We define social engineering as the manipulation of a person or a group of people with the aim of breaking into security systems and stealing important information.
Social programming can be used regardless of any hacking, and for anything, for example, to curb an aggressive crowd or ensure the victory of a candidate in the next election, or vice versa, to denigrate a candidate and to make a peaceful crowd aggressive . It is important that here there is already no talk of a particular computer.
Thus, we will use the term social engineering when it comes to an attack on a person who is part of a computer system.
Sometimes, in addition to the term social engineering, the term reverse social engineering is also used. The bottom line is that with reverse social engineering, you don’t force a person directly to anything, but create such conditions that he turns to you.
For example, if you need to come to an organization under the guise of a telephone wizard, you can just come and start checking phone boxes. This terminology is social engineering.
And you can do it differently. You create a situation in which you are known as a telephone wizard in a particular organization. After that, you wait for something to happen to the phones, or do something with them yourself, and calmly wait for someone to call you and ask you to come. This is reverse social engineering.
Thus, you yourself do not come out of nowhere for no reason, but you are asked to come. Of course, the second case is much preferable, because it removes all your suspicions.
Social programming can be called a science that studies the methods of targeted impact on a person or group of people in order to change or keep their behavior in the right direction. Thus, in essence, the social programmer aims to master the art of managing people.
The basic concept of social programming is that many of the actions of people and their reactions to a particular external influence are in many cases predictable. The thing, generally speaking, is very interesting. But for the most part this is true. The general scheme of the methods of work of social programmers is presented in the picture.
In social programming, the development of an impact scheme proceeds from the end, i.e., from the desired outcome.
I will give you one very simple and very bad example. Let there be someone, for example, a deputy, who, well, is very disturbed by the boss. Suppose this deputy knows that his boss has a sore heart and weak vessels, and one who has a sore heart loves to "kiss the glass." Relatives, of course, walk on their heels and take this glass, and it even works. And our deputy. the chief in one way or another begins one who has a sore heart, purposefully solder. In the end, the vessels do not stand up. Hemorrhagic stroke. Deputy the boss became the boss. At the funeral, he sobbed the most, and then he remained the closest friend of the family. Despite the fact that he actually killed the head of the family.
Why are the methods of social programming wonderful for criminals, that either no one will ever know about them, as in the above example, or even if someone knows something, it is very difficult to bring such an agent to justice. Well, we don’t have the article “Bringing to a stroke” in the criminal code. And if it was, go and prove that it was so, because the “brought” did everything purely voluntarily, being capable, nobody put him into hypnosis, he didn’t irradiate with electromagnetic rays ...
We have considered this rather classical and very simple scheme of negative application of social programming. In different variations, this scheme has been operating since ancient times, if we recall the history.
In this case, the desired result is the physical elimination of the opponent. So, the goal is formulated. The psychophysical characteristics were further developed, as a result of which the tendency to drink and the presence of chronic cardiovascular diseases were clarified. Then a measure of exposure is developed (excessive alcohol consumption), which, if used correctly, gives the intended result.
It is very important that human behavior is natural for himself. Which is interesting. For this, the calculation of psychophysical characteristics is performed.
Because otherwise it would not be social programming. After all, when a killer maniac, for example, has already chosen a victim and is going to kill him, he also knows about the victim’s future behavior that she still doesn’t know about herself (that she will not be in this world soon). But, you must admit, the victim’s behavior in this case can hardly be called natural: it is difficult to imagine that meeting with maniacs is her natural pastime. Thus, social programming is when you artificially model a situation for a specific person, in which you know how this person will act, based on knowledge of the psychotype of that person. The same applies to a group of people.
Social programming, in contrast to social engineering, has a broader scope, because it works with all categories of people, regardless of which part of the system they are. Social engineering, however, always works only with a person who is part of a computer system, although similar methods are used in both cases.
Another important difference is that social engineering is almost always a negative field of application, while social programming, like any field of knowledge, has both a positive and a negative field of application. One example of the negative area of application of social programming is just social engineering.
To conclude the conversation on social programming, we give a well-known example of how skillfully manipulating people can be.
Once, one grandmaster received a letter in the mail in which an unknown person, introducing himself as a young beginner chess player, offered to play a remote game of chess. Remote, because the moves were mailed. The grandmaster was promised a very large amount of money for the win, and if there is a draw, or, God forbid, the grandmaster loses, then he pays the money. True, two times less than the amount that he will receive if the young chess player loses. The grandmaster agreed without hesitation. They made a bet and began to play.
From the very first moves, the famous grandmaster realized that they won’t be able to earn money “for free”, because the first moves were already given to the young chess player by a promising master. In the middle of the mast, the grandmaster lost peace and sleep, constantly calculating the next moves of the opponent, who turned out to be not just a promising master, but a very big master.
In the end, after a considerable time, the grandmaster barely managed to draw the game in a draw, after which he brought down a bunch of compliments on the young man and offered him not money, but his support, saying that with such talents he would make him the world champion.
But the young chess player said that he did not need world fame, and that he asked only to fulfill the conditions of the bet, that is, to send the money he won. Which the grandmaster did with reluctance.
And where is the maniple