Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computer security/Archive 4
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer security. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Article alerts
The Computer Security article alerts have been running for the past couple weeks. They provide a useful tool for staying on top of what's happening in the project. You can add Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer Security/Article alerts to your watchlist and you'll get an entry every day.
I modified the alert subscription so it shows Category:All Computer Security articles. Before it included those tagged using {{WikiProject Computer Security}} but omitted those tagged with {{WikiProject Computing}}.
That category should be populated shortly. It seems to be stuck in some kind of backlog. --Pnm (talk) 03:08, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
aXXo GA reassessment
One of the articles under this project, aXXo, is having its good article status reassessed, and may be delisted. Feel free to comment on the review at Talk:AXXo/GA2. Swarm X 21:00, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Billion laughs
A portion of the article Billion laughs—the second paragraph in the 'Summary' section–closely paraphrases (basically copies from) the source that is cited in the article. It is unclear to me, however, whether IBM developerWorks is a non-free source and, thus, whether the section needs to be rewritten. Furthermore, I do not think that I could effectively rewrite even if I tried to, as I lack the technical knowledge to fully understand the topic.
Would someone please have a look at the article and, if necessary, rewrite the paraphrased portion? Thank you, -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:16, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
- I see no claim of notability. Speedy Del under A7. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sephiroth storm (talk • contribs) 23:48, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for your quick response. I am generally hesitant about applying A7 to articles with references, but the premise underlying your deletion proposal seems, to me, to be solid. It may be worth noting that there are some other sources which touch on the topic (e.g., here and here), though I can't discern whether they are reliable. Thanks again, -- Black Falcon (talk) 00:17, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
- Update: the speedy deletion was contested by another editor. -- Black Falcon (talk) 18:08, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for your quick response. I am generally hesitant about applying A7 to articles with references, but the premise underlying your deletion proposal seems, to me, to be solid. It may be worth noting that there are some other sources which touch on the topic (e.g., here and here), though I can't discern whether they are reliable. Thanks again, -- Black Falcon (talk) 00:17, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Citation templates now support more identifiers
Recent changes were made to citations templates (such as {{citation}}, {{cite journal}}, {{cite web}}...). In addition to what was previously supported (bibcode, doi, jstor, isbn, ...), templates now support arXiv, ASIN, JFM, LCCN, MR, OL, OSTI, RFC, SSRN and Zbl. Before, you needed to place |id= (or worse {{arxiv|0123.4567}}|url=http://arxiv.org/abs/0123.4567), now you can simply use |arxiv=0123.4567, likewise for |id= and {{JSTOR|0123456789}}|url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/0123456789 → |jstor=0123456789.
The full list of supported identifiers is given here (with dummy values):
- {{cite journal |author=John Smith |year=2000 |title=How to Put Things into Other Things |journal=Journal of Foobar |volume=1 |issue=2 |pages=3–4 |arxiv=0123456789 |asin=0123456789 |bibcode=0123456789 |doi=0123456789 |jfm=0123456789 |jstor=0123456789 |lccn=0123456789 |isbn=0123456789 |issn=0123456789 |mr=0123456789 |oclc=0123456789 |ol=0123456789 |osti=0123456789 |rfc=0123456789 |pmc=0123456789 |pmid=0123456789 |ssrn=0123456789 |zbl=0123456789 |id={{para|id|____}} }}
Obviously not all citations needs all parameters, but this streamlines the most popular ones and gives both better metadata and better appearances when printed. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 02:38, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Hacker Toolkits?
Do we have any articles related to exploit toolkits? Like "Black Hole" Anyone want to make one? Sephiroth storm (talk) 01:59, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
ArcSight SmartConnector/FlexConnector Product Review
After working with this product for OS and Application auditing for several years I would like to hear some open discussion of technical issues, limitations and reliability. Mepowers00 (talk) 11:49, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
English Martyrs virus
I have left a comment on the "List of computer viruses (E-K)" concerning the "English Martyrs virus". Seems to be redirecting back to the list and not the article itself if the link has an article. Could someone have a look at this? Adamdaley (talk) 12:57, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
- The name is redirected there because English Martyrs does not have its own article. Doesnt appear very notable. In fact google has no reports on it... Sephiroth storm (talk) 13:31, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
What is "cyberethics"?
