Talk:AT&T Cybersecurity

Request Edit Help
This article is currently a stub with flags for citations and tone. I have prepared a completely new and improved draft of this stub, which I posted at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BC1278/subpage2 While I am an experienced Wikipedia editor, I have a conflict of interest here as a paid consultant to AlienVault. As such, as per WP: COI, I'm requesting an independent editor review the draft.

I am very committed to all Wikipedia policies on disclosure, notability, a neutral point of view, no advocacy, verifiability, independent reliable sources, no original research. I would be pleased to work further on this draft if the reviewing editor has any issues I can address.BC1278 (talk) 01:39, 18 November 2015 (UTC)BC1278
 * Another user has implemented the draft. Altamel (talk) 22:36, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Requested Update and Review
While I abide by the Wikipedia five pillars and am an experienced editor, I always seek independent review of approval of changes to articles where I have a WP: COI. I have a conflict here as a paid consultant to AlienVault.

I propose the following be added to the History section:


 * In 2016, AlienVault released a study reporting that 76% of respondents believe they have a moral responsibility to share threat intelligence, although most distrust public forums. While 95% of survey respondents said they use threat intelligence, the majority do so in closed forums, among trusted peers (56%) or internally (47%). However, most people don’t trust public sources of threat intelligence, and the only source of threat intelligence trusted by more than half of respondents were private security vendors (65%).

BC1278 (talk) 17:17, 22 September 2016 (UTC)BC1278
 * This seems too trivial to me. And the last sentence does not make sense. Edwardx (talk) 19:05, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I left out the word "in" in the second sentence. I just added it. Does it make sense now? I agree it's nothing seismic. But I'm not in the threat intelligence business. I added a third sentence that perhaps makes the whole passage more cohesive. Whatever you decide is fine by me. You might find it interesting to note that the study doesn't help the perception of AlienVault's own very large public threat exchange, Open Threat Exchange. BC1278 (talk) 20:32, 22 September 2016 (UTC)BC1278
 * I have have marked this edit request as declined. If you wish to seek another opinion, you may reactivate this edit request or appeal to the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard. Altamel (talk) 19:55, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Request for changes
Hi,

I am experienced Wikipedia editor and try to abide by the five pillars. I'd like to request some edits to the AlienVault article be reviewed by an independent editor as I have a conflict of interest as a paid consultant to the company. WP:COI Thank you in advanced for your review and comments.

Update in paragraph one:

..with more than 53,000 participants around the world, who contribute more than 10 million threat indicators daily.

instead of: "with more than 26,000 participants in 140 countries that share more than one million potential threats daily".
 * Since this seems like an update to the userbase figures, I don't see any issue with it; however, the number of countries being replaced by around the world makes it a bit more ambiguous. Is there any way you could also get your hands on the updated geopositioning figures? -- ChamithN   (talk)  05:55, 13 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much for reviewing these updates. I spoke to the company and the number of countries has not changed. So why don't we split the sentence into two sentences:

..with more than 53,000 participants who contribute more than 10 million threat indicators daily. The company operates in 140 countries.

BC1278 (talk) 17:56, 13 November 2017 (UTC)BC1278
 * ✅ That seems like a reasonable compromise. I'll go ahead and make the changes. -- ChamithN   (talk)  19:58, 13 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for your help. Sorry to bother you again, but the company contacted me about two issues. First, they say the way I phrased the new "140 countries" sentence is inaccurate and after checking the source, I see they are correct and I made a mistake. It should say: "Open Threat Exchange has participants in more than 140 countries." Second, there is a story with more recent stats for participants and threats. To keep this sentence accurate going forward, I'd suggest we add a date: "...,which in July 2017 had more than 65,000 participants who contributed more than 14 million threat indicators daily."  Further updates on this stat could be added to the History Section. Would could also do it that way, this time, adding the date to the lead for the older stat, and inserting the new stat in the history section. Thanks again. BC1278 (talk) 17:35, 15 November 2017 (UTC)BC1278
 * So, what you are suggesting is that the lead should be reverted back to previous version, and the updated stats along with the month should be added to the History section? -- ChamithN   (talk)  19:27, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thinking about it, we should just delete all the participant and threat stats from the lead. I suggest, ending that sentence... "world's largest computer security platform." Otherwise, this lead paragraph is going to get out of date every few months. Then in History, we might add stats from the previous version and the new version. Whether the stats go up or down, the History can reflect that. Seems more informative.  "AlienVault Open Threat Exchange had 26,000 participants in 140 countries reporting more than one million potential threats daily, as of June 2015.  In July 2017, the platform had 65,000 participants who contributed more than 14 million threat indicators daily.  BC1278 (talk) 20:30, 15 November 2017 (UTC)BC1278
 * I do not object to the changes you have suggested for the History section; however, I'm against adding world's largest computer security platform to the lead unless there are reliable secondary sources that explicitly say so, since otherwise it would go against WP:PEA . -- 20:45, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit confused about what you said regarding the lead. Are you suggesting that we end the lead paragraph with AlienVault is a developer of commercial and open source solutions to manage cyber attacks, including the Open Threat Exchange, the world's largest crowd-sourced computer-security platform; with just two sentences? -- 20:51, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I had just been suggesting abbreviating that one sentence with the statistics (and removing the next sentence about 140 countries, since it becomes redundant if you update the History section with the statistics). I hadn't suggested removing everything that follows in the lead, but it could easily be justified that either or both of the sentences that follow could also be moved to the Finance (amount raised) or History (Chinese hackers) sections. I'm not sure about the finance sentence. But probably the Chinese hacker sentence is better suited to History.  BC1278 (talk) 21:17, 15 November 2017 (UTC)BC1278

Lead repeating what's in the body is not an issue as the lead is supposed to serve as a summary of the article. I will update both the History section and lead accordingly. -- ChamithN   (talk)  21:51, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ I believe I have addressed all concerns with this edit. -- ChamithN   (talk)  22:02, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Update in History

In 2017, AlienVault release USM Anywhere, a SaaS security monitoring platform designed to centralize threat detection, incident response and compliance management of cloud, hybrid cloud, and on-premises environments from a cloud-based console.
 * ✅ I think when in 2017 that USM Anywhere was introduced should be mentioned, at least the month. Going by the cited sources, looks like it was in February 2017. -- ChamithN   (talk)  05:55, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

'''Update in Finances. New last sentence'''

AlienVault ended 2016 with about 53 percent year-over-year sales growth and increased its install base by about 65 percent to approximately 5,000 commercial customers.

'''Update in Awards. These are significant industry award:'''

Deloitte Technnology Fast 500, 2015 and 2016 list

Forbes Cloud 100 list