Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computer security/Archive 4
Article alertsThe 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 reassessmentOne 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 laughsA 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)
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 The full list of supported identifiers is given here (with dummy values):
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 ReviewAfter 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 virusI 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)
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)
CESG Listed Advisor Scheme pageThis 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 restructuringCompared to some other WikiProjects, the WikiProjects related to computing in a broad sense have been split into a large number of small projects:
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)
Blackhole Exploit KitSomeone 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 wormAfter 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) WebsenseThere has been some problematic editing over at Websense; extra eyes would be appreciated. bobrayner (talk) 10:41, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Computer security help requestedHi, 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)
Mobile securityI 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 overhaulHi, 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. Sirkus (talk) 19:57, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Further Merger proposal
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 societyI 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) Renovation of the project's pageDear fellow editors, This section deals with the sweeping renovation of the project's page that took place on 29 August 2012. The renovation was reverted on 3 September 2012. The purpose of this section is to reach consensus about a new version of the project's page. HistoryI renovated Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer Security on 29 August 2012. The renovation has the following edit summary.
The renovation can be studied in detail by clicking the history tab of the page and then clicking on the aforementioned date. Another editor, with name DanielPharos, reacted to the renovation by adding the following message to my Talk page.
I answered the message with the following messages.
Editor DanielPharos then reverted the renovation on 3 September 2012. The editor provided the following edit summary.
The editor also added the following message to my Talk page one minute later.
Another editor, with name Ruud, added the following message to my Talk page thereafter.
As far as I know, the above history completely describes the renovation and what happened thereafter in relation to it. AnalysisEditor DanielPharos did not indicate what functionalities were removed that he thinks are useful. He also did not explain why he thinks that they are useful. He also did not indicate what page elements are related to the functionalities concerned. Editor DanielPharos states in his second message that functionalities were removed without any good reason. However, my edit summary stated that the renovation removed all bombastic graphics and page inflations. This means that the editor was inconsiderate of my edit summary or that he did not consider page inflations a good reason for their removal. A text must have sufficient information, regarding both the purpose and the intended readers of the text. However, writers must always bear in mind that readers have more to do than reading the text.[1] Part of writing well is writing concise, vigorously removing all "dross".[2] I conclude that if parts of a text can be considered as page inflations, then this does represent a good reason for their removal. Editor Ruud criticises two successive sentences of the renovation. He states that membership of a WikiProject is informal. It is not clear what informal membership means. The statement is true as long as membership of all WikiProjects is informal. When one WikiProject chooses to have formal membership, then it is not true any more. However, this would not prove that formal membership is inappropriate. He also states that membership is always open to every editor, and that membership does not come with any obligations. These statements are clear. However, the reasoning is the same as with the first statement: the situation is this, and therefore any change is very inappropriate. The criticisms of editor Ruud are not referenced and I could not find any direct support for them on the pages of the WikiProject Council. I conclude that they are sophisms. ActionsI ask editor DanielPharos to fully answer the following questions within 3 weeks.
I will also notify editor DanielPharos and editor Ruud of this writing. AfterwordEditor DanielPharos stated on this Talk page on 7 November 2011, at 23.10, that the WikiProject Computer Security would be useless without its Talk page; that removing the Talk page would make the project just a lousy page that gathers statistics. Comparison shows that the project's page was then essentially the same as before my renovation. It is therefore remarkable that he claimed that my renovation removed a lot of useful functionality. References
Yours faithfully, Maarten 1963 (talk) 18:46, 14 September 2012 (UTC).
Dear fellow editors, I have read the above responses of editor DanielPharos and editor Ruud. AnalysisEditor DanielPharos has not complied with my request to fully answer some legitimate questions that I asked him. He has been given a reasonable time to answer them. However, that time is over now. Editor DanielPharos has indicated that he is mainly concerned about the removal of the article watch panel. However, he has failed to answer why he thinks that that panel is useful. This means that his objection to the removal of that panel is factually groundless. His other remarks do not relate to the contents of my renovation, and are therefore not relevant. I declare that the concerns of editor DanielPharos have been given due attention and that it is not reasonable to pay attention to them any further. I declare that they are all groundless. Editor Ruud stated that if I want to change the membership requirements of the WikiProject Computer Security, then I must show that this has the support of the community. This is basically not true. The membership requirements of the WikiProject Computer Security are what the project's page states about them. Therefore, to change the membership requirements, I only need to change the project's page in that respect. When I want to do that, then I may assume that this reflects