Talk:List of security hacking incidents/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Move?

This should be moved to something more in line with naming conventions. I suggest history of hacking. Tuf-Kat 23:45, 8 January 2004 (UTC)

In agree, i also think it is too verbose. perhaps it should only include landmark hacks of computers - such as the first attack of any type, such as when Denial of service beacame popular, then web defacement then DDoS etc

19xx First Buffer Overflow exploit. Known as the ...

19xx First Distributed Denial of Service [DDoS] attack. xxxx was the target

jy

IMO whe way as it is, it is not verbose, it is precisely in the "Timeline of..." wikipedia format.

See List of themed timelines.

Hence in a week I'm going to move the page to "Timeline of hacker history". The history itself remains to be written. Mikkalai 00:25, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Sounds good. Tuf-Kat 08:30, 10 January 2004 (UTC)

Editing

This really needs some editing. I'm trying, but in some cases, I'm not entirely sure what is trying to be said. Some work needs to be done by a person familiar with the subject matter. A maybe a little fact-checking. ike9898 19:42, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Talking of fact-checking, according to `The watchman' by J. Littman, Kevin Poulsen won a Porsche on a radio contest on June 1, 1900, not in 1993

Timeline of {something}

This page is purely about the history of cracking, as the history of the hackers is the history of the computer industry itself, i think this page should be renamed to the history of the crackers, or the history of computer security.

Hi ?? if no one comments i'm going to rename it to "history of computer security"

I prefer timeline, and there aren't just computer systems at play I think. Also, if you plan on doing any "renaming", please get an account and use "Move this page" that way the edit history of the article is not lost. Dori | Talk 17:10, 5 April 2004 (UTC)

I came here to make the exact same comment. There is nothing about hackers - in the original computer-related meaning of the word - here. The title is thus quite misleading, and "Timeline of cracking" or some-such would be much more appropriate. Noel (talk) 21:33, 11 November 2004 (UTC)

Needs some 2005 work

I think this article needs some work to catch up on the events of 2004/05. Any volunteers? :-)

Tagged for clean up

As I read this article, I found it lack consistency, as well as having numerous grammatical, spelling, and formatting errors. Furthermore, some of the language is not very encyclopedic in nature. I am working on cleaning it up, but if anyone else wants to take a stab at it, feel free. – Mipadi 21:04, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Fixed some of the formatting and grammar, killed a bunch of entries obviously made by boasting script kiddies and uninformative entries taken from newspaper headlines. The article still needs more work. Peter Vasiljev 05:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Merge

This article is tagged for a merge, I think it's structure is fine, with a bit of clean up needed, as far as making it coherent and consistent is concerned. The different events need to be validated with at least one external reference though, and not lumped into a single line, if they all occured in the same month, add the date for each event. If they occur on the same day, then an unsorted list under the date will do.
The article that this timeline is intended to be merged with is just a list of people will various notability in the hacking/computer security industry. If merged, these persons most notable events should simply be added to the timeline, but the timeline should remain intact.
As far as calls for name changes, mostly due to the nuances between the words hacking and cracking, perhaps the nuance should be explained at the top of the article and more articles not specific to breaches, but more general to security, should be added. I agree that "hacking" is not the best label, but this should not become another [www.zone-h.org] for cracker kiddies to vanity-list themselves. If you feel the article is too cracking related, add more hacking articles. It is a free-to-edit community. I feel that a title similar to "Timeline of Information Security History" is a bit long-winded, and there are many broad points of interest in the article which extend beyond Information Security. Satur9 15:50, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

quick note

I don't think we need to be renaming it or moving it. Most people who do a search looking for a hacking timeline will get exactly what they expect. Moving it or renaming it will only cause somebody to start a new topic thinking it hadn't been done yet, and then we have a mess. I fully agree with the formatting ideas however, and I also think all further entries should include a reference or be deleted.

