it's their own fault" and "the money is now."
• The "Ideological Escalation" scenario: A hacktivist who started with DDoS attacks on symbolic targets, under the influence of a radical community, moves on to hacking and carding to "finance the fight."

3. Direct route to Black (bypassing White):

• Alternative Career Elevator Scenario: A technically gifted young man from a depressed region sees no legitimate prospects. His first experience in cyberspace is carding forums, where his skills are immediately monetized. He's never been in the "white" world; for him, the shadows are the only professional environment he knows.

Chapter 3: The Carder as a Specific "Black Hat": Professional Deformation​

A carder isn't just a black hat hacker. He's a highly specialized, mercantilist. He differs from a "classic" black hat hacker in the following ways:

1. Goal: Not information, not disruption, not a message. The goal is money, as directly as possible. They're not interested in the depth of penetration, but rather the breadth of their reach (map databases, mass phishing).
2. Tools: Frequently uses ready-made solutions (FaaS — Fraud-as-a-Service), less involved in deep reverse engineering and zero-day creation. His expertise lies in social engineering, automation, and logistics.
3. Ethics: His "ethical code" is entirely introverted — it concerns only relationships within the community (don't scam, observe OPSEC). The outside world is an object of prey, devoid of moral dimension.

Can a carder become a white hat? Yes, it happens. Former carders, especially those caught and cooperating, sometimes become valuable cybersecurity consultants. However, their path back is extremely difficult: they must not only gain knowledge but also completely rethink their ethical paradigm, moving from exploiting the system to protecting it. Their credibility in the industry will always be questionable.

Chapter 4: Factors that hold and push over the edge​

Holding in the "white" field:

• Legal awareness and personal responsibility.
• Career prospects and stable income in the legal sector.
• Culture of responsible disclosure and recognition in the professional community (conferences, CVE).
• Internal moral barriers and understanding of the real damage to victims.

Pushing into the "gray" and "black":

• Feelings of injustice and undervaluation in the legal sector.
• There is a huge income imbalance between a penetration tester's salary and a carder's income.
• Anonymity and a sense of impunity that technology provides.
• Identity crisis and social isolation compensated by status in the criminal community.
• Ideological or political motivation justifying the violation of the law.

Chapter 5: Industry's Response: How to Reduce Brain Drain​

The legal community is aware of the problem and is trying to create "immunity":

1. Bug Bounty Programs: Legalize and monetize research activities. Allows "gray" talent to work legally for good money (bounties for critical vulnerabilities reach $1 million or more).
2. Transparent career paths and competitive pay in cybersecurity.
3. Ethical Hacking Culture: Promoted through university courses, certifications (CEH, OSCP), and conferences (DEF CON, ZeroNights). Creating the image of the "white hat" hacker as a cool and respected professional.
4. Resocialization programs: In some countries, there are initiatives to recruit talented hackers who have come to the attention of law enforcement agencies to work for the state or corporations.

Conclusion: A hat is a choice, not a destiny
Hat color is not a fixed characteristic, but a role a specialist chooses daily, consciously or under pressure. The same person can wear all three hats at different points in their life.

The line between defender and carder is not a wall, but a bridge, guarded by the demons of greed, vanity, and despair. The cybersecurity industry is forced not only to combat "black hat" specialists but also to compete for talent, offering not only money but also meaning, recognition, and a clear conscience.

Ultimately, the "white-gray-black" classification is an oversimplification. A specialist's true ethics are determined not by color, but by answers to simple questions: "Whose interests do I put above mine — my own or others'?" and "Am I willing to cause real harm to an innocent person for my own gain?" For a carder, the answer is always clear. For a true security specialist, it is the same. The whole difficulty lies in those who hesitate somewhere in the middle, on the slippery slope leading downwards.