consensus without consulting any other editor in advance. It is only when another editor makes an edit that affects my change that consensus about my version can no longer be assumed. Editor Ruud stated that he strongly opposes the change in the membership requirements that I implemented in my renovation. That is all right. Editor Ruud argued that my membership requirements are against the spirit of Wikipedia's open and volunteer community. It is true that in my renovation membership is not open to anyone. However, the members are still volunteers. Wikipedia's community is indeed an open community. However, that community has different categories of members, and one cannot move from the one category to the other freely. This means that the Wikipedia does not have a perfect spirit of openness regarding its community memberships. Editor Ruud argued that we need more members participating in WikiProjects, and that my membership requirements would cause the WikiProject to have less members. I do not accept the statement that the Wikipedia would benefit if more of its editors would join WikiProjects. To accept it, I require hard evidence that shows that articles rise quicker on Wikipedia's quality scale when the relative participation in WikiProjects is higher. I am sure that my membership requirements would cause the WikiProject to have less members. However, my renovation is not about more members, it is about a greater number of active members that take responsibility. Editor Ruud stated that my pompous language did not convince him that he does not strongly oppose my change of the membership requirements. He meant that my pompous language did not convince him that he should support my change of the membership requirements. That is all right. SynthesesTheorem 1Assume that we have my renovation of the project's page. Then its membership requirements are appropriate. ProofThe membership requirements of my renovation are:
The renovation contains the following sentences:
This means that the WikiProject offers editors who are not members of the WikiProject the service of providing a review of an article on request and within six weeks. When an editor makes such a request, then the WikiProject has the moral responsibility towards the requester to deliver a review, possibly within six weeks. Because the review service is offered structurally, the editor may also justifiably have the expectation that a review will typically be of good quality. Therefore, the WikiProject also has the moral responsibility towards the requester to deliver a review that is at least of reasonable quality. To be able to deliver reviews, the WikiProject Computer Security needs members. For members to be able to deliver reviews of at least reasonable quality without help, requirements need to be set regarding the background of new members. The requirements for the background of new members have been set sensibly. They are therefore appropriate. The current members are not required to meet the background requirements for new members. However, they must deliver a review in the second half of 2012 to remain a member after 1 January 2013. This is a transitional arrangement that can help to have a greater number of active members in the first half of 2013. It is therefore appropriate. The renovation contains the following sentence:
This means that the project claims that it is very honourable to be a member. Editors may therefore want to add their username to the member list to obtain that honour without having the intent of contributing to the goals of the project. To prevent this from happening, it is appropriate to require new members to deliver a review first. The renovation contains the following annotations:
In the first annotation, it is not only the first sentence that is based on the Guide of the WikiProject Council. All three are. They are based on the following paragraph.
The second annotation is also based on the above quotation. The quotation does not make it absolutely clear what work is tedious. However, it is reasonable to conclude from the quotation that reviewing probably is. It is therefore appropriate to set a lower limit on reviewing to safeguard group cohesion. The annotation explains how this has been done. It follows that it has been done carefully, and the lower limit is therefore appropriate. This completes the proof. (My own experience strongly confirmed that reviewing can be tedious. I therefore simply stated in the first annotation that reviewing can be tedious.) Theorem 2Assume that we have my renovation of the project's page. Then the renovation can be given a more friendly tone without changing its referential message. (The referential message of a text is all what it states about everything it is about.) ProofThe following sentence of the lead has an unfriendly tone.
Because the sentence is a summary of details lower on the page, it can be removed. The following paragraph of the section “Becoming a member” also has an unfriendly tone.
It can be changed in the following paragraph.
This paragraph has the same referential message but does not have an unfriendly tone. This completes the proof. ActionsI ask editor Ruud to fully answer the following questions within 3 weeks.
I will also notify editor DanielPharos and editor Ruud of this writing. Thank you for reading. Yours faithfully, Maarten 1963 (talk) 15:10, 15 October 2012 (UTC).
Dear fellow editors, Editor Ruud Koot has not responded to some legitimate questions that I asked him. He had been given a reasonable time to answer them. Editor DanielPharos has responded to my previous writing; this response does not disprove my statement that his concerns are all groundless. The time has come to evaluate this discussion with respect to its goal. The goal had been set at the beginning, which was to reach consensus about a new version of the project's page. Evaluation of a discussion is a task different from taking part in it and even different from leading it. It is not uncommon for a chairperson to both take part in a discussion and to evaluate the results. When someone evaluates a discussion that he or she has taken part in, then this does not prove that the evaluation is unfair. However, it does require complete openness of the evaluation. Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines states:
Wikipedia:Consensus (a policy) states:
Wikipedia:Civility (a policy) states:
