Talk:Hacking: The Art of Exploitation

Fair use rationale for Image:Hackingexplota.jpg
Image:Hackingexplota.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Merge extra article on the second edition?
There is currently another article specific to the second edition of this book at Hacking: The Art of Exploitation Second Edition. Are there really that many differences? --Clickingban (talk) 23:37, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge done. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:17, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Rolled back edits by FockeWulf_FW_190
I have rolled back the edits by User:FockeWulf_FW_190. These edits were listed as removing unverifiable content or advertising; however, all of the content is informational. One edit primarily removes the claim that all examples were compiled and tested on Gentoo Linux as unverifiable and advertising, whereas the book itself says all examples were compiled and tested on Gentoo Linux.

While the contents of this article may be a little detailed and could stand a little cleaning up and more brevity, there are various Wikipedia articles covering books with a description of their content. Wikipedia even has a list of books published by No Starch Press.

The article as-is does not make any claims which appear as advertising, such as that the book is higher-quality than all other books on the topic, will lead to an exceptional understanding of computer security, or otherwise is somehow better than competition; although often Wikipedia does allow for the observation that a book's contents are particularly digestible, of high quality, or unique in cases where such a quality is obvious and notable. One of the things that makes Hacking: The Art of Exploitation notable *is* that it's written in such a way as to convey highly-technical concepts to people without a highly-technical background, while not simplifying the information to the point of correctness; however, that would need sourcing from independent reviews or at least to be generally-understood as common-knowledge, in the same way many things about How to Win Friends and Influence People are generally-understood and need no sourcing (such as that it is the best-selling business book in history).

Compacting the information in the article to a briefer summary instead of an outline would make the article more-readable. That's a simple flaw of presentation, not advertising; and the solution to too much verbosity isn't to simply strip information willy-nilly. Excessive verbosity is a matter of too many words in too much detail, not of too much information. --John Moser (talk) 12:37, 27 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I believe my edits are backed by the current Wikipedia policy which require verifiability. This article requires cleanup and due to a lack of referencing it places questions of notability. The policy of no original research applies in many areas. For example the section of all of examples were compiled and tested on linux needs a reference as Wikipedia's Verifiability policy requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations, anywhere in article space. Although there's the prohibition against original research which means that all material added to articles must be to a reliable, published source, even if not actually . So I may be wrong with asking for references in these areas, but generally references are required. The current state of this article looks like it could be proposed for deletion. I'd be willing to help with cleanup and rewrite if a consensus is reached on what can be done to improve this article. FockeWulf FW 190 (talk) 16:41, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

access
hi i Mike access 80.228.219.107 (talk) 12:13, 29 January 2024 (UTC)