Revision as of 00:56, 2 March 2016 editMarkshale (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users669 edits == DROWN attack on TLS == I've made a start on an article covering this at DROWN attack. Any help on this would be gratefully accepted. -- ~~~~← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 16:51, 28 December 2024 edit undoTule-hog (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users4,231 edits →User status discussion: ReplyTag: Reply | ||
(255 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
⚫ | {{talk header|sc1=WT:COMPSEC|wp=yes}} | ||
{{talkheader}} | |||
{{WikiProject banner shell| | |||
⚫ | {{ |
||
{{WikiProject Computer Security |
{{WikiProject Computer Security}} | ||
⚫ | {{User:MiszaBot/config | ||
⚫ | |maxarchivesize = |
||
⚫ | |counter = 4 | ||
⚫ | |algo = old(90d) | ||
⚫ | |archive = Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Computer Security/Archive %(counter)d | ||
}} | }} | ||
⚫ | {{User:MiszaBot/config | ||
⚫ | | algo = old(90d) | ||
⚫ | | archive = Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Computer Security/Archive %(counter)d | ||
⚫ | | counter = 4 | ||
⚫ | | maxarchivesize = 150K | ||
| archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}} | |||
| minthreadstoarchive = 1 | |||
| minthreadsleft = 4 | |||
}} | |||
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn | |||
|target=Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Computer Security/Archive index | |||
|mask= Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Computer Security/Archive <#> | |||
|leading_zeros=0 | |||
|indexhere=yes}} | |||
== Merge proposal at ] == | |||
<!-- ] 21:48, 14 December 2024 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1734212895}} | |||
I have created a merge proposal at ] that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ] (]) 08:26, 7 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
== User status discussion == | |||
This is a separate post to discuss the merits of the User status list. | |||
From what I understand, at least 10 active users qualify as an active WikiProject. There are almost 80 users listed, but with very little activity. If that threshold is not met within a reasonable time frame (say, by the end of 2024?), it might be time to either mark the project as inactive or transform it into a taskforce of WikiProject Computing. | |||
Critical to my reasoning is that a change would make coordinating the few editors interested in CompSec ''easier'', not more convoluted - if in your experience, these kinds of transitions tend to garble rather than help, I would appreciate recommendations on whether or not to continue with this process. I am thinking that a taskforce of Computing makes the most sense, but I also imagine that could just add extra administrative work in the long run if the taskforce ever grows back out into a full project. | |||
Additionally, I'm not sure if I should do more to draw attention to the list. I put a short {{tlx|notice}} on ]; I wouldn't want to spam users, but also understandably few participants are actively monitoring the talk page where the actual discussion is. ] (]) 00:38, 11 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
== Possible source == | |||
:Your roll call is a bit unusual and so I wasn't immediately clear what was going on. I've trimmed participant lists on projects in the past but just based on observed inactivity on Misplaced Pages as a whole e.g. mark them inactive if they've done no editing in the past year. | |||
I found: | |||
:I already see ] as dependent in some form or ]. Whether it is standalone, a child project or a task group doesn't seem to be of much practical consequence. | |||
* Shaw, Eric, Ph.D; Keven G. Ruby, M.A. and Jerrold M. Post. "" (). Reprinted from the Security Awareness Bulletin, No. 2-98. | |||
:It is difficult to gauge the vitality of a project or task group or whatever. I'm not sure what you hope to achieve by marking it ''inactive'' but I will oppose that because I am still active. It's fine if you want to mark it ''semi-active'' but, as with your roll call and project hierarchy proposal, I'm not sure what you hope to accomplish by changing designation. ~] (]) 19:40, 11 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
** Based on: “Insider Threats to Critical Information Systems, Technical Report #2; Characteristics of the Vulnerable Critical Information Technology Insider (CITI).” Political Psychology Associates, Ltd., June 1998. | |||
::From what I gathered on ], the only possible benefits to a taskforce conversion would be: | |||
] (]) 23:55, 7 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
::1. {{tlx|WikiProject Computer Security}} is made a parameter of ]'s ], which results in | |||
::2. Automatically merged article alerts in the main project, so more editors notified | |||
::However, given ]'s considerable work on 'political'/non-computing-centric articles that might be opposed by ] in the first place. | |||
::The only reasoning to mark inactive would be to centralize work into ]; on further thought the taskforce conversion is the only option that makes sense, if any at all. | |||
::I will strike the status list and trim the list based on activity (on Wikimedia as a whole) in the last 2 years if you/any other participants could confirm that is justified. ] (]) 20:41, 11 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::We already have {{para|security}} and {{para|security-importance}} on {{tl|WikiProject Computing}}. At this point, security seems to be both a task force and a standalone project. You're welcome to clean this up if we have consensus on how to do so. I would '''support''' closing down the standalone project in favor of the task force because I can't justify having both and I think you're right, we'll have more participation on security topics as a task force. | |||
:::] must get alerts from {{tl|WikiProject Computing}} articles marked with {{para|security|yes}}. I'm not sure if ] gets alerts from {{tl|WikiProject Computer Security}}. | |||
