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

Revision as of 17:05, 2 February 2022

Revision as of 02:01, 26 December 2024

Line 11:

:{{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 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.</strikes>

*'''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 <tt>["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)