A document about discussion rules and their related tricks, which I received during a course about debating skills, states as one of the rules: Someone who makes a statement is obliged to defend it when another participant asks for this. One of the related tricks is eluding the burden of proof. Another rule is: An attacker must end his or her doubt after a successful defence, and a defender must give up his or her position after a successful attack. The related trick is: be right but not be put in the right. A book about argumentation states: A proponent must be able to provide a substantiation of his or her position at any time. When he or she fails a request for substantiation, intentional eluding of the burden of proof is probable. (Argumenteren (Dutch textbook for students in higher education) by Cees Braas, Ellie van der Geest, and Annemieke de Schepper (teachers at the college of higher education in Utrecht), Wolters-Noordhoff, 1996, page 81.) Editor Ruud Koot has not responded to the questions that I asked him. These questions were justifiable and unmistakable. Therefore, editor Ruud Koot has violated Wikipedia's ruling that editors should listen, respond, and cooperate. He has also violated the discussion rule that someone must give up his or her position after a successful attack. I decide to declare his position unfounded. Editor DanielPharos did not answer the first and the second question that I had asked him, and he only partly answered the third, while I had asked him to fully answer these questions. Consequently, he has answered less than a third of the questions that I asked him. These questions were justifiable and unmistakable. Therefore, editor DanielPharos has violated Wikipedia's ruling that editors should listen, respond, and cooperate. He has also violated the discussion rule that who made a statement is obliged to defend it when another participant asks for this. I decide to declare his position unfounded. There are no other editors who have given their opinion about a new version of the project's page. I conclude that consensus about a new version of the project's page has been reached. This version is the version that was reversed, possibly adapted to reflect more recent changes. I will notify editor DanielPharos and editor Ruud Koot of this writing. Yours faithfully, Maarten 1963 (talk) 15:10, 13 November 2012 (UTC). List of hackspaces
Review of FA status for Microsoft Security EssentialsI have challenged the decision to award this article FA status over what I allege is a lack of balance and neutrality in the article. Fresh opinions and input are encouraged here. Quantumsilverfish (talk) 01:40, 22 October 2012 (UTC) Storm botnet FARUser:Cbrittain10 has nominated Storm botnet for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. JJ98 (Talk) 00:09, 9 November 2012 (UTC) Relation to WP:COMPI'd like to start contributing to network security articles. Should these articles be tagged with both {{WikiProject Computer Security|class=|importance=|computing-importance=}} and {{WikiProject Computing|class=|importance=|network=yes|network-importance=}}? --Kvng (talk) 19:04, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Example Image 2009 UTM.PNGfile:Example Image 2009 UTM.PNG (Universal Threat Management firewalls) has been nominated for deletion -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 04:54, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
27001Hi all,
We're having a discussion about WP:RS for identifying malware on Talk:Conduit (publisher network and platform)#Browser_Hijack. I'd like to solicit advice from folks more knowledgeable than myself about this topic. Terrible Tim (talk) 20:30, 15 August 2013 (UTC) Created category for Streisand effectI've gone ahead and created the category for Category:Streisand effect. Please feel free to populate it with related articles. Discussion is welcome at Category talk:Streisand effect. Thank you for your time, — Cirt (talk) 18:44, 11 November 2013 (UTC) Information Security CertificationsHi all,
What should we do here? Delete the template and replace with meaningful content in some of the articles? Overhaul the template somehow? Replace with categories? Or what? bobrayner (talk) 14:17, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
CasperspyI don't know the field well enough to tell, but the new article Casperspy is at best confusing and at worst, may be advertising for someone selling malware. If someone with some expertise could take a look and advise, I'd appreciate it. Thank you. SchreiberBike talk 07:23, 10 December 2013 (UTC) Is OpenCA notable?I removed a PROD on OpenCA after a Google search. Regardless, the article needs work. 72.244.206.130 (talk) 02:26, 7 April 2014 (UTC) Problem with project article sectionClicking on any of the numbers on the Project Article grid gives me a No Webservice error.TechnoTalk (talk) 18:21, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Leaflet For Wikiproject Computer Security At Wikimania 2014Hi all, My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London. One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations. This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g: • Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film • Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers. • Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc. • Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____ • Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost For more information or to sign up for one for your project, go to:
BadBIOS
WhisperToMe (talk) 09:52, 8 July 2014 (UTC) This is a notice that the article SQRL, which may be within the scope of your WikiProject, has been nominated for deletion. If this is of interest to your members, their input would be appreciated. 0x0077BE [talk/contrib] 14:42, 23 July 2014 (UTC) Content removed from Network securityThe article is tagged as "high importance" for this project so I thought it prudent to notify interested editors here that I have removed a large WP:NOTHOW violation from the article. The offending sections formed the bulk of the article so it is now in a rather sad state. Editors familiar with the topic are encouraged to improve the article by replacing the removed content with material that does not violate the WP:NOT policy. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:49, 26 July 2014 (UTC) Comment on the WikiProject X proposalHello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC) Streisand effect category deletion discussion