The lead to cyberethics didn't define the subject, so I rewrote it. It's better than it was, but it still seems a bit off. Something's lacking. Please take a look. The Transhumanist 06:50, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
- I converted the list of questions into a bulleted list so it's a bit easier to follow. I also deleted the suggestion to merge it with Information Ethics. I hope that's ok. Icesword2 (talk) 03:57, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
CESG Listed Advisor Scheme page
This page needs to be 'moved' or simply renamed = it should be "CESG Listed Adviser Scheme" (adviser, not advisor).
Peter Bance (talk) 07:56, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Move discussion re "Firewall"
Readers here may be interested in contributing to a discussion at Talk:Firewall (computing)#Requested move. Cheers. -GTBacchus(talk) 16:13, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
WikiProject restructuring
Compared to some other WikiProjects, the WikiProjects related to computing in a broad sense have been split into a large number of small projects:
I believe this fragmentation of the community is not productive. In essence a WikiProject is just a shared talk page where people with similar interests can meet each other. This project is fairly small and inactive. Would anyone object to it being merged (as a task force) into Wikipedia:WikiProject Computing? —Ruud 10:34, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
- At the moment I'm inclined to leave this one alone because the topic has a strong cultural focus. I've done some editing in this area, and I can see some advantage in bridging the cultural perspectives with more rigor, but think this is a topic where the "feel" might be important. Neutral for now. --Pnm (talk) 20:28, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
- Although I'm not opposed to the idea itself, I don't see how this is going to be anything but a bureaucratic thing. How will merging with Computing bring new vigor, new energy to this Wikiproject? Isn't that just hiding the statistics in a larger pile of numbers? I think it'll actually get *worse*: if we're just a taskforce, I'd say less people will join to help out. So, for now: Oppose because (to me) the rationale makes no sense. --DanielPharos (talk) 21:23, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
- I actually avoided the term "task force" in a previous merge proposal for the reason you give here: it seems like an arbitrary bureaucratic term. More concretely, I would like to see the following things happen:
- This talk page becomes a redirect to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computing. Less talk pages to keep track of will hopefully result in more active participants in discussions.
- {{WikiProject Computer Security}} gets properly merged with {{WikiProject Computing}}. Computer security articles will show up on the related changes list of WikiProject Computing, but there will sill be a separate recent changes lists covering only the computer security related articles.
- Some additional reasoning can be found at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computing#WikiProject restructuring. —Ruud 21:59, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
- So the proposal is basically to get rid of the Talk-page (redirecting all discussions to Computing)? Which leaves this wikiproject useless (just a lousy page gathering statistics), so I can already forsee the merge to Computing being suggested sometime afterwards. Which leaves my original comment fully intact, and in fact strengthens it. A wikiproject like this is *defined* by its talk-page. So: strong oppose. Again, not against the idea for a merger, but because this proposal clearly hasn't been thought fully through (yet). This appears to be just a sneaky way of getting rid of this wikiproject entirely! --DanielPharos (talk) 23:10, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, this proposal is primarily intended to reduce the number of talk pages of computing-related WikiProjects (I absolutely do not want to be "sneaky" about this). There are a number of good reasons to do so:
- The multitude of different talk pages belonging to different, but related, WikiProjects can be confusing and intimidating to new contributors.
- Long time editors have an upper bound on the WikiProjects they can keep track off and actively participate in (perhaps as low as two or three?)
- I strongly believe the mantra "less is more" applies here: fewer talk pages result in a higher overall activity, especially if the WikiProjects are partially overlapping and effectively competing for the attention of editors. This approach has worked effectively in the past for WikiProjects such as WP:MILHIST. Think about it this way: a message posted at this talk page can be seen by at most 30 editors, a message posted to the talk page of WikiProject Computing by over 200. On which talk page do you think a relatively new or even experienced contributor would most likely be better served?
- That said, I do want to preserve or even improve and promote any other infrastructure these smaller have in place (article assessments, related changes, etc.) as these are essential tools for some editors. I hope to have convinced you that I did in fact gave this matter a great deal of though over the past few years. —Ruud 00:06, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
- I can indeed see now you've giving this a lot of thought, but I cannot see how this can result in anything else than the complete destruction of this wikiproject. A wikiproject is a clearly defined thing, as is a task force. Removing the talk-page sends us into limbo, and makes the wikiproject useless (as a gathering place; it's defining characteristic). A few months later, somebody will suggest an outright delete, and at that point, it makes sense to do so. You'll have to convince me your proposal doesn't end up with the deletion of this wikiproject, because that I do oppose. --DanielPharos (talk) 09:56, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
- If merged then the nature of this project would already radically change. Afterwards any further deletion would imply removing the remaining part of this project, which would mainly consist of the article assessment infrastructure (please let me know if I've overlooked any other aspects that define this project in my analysis). WikiProject Computing already has a task force with separate article assessments and I can't think of a good reason why anyone would like to remove those.
