Talk:Cyberattack/Archive 1

Blacklisted Links Found on Cyber-attack
Cyberbot II has detected links on Cyber-attack which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:


 * http://perry4law.org/clic/
 * Triggered by  on the local blacklist
 * http://perry4law.org/cecsrdi/?p=457
 * Triggered by  on the local blacklist
 * http://perry4law.org/cecsrdi/?p=453
 * Triggered by  on the local blacklist
 * http://perry4law.org/cecsrdi/?p=568
 * Triggered by  on the local blacklist
 * http://perry4law.org/cyberlawsinindia/?p=98
 * Triggered by  on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 17:13, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on Cyber-attack
Cyberbot II has detected links on Cyber-attack which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:


 * http://perry4law.org/cecsrdi/?p=453
 * Triggered by  on the local blacklist
 * http://perry4law.org/cecsrdi/?p=457
 * Triggered by  on the local blacklist
 * http://perry4law.org/cecsrdi/?p=568
 * Triggered by  on the local blacklist
 * http://perry4law.org/clic/
 * Triggered by  on the local blacklist
 * http://perry4law.org/cyberlawsinindia/?p=98
 * Triggered by  on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 00:53, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

US attacks
The section on the USA should include a reference to the American Stuxnet worm attack on Iran.Royalcourtier (talk) 07:11, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 15 May 2017

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Moved &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 08:33, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Cyber-attack → Cyberattack – As noted in a thread at the top of this page, the hyphenated "cyber-attack" is very rarely used and "cyberattack" is much more common. In addition, articles that use cyber as a plain prefix include cyberspace, cyberwarfare, cyberterrorism, and others. This article should be moved per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CONSISTENCY. There are a number of other articles with "cyberattack" in the title that use different forms, and I will move them into line if this RM is successful. Laurdecl talk 03:04, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support as nom. Pinging and  who suggested moving above. Laurdecl talk 03:13, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. Nom's points appear to be strong but I don't have a really strong opinion about it myself. ~Kvng (talk) 03:20, 15 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Support: "cyberattack" because of the following:
 * style guides seem split between American vs. European origin: The Guardian prefers the hyphenated version, while the AP prefers it non-hyphenated and so does Chicago seemingly.
 * dictionaries seem to favor the non-hyphenated version:, , ,
 * related discussion:, , — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fgnievinski (talk • contribs) 03:36, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support: "cyberattack". The majority of dictionaries — including the Europe-based OED — spell the term as one word. And while Merriam-Webster doesn't specifically include the term in either spelling, M-W does spell "cybersecurity" as one word. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:09, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. No clear preferred version. The BBC, for example, uses both more or less equally. Better to stick with what was originally here. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:02, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * What about the WP:CONSISTENCY argument? Laurdecl talk 07:12, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Frankly, I don't think it applies. These are different terms. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:19, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * They are all variants of conflict-related words with "cyber" as a prefix. Laurdecl talk 10:03, 17 May 2017 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Merge in Cyberheist
I don't think Cyberheist needs its own article, it can be covered here Deku-shrub (talk) 22:51, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed and ✅ Klbrain (talk) 21:42, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Title
The New York Times, CNN, Yahoo! and other large reliable sources spell the term as one word, cyberattack, as does Dictionary.com. Should we not adjust the title to keep it in line with real-world use as reflected in these sample sources? --Tenebrae (talk) 18:27, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I see mostly a mix of "cyber attack" (which sounds right to me for a noun phrase) and "cyberattack", rarely "cyber-attack". -- Beland (talk) 15:42, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * At the moment whether a cyber term is two separate words, hyphenated, or a compound word appears to be down to personal taste. Another example is cyber warfare. Often given as two separate words, sometimes hyphenated, but less seen as a compound word and yet that spelling is used Wikipedia. From my brief look at search engines and articles cyberattack is least used, then cyber-attack and cyber attack is the most common. An academic search engine I tried had these occurrences - cyberattack - 4, cyber-attack - 160, cyber attack - 661. Thus I go with "cyber attack". GR8DAN (talk) 15:54, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't see a reason why the title here should be hyphenated. I propose the article be renamed Cyber attack and will put in a move request to that effect next week unless someone objects. ~Kvng (talk) 16:47, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

2017-12-20 Suggestion: ma·neu·ver is how Google spells this word, which differs in the definition provided in this article, and should be corrected. There's no EDIT option for that section, or I would have already done so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.198.107.11 (talk) 22:02, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Merge with Attack (computing)
I propose that Attack (computing) be merged into here. There is no need for 2 articles on the exact same topic: they really should be merged.

--Fixuture (talk) 16:27, 27 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Support these two articles do appear to be on the same topic. ~Kvng (talk) 15:00, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Disagree Cyberattacks can vary from computing attacks. Cyberattacks are large scale hacking attacks, whereas there can be local/small hacking attempts/attacks. ~Wikiguy2912 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:13, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Do you have a citation supporting this distinction? We also have Cyber campaign, Cyberwarfare and Cyberterrorism that describe the collective actions. ~Kvng (talk) 15:02, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

✅ Appeared to be a weak consensus ~Kvng (talk) 20:32, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Does the "essay-like" banner still apply?
I notice that the "essay-like" banner at the top of the article was first added 6 years ago, in May 2013. Looking at that version of the article, the lead section is completely different now (and much more in line with Wikipedia standards), and much of the content throughout the article has been rewritten as well. Any objections if I remove the banner? -Cindy (talk) 17:51, 24 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Good point. I have remove this. Still lots of work to do though. ~Kvng (talk) 14:46, 27 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks for removing. Agree, much work to do here. Cindy (talk) 19:03, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

"Definitions" is 8 years out of date - problem for a rapidly evolving field
This article contains a great deal of information. But cyber security is a fast-evolving field, and much of this is out of date. The definitions section cites sources dated 2000 to 2010. But currently, there is broad industry consensus that the best way to consider cyberattacks is in five "generations." Generations 4 and 5 emerged in 2010 and 2017, respectively. There was a good deal of attention this point at this year's RSA Conference, and at the World Economic Forum. 