Category:Streisand effect has been nominated for deletion, the discussion is at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_March_12#Category:Streisand_effect. Feel free to participate there. Thank you for your time, — Cirt (talk) 02:11, 17 March 2015 (UTC) Afd discussion : +Greythorne the Technomancer (+gthorne)All interested editors are welcome to contribute to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/+Greythorne the Technomancer (+gthorne). The subject is wanting in reliable, independent sources. Please focus on policy and guidelines rather than any "gut feelings" of the subject. Cheers, --Animalparty-- (talk) 21:12, 31 March 2015 (UTC) Discussion ongoing; join in. --George Ho (talk) 03:10, 16 October 2014 (UTC) WikiProject X is live! Hello everyone! You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you! Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X. Harej (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC) Discussion at Village Pump (Proposals)There is a proposal to enable HTTPS security by default for all readers on Wikipedia at the Village Pump. Computer security is a very relevant topic in the discussion. Your input would be welcome. Thank you, Tony Tan98 · talk 02:04, 26 February 2015 (UTC) Created new article on the Free Speech FlagI've created a new article on the Free Speech Flag. If anyone's got ideas for possible additional sources, comments are welcome, at Talk:Free Speech Flag. Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 18:38, 25 September 2015 (UTC) Free Speech Flag for Featured PictureI've nominated the Free Speech Flag for Featured Picture. Discussion is at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Free Speech Flag. — Cirt (talk) 18:23, 24 September 2015 (UTC) Possible sourceI found:
WhisperToMe (talk) 23:55, 7 March 2015 (UTC) Storm BotnetIs very overdue for updating, assuming sources can be found. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 04:29, 13 October 2015 (UTC). DROWN attack on TLSI've made a start on an article covering this at DROWN attack. Any help on this would be gratefully accepted. -- Markshale (talk) 00:56, 2 March 2016 (UTC) RZA4096 File Encryption RansomwareHi guys, last Sunday when i started my computer in the morning i found all my data files encrypted on my PC. Well, tried to fix this issue by restarting my PC but it does not worked. After then i tried to run the Anti-malware application running in my system and its fails too. Well, after sometimes a strange message locks my PC screen. @@@@@@@ What happened to your files ? @@@@@@@ All of your files were protected by a strong encryption with RZA4096 @@@@@@@ More information about the en-Xryption keys using RZA4096 can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RSA_(cryptosystem) @@@@@@@ How did this happen ? @@@@@@@ !!! Specially for your PC was generated personal RZA4096 Key , both publik and private. @@@@@@@ !!! ALL YOUR FILES were en-Xrypted with the publik key, which has been transferred to your computer via the Internet. @@@@@@@ !!! Decrypting of your files is only possible with the help of the privatt key and de-crypt program , which is on our Secret Server @@@@@@@ What do I do ? @@@@@@@ So , there are two ways you can choose: wait for a miracle and get your price doubled, or start obtaining BITCOIN NOW! , and restore your data easy way @@@@@@@ If You have really valuable data, you better not waste your time, because there is no other way to get your files, except make a payment It was asking me to pay the ransom in exchange of the access of my precious file. However, when i searched about RZA4096 File Encryption Ransomware i reached to a blog spot site : Kick Ass Malware from where i came to that it is a file encrypting ransomware virus. However, the manual methods listed on that blog does not helped me to remove the threat completely form my PC. Meanwhile, that particular blog is also promote an Anti-Malware tool to remove RZA4096 File Encryption Ransomware. Please suggest me should i use the Tool and remove the threat or i simply pay the ransom. Kindly help me guys as i don't want to lose my important data. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mathewpeter1 (talk • contribs) 17:43, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Could use some help over here!Hello, I decided to be bold and start an new article on the clusters of attacks utilizing unauthorized access to SWIFT to send fund transfer messages to, well, rob banks. And the ongoing investigations into links to North Korea. It's just a start, please help! Chris vLS (talk) 17:08, 28 May 2016 (UTC) Existing article qualityDear wikipedians, about 70% of articles in scope for this project don't get to "C" in quality scale. Is there any improvement initiative in the pipeline? Kind regards, DPdH (talk) 07:37, 17 August 2016 (UTC) Active users?I've recently checked into the list of Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer Security/Members. Could this list be improved by stating which members are currently active or inactive or haven't made a contribution in quite some time. Also there has been some users have joined without making a single contribution to an article or a talk page relating to the subject of computer security. (Some these accounts only contribution was to just add their name to the list.) Perhaps leaving notices on the talk pages of users who haven't made a contribution relating to computer security stating that they'll be removed from the project in four weeks time would be suffice. As for users who have made contributions, but are inactive they could be placed on an inactive section on the list. FockeWulf FW 190 (talk) 14:23, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your notification. I am planning to contribute an article about the cyber initiative that connects European CERTs, is involved in ENISA etc. Am looking forward to comments (within a week or so) Ppinia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ppinia (talk • contribs) 07:59, 17 August 2016 (UTC) User statusThis section is created for users to state their user status as active or inactive. Please be sure to update your status to keep your status as active. Feel free to use the example below. FockeWulf FW 190 (talk) 18:58, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Looks like enough time has been given and the user list can be updated. FockeWulf FW 190 (talk) 14:10, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
IoT malware and stresser softwareHi all, Currently we don't have much coverage on the subject of IoT malware and stresser software which has been recently on media, but lacks significant coverage on Wikipedia. If anyone is interested I'm looking for a collaboration to improve coverage on articles on the subject. FockeWulf FW 190 (talk) 18:13, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Merger proposal notificationThere is a merger proposal for: Democratic National Committee cyber attacks to be merged ---> into Russian influence on the 2016 United States presidential election. Discussion is at: Talk:Russian_influence_on_the_2016_United_States_presidential_election#Merger_proposal. Sagecandor (talk) 20:42, 11 December 2016 (UTC) Fake news website - move discussionArticle is Fake news website.
