I've never heard it, and BYU's COCA has but one example of it (and q.v., as I'm not sure even it's in this sense). So, short answer, maybe it's an up-and-coming usage or maybe it's a one-off your friend heard, but in any event don't put it in your written work &mdash; yet.

Is the following usage of "matter-of-factly" correct?
Recently it has come to light through the reverse engineering of hacking tools that there are vulnerabilities in them that could be exploited to take over an attackers computer during a remote hacking session. In other words, while they are hacking you, you could get into the system from which they are launching the attack to find out what they have managed to access, what the system is, or even p4wn it yourself. The goals would be damage control, deterrence, and ultimately being able to charge the perpetrator of the crime. 

Leaving aside the many legal, ethical, and moral considerations (if you are curious there's a debate recorded here), my question is whether hacking back using this technique has any value to a company. If it was ethical and legal would it be worth a company to invest in the systems and skills needed to make this work, or is it a waste of money? 

EDIT:
There's been several comments regarding leaving the legal and ethical considerations out of the question, so here's the explanation behind that. So far the discussion of hacking back in this manner has been discussed by lawyers, some shouting it is legal, and others saying it isn't. What they do agree on is that there's no case law, and until there is there will be no clear answer. Also, legalities vary from nation to nation, so the answer to legality is "maybe" and "it depends where you are". 

However so far none of the discussion I've seen has been among IT Security professionals who would be the ones to design, deploy, and run systems that would to the hacking back. The lawyers all seem to think that organizations would adopt the technique as a matter of course, but I am not in agreement with that and I would like to hear the views of my peers. This is why I've asked the question apart from legal and ethical aspects. 