- I completely agree that the defining characteristic of a WikiProject is its gathering place, the talk page. The really important question here is whether current community that has gathered around this project is large and vibrant enough to be able to be of assistance to editors writing in the area of computer security, or whether they are better served by a somewhat more diverse and larger community. My analysis of some of the statistics related to this project and a look through the talk page archives lead me to believe the latter, but in the end people who have actively participated in this project are a better judge of the situation. —Ruud 10:56, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
- Well, if you can show me that analysis of the stats, and why you think this wikiproject would be improved by what you're suggesting, AND if you can prove to me we will be better of without our own Talk-page, then I'm all for it. But right now, I haven't seen any convincing evidence. --DanielPharos (talk) 12:35, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
- This isn't an exact science, so I'm certainly not going to claim to be able to prove anything. The evidence is is given by activity statistics - such as the numbers in the table above or the "Top 50 Editors" table here, which indicate this project only has two active editors (one of which is semi-retired) - and past experiences. —Ruud 13:06, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
- Then I'm simply not convinced this is the right thing to do, and I'm not willing to sacrifice this wikiproject on that basis, sorry. --DanielPharos (talk) 15:15, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
- This isn't an exact science, so I'm certainly not going to claim to be able to prove anything. The evidence is is given by activity statistics - such as the numbers in the table above or the "Top 50 Editors" table here, which indicate this project only has two active editors (one of which is semi-retired) - and past experiences. —Ruud 13:06, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
- Well, if you can show me that analysis of the stats, and why you think this wikiproject would be improved by what you're suggesting, AND if you can prove to me we will be better of without our own Talk-page, then I'm all for it. But right now, I haven't seen any convincing evidence. --DanielPharos (talk) 12:35, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
- I can indeed see now you've giving this a lot of thought, but I cannot see how this can result in anything else than the complete destruction of this wikiproject. A wikiproject is a clearly defined thing, as is a task force. Removing the talk-page sends us into limbo, and makes the wikiproject useless (as a gathering place; it's defining characteristic). A few months later, somebody will suggest an outright delete, and at that point, it makes sense to do so. You'll have to convince me your proposal doesn't end up with the deletion of this wikiproject, because that I do oppose. --DanielPharos (talk) 09:56, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, this proposal is primarily intended to reduce the number of talk pages of computing-related WikiProjects (I absolutely do not want to be "sneaky" about this). There are a number of good reasons to do so:
- So the proposal is basically to get rid of the Talk-page (redirecting all discussions to Computing)? Which leaves this wikiproject useless (just a lousy page gathering statistics), so I can already forsee the merge to Computing being suggested sometime afterwards. Which leaves my original comment fully intact, and in fact strengthens it. A wikiproject like this is *defined* by its talk-page. So: strong oppose. Again, not against the idea for a merger, but because this proposal clearly hasn't been thought fully through (yet). This appears to be just a sneaky way of getting rid of this wikiproject entirely! --DanielPharos (talk) 23:10, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
- I actually avoided the term "task force" in a previous merge proposal for the reason you give here: it seems like an arbitrary bureaucratic term. More concretely, I would like to see the following things happen:
Historical note: This project seems to have originated from Wikipedia:WikiProject Computing/Computer and Information Security task force. —Ruud 18:29, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
- It's a merger of that and Wikipedia:WikiProject Malware --DanielPharos (talk) 18:45, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
- Any idea why it happened? Not the merge, which makes sense, but the change from task force to a separate wikiproject. --Pnm (talk) 18:54, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
- I was in the Malware wikiproject at the time, so from my point of view, there was no change from task force to wikiproject. It was noted that there was a significant overlap between the two, and neither had a large active set of members, so it was decided to split the task force (pure information things went one way, computer security thing went towards Malware) and Malware was re-branded to Computer Security, to increase the span to something more useful. (The Malware=yes tag on the Computing template for instance gives you a "Computer Security" instead.) --DanielPharos (talk) 19:27, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
- Any idea why it happened? Not the merge, which makes sense, but the change from task force to a separate wikiproject. --Pnm (talk) 18:54, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
- Neutral Since some people have taken a liking to deleting inactive Wikiprojects, I think morphing smaller Wikiprojects into task forces and placing them under umbrella wikiprojects makes more sense... at least as long as we have people who think that processes can be improved by destruction of idle wikiprojects, at any rate. Jclemens (talk) 02:33, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