Missing topics listMy list of missing topics related to computers is updated - Skysmith (talk) 19:31, 8 January 2017 (UTC) Is there a security breach NEWS page on wikinews.org or here?I am new to this group. Let me know if any news item that belongs to here or somewhere else? thanks. LairdUnlimited (talk) 17:40, 7 March 2017 (UTC) Security of password managersYou have Comparison_of_password_managers and List of password managers and LastPass, etc. But there's no information on the security of password managers. LastPass had yet another huge security hole reported by a white hat Tavis Ormandy recently. So I started looking to switch to one that has a better reputation or better record or has been 3rd-party audited. I found that 1Password hasn't been audited, and neither has LastPass, but that information should be on Wikipedia for the listed entries. Without it, the articles are worse than useless. --StarDestroyer — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:643:8300:B030:50BB:CE2:4353:1F86 (talk) 14:55, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Nomination of The Plot to Hack America for deletion A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Plot to Hack America is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted. The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Plot to Hack America until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Sagecandor (talk) 17:40, 12 June 2017 (UTC) Metasploit CLI commandsI have been working on a command listing for the metasploit CLI and the Meterpreter payload commands. At first I thought it could be included in the Metasploit Project but it is way too long for that so it may be worthy of having it's own article. Anyone know of any other Wikipedia articles of a similar nature? DoctorG (talk) 20:34, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
New AFC articleDraft:Metasploit Framework commands is now in the AFC queue. If any of you spend time there, I'd appreciate you taking a look at it. Thanks! DoctorG (talk) 20:45, 13 October 2017 (UTC) MacKeeper Content/references dispute - can anyone give me a second opinion on thisHi, I'm only an occasional editor of Wikipedia so I'm not sure if this is the right place to raise this question. Please redirect me if it's not appropriate. I've been trying to edit the page for MacKeeper but I've run up against an experienced editor who disagrees with me so I would appreciate it if someone from the security community could give a second opinion on this. The objection is that the edit cites primary sources which is true, but only as a "straightforward, descriptive statement" of two major anti-malware vendor's description of MacKeeper as a "potentially unwanted application", permitted as per WP:PRIMARYCARE. Furthermore, the sources Sophos and MalwareBytes are discounted because they are a competitor of MacKeeper in the anti-malware market and therefore biased or unreliable. As per WP:NEUTRALSOURCE I contend that while an article must have an overall NPOV, "reliable sources may be non-neutral". The edit I propose is as follows, I would appreciate it if someone could review it: MacKeeper has been criticized for being very difficult to uninstall[1][2][3][4] and reported as a potentially unwanted program by Malwarebytes.[5] Sophos Labs agrees[6] and states in it's 2018 Malware Forecast that "Of all PUAs we intercepted, MacKeeper was most prolific"[7] Kromtech states that their product is definitely not a virus and that there are "situations when some antiviruses falsely marked MacKeeper as a virus or a potentially unwanted applications (PUA)."[8] 119.224.17.35 (talk) 07:07, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
References
Community OutreachMarketing Manager here at RoboForm reaching out to see if anyone would be interested in helping create an article for RoboForm Password Manager. Thanks! https://www.roboform.com/ SoftwareGirl (talk) 22:07, 11 December 2017 (UTC)SoftwareGirl Splitting public-policy from technical material at Computer security – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.
Please see Talk:Computer security#Some initial ideas on a split and an overhaul. Summary: The present article is a mish-mash of material of a general nature (technical, academic, practices, history, terms, incidents, notable-figures) and material of a socio-political nature (infrastructural, regulatory, legal, corporate, financial, espionage and cyberwar, public impacts). This started as an RM discussion but turned into a scope one. I've proposed that a Cybersecurity article (using the term favored in technology-and-public-policy circles) should be a spinoff, per WP:SUMMARY, for the second group of material, leaving the bulk of the more general info at Computer security (the basic, non-jargon, descriptive term for the field). This would be in keeping with Cyberwarfare, Internet privacy, Internet censorship, Genetically modified food controversies, and numerous other clear splits between technology and technology policy articles (sometimes multiple such articles, e.g. Electronic cigarette → Regulation of electronic cigarettes, Safety of electronic cigarettes, and several others – but let's just start with one here). I've done a section-by-section review of what needs to be done, but it's just one opinion, so additional input is sought. Computers: In particular, a whole lot of "cybersecurity" isn't about computers and their security so much as it is about telecommunications infrastructure and its management and control. Help with M2M public key certificateCould someone have a look at the recently created M2M public key certificate to see if it deserves an article of its own? – Uanfala (talk) 22:22, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
LookoutI work at Lookout and we shared this draft article that I hoping will be reviewed by an editor. Here is the link to the talk page where we shared the draft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Lookout_(company)#Draft Eileen at lookout (talk) 17:21, 3 May 2018 (UTC) Shouldn't article about faimily of the antivirus software which including independent programs like "AVG AntiVirus" and "AVG Internet Security" exists under common name like "AVG (software)"? As I said "AVG AntiVirus" is name one of the programs from family. I couldn't check the whole article but it looks like article is focusing mostly on "AVG AntiVirus" program only so It could be possible to delete all informations not reffering to "AVG AntiVirus" program and change definition. Eurohunter (talk) 09:53, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Hi, my name is Charlotte Empey and I work at Avast/AVG. I support AVG (software) as a consolidated article because WP:PRODUCT encourages the company page to use WP:Summary Style to summarize its products, but this isn’t practical if the product page is on just one product. Additionally, WP:PRODUCT says to avoid creating multiple stubs on products of marginal notability and there are other AVG products that have been covered in in-depth articles https://www.pcmag.com/review/343595/avg-cloudcare[8] An AVG (software) page would be the best place for these sources. I realize the article-content won’t jive well with the article-title initially, but I will eventually assist in adjusting the content in an appropriate manner given my conflict of interest. Empey at Avast (talk) 19:42, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