No Excuse

There is no excuse for the number of uncited and undocumented entries. I've just tagged a lot of entries stating "facts" I've never heard of. So they need to be cited. Others, which I know from memory were real, I went to the trouble to google citations myself. I intend to continue tagging any entries which are uncited and undocumented. The 70s, 80s, 90s don't look too bad, but from 2000 on it's a mess! Let's clean it up! -Sue Rangell

I added a few references for entries related to the late 1980's. Also a few books of that period in the Further Reading section. Sv1xv (talk) 09:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Formatting suggestion

Further editting of this page should be steered towards a cohesive standard that provides conformity and ease of reading, below is the format for additional events that I propose should be used by all future author as well as maintainers of this page. Please give any comments / suggestions regarding this below and I will try edit and incorporate any feasable suggestions into this post.

2010s This is a decade header

2012 This is the year sub-heading

April 1 — This is a specific, day based entry, detailing an even that has happened on this day, and is of enough importance to include in this timeline. I will also be adding references from reputable sources for EACH event [1] [2] [3]
April 2 — This is another day based entry, for another date, see, it also has references! [4] [5]
April 2 — This entry happened on the same day as above, linking a second time to the date would be redundant, but have a date as the first part of the entry, to help future editors insert other events into the timeline. Oops, I almost forgot, at least ONE reference for EACH entry! [6]

2013 A blank line between each year and decade heading keeps the article readable

August 13 — The dash to the left is created by inserting a — to the line. [7]

2020s Another decade header follows neatly on from the last

2020 This will be the vision of readers thanks to the readability of the timeline! :)

[October 31] — I don't have to warn you about the horde of nasty ghouls waiting to come eat you if you fail to follow proper "Wikiquette" [8]

I for one will make a commitment now that any entry that fails to link a decent reference will simply be removed by me, as the timeline has become almost unmanageable now due to numerous entries without references and the maintainers being forced to google ad nauseum in order to validate and find a valid date for entries. If you are thinking of adding an entry, please at least just add a reference at the end, a simple full path URL (copying the whole text out of your title bar is best) to a new article, between []s, at the end of the entry will suffice!
Satur9 13:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

The Rabbithole

There seems to be a concerted campaign to add reference to a hacker group called "The Rabbithole", with a website rabbithole.ws. As far as I can see, this group is completely non-notable, and has no place in here. Can anyone see a reason to mention this group? A newspaper article perhaps, or something in WIRED? That said, in blanket reverting all attempts to include this site, I notice that the pattern tends to be multiple edits, where edits, say, 1-3 include rabbithole, and then edit 4 actually fixes something with the article. I haven't yet gone back to try to re-introduce any of the fixes, although most are fairly easy to take care of, so if someone else wants to beat me to the punch go ahead. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 07:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

contested statements removed

February: As part of its Trustworthy Computing initiative, Microsoft shuts down all Windows development, sending more than 8,000 programmers to security training. {{Fact|date=March 2007}}
April: The U.S. Army initiates the "Mannheim Project", an effort to better consolidate and secure the military's IT assets from cyber-war. {{Fact|date=March 2007}}
fare July: An Information Security survey finds that most security practitioners favor full disclosure because it helps them defend against hacker exploits and puts pressure on software vendors to improve their products. {{Fact|date=March 2007}}
September: The White House's Office of Homeland Security releases a draft of the "National Strategy to Secure Cyberspace", which many criticize as being too weak. {{Fact|date=March 2007}}
August 23: Jesus Oquendo "sil" of AntiOffline releases "BRAT" Border Router Attack Tool as part of "Theories in Denials of Service in an effort to make administrators aware of the possibility of a worm attack tool capable of breaking backbone routes on the Internet {{Fact|date=March 2007}}
FBI agents find explosives and biological weapons in the course of the raid. {{Fact|date=March 2007}}
It turned out this teen was also responsible for breaking into data broker LexisNexis' system in January. {{Fact|date=March 2007}}
He will be on supervised release for three years with limited access to computers and the Internet as he works on repaying those agencies. {{Fact|date=March 2007}}
U.S. Deputy Defense Secretary John Hamre called it "the most organized and systematic attack" on U.S. military systems to date {{Fact|date=February 2007}}.