- Strong support per Ruud. "Less is more" summarises the arguments pretty well. By my own experience, smaller WikiProjects are so inactive that it makes no sense to use their talk page for questions or centralized discussions. So what's the point for keeping a separate WikiProject then? Restructuring the WikiProject as a task force under an umbrella of a more active one is a sensible solution, since the issues in the talk page get more exposure, but the editor tools such as assessments and such are left intact. 1exec1 (talk) 18:02, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Blackhole Exploit Kit
Someone needs to write an article about the Blackhole Exploit Kit. I am too busy to write a stub at this moment because I am studying to renew my CCNA, but I think that malware that has delivered over one third of all web threats as described in this page in Sophos' Security Threat Report 2012 and hacked many popular web sites like MySQL.com, USPS.com, and Cryptome.org should be notable enough for an article. Jesse Viviano (talk) 03:36, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Koobface worm
After my friend joined a site called Badoos (a dating social network site) all the addresses stored in his computer started receiving emails which he did not generate or even know were sent. These when opened (can do this with special software police have to keep computer safe) have a link saying you have a message from a friend or click here to see photo. It gives the impression that you have received a photo from a friend. The link takes you to an online store. The one we checked led to a store that sells sex aids. Not surprising given the website is a less than reputable one. Initially I thought I'd received an email and opened it. This caused my computer to send similar messages to all in my mailbox. Also I now receive 100s of spam messages as does my friend whose computer infected mine. Having done a check on Badoos, I strongly recommend you stay well away from this dating site. A lot of the people listed on it were definitely fake identities. I feel sorry for the genuine people on it who think they've met a real person. The other issue I have with this is that this site is used by men to stalk women and many have found themselves subjected to indecent assaults and rape. Also there are instances of women meeting men off the website, inviting them over (to obtain evidence such as fingerprints/DNA) then later claiming they were raped/assaulted and taking legal action. Then making a claim for criminal injury compensation, which the government will chase the alleged offender for later. My friend now curses the day he joined it. His computer is bombarded with rubbish which uses up all of his download at a very rapid rate and is costing him time and money as his download speed is significantly slowed down making doing business very tedious indeed on the computer. Information suggests that this website either allows access to members personal information or sells the email addresses to anyone wanting to send out buik emails for advertising or to scammers. It doesn't appear they discriminate. Whilst there are genuine dating sites whom I would hope keep your personal information safe, Badoos is not one that does. I do not recommend being a part of it. I found it very easy to create an account with a complete fake id. I was also able to easily obtain others personal information. I'm not a tech computer person and if it was easy for me, just think how easy it is for the criminally minded who specialise in computer crime, ID theft, credit card fraud. Be cautious... very cautious and stay safe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.245.132.22 (talk) 07:56, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Websense
Computer security help requested
Hi, an editor has recently made a lot of edits to various computer security articles, promoting 3 articles on browser security, internet security and network security. I've patrolled a number of their edits (Special:Contributions/Mistress_Selina_Kyle) and while some seem relevant, I've also reverted some of them that seemed more tangential. I would welcome others to take a look and opine. There is also a bit of an edit war going on in the browser security article, which could use some additional advice and opinions from neutral parties.
Secondly, in looking at all of these edits, it seems that one article that might be missing is an article on mobile phone security. Did such an article ever exist, and if not, do you think it would be a good idea to create one? It seems that there might be utility in capturing all of the issues specific to mobile phones and security, especially as more and more people have smartphones. Karl.brown (talk) 20:00, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
- That's the point, there isn't anything, something's better than nothing, and mobile phone browsers are as susceptible to being hijacked as any other.
- If you think there should be an article for the wider network and application security about phones WP:SOFIXIT don't go around edit-stalking and reverting people trying to make constructive edits...
- You complain about my edits, yet at the same time you seem to be acknowledging at least that I noticed what you (and apparently no one else) didn't seem to notice, that there's a gaping hole in coverage... --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 20:47, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comments. Let's please try to keep this discussion civil and not personal. I did not agree with some of your edits, so I reverted them. I do see that you were trying to be constructive, but I felt that in balance some of the edits did not add to the wikipedia. For example, many of the template changes - if adding browser security to the Android template is useful, why not add links to HTML and SMTP, or 'computer virus' or any other thing which might show up or be used on an android phone? I guess my general philosophy is a bit more minimalist; I prefer articles and templates with fewer spurious links, and more stuff which is on-target, and I guess I disagree with what you said above 'something's better than nothing' - I'd rather not have links to articles which aren't only tangentially relevant to the particular topic at hand...