WikiProject collaboration notice from the Portals WikiProjectThe reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them. Portals are being redesigned. The new design features are being applied to existing portals. At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{Transclude lead excerpt}}. The discussion about this can be found here. Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time. BackgroundOn April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals. Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals. So far, 84 editors have joined. If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive. If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page. Thank you. — The Transhumanist 10:54, 31 May 2018 (UTC) Seeking input on an update that spans various articlesI believe I've identified a shortcoming that spans a number of Wikipedia articles relating to computer security. I don't think there's anything intentional about it, but as I'm sure followers of this page are well aware, the nature and severity of cyberattacks has changed rapidly in recent years, and major developments have not been well summarized in Wikipedia coverage (though many specific attacks have been covered very effectively). I started an article on fifth generation cyberattack, and I've gotten good feedback from a couple of long-term editors (thanks again Kvng, especially). I'd like to start weaving information about 5th generation attacks into other high-level articles. Such as: computer security, cyberwarfare, network security, as well as the articles on NotPetya and Wannacry. As I've noted on other pages, my efforts are part of my professional duties as an employee of Check Point; but my goal is simply to improve Wikipedia's coverage of an important field, not specifically to advance my employer's interests. I'd be happy for any input from those more experienced with Wikipedia as I proceed. I'll start with an edit to computer security to illustrate the kind of edit I'm talking about. -Cindy (talk) 00:47, 10 July 2018 (UTC) Request an infobox for computer vulnerabilities such as Heartbleed and ShellshockFor information: This is being discussed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Computing#Request an infobox for computer vulnerabilities such as Heartbleed and Shellshock. Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:45, 28 November 2018 (UTC) Discussion of Softpedia (softpedia.com) and The Hacker News (thehackernews.com) at the reliable sources noticeboardThere is a discussion on the reliability of Softpedia (softpedia.com) and The Hacker News (thehackernews.com, not to be confused with Hacker News) at the reliable sources noticeboard. If you are interested, please participate at WP:RSN § Softpedia (softpedia.com) and The Hacker News (thehackernews.com) for UGNazi. — Newslinger talk 12:17, 6 February 2019 (UTC) A new newsletter directory is out!A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.
CrowdStrike edit requestHi all! I'm a COI editor representing CrowdStrike. I've posted some edit requests on that article's talk page that have been awaiting review for quite a bit now, so I'm reaching out to this community in case anyone here would be willing to take a look and share feedback. Thank you! Mary Gaulke (talk) 23:27, 19 June 2019 (UTC) AVG Technologies COI edit requestA declared COI editor/employee of Avast has drafted a version of the AVG Technologies article at User:Empey at Avast/AVG Technologies Draft. See discussion on the article talk page, where the user has agreed to leave the Controversy section intact. I am not familiar with the computer security realm, so anybody who is, I would appreciate their input on the other drafted changes. Thanks. --Geniac (talk) 22:52, 17 July 2019 (UTC) What images should be used in Hardware security module?
Anyone have good ideas on what images should be included in Hardware security module? I don't see why multiple images are needed, but we could use some clear criteria to keep the spamming/coi/etc problems in check. --Ronz (talk) 20:16, 14 August 2019 (UTC) Update ?A man was charged for the Anthem data breach in 2019 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Personisgaming (talk • contribs) 21:45, 22 September 2019 (UTC) Request for information on WP1.0 web toolHello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables. We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC) DHS Cyber Security DivisionThe article on DHS Cyber Security Division has very little information as the article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. For my class assignment I would like to add to the information presented on DHS Cyber Security Division, as I believe I could fill in a couple of missing gaps within the article. Unless opposed? --Andrew.willman (talk) 22:21, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
iframe virusThere's a long-standing merge proposal over at iframe virus and Frame injection which could use some educated eyes; outside of my field of expertise! Contributions welcome at Talk:Iframe virus#Merge request: XSS worm Klbrain (talk) 17:55, 6 April 2020 (UTC) PrioritaryFor me prioritary is a list of know viruses and aliases. A Basic Table of Computing Viruses and a more complete one?. A viruspedia?. A TaskForce within Security Wikiproject about Computing Viruses? (it would be OK). For example, include information about KMSAuto Net.exe virus [9]. Main articles: Malware, Exploit, and Ransomware.BoldLuis (talk) 12:12, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
🎆 New Wikibooks book on inexpensive end-user computer security...Just completed a Wikibooks book on inexpensive end-user computer security. Might be relevant to your work, and because it's hosted on a Wikimedia Foundation site, it might not be too difficult for you to use its content. It's hosted at: https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/End-user_Computer_Security. --MarkJFernandes (talk) 11:18, 4 June 2020 (UTC) About cyber loss scenario modeling in wikidataI would like to use Wikidata to model the different cyber loss scenarios. What is the connection of this Wikipedia project and wikidata? Do we need an equivalent project on Wikidata or this can be coordinated from this project? --AntoineLogean (talk) 11:18, 27 July 2020 (UTC) Drovorub malware toolkitI've just started an article on Drovorub, the recently discovered Linux malware toolkit from APT28. I'd welcome help expanding and improving the article. -- The Anome (talk) 16:51, 21 August 2020 (UTC) Suggest creation of list article on HTTP authentication/Security access control methodsSee my post here. El komodos drago (talk to me) 10:49, 1 December 2020 (UTC) Help with article about technology companyHello. I’m hoping a member of this group can help out with a few changes I’ve proposed to improve the Cloudflare article at Talk:Cloudflare/Archives/2021#Request Edits February 2021. I have a conflict