Talk:Logic bomb

Article listed on WP:VFD Jul 8 to Jul 15 2004, consensus was to keep. Discussion:


 * Keep, and move to cleanup it should be expanded not deleted. theresa knott 19:48, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, an important phenomenon that deserves an article and is a beneficial stub. Cutler 13:50, Jul 9, 2004 (UTC)
 * Unsure - I see nothing to keep in the current article and no way to expand it from its original direction. However, fall-through code logic that fails to meet any condition and passes through all checkes without an "otherwise" clause creates unexpected errors that are sometimes referred to as "logic bombs".  -  T&#949;x  &#964;  ur&#949;  18:22, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Neither FOLDOC nor the Jargon File mentions this use of the word (though it seems reasonable). Do you have any references? I have personally not heard it used in that context. 213.65.52.122 15:51, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep - can easily be expanded, and already has links to it. Rls 21:36, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * I waited until the end of the VfD period before voting, because I was convinced that a science fiction fan or programmer would improve it. The idea of logic bombs is common enough in "cyberthrillers," and I think it's possible to make them.  As it is an unrepentant dictdef, I vote delete weakly. Geogre 03:56, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why it was listed here in the first place...It may be a dicdef, but it was a good one and could be useful to encyclopedia readers. Anyway, I have now expanded it and I don't think anyone would suggest deleting it any more. Keep. David Remahl 08:30, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Much improved. Don't quite get the distinction between it and viruses, but it is much improved, and I vote keep now. Geogre 13:49, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * You guys of wiki, please add some more information coz there is no origin or a longer history. Do it please!Neffyring 10:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)neffryringNeffyring 10:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

End discussion

A virus replicates, a logic bomb does not. Although many may viruses carry logic bombs within them. Ld 21:45, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

worms and viruses being software
"Software that is inherently malicious, such as viruses and worms"

Viruses are not software - they attach themselves to files


 * Non all viruses do it, most of them just are files. However, the definition "software" means any type of data, no matter if in a specific file or as an attachment or in other forms --Sumail (talk) 20:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

hi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.80.62.225 (talk) 22:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Attempted logic bombs
Was the "logic bomb" in Jurrasic Park actually a logic bomb? As Nedry activated it manually via a timer it would appear to be just a specific program that he wrote and activated, rather than a hidden program that activated when specified conditions were met. Cpl Syx [talk] 09:49, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Dig Deeper
Drop all referances to FICTION.

Include "FIRMWARE" as well. Golf War I com links.

Harold —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.214.31.132 (talk) 18:01, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Logic bomb. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070930064933/http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/nj/press/files/pdffiles/duro1213rel.pdf to http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/nj/press/files/pdffiles/duro1213rel.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 05:02, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

example templates
Some example templates would be nice such as the ones in Fork bomb.

Also project examples and some resources could be of interest.

Perhaps adding Logic Bomb to a malware category may be a smart move.

FockeWulf FW 190 (talk) 03:01, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

"Supposed logic bombing of the Trans-Siberian Pipeline"
This might need to be cleaned up a little, but it's above my proficiency level to figure out how. In particular I'm concerned about the usage of "supposedly" and "might've been a hoax". Well what is it? it's not like there aren't sources (so I'm not too worried about Verifiability), but it would be nice if those sources were more definitive, I suppose. Or if we could at least separate certainty from doubt better without using ambiguous words like "supposedly"--Macks2008 (talk) 23:06, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * see also: a Manual of Style guideline about this, which I just found by coincidence--Macks2008 (talk) 12:45, 16 November 2021 (UTC)