The hack is detected within a few hours, but prevents millions of users from reaching Microsoft Web pages for two days. {{Fact|date=March 2007}}
January: Port7Alliance is born. {{Fact|date=March 2007}}
March: FBI agent Robert P. Hanssen is charged with using his computer skills and FBI access to spy for the Russians. {{Fact|date=March 2007}}
March: The L10n worm is discovered in the wild attacking older versions of BIND DNS. {{Fact|date=March 2007}}
Hackers begin using "pulsing" zombies, a new DDoS method that has zombie machines send random pings to targets rather than flooding them, making it hard to stop attacks. {{Fact|date=March 2007}}
AV experts identify Sadmind, a new cross-platform worm that uses compromised Sun Solaris boxes to attack Windows NT servers.{{Fact|date=March 2007}}
September: The World Trade Center and Pentagon terrorist attacks spark lawmakers to pass a barrage of anti terrorism laws many of which group hackers as terrorists. {{Fact|date=March 2007}}
September: Nimda, a new memory-only worm, wreaks havoc on the Internet, quickly eclipsing Code Red's infection rate and recovery cost. {{Fact|date=March 2007}}
Microsoft, other major software vendors, and commercial security research organizations propose "responsible disclosure" guidelines as an alternative to "full disclosure" of security vulnerabilities. {{Fact|date=March 2007}}
The European Union adopts the controversial cybercrime treaty, which makes the possession and use of hacking tools illegal. {{Fact|date=March 2007}}

Please do not return this information to the article without a citation.--BirgitteSB 14:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Follow up

A number of other unreferenced statements were removed. The article reads mostly like a tribute page, of original research, pointing up the various accomplishments of famous hackers and groups of hackers. Most of it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Its possible that some or most of what remains could be encyclopedic somewhere, if referenced, but I'm not sure the framework of "Timeline of computer security hacker history" is right for this information in any form. Avruch^T 18:52, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree completely. Prior to 2000, the timeline is pretty accurate and not overly bad. However, after that, particularly in the 2010 section, it's just a mess of mostly unverified content and some of it is borderline pantent nonsense about hacker groups that nobody has ever heard of doing amazing and unbelievable things not covered anywhere in the media. 70% of it needs to be deleted. --Sue Rangell^{[citation needed]} 03:22, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Early History

I don't think the early information about radio transmissions and the Enigma code-breaking is really "computer security hacker history". If it is included, there is a lot of other examples of espionage, pranks, and fraud that could also be mentioned.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:10, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Too US centric

Especially in the earlier references, it is all US centric. There is a world beyond the US guys! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.182.91.94 (talk) 05:48, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

That's true, other countries deserve mention Powerkiller2048 (talk) 10:40, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

All the materials deemed US centric and extraneous had been removed in my superpurge of the list. John1234ou812 (talk) 13:00, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Should Hearbleed be added?

curious if the famous Heartbleed bug should be added, however i am tentative due to the lack of anything that has taken advantage of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.20.234 (talk) 03:04, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Heartbleed was not a hack. It was a vulnerability in Lonux based servers. It should not be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.235.188.9 (talk) 11:26, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Do you mean Linux? Powerkiller2048 (talk) 10:39, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

It's spelt LUNIX.

2602:63:C3E6:4400:91F8:8175:D57C:6E42 (talk) 16:49, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

The recent edit: January 3 hack

Well, are you sure about the January 3 hack? I've heard of a January 29 hack but not a January 3, is there references? I'm curious to know.... Powerkiller2048 (talk) 10:39, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Timeline of computer security hacker history. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20030206011937/http://www.cnn.com:80/TECH/computing/9909/08/hack.folo/ to http://www.cnn.com/TECH/computing/9909/08/hack.folo

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:09, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Clown Shoes

Who wears the clown shoes? This article is utter garbage and should be deleted. The sheer volume of ineptitude and ignorance displayed here is nothing short of stultifying.