of interest so would like an independent editor to evaluate the proposed edits. Thanks! Ryanknight24 (talk) 18:48, 12 February 2021 (UTC) Phineas Phisher/FisherHi, i was considering making an article about phineas-phisher who you can find out about here,here ,here for a few examples, a quick search of google books as well as a browse of a few I own shows: A ecent amount of hits, but i am unsure if this person passes is enough Notable. Could I get some feedback here before I begin? It would be much appreciated, Thanks. W1tchkr4ft 00 (talk) 21:45, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Suggestion of 'Golden Age of HTTPS/SSL/TLS/CA' and 'HTTP is Dead'I have often seen opening sites of any kind for a long time, but since the 2010s some of these sites have switched to https permanently and make me worrying (however not). My suggestion about 'Golden Age of HTTPS/SSL/TLS/CA' where users of encryption really need and as an obligation to secure the site now and 'HTTP is Dead' is the drastic reduction of the use of http has been experienced since the late 2010s due to security warning and more vulnerable for all. Thanks for my suggestion about the history of HTTP and HTTPS --Firzafp (talk) 10:03, 3 March 2021 (UTC) Multi-editor discussion requested for CloudflareThere is a new discussion on the Talk page of Cloudflare, the ISP, about three issues that were looked at by one editor as part of a conflict of interest review. Talk:Cloudflare/Archives/2021#Further Discussion for Proposals June 2021 I think the discussion would benefit from multiple editors weighing in. Thank you. Ryanknight24 (talk) 22:57, 21 June 2021 (UTC) Nomination of Virus Creation Laboratory for deletionThe article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Virus Creation Laboratory until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Skyerise (talk) 13:58, 17 July 2021 (UTC)  The article PaX has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons. You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing FORCEDENTRYI've jusr created an article of FORCEDENTRY, a major hack of pretty much the whole Apple endpoint ecosystem that has just been revealed. I'd appreciate any help that other editors can give to improve it. -- The Anome (talk) 23:49, 13 September 2021 (UTC) Pegasus (spyware) has an RFCPegasus (spyware), which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 22:36, 6 January 2022 (UTC) Requested move at Talk:List of security hacking incidents#Requested move 6 January 2022 There is a requested move discussion at Talk:List of security hacking incidents#Requested move 6 January 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 15:22, 14 January 2022 (UTC) Requested move at Talk:Asset Disposal and Information Security Alliance#Requested move 10 March 2022There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Asset Disposal and Information Security Alliance#Requested move 10 March 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. NW1223 <Howl at me•My hunts> 15:59, 17 March 2022 (UTC) Editor Review Assistance - Fortinet Company PageHello, I’m seeking assistance from qualified editors to review COI edit requests I post on the Fortinet article’s Talk page. Will appreciate anyone leaving a comment here saying it’s okay if I ping them in the future for these requests. At the present time there is only 1 open (technically ready to be closed) request, but likely others. Context: Last year Fortinet became aware of an undisclosed paid edits warning label that was placed on the article about “Fortinet” in December 2020 after a sock puppet investigation found 2 accounts had made edits in 2018 as part of a broader campaign. Although Fortinet has hired disclosed paid editors in the past, we were not in a position to make uncontroversial reversions to any suspicious edits. Fortinet has been making COI Edit requests and seeking unbiased, disinterested editors to help improve the article in hopes to see the page’s quality improved per the warning label request to ensure that the Wikipedia community trusts the content there again. We’re hoping some of the editors involved with this Wikiproject will assist.Johnwikiwelton (talk) 19:12, 18 March 2022 (UTC) FLRC for List of Computer CriminalsI have nominated List of computer criminals for featured list removal. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog Farm Talk 18:02, 28 March 2022 (UTC) User script to detect unreliable sourcesI have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like
and turns it into something like
It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}. The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed. Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable. This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC) Editor Review Assistance - ReBACHi, I need finding reliable sources for this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Relationship-based_access_control. Thanks! Miparnisari (talk) 02:00, 21 June 2022 (UTC) Feedback on OneTrust new article draftHi there. I created a draft article for OneTrust in my sandbox here: [12]. I’m a new Wikipedia user, and work for the company so I have a conflict of interest, and therefore I need feedback on how to improve the draft from independent editors and make sure it’s in line with Wikipedia’s policies and best practices. Is someone from this project available to take a look and provide feedback/comments? Thanks. FriendofKittens8 (talk) 18:30, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
Requested move at Talk:Zero-day (computing)#Requested move 26 August 2022There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Zero-day (computing)#Requested move 26 August 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. – robertsky (talk) 16:24, 2 September 2022 (UTC) Edit Review - EmsisoftPosted a few requests on the talk page for Emsisoft, an anti-malware company, just to fix a few bad sources like press releases, blogs, etc. I have a COI (and declared it there too) - could someone from this group review the proposals? Talk:Emsisoft#article update proposals Thanks. Sportsfan4646 (talk) 19:36, 7 December 2022 (UTC) AfC review of Draft:Confidential computingHi, I worked on an article about Confidential Computing. Tried to make it as objective and well-referenced as possible. Seeking review and suggestions. Note, I'm affiliated with a related non-profit industry group and will abide by all rules regarding conflicts. All help appreciated. Thanks! HudsonAttests (talk) 20:51, 30 March 2023 (UTC) Draft for reviewHey, submitted this a few days ago and would appreciate a review, this is the first article I made so I am not sure if I got everything right - Draft:Alon Gal 85.250.218.178 (talk) 11:40, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
Draft for review - Dancho DanchevHello, I've been working on a draft for - Draft:Dancho Danchev which I believe needs improvements and the following references based on articles and Google Scholar and Google Books including the following Google Books references added. I also collected the following articles mentioning his research which is outstanding for references and adding additional content.