:::2 years of Misplaced Pages inactivity is more generous than necessary IMO but I won't quibble about it. ~] (]) 15:50, 12 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::It looks like we may have the same task force/standalone project duality with ] and ] so we probably should discuss this at ] before proceeding. ~] (]) 15:56, 12 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::Most articles tagged with ] are already tagged with ] or ] depending on the topic area, I don't really see the benefit of doing the switcharoo in the first place. Also, I concur with Kvng that I don't see the project as inactive, it is definitely lower in activity, but that's probably expected in this kind of a nicher topic area from time to time. ] (]) 23:45, 15 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
:So, you joined this wikiproject on September 5th only to immediately request it being shut down? (Actually, you joined about 14 minutes AFTER asking it to be shut down; even more interesting.) Why don't you participate a bit first and try to fix this perceived inactivity, before deciding to recommend such huge changes? | |||
:Note: I'm not against making this a task-force, but I'm surprised it's always apparent newcomers proposing such things. --] (]) 19:13, 14 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
::Participation is not measured by duration since signing the list; see my contributions. This was an inquiry to the community on how best to centralize the work after observing relative inactivity for around 5 months, not an attempt to shutter any editor organization around CompSec. ] (]) 19:55, 14 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::If signing up to the project is not a measure of participation, then why do you treat the user list as a gauge for the activity of the project? | |||
:::Anyway, I apologize if I'm coming across as abrasive. It just that I've seen proposals like this before (for example, ]), and back then it was build on handwavy argumentation, providing no clear support for the alleged benefit(s). I'm just trying to vet out if that's the case now too. --] (]) 22:13, 15 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::Not the ''sole'' measure. | |||
::::You are not coming of abrasive - this is the 'house tone' from what I've seen. The only benefits I saw are listed above in a numbered list, I won't duplicate them to keep the thread easier to review. | |||
::::Apologies for the delay in my reply, I ran a little test of my understanding of article alerts and forgot to give the update. '''Article alerts did not work the way I thought, which was my only motivation for this proposal. With this new understanding, I retract the proposal.''' ] - I would go as far as arguing that there is value in a dedicated talk page for CSEC editors regardless of this WP; but that is besides my reply.] | |||
::::In particular, I thought that article alerts ''did not'' propagate from ] to ]. For example, I thought an article like ] without an explicit {{tlx|WikiProject Computing}} tag (but with {{tlx|WikiProject Computer Security}}) would only display for CSEC article alerts. (A check of the latter template should have demonstrated to me this was not true.) However, a ] showed this was false, and article alerts propagate from this project to COMP. ] (]) 16:51, 28 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
== Requested move at ] == | |||
==Storm Botnet== | |||
] There is a requested move discussion at ] that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ] (]) 03:48, 6 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
Is very overdue for updating, assuming sources can be found. All the best: ''] ]'',<small> 04:29, 13 October 2015 (UTC).</small><br /> | |||
== Requested move at ] == | |||
== DROWN attack on TLS == | |||
] There is a requested move discussion at ] that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ] (]) 16:28, 19 November 2024 (UTC) |
Latest revision as of 16:51, 28 December 2024
This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Computer Security and anything related to its purposes and tasks. |
|
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 3 months |
This project page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||
|
Merge proposal at Norton 360
I have created a merge proposal at Norton 360 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Tule-hog (talk) 08:26, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
User status discussion
This is a separate post to discuss the merits of the User status list.
From what I understand, at least 10 active users qualify as an active WikiProject. There are almost 80 users listed, but with very little activity. If that threshold is not met within a reasonable time frame (say, by the end of 2024?), it might be time to either mark the project as inactive or transform it into a taskforce of WikiProject Computing.
Critical to my reasoning is that a change would make coordinating the few editors interested in CompSec easier, not more convoluted - if in your experience, these kinds of transitions tend to garble rather than help, I would appreciate recommendations on whether or not to continue with this process. I am thinking that a taskforce of Computing makes the most sense, but I also imagine that could just add extra administrative work in the long run if the taskforce ever grows back out into a full project.
Additionally, I'm not sure if I should do more to draw attention to the list. I put a short {{notice}}
on the main page; I wouldn't want to spam users, but also understandably few participants are actively monitoring the talk page where the actual discussion is. Tule-hog (talk) 00:38, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
- Your roll call is a bit unusual and so I wasn't immediately clear what was going on. I've trimmed participant lists on projects in the past but just based on observed inactivity on Misplaced Pages as a whole e.g. mark them inactive if they've done no editing in the past year.