2602:63:C3E6:4400:91F8:8175:D57C:6E42 (talk) 16:47, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you. This garbage belongs in a dustbin. 46.21.106.54 (talk) 07:57, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

One man's trash is another man's treasure. Same goes for the chat between Bugmenot and others as well. 37.200.67.62 (talk) 03:09, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

Per discussion, the person and the act were did not meet the criteria for notability (per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cyber Anakin). The source says that some kid "claimed" responsability. Some other guy claimed that the information is true. The source leave the question open for debate. The information is not a fact, no WP:RS back this as an undisputed fact. Coltsfan (talk) 16:25, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

A passing mention is different that a standalone article. Also I have reread the report carefully. The news article stated that it is whether the event itself counts as a revenge, not whether the event is real or not. Coltsfan seems to have confused the criteria between A passing mention on Wikipedia with A standalone article on Wikipedia. Bugmenot123123123 (talk) 16:32, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Also the person who confirmed the legitimacy of the breach is Troy Hunt, and his breach notification service haveibeenpwned.com has gave out exact figures of the number of affected users in both KM.RU and Nival. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bugmenot123123123 (talk • contribs) 16:34, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Troy Hunt claimed that the event happened, but there is nothing in the source that says that this kid's, Cyber Anakin, claim that he was responsible is accurate. The source does not confirm that in any way. Coltsfan (talk) 16:38, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

In haveibeenpwned.com, which is operated by Troy Hunt, the KM.RU and the Nival section contains a link to Cyber Anakin's Reddit post, which in turn contains the link to the data breach itself. This indirectly confirms the involvement of Cyber Anakin in the breach.Bugmenot123123123 (talk) 16:51, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

https://haveibeenpwned.com/PwnedWebsites#KMRU Bugmenot123123123 (talk) 16:52, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

It is still just a 'claim', as sources say. Vague, at best. Coltsfan (talk) 17:01, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

I would file a request for comment for everyone else in Wikipedia Bugmenot123123123 (talk) 17:05, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

(closed) Request for comment: Should the data breaches of KM.RU and Nival and its perpetrator get a passing mention in this article?

There is no consensus to include a passing mention of the data breaches of KM.RU and Nival and its perpetrator in this article.
The proponent noted that this is the "first instance of a computer hacking incident whose actual or alleged motive is directly related to the avenging of a civilian airliner shootdown incident and therefore warrants enough uniqueness to stand out from the rest of the hacking incidents".
The opponents noted that not every hacking incident should be listed in this article and that "This hack just isn't that significant".
Cunard (talk) 05:23, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The security breach event got a coverage in the news magazine Vice Motherboard. I and coltsfan has a difference on whether the event itself gets a passing mention on here or not.

Here's the news coverage about the said breach event: http://motherboard.vice.com/read/a-teen-hacker-is-targeting-russian-sites-as-revenge-for-the-mh17-crash

Bugmenot123123123 (talk) 17:10, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

No, it should not be listed here. This article does not list every alleged hack, nor should it. Furthermore, the article in question is at AFD right now, making this discussion redundant. Brad v 17:45, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Pasing mention of an event is different than a standalone article. Bugmenot123123123 (talk) 17:51, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but there are thousands of alleged hacks every year which aren't mentioned on this page. This hack just isn't that significant. Brad v 18:00, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

It depends how you define "significant". I think it's better to hear some inputs from contributors who are uninvolved in both the AFDs up to this point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bugmenot123123123 (talk • contribs) 19:43, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