Here's also heavily referenced here in Dutch: And here in French: https://www.reseaux-telecoms.net/recherche.html?kw=dancho+danchev&sa= Ahsks873 (talk) 16:19, 26 January 2024 (UTC) Isolation dates on virus pages?There are never any sources cited for "isolation dates" on the pages for worms or viruses, nor is there any explanation as to what an isolation date is. I am just curious how this information, in most cases, supersedes the need for a release date, and how in many cases the isolation date is not present. Thanks in advance for anyone who can clear this topic up for me. GordonFreeman1997 (talk) 17:23, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
Data breach templateIs there a standard practice for how we treat data breaches on Wikipedia? I'm looking at things like 2011 PlayStation Network outage (which I've done some work on and would appreciate eyeballs), 2015_TalkTalk_data_breach, and 2015_TalkTalk_data_breach - but there isn't much consistency. At the very least they should probably all use Template:Infobox_event, but I'm curious to know if there is any 'best practice' I can look at... Joe (talk) 18:31, 20 March 2024 (UTC) FAC for Cross-site leaksI've nominated Cross-site leaks (a while back) for promotion to a Featured article. Reviews, comments and suggestions are welcomed at the nomination page :) Sohom (talk) 21:36, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
Comprehensive review and update on DNS attack articles for clarity and modern practicesI've conducted a detailed review of articles on DNS-related attacks, including DNS hijacking, spoofing (and cache poisoning), and noticed some areas where we could improve clarity and accuracy, especially regarding the interchangeability of terms and the mention of modern security practices like DoT and DoH. Terminology Clarification There seems to be some confusion and overlap in how we define and use terms like DNS hijacking, spoofing, poisoning, cache poisoning, rebinding and redirection. A concerted effort to standardize these terms with clear definitions could significantly benefit the readers. Specifically, distinctions between terms such as DNS hijacking and DNS spoofing, as well as DNS poisoning vs. DNS cache poisoning, need to be more clearly delineated. Inclusion of MiTM Contexts and Clarification on Attack Strategies Enhancing these articles to explicitly explain how DNS attacks can facilitate MiTM attacks, including the roles of ARP poisoning and race condition attacks, is necessary. The latter, often conceptualized as a "first reply race" in DNS spoofing scenarios, involves attackers responding to DNS queries more quickly than legitimate servers. Remedies and Modern Solutions The absence of discussions on current DNS security measures like DoT (DNS over TLS) and DoH (DNS over HTTPS) in the remedies sections of these articles is a notable gap.
I look forward to your feedback, suggestions, and any additional insights you might have on these topics. Links: WalterMccan (talk) 12:28, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
Requested move at Talk:CounterSpy (software)#Requested move 27 April 2024There is a requested move discussion at Talk:CounterSpy (software)#Requested move 27 April 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 22:59, 4 May 2024 (UTC) FAR for Microsoft Security EssentialsI have nominated Microsoft Security Essentials for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Sohom (talk) 15:29, 8 July 2024 (UTC) (computer security) disambiguatorI have brought the threat and vulnerability articles in line with exploit in their use of (computer security) as a disambiguator; they previously used (computer) and (computing), respectively. This is justified by the cohesion of IT risk management (with the threat, vulnerability, and exploit terminology) as a unified practice. Noting here in case this is not desired. Tule-hog (talk) 19:50, 15 July 2024 (UTC) Requested move at Talk:Kaspersky bans and allegations of Russian government ties#Requested move 23 July 2024There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Kaspersky bans and allegations of Russian government ties#Requested move 23 July 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. RodRabelo7 (talk) 01:34, 30 July 2024 (UTC) WikiProject Risk invitationThis is a formal invitation to help build out the new WikiProject Risk, which has substantial overlap with this WikiProject. Those interested in IT management, Information management, Information security management, IT risk management, etc. may find like-minded editors there. Tule-hog (talk) 02:56, 30 July 2024 (UTC) Requested move at Talk:Arrest of Pavel Durov#Requested move 28 August 2024There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Arrest of Pavel Durov#Requested move 28 August 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPathtalk 05:13, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
|
Portal di Ensiklopedia Dunia
