Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/String exploits: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 01:35, 24 February 2011

Latest revision as of 10:38, 27 April 2025

(5 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown)

Line 1:

<div class="boilerplate metadata afd vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">

:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this page.''

<!--Template:Afd top

Note: If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links in order to create a new discussion page using the name format of [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PAGENAME (2nd nomination)]]. When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. -->

The result was '''keep'''. [[User:Ron Ritzman|Ron Ritzman]] ([[User talk:Ron Ritzman|talk]]) 01:41, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

===[[String exploits]]===

{{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD|T}}

====[[String exploit]]====

<small>[header inserted with revised article name 22:01, 22 February 2011 (UTC)] [[User:Unscintillating|Unscintillating]] ([[User talk:Unscintillating|talk]]) 22:01, 22 February 2011 (UTC) </small>

:{{la|String exploits}} – (<includeonly>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/String exploits|View AfD]]</includeonly><noinclude>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 February 19#{{anchorencode:String exploits}}|View log]]</noinclude>)

:({{Find sources|String exploits}})

<strikes>I cannot find any citations that establish notability. Plenty of cites for [[Format string attack|format string attacks]], but not for the exploit described here. Article has had unreferenced tag since December 2009, Notability tag and Technical tags since March 2008. Last edit (other than minor typo fixes and such) was in 2007, and there have never been any discussions on the talk page.</strikes> [[User:guymacon| Guy Macon ]] 22:53, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

:Given the improvements made since I wrote the above, I think the article is now worth keeping. Does anyone think it should be deleted? If not, do I need to do something special to withdraw the afD or just let it run its course? [[User:guymacon| Guy Macon ]] 02:40, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

::One of the good things about something being in the AfD process is that people look at it who might not otherwise. One or more may still wander along and make great improvements. Always better to let them run unless they are time wasters... and I think this article still needs much love, so not a waster. Thanks for tagging it.[[User:Shajure|Shajure]] ([[User talk:Shajure|talk]]) 06:52, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Line 14 ⟶ 19:

**I moved the article to [[String exploit]]. Redirect is in place from the plural.[[User:Shajure|Shajure]] ([[User talk:Shajure|talk]]) 18:16, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

<strikes>*'''Delete'''. It's also extremely unclear and downright inaccurate; for example, many languages have comment characters but most of those languages only obey them when parsing program files for execution, not user input.<strike/s>

*'''Keep'''. As rewritten described below it's fine. [[User:Elizium23|Elizium23]] ([[User talk:Elizium23|talk]]) 02:19, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

*'''Comment'''&nbsp; Google search on "Asciiz exploit" produces hits.&nbsp; "Comment character exploit" also shows some hits such as [http://www.techrepublic.com/article/secure-sql-server-encryption-and-sql-injection-attacks/5083541 this one].&nbsp; So this may not be a question of "is this notable", since the idea of "exploits using strings" seems to be both notable and interesting, but "is this salvageable".&nbsp; Have all of the major editors been notified? [[User:Unscintillating|Unscintillating]] ([[User talk:Unscintillating|talk]]) 04:45, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

*:Strange, I find no Google search results for [http://www.google.com/search?rls=en&q=%22Comment+character+exploit%22 <ttcode>["Comment character exploit"<nowiki>]</nowiki></ttcode>] (with quotes). The link you give is about SQL injection, on which we do have [[SQL injection|an article]]. The present article is so unclear that I'm not sure what the topic is, but it may be an attempt to create an article about "Unchecked user input", as it is called in our article on [[Vulnerability (computing)]], or "Improper input validation", as it is called in the [[Common Weakness Enumeration]] repository (entry [http://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/20.html CWE-20]). This is definitely a notable topic, but content-wise the present article [[String exploits]] is unsalvageable. &nbsp;--[[User talk:Lambiam|Lambiam]] 09:38, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

*::Seconded; it might in principle be a notable topic but the content would have to be redone from scratch. I think it's probably best to redirect it, until anybody ever actually manages to write encyclopaedic content on this subject. [[User:Bobrayner|bobrayner]] ([[User talk:Bobrayner|talk]]) 23:24, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

*'''Delete''' By itself it is not notable, and the article only discusses concatenation without highlighting how this, by itself, is an exploit. I believe that other articles such as [[Vulnerability (computing)]] already cover this area. --[[User:HighKing|HighKing]] ([[User talk:HighKing|talk]]) 11:58, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

<strikes>*'''Delete''' I just looked at [[Vulnerability (computing)]] and asked myself if this article gives the reader anything not found there. Nothing as far as I can tell.</strikes> [[User:guymacon| Guy Macon ]] 13:31, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

:The above was true of the article at that time, but is not true now that the article has been rewritten. [[User:guymacon| Guy Macon ]] 02:40, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

*'''Keep''' It seems to me to be a disambiguation page, with a lot of needless yack and opinion. Added a source, dropped the yack, dropped the opinion. Format isn't right. [[User:Shajure|Shajure]] ([[User talk:Shajure|talk]]) 06:29, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Line 30 ⟶ 35:

:::Sources discussing [[beer bottle]]s will not help to establish that [[Bottle beer]] is a good article title. If the article title here was [[Exploit string]], then it ''might'' make sense to cite sources using that term. However, the title is "String exploit", and the added references, none of which uses that term, do not undercut my point that this is not a commonly used term. &nbsp;--[[User talk:Lambiam|Lambiam]] 22:56, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

::::The fact of the matter is that "String exploit" '''isn't''' a commonly used term. The actual exploit described is well known, but the usual term used to describe it is something along the lines of "unvalidated user input exploit" or "unchecked form input exploit" (not sure what exact wording is most common, but it isn't "string exploit). A better name would be a big improvement. [[User:guymacon| Guy Macon ]] 01:35, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this page.'' <!--Template:Afd bottom--></div>