- I already see WP:COMPSEC as dependent in some form or WP:COMP. Whether it is standalone, a child project or a task group doesn't seem to be of much practical consequence.
- It is difficult to gauge the vitality of a project or task group or whatever. I'm not sure what you hope to achieve by marking it inactive but I will oppose that because I am still active. It's fine if you want to mark it semi-active but, as with your roll call and project hierarchy proposal, I'm not sure what you hope to accomplish by changing designation. ~Kvng (talk) 19:40, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
- From what I gathered on WP:TF, the only possible benefits to a taskforce conversion would be:
- 1.
{{WikiProject Computer Security}}
is made a parameter of WP:COMP's banner, which results in - 2. Automatically merged article alerts in the main project, so more editors notified
- However, given WP:COMPSEC's considerable work on 'political'/non-computing-centric articles that might be opposed by WP:COMP in the first place.
- The only reasoning to mark inactive would be to centralize work into WP:COMP; on further thought the taskforce conversion is the only option that makes sense, if any at all.
- I will strike the status list and trim the list based on activity (on Wikimedia as a whole) in the last 2 years if you/any other participants could confirm that is justified. Tule-hog (talk) 20:41, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
- We already have
|security=
and|security-importance=
on {{WikiProject Computing}}. At this point, security seems to be both a task force and a standalone project. You're welcome to clean this up if we have consensus on how to do so. I would support closing down the standalone project in favor of the task force because I can't justify having both and I think you're right, we'll have more participation on security topics as a task force. - WP:COMP must get alerts from {{WikiProject Computing}} articles marked with
|security=yes
. I'm not sure if WP:COMP gets alerts from {{WikiProject Computer Security}}. - 2 years of Misplaced Pages inactivity is more generous than necessary IMO but I won't quibble about it. ~Kvng (talk) 15:50, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
- It looks like we may have the same task force/standalone project duality with WP:COMPSCI and WP:SOFTWARE so we probably should discuss this at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Computing before proceeding. ~Kvng (talk) 15:56, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
- Most articles tagged with WP:CSEC are already tagged with WP:COMPSCI or WP:ELECTRONICS depending on the topic area, I don't really see the benefit of doing the switcharoo in the first place. Also, I concur with Kvng that I don't see the project as inactive, it is definitely lower in activity, but that's probably expected in this kind of a nicher topic area from time to time. Sohom (talk) 23:45, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
- We already have
- So, you joined this wikiproject on September 5th only to immediately request it being shut down? (Actually, you joined about 14 minutes AFTER asking it to be shut down; even more interesting.) Why don't you participate a bit first and try to fix this perceived inactivity, before deciding to recommend such huge changes?
- Note: I'm not against making this a task-force, but I'm surprised it's always apparent newcomers proposing such things. --DanielPharos (talk) 19:13, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- Participation is not measured by duration since signing the list; see my contributions. This was an inquiry to the community on how best to centralize the work after observing relative inactivity for around 5 months, not an attempt to shutter any editor organization around CompSec. Tule-hog (talk) 19:55, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- If signing up to the project is not a measure of participation, then why do you treat the user list as a gauge for the activity of the project?
- Anyway, I apologize if I'm coming across as abrasive. It just that I've seen proposals like this before (for example, Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Computer Security/Archive 4#WikiProject restructuring), and back then it was build on handwavy argumentation, providing no clear support for the alleged benefit(s). I'm just trying to vet out if that's the case now too. --DanielPharos (talk) 22:13, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- Not the sole measure.
- You are not coming of abrasive - this is the 'house tone' from what I've seen. The only benefits I saw are listed above in a numbered list, I won't duplicate them to keep the thread easier to review.
- Apologies for the delay in my reply, I ran a little test of my understanding of article alerts and forgot to give the update. Article alerts did not work the way I thought, which was my only motivation for this proposal. With this new understanding, I retract the proposal.
- In particular, I thought that article alerts did not propagate from WP:CSEC to WP:COMP. For example, I thought an article like RazorThreat without an explicit
{{WikiProject Computing}}
tag (but with{{WikiProject Computer Security}}
) would only display for CSEC article alerts. (A check of the latter template should have demonstrated to me this was not true.) However, a test prod showed this was false, and article alerts propagate from this project to COMP. Tule-hog (talk) 16:51, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
- Participation is not measured by duration since signing the list; see my contributions. This was an inquiry to the community on how best to centralize the work after observing relative inactivity for around 5 months, not an attempt to shutter any editor organization around CompSec. Tule-hog (talk) 19:55, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
Requested move at Talk:2024 Lebanon pager explosions#Requested move 19 September 2024
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:2024 Lebanon pager explosions#Requested move 19 September 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Web-julio (talk) 03:48, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
Requested move at Talk:Identity management#Requested move 12 November 2024
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Identity management#Requested move 12 November 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Raladic (talk) 16:28, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
Categories: