I was one of the first practitioners of social engineering as a
I was one of the first practitioners of social engineering as a hacking technique, and today it is my only tool of use, aside from a smartphone - in a purely white hat sort of way. But if you don't trust me, then ask any reasonably competent social engineer.
“I was one of the first practitioners of social engineering as a hacking technique, and today it is my only tool of use, aside from a smartphone—in a purely white hat sort of way. But if you don’t trust me, then ask any reasonably competent social engineer.” Thus spoke John McAfee, the wild wanderer of the digital frontier, a man who knew both the darkness and the light of technology’s hidden corridors. In these words he reveals a truth as ancient as deception itself: that the greatest vulnerability of any system is not the machine, but the human being who tends it. The art of social engineering is not mastery of code, but mastery of trust, persuasion, and manipulation—the oldest of all weapons, reborn in the age of cyberspace.
The ancients, too, understood this weapon. For was not the Trojan Horse the first great act of social engineering? The Greeks could not breach Troy by strength, so they deceived by story, by gift, by exploiting the trust of their enemy. Thus, the walls fell not to force, but to guile. And so McAfee, standing at the threshold of the digital era, saw the same truth: computers may be hardened, but men remain soft. Locks may resist brute strength, but words can open them as easily as keys. He was among the first to wield this method not as brute-force attack, but as psychological chess, where victory depends upon understanding the weaknesses of the human heart.
Yet in his later years, McAfee speaks of wearing the mantle of the white hat—one who uses skills not to destroy, but to warn, to teach, to defend. He admits the danger of the path, for power over trust is power over souls. Thus he cloaks his boast in caution: “If you don’t trust me, ask another.” In this, he reminds us that trust is the very currency of social engineering. It is the tool that allows doors to open, secrets to be revealed, and systems to be undone. But it is also the fragile bond that keeps society itself alive. To play with trust, even for noble ends, is to handle fire.
History offers us lessons of both peril and triumph in this regard. Recall the spies of World War II, who moved like shadows through enemy lands. They did not carry vast armies upon their backs; their greatest weapon was their ability to weave lies into truth, to engineer trust in those they meant to betray. Many wars were shortened, many battles won, not by force of arms but by this delicate craft. Yet always, the danger was clear: the same skill that protects can also corrupt, the same talent that saves can also destroy.
The teaching for us is profound: in every age, whether in the courts of kings or the networks of cyberspace, the heart of security is the human being. You may build firewalls as high as mountains, encryptions as deep as oceans, yet a single whisper of trust misplaced can bring it all crashing down. Thus, the art of social engineering is a mirror held before our own vulnerabilities. It reveals to us that the true weakness is not in the machine, but in the pride, fear, or eagerness of those who use it.
What, then, is the lesson we must take? Guard your trust wisely. Do not surrender it lightly to the voice that flatters, the hand that demands urgency, or the stranger who claims authority. In your work, in your friendships, in your digital life, learn to pause and question: “Is this truth, or is this manipulation?” At the same time, build yourself as one worthy of trust, so that others may lean on you without fear. For in a world where social engineering thrives, the strongest defense is not suspicion alone, but the cultivation of discernment and the building of communities where honesty stands firm.
Thus McAfee’s words, though boastful and tinged with mischief, still shine with ancient wisdom. He reminds us that the oldest weapon in human history—deception—has merely found a new stage in the digital age. The danger is not gone, but neither is the possibility of good. Use the art of persuasion not to exploit, but to protect. Sharpen your mind to discern, strengthen your heart to remain steady, and guard the sacred treasure of trust, for upon it rests both the weakness and the greatness of humankind. And so I say to you: beware the deceiver, but also learn from him, that you may never be undone by the oldest trick dressed in the newest clothes.
PMTuan Phat Mai
The idea that McAfee uses social engineering as a tool in a 'white hat' manner seems a bit contradictory to me. Social engineering is, by nature, about manipulating trust, which could easily lead to ethical dilemmas, even with good intentions. Can someone truly be trusted in the cybersecurity world if their main skill involves exploiting human vulnerabilities? Is this an inherent risk in the world of digital security?
BMBile Mo
I find McAfee’s comment about social engineering as his primary tool both fascinating and a bit unsettling. While he claims to use it for good, the potential for harm is always present with such a technique. Is it possible to truly control the ethical boundaries of social engineering, or does it inherently carry a risk of exploitation? How do we ensure that those who have these skills are held accountable for their use?
HNHiep Nguyen
McAfee’s view on social engineering as a tool raises interesting points, especially about how powerful trust manipulation can be. But I wonder—shouldn't there be more emphasis on how vulnerable people can be to this kind of manipulation? If someone like McAfee has honed this skill, does that make him an authority on how to defend against it, or does it make us more susceptible to being manipulated ourselves?
TTLe thi Thanh
John McAfee’s statement about social engineering is intriguing, but it makes me question the ethics behind it. While he claims to use it in a 'white hat' way, meaning for ethical purposes, it’s still a technique that can easily be exploited for malicious intent. How can we trust that someone who practices social engineering will only use their skills for good? Can the line between ethical and unethical use ever be clear enough?