I've reviewed related Wikipedia articles; the only one I've found that references the "generations" is Firewall (computing); it only mentions the first three. #4 and #5 do not relate closely to firewalls, so it seems more important to include this information here, than on that article.

I'd like to propose that we update that section, structured primarily around the five generations. No problem with keeping the current "definitions" content in some form, but it should be placed in a context that makes it clear the landscape has shifted since those papers were published.

The best sources I've found so far are:


 * (video; disclosure, the interviewee is the CEO of my company.) Worthwhile articles, but not up to Wikipedia's "reliable source" standard:
 * LinkedIn: The Evolution of Cybersecurity May 14, 2018 Leo Rohlinger https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/evolution-cybersecurity-leo-rohlinger/ (may not meet WP:RS)
 * (video; disclosure, the interviewee is the CEO of my company.) Worthwhile articles, but not up to Wikipedia's "reliable source" standard:
 * LinkedIn: The Evolution of Cybersecurity May 14, 2018 Leo Rohlinger https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/evolution-cybersecurity-leo-rohlinger/ (may not meet WP:RS)
 * (video; disclosure, the interviewee is the CEO of my company.) Worthwhile articles, but not up to Wikipedia's "reliable source" standard:
 * LinkedIn: The Evolution of Cybersecurity May 14, 2018 Leo Rohlinger https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/evolution-cybersecurity-leo-rohlinger/ (may not meet WP:RS)
 * LinkedIn: The Evolution of Cybersecurity May 14, 2018 Leo Rohlinger https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/evolution-cybersecurity-leo-rohlinger/ (may not meet WP:RS)

I should mention that my edits here are made in my capacity as an employee of Check Point, a company in this industry. Please note, however, that my wish is simply to improve this article according to Wikipedia's own standards, not to benefit my employer directly.

What do others watching this article think of updating the Definitions section? Cindy (talk) 17:55, 24 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Looks good. I would normally encourage you to WP:BEBOLD but with a potential COI in play, you should work incrementally to improve the existing content. ~Kvng (talk) 14:51, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * okay thanks. I'll continue to do that with this one and related articles. Cindy (talk) 19:06, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I feel it's important to add more detail about the 5th generation to Wikipedia, but didn't want to overwhelm this general article with too much detail. I started a new article: Fifth generation cyberattack I invite you and anybody interested in cyber security to help improve the article, I will probably not add much more at least in the near future. Please let me know if you have any feedback or suggestions. -Cindy (talk) 19:26, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

I see you refined the article about Fifth generation cyberattack, and I think it looks great. Cindy (talk) 19:12, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Possible suggested or recommended types of cyberattacks
There are some major types of attacks that I think and feel should most definitely be added: Downgrade Attack, Watering hole attack, Brute-force attack (e.g., including and such as Dictionary attack), homepage hijacking, page hijacking, ransomware, adware, malvertising, chargeware, stealware, browser hijacking, brandjacking, phishing, pharming, social engineering, typosquatting, cybersquatting, traffic analysis, and etc.

Krextzin 21:26, 16 May 2019 (UTC)


 * WP:DOIT ~Kvng (talk) 14:17, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Rename to "Attack (computer)"
The cyber prefix is pretty much a meaningless buzzword. I would propose renaming the page to "Attack (computing)", "Computing attack", "Attack (computer)", "Computer attack", "Attack (computation)", or "Computational Attack", and redirect cyberattack to that page. Initramfs (talk) 22:37, 25 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Names of Wikipedia articles should reflect how independent, reliable sources refer to the topic. In this case, "cyberattack" and "cyber attack" are terms that have become widely used. From a Google Trends search, it appears that news sources worldwide use the two-word variant more frequently than either "cyberattack" or "attack (computer)". So if we make a change, it seems to be that cyber attack would be the best option. -Cindy (talk) 23:25, 25 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose proposed new name. Why replace a well-known term (even if it is buzzwordish) with something ambiguous? ~Kvng (talk) 15:07, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think any of the new suggestions are better. Cyberattack is in the dictionary. It is not "meaningless". ~Kvng (talk) 14:22, 20 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose, cyberattack is widely recognized and pretty unambiguous. Non of the alternatives seem to be a better fit in regard to WP:Article titles. --Averell (talk) 17:29, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Country List
The country list has little to do with the topic of the article, and is probably better off in cyberwarfare. Also, much of the sections is not written in an encyclopedic tone. Someone please explain why those lists make sense here, otherwise I'll start to move that information. --Averell (talk) 11:32, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with you about the unencyclopedic tone of the country section. Indeed the sentence "The two predominant players that will be discussed is the age-old comparison of East versus West, China's cyber capabilities compared to United States' capabilities" can be found verbatim in Marcus Mack (2018): Cyber Security. However since this sentence has survived since the creation of the page by user:Ian.Kovac in 2012, then either they both copied from a common source, or the Mack book has copied from Wikipedia. I'd guess there is an unpublished thesis behind both so I'm reluctant to raise a copyvio. Chris55 (talk) 17:20, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 August 2020 and 29 August 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Hitarth soni1.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:42, 17 January 2022 (UTC)