Talk:Internet security/Archive 1

Needless stuff out
I edited a lot of the needless stuff out, some stuff that was blatently not NPOV, and some things that looked like advertisements (even though I know they weren't). Almost a complete rewrite. If it's okay, maybe with a few improvements, I'll remove it from cleanup. -- KneeLess 00:49, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * This article is still tremendously oversimplified, and in some cases just plain wrong. It needs much more review.80.168.228.96 00:59, 18 September 2004


 * While I believe more depth is needed, I thought the point of this article was to provide a simple explanation of possible steps and improvements. -- KneeLess 03:44, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Scope
What should the scope of this articel be? As it stands it's a quickie guide to secuirng a home PC. Rich Farmbrough 00:45, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * That's what I thought the purpose was, what do you think it should be? -- KneeLess 19:09, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * It should be an encyclopedia article. This belongs on wikibooks. --Taejo &#124; &#91;&#91;User talk:Taejo&#124;Talk]] 12:53, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Marking this as non-neutral
For one, the purpose of the article is not about telling users how to be secure, but what internet security is. It's not a "HOW TO" guide. It also needs to be in third person.

This article is already neutral, it just needs clean-up. I'm changing the tag. A Clown in the Dark 02:31, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Is there room in Wikipedia for basic guides, as well as dry academic reviews?
I got to this page because it appeared near the top of a google search. It was clear that it needed work, but I would like to see this page in a state where an average Internet user concerned about security would be usefully informed by it in a non-controversial way. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia but, there is no reason why it cannot be more than an encyclopedia (as long as articles obey the fundamental principles). Wikipedia has the potential to be of more use in a practical way than a conventional encyclopedia due to its broader content and greater chance of being up to date. The article should probably be renamed if someone wants to write a more dusty article on Internet security: the scope of this article is really "Internet security: threats and countermeasures", consciously aimed as a practical guide for an average computer user. Elroch 17:32, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Organisation of links
Contrary to the knee-jerk reaction and statements of some readers of this article, the majority of the links that were in the article before an unselective hatchet job was performed (and repeated) were sources of unbiased information and free software (at least to personal users).

To meet any concerns about exposing unwary readers to commercial websites, I have classified the links into neutral sources of information, different types of software that is free for personal users, and put the purely commercial sites in a separate section at the end. I am slightly ambivalent about the inclusion of the last section, but WP:NOT states "external links to commercial organizations are acceptable if they can serve to identify major corporations associated with a topic", which includes links to major suppliers of security software here (there are some obvious omissions which have yet to be added).

No one should confuse this article with a link repository: it is a useful overview of Internet security with some unbiased links to useful resources at the end. Please remember that this article is designed for a wide range of users, and material should not be removed due to personal preferences.

Pedantically, I should perhaps have deleted the one link to a personal web page left in the sources of information, but the author has put together a page which I personally found useful, suggesting an entirely free security suite of well-reviewed software, so I could not justify deleting it.

Elroch 14:02, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi all — I'm the "knee-jerk" "hatchet jobbing" "some readers" mentioned above (although I typically don't describe myself in those terms). I generally don't find external links which are mainly products or advertising with little additional information helpful to an article. This article is no exception and has a higher proportion of external links than is typical for an article. My suggestion is to replace (per the guidelines for external links) the external links with a link to the appropriate dmoz.org page(s). For example,, produces the correct link to the same type of links. This has the added advantage of not having to explain to every spammer why their own product can't be added to the list of similar links already here. JonHarder 02:02, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Apologies for the adjectives I used in response to the indiscriminate deletion of links. I just wanted to ensure that the article continued to provide users with access to links to free software, and believe that the usefulness outweighs any minor objections (this is not the same as providing links to paid services). I would be happy as long as this need is served in a way which does not conflict with any of Wikipedia's principles. Elroch 14:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Contents
I added some stuff in two sections:
 * 2 vivid forums in "External Links". Comment: I find some of the other links almost commercial and contain not much info, I wouldn't mind if anyone removed or replaced them.
 * Free Firewalls: Since only ZoneAlarm was mentioned, I added Comodo and Tiny/Kerio which are at least as good. Suggested improvements: Best would be to create an article "Free personal firewalls" (or as a section in the article "Personal firewall") and list them all there in detail instead, second best would be to make today's list complete, with all links referring to articles within Wikipedia, not external links.

Browser Choice
The browser choice section has nothing written about why browser choice might be relevant except for a blurb saying effectively, "ActiveX is bad." I'd say the section either needs to be deleted or expanded. mjlissner (talk) 05:57, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Buffer overflow attacks - Incorrect?
The section on Buffer overflow attacks seems to confuse a Buffer overflow with a Denial of Service Attack. My view is that you don't need to send a "Immense Attack" to utilise a buffer overflow. I understand that this topic does not have to be overly technical, but this is wrong.

Also comparison to a "Brute Force" Attack is not valid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.208.153 (talk) 12:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Content Added
I added new content which explains different types of security and the concept of firewalls and how they relate to internet security.Rameez-NJITWILL (talk) 18:57, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your contribution. However, it requires extensive editing in regard to sources, consistency with the rest of the article, compliance with Wikipedia style and much more. Don't be surprised if someone undid it. In my opinion you should have publish your contribution in your blog instead of Wikipedia. Fleet Command (talk) 12:53, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Major copy-edit
I have been working on a major copy-edit of this article for the  November 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive, and I think it is turning out much better than before.

However, it still suffers from some major issues, viz.:
 * It needs more citations.
 * It may be inaccurate and in need of more or improved information
 * (I have worked a bit on this, but that is not the goal of a copy-edit. Perhaps I shall do more work on this aspect later.)

If anyone feels that he or she can add to this article or improve it, please do. MathMaven (talk) 22:26, 19 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I have removed some tags from the article I think are now unnecessary; however, I am still in the process of copy-editing. There is still more work to be done. MathMaven  (talk) 22:30, 19 November 2010 (UTC)