* Note: I think for the sake of this discussion, it's time to better set aside debating about shibboleths on how to define and interpret 'significant', 'notoriety', and so on and focus on the core reasons that drove me to be focused on the "KM.RU" and Nival hacking event and for the case that defends the event's existence as a passing mention in this article. Everyone may see this matter differently due to their interpretations and opinions. Some might advocate the passing mention, some vice versa and some might propose somewhere between the two and so on. But there's one overlooked attribute that it seems that only I am noticing in this discussion. It's about uniqueness of the event itself.
Aside from the KM.RU and Nival incident, I can't find any signs that showed that another computer hacking incident whose actual or alleged motive is directly related to the avenging of a civilian airliner shootdown incident had taken place.
I have tried in vain finding another hacking event with the similar attribute, for example, US entities gets hacked because the hacker's motive is mainly about avenge Iran Air 655, Russian entities gets hacked because the hackers wants to avenge KAL007, and so on. I suggest all people who is looking to oppose the passing mention to carry the burden of proof and use Google to find any and all signs of another "computer hacking incident whose actual or alleged motive is directly related to the avenging of a civilian airliner shootdown incident". So far I have found only one computer hacking event which fits into the said unique attribute and therefore made it to stand out from the rest of the usual and routine hacking incidents. The attribute is what lifted the said hacking event from a large pool of hacking events.
From my legwork and conclusion, I am 99.9% sure that the KM.RU and Nival breaches event is the first instance of a computer hacking incident whose actual or alleged motive is directly related to the avenging of a civilian airliner shootdown incident and therefore warrants enough uniqueness to stand out from the rest of the hacking incidents and consequently deserve even a second of a passing mention in here. Thank you. Bugmenot123123123 (talk) 02:47, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Do not list. This is "Timeline of computer security hacker history", not "Timeline of every hacking incident, ever". Nope, and no matter what strange word games you play, not significant. Anyone not already familiar with this editor and his obsession should refer to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 KM.RU and Nival Networks data breaches and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cyber Anakin. --Calton | Talk 06:33, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Notice Guys, you may sense that Calton is beginning to get desperate by sliding into WP:PA and accusing me for obsession. This might be why RfC to all experienced editors who is not involved in the fiasco between me and a small group of editors up to this point is essential for sake of diversity and for sake of not letting small cliches to spoil and misrepresent the will of the Wikipedia community as a whole. I suggest that all uninvolved editors try to stick to your judgement without being tempted by the Greek drama between me and a very small group of editors if you can do that. Bugmenot123123123 (talk) 06:50, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Important: You may also offer an opinion regarding the article version of the KM.RU and Nival cyber security event on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 KM.RU and Nival Networks data breaches. It is important that the discussion and opinion regarding the article of the event stays there while the discussion and opinion about the passing mention of the event stays here. Bugmenot123123123 (talk) 06:56, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

- Note: I will left the matter up to users and even general public on how to deal with this matter. As a sign of disillusionment to the encroachment of the deletionism faction in this project, I am closing the RfC to avoid become a magnet for Greek drama from the same group of editors who might be trolling in disguise Bugmenot123123123 (talk) 09:51, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User Calton is a problematic tendentious editor. More here (scroll down to the bottom of this section), and treat his comments with caution. 185.89.219.224 (talk) 07:13, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Notice

A consensus has been reached in a discussion regarding proposed improvement to the list article at a user's talk page. 115.164.83.124 (talk) 07:41, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

No it hasn't, please stop Deku-shrub (talk) 15:06, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Needs to be discussion here, not on someone's user page. Jim1138 (talk) 22:40, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

But there's no rule here that specifically prohibits a relevant ad hoc discussion on a user talk page to be added in the greater picture, right? Even if there's such rule, I prefer WP:IGNOREALLRULES and take that in mind since the debate revolved around this page. John1234ou812 (talk) 03:38, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Consensuses can change as that of yours and Mdikici4001's have been overturned. Same goes for Bugmenot123123123's as well. 37.200.67.62 (talk) 02:57, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Turkish

‹ The template below (Edit semi-protected) is being considered for merging. See templates for discussion to help reach a consensus. ›

This edit request to Timeline of computer security hacker history has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

please change ((Turkish)) to ((Turkey|Turkish)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:541:4305:C70:C959:5058:CD77:78EA (talk • contribs)

Partly done: Disambiguated: Turkish → Turkish people using Dab solver. regards, DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 17:13, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Undue weight

I added the tag and removed some events that were not important or "not related to hacking itself" after I saw the ad hoc discussion on User:Mdikici4001 talk page accessible with the "Notice" section. After Jim reverted my cleanups I put back Mdikici4001's proposal to see if the consensus can really change like WP:CCC. Today I think Jim locked the page so guess I have to get an account and discuss here.

