Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MaraDNS


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   keep. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 00:50, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

MaraDNS

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The MaraDNS topic has not received enough coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. The references in the article, mentioned on Talk:MaraDNS, and the above search string do not provide enough content for an independent article and mostly discuss MaraDNS in the context of comparing it to other DNS server software, which is covered by Comparison of DNS server software. -- Jreferee (talk) 10:09, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 5 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment By Wikipedia standards this article is ancient. It was created in 2001 and has been edited with a disclosed COI since 2005. If the article really doesn't meet our guidelines, the question must be asked "Why did it survive this long?"  Them  From  Space  16:57, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep As the MaraDNS implementor with a vested conflict of interest, I have written a version of the article which gets all of its information exclusively from third party sources: User:Samboy/MaraDNS; here is an explanation of my changes: User_talk:Samboy/MaraDNS. The most in-depth coverage I have is from a book which devotes an entire chapter to MaraDNS, but other significant third party mentions are out there, including one from a paper written last year (MaraDNS has always been immune to the "Ghost domain" attack) and in a book published by Springer.  Hit "show" in the green box below to see the full list of sources:


 * This book devotes an entire chapter (over 7,000 words in total) to MaraDNS
 * Observe the word “MaraDNS” in the title of this ZDNet article.
 * "MaraDNS (version Deadwood-3.0.03), Microsoft DNS (version Windows Sever 2008 R2) and Unbound (version 1.4.11), are immune to the ghost domain attack [...] MaraDNS, has already applied the first solution listed in the above section. It only accepts a zone’s delegation data from its parent zone"
 * MaraDNS is discussed at depth in “The Hitchhiker’s Guide to DNS cache poisoning” by Sooel Son and Vitaly Shmatikov. We’re not talking a casual mention confirming MaraDNS’ existence.  We’re talking an in-depth description and comparison of MaraDNS’ cache poison resistance compared to BIND and Unbound (My summary: MaraDNS has a unique way of handling baliwick, NS referrals, and caching data that is remarkably simple and secure from blind spoofing attacks)  This article was published in the book “Security and Privacy in Communication Networks: 6th International ICST Conference, SecureComm 2010.” (edited by Sushil Jajodia, Jianying Zhou) and printed by Springer, and is more recent than the references I added to the talk page in 2009.
 * A two-part article about MaraDNS, published in Enterprise Networking Planet: (part 1) and  Both articles talk about pretty much nothing but MaraDNS; that’s over 2400 words from a reliable third party source.
 * The same author as the above articles got a book published by O’Reilly where she mentions MaraDNS again.
 * “Figure 2, for instance, shows that the BIND server performs worse than MaraDNS under the same attack, which means that the later is able to sustain a larger number of attacks than the first”
 * Information from this source is not needed to make a full article
 * Information from this source is not needed to make a full article
 * Information from this source is not needed to make a full article
 * Information from this source is not needed to make a full article
 * Also, there are countless sites which mention every single MaraDNS security problem; once a program included with a distribution has a CVE security number, they have a page with the update patching the security bug. If other editors feel making a list of these will help establish notability, I will oblige.


 * Samboy (talk) 22:42, 5 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Thanks goes to Samboy for providing sources and for being transparent about COI issues. Of the sources in the article and above, the chapter in the Alternative DNS Servers book and the exposition in the The Hitchhiker’s Guide to DNS Cache Poisoning paper are in depth, independent of the author of the software and as peer-reviewed publications, are reliable sources. The ZDNet article is a reliable source, but perhaps not in enough depth. I have not checked the other sources mentioned, but the first two I mentioned are enough for the article to pass general notability guidelines, per WP:GNG. Because of COI issues, we must be sensitive to NPOV and promotional language in the article. But in my opinion, the current article seems neutral enough. The version at User:Samboy/MaraDNS is a bit less so. A notable topic and no major article problems suggest that this article be kept. --Mark viking (talk) 00:25, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. Good deal of secondary source coverage. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 05:06, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.