- You are also right that through your edits I came to realize that there is a gap in mobile security. However, please note I am not a member of this computer security group, and I'm not an expert in security either for that matter (I do have a background in CS). The reason I didn't just go create a new article is I wanted to hear from the other editors; perhaps this has been discussed, perhaps there is a longer-term plan, etc. There isn't a rush, lets have a discussion about how to improve coverage in this area. My gut is, a new article would be the best fix, that could capture the specifics of mobile security (and then link out to the more generic pages) - that way relevant mobile pages could link to such a page. But, other editors may prefer to bolster coverage of mobile security through individual operating system or browser articles, and have mobile-specific sections of the internet or computer security articles.--Karl.brown (talk) 22:20, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
- I just came across this: Mobile security. The article does exist - but it's not very good and it's a bit of an orphan. I think we could debate the name - mobile phone security might be a better name, but I don't have a strong opinion, and google seems to suggest that Mobile security is more common. So I think the next step is to improve the Mobile security article, then bring it into the fold in terms of links. I will start this, but probably not this week or next... The french version of this article: is actually excellent, so I may just steal that content and translate it. --Karl.brown (talk) 12:01, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- Well it seems you two were able to deal with that issue. I will take a look at browser security, see if i can help. Sephiroth storm (talk) 14:41, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Mobile security
I have completed a translation of the Mobile security article from french. I would welcome any assistance from other editors in continuing to clean up the article, and producing translated graphics (I don't know how to produce wiki-pedia ready graphics). --KarlB (talk) 18:59, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Flame (malware)
Flame (malware) may be headed to the main page in the next 24-48 hours via WP:ITN/C; expert input on the article would be appreciated. Cheers, Khazar2 (talk) 01:32, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
List of computer viruses overhaul
Hi,
I have began updating and verifying this list and the lists associated with it in the hope of improving its clarity and reducing the amount of fake/incorrect viruses that are present.
Over the next few months I hope to remove all redlinks that do not provide any further informaion, and replace them with links to verified virus articles.
I believe that a shorter list of viruses that can be verified is more useful than a long list of virus redlinks that can not be confirmed. This may also help counter vandalism/errors as I have seen instances of viruses that appear to be fake, or whose existence cannot be verified. A list of all the redlinks deleted will be kept and once their existence has been confirmed, they can then be added back to the article.
I have also requested to merge the List of computer viruses (all) with the List of computer viruses article as I believe they are very similar and should not be separate articles. The discussion on this matter can be found here Talk:List of computer viruses.
Thanks for reading this message. If you have any suggestions please let me know, they are greatly appreciated.
Further Merger proposal
- I am further proposing that List of computer viruses (Numeric), List of computer viruses (A-D), List of computer viruses (E-K), List of computer viruses (L-R) and List of computer viruses (S-Z) all be merged into one article List of computer viruses.
- After the removal of the above redlinks, the remaining lists are quite short and I do not believe warrant their own pages. For the sake of clarity and organisation, I believe these lists are best combined into one list.
- The discussion on this matter can be found here. A mockup of the proposed page can be found here.
- Any feedback is greatly appreciated.
- Many thanks.
- Sirkus (talk) 06:25, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Mass assignment vulnerability
I created this article as a stub since it has been the news semi-recently with the GitHub compromise, but is also an ongoing issue with various frameworks and with languages other than Ruby. I put in a lot of references but lack the time to do anything further. --AlastairIrvine (talk) 04:03, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Analogies between computer security and security in nature and society
I am interested in considering the analogies between computer security, or more specifically computer malware through the Internet, and other areas of our experience, such as
* predator-prey interactions, * diseases, * parasites;
and social interactions as well, such as
* criminal behavior in general, * interactions between governments, * between governemtns and their citizens, * police forces, * economic competition, * corporate battles,
etc.
Are there already people in this group that are addressing these issues? Are there already articles devoted to one or more of these issues? Does anyone have any interest in interacting on this?
Thanks! -- MarkGoldfain (talk) 14:52, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
I created this section by moving the content of Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer Security/Peer Review to this page. I am the author of the section header and of this paragraph only. --Maarten 1963 (talk) 18:24, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