Jim, yes, the discussion is hosted on a user's talk page instead of here. But to me it's ad hoc discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by john1234ou812 (talk) 23:11, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

So, I just got an account. - User:john1234ou812

I gonna remove some truly non notable items. For the rest I will highlight it in editspace. - User:john1234ou812

Jim1138, I have done the highlight and partial cleanup work. Do not throw out the champagne with the cork by rving all that work without using a second to analyse whether some parts of the work are beneficial or not. - User:john1234ou812

Jim, feel free to revert some of my cleanups that you think unacceptable. However, however, do not revert all of the cleanup work just because only some edits that are more disruptive than constructive. For your ease, I fragmented my cleanup works into numerous edits there. I have a premonition that this will end up in an Arbitration Committee case if this underlying issue is not solved. John1234ou812 (talk) 04:22, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

No further dissent re my cleanup work in an unspecified length of time = silent consensus behind my clean job. John1234ou812 (talk) 05:48, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

I've done the cleanup job and if there's no dissent about that, I'll take down the UNDUE notice and end this discussion. John1234ou812 (talk) 11:56, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Your good faith edits are appreciated, but unfortunately they are reverted. You should've obtain a consensus with this before you do that. 37.200.67.62 (talk) 02:59, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Here's a friendly reminder: Consensuses are inherently fluid. 37.200.67.62 (talk) 03:03, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 1 February 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not Moved per WP:SNOW and SMcCandlish' unimpeachable statement В²C ☎ 01:44, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Timeline of computer security hacker history → Timeline of notable computer security hacking history – Deter any attempts by fame whorers from self promoting themselves in that list. John1234ou812 (talk) 13:14, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

King of Pokers suggested the move into a less awkward title. John1234ou812 (talk) 13:22, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Nah none of the other lists use this convention Deku-shrub (talk) 18:08, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Oppose. This is not how scope is limited. See WP:LISTCRITERIA. If it becomes necessary to explicitly limit a list to notable entries (those which have or should have their own articles already) because of the addition of too much nonencyclopedic cruft, this is done by noting in the list article's lead that the scope is limited in this manner. But do this without getting technical about it; "notable" is enough. Save WP terminology and particulars of editing expectations for HTML comments in the article code, and a {{notice}} box on the top of the article's talk page. If addition of trivia persists, have a template editor or admin add the notice box to the article's WP:Editnotice. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 18:52, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Really suitable for inclusion?

Did you see the edit below is constantly added and removed at 2016 section?

* March: "Cyber Anakin", who is a teenage hacker, breached the databases of Russian online portal KM.RU and game company [[Nival (company)|Nival Networks]], ostensibly to avenge the [[Malaysia Airlines Flight 17]] plane crash.<ref>{{cite web|url= http://motherboard.vice.com/read/a-teen-hacker-is-targeting-russian-sites-as-revenge-for-the-mh17-crash|title=A Teen Hacker Is Targeting Russian Sites as Revenge for the MH17 Crash}}</ref>

which previews to something like this:

March: "Cyber Anakin", who is a teenage hacker, breached the databases of Russian online portal KM.RU and game company Nival Networks, ostensibly to avenge the Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 plane crash.

and the sole reference:

http://motherboard.vice.com/read/a-teen-hacker-is-targeting-russian-sites-as-revenge-for-the-mh17-crash

The passing mention is nothing different from others here but is there an edit war? In your opinion is it really OK to include the edit here?

198.98.51.57 (talk) 04:38, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Hard to see why this should be considered significant when Nimda isn't even mentioned. Note that I was invited to comment on my talk page. User:Jclemens (talk) 05:03, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Personally I see nothing wrong with the most-recently-deleted version, and would not have deleted it myself. Vice may not be the best source, but it's not bad, and we generally don't require multiple sources. It is somewhat notable because of the activist angle. Having said all that, I'm not going to get into an edit war to defend it's inclusion. (BTW The fact that other notable events are not in here isn't much of an arguement). Snori (talk) 07:18, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Personally, I'd not add it because I do not consider it notable enough. All these ransomware-attacks are also not notable enough in my opinion to warrant inclusion into this article. Look back at the pre-70's mentions: these are hugely important historical events, that shaped the future of hacking and computing. A teenage hacker performing some hacktivism isn't (again, in my opinion) an important historical event. (It could become one, though, but currently shouldn't be considered one.) --DanielPharos (talk) 10:22, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

