The term "hacker" makes people think of someone sitting in front of a terminal, scripting custom malware on the fly. While it's true most hackers, and most of the best use terminals and write programs, the modern day has evolved the term incrementally. When people try to explain their specialization in offensive security, it can end up going on a tangent. Additionally, current attempts at defining taxonomy overlap and can be vague, as distinctive as "pentester vs red teamer." I also found it difficult to navigate the "T-Shaped" learning model prevalently praised in the field when I first started myself. That was why I created the 'Offensive Security Archetypes', to identify the main attack domains in which hackers will congregate and specialize. But while the terms alone show where you hack, they don't show how you hack. So by taking an assessment, similar to how personality quizzes work, and you'll be provided with a tag to quickly and cleanly label your specialization. Welcome to 'WhoHacker.'

Upon opening, users are prompted with two possible assessments. The first is meant for those interested in offensive cybersecurity but haven't yet started their journey, and and the end provides them a tag with guided instructions on how to pursue that specialty. The questions avoid using the terms directly, and tend to revolve around what the user finds interesting. For example, it might ask "which of the following sound most interesting?" Then the answers may be "how devices connect and communicate," "how pages online function," and similar. It works the same way for style as well. The idea here is for people to connect with the basic concepts rather than the words themselves, as evident without include the term network or website. It also asks other questions besides your basic interests, it centers around curiosity, related to concepts and gadgets, and asking how you think.

The second assessment is meant for those in cybersecurity already, looking to get a tag. Instead of asking your interests, it asks what exact software and gadgets you used, and how specifically you did. The goal with these questions is to map your real, hands on experience level. But unlike the first assessment, the results here don't give a path on what to do next. Instead, it gives a much more detailed diagnostic analysis of your inputs, modeling and graphing your knowledge respectively according to the T shaped learning model. Because knowledge is expansive, it includes spider charts, histograms, axis, generally aiming to map your offensive cybersecurity skills rather than guiding them.

The tag functions very simply. It provides your Archetype & Style. So, some tag examples could be Web Operator, IoT Reverse Engineer, Human Toolsmith, etc. Archetypes can also be expressed through hybrids or secondary. For example, Binary x AI shows hybrid, which could be read "binary and AI." and Crypto (IoT) shows secondary, read as "crypto, then IoT." So some examples for tags are Networks Toolsmith, Crypto x Human Operator, Binary (AI) Researcher, etc. It's important to restate the fact that in practice, people can hyperspecialize into really specific things they find interesting. The goal of tags aren't meant to replace that tangent. They're meant for filling in those gaps, so people can quickly understand at a glance where you operate. But besides, helping the pros, it helps newbies enter the T shaped learning model with more structure.

"Hacker" is a broad term. Find your specialization, get your tag. With WhoHacker.