This is major history. Inclusions should be referencing large stand alone articles, not light citations IMO Deku-shrub (talk) 11:47, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

~~Agreed. Therefore some trivial listcrufts are removed just now. John1234ou812 (talk) 03:58, 6 June 2017 (UTC)~~

Unfortunately User:Sro23 reverted the cleanup. Contents I tried to remove are like that one shown by "198.98.51.57". This is plain WP:UNDUE bias. Started new section to discuss these listcrufts. John1234ou812 (talk) 04:39, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Tend to agree with Jclemens but also see Snori's point. In the end I side with Jclemens and Snori. The fact of the matter is that there are thousands of hackers, cracker, malware authors, and script kiddies who have been mentioned in a single source, and we neither can nor should list them all here. Unless/until the article does include all the genuinely notables, this should not even be considered, and still should not unless/until the list is so long is has to be WP:SPLIT to a stand-alone list article, and this one pared back down the the top most notables about which we can present genuinely encyclopedic information. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 01:39, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Listcrufts removal

Here're the contents that are plain listcrufts. I tried removing those but Sro23 opposed it. Remove all, some or none? John1234ou812 (talk) 04:43, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

My thought is that events listed should have 1) Made national or international news, 2) for more than 1 news cycle. Without doing too much analysis, I don't see that any of the removed entries come anywhere close to those criteria. Jclemens (talk) 04:56, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

@Jclemens:Does it mean that the contents can be speedily removed then? John1234ou812 (talk) 05:10, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm just one editor with an opinion; you and I do not a consensus comprise. Jclemens (talk) 05:13, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

One addition: this only works for "recent" events; for example, Enigma's cracking wasn't widely broadcasted, so you'll be hard-pressed to find it in any news cycle. Thus for "historical" events a different set of criteria should be used. But for recent events your criteria is a well-defined threshold that should keep the cruft out, so I'm in favor! --DanielPharos (talk) 06:24, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

You're absolutely correct. I think the issue above is about events which are themselves not sufficiently notable for their own Wikipedia articles, which Enigma certainly is. We could just limit the list in that manner, which would eliminate most of the flash-in-the-pan "X hacked Y because of Z" events without lasting impact on the industry or society as a whole... Jclemens (talk) 06:48, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Seems like a reasonable set of proposed edits to me. That said, I think we should inch towards a set of inclusion criteria for this page for consistency. We might need different criteria for contemporary vs historical too Deku-shrub (talk) 12:00, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Another criteria that should be applied is restricting the entries to the subject: it's about "computer security hacker history", not "big malware attacks". For example, in 2016: "November: Liberia's internet is hit by a DDOS attack." has nothing (directly) to do with hackers. Or in 2007: "June 13: FBI Operation Bot Roast finds over 1 million botnet victims." --DanielPharos (talk) 15:22, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

That's likely an accurate, but non-trivial, distinction. Perhaps two separate list articles are in order? Jclemens (talk) 16:11, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Please see my comment in previous section regarding this. While we could have a split to a stand-alone list, this article doesn't seem to warrant that yet. Agreed with need to pare out the cruft/trivia, per WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE policy, and to develop inclusion criteria, which are often necessary for embedded as well as stand-alone lists (the only difference between them is that one is in a separate article, and is subject to naming conventions and categorization matters detailed at WP:SAL). — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 01:43, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Timeline of computer security hacker history. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:55, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Sabu

Sabu, Hammond, Manning, Swartz, surprised they're not mentioned. Benjamin (talk) 01:55, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Timeline of computer security hacker history. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110810225717/http://w2.eff.org/legal/cases/SJG/?f=ripco_case_closed.article.txt to http://w2.eff.org/legal/cases/SJG/?f=ripco_case_closed.article.txt

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:49, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Timeline of computer security hacker history. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:06, 13 January 2018 (UTC)