I'll revisit this as soon as I can Ched Davis 18:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Glad to cooperate
I've been putting up some things more on the network side, still short, such as network reconnaissance, amplification attack, and port scanning. Obviously, the two blend in the DoS area. You may also want to look at information security.
Hope you don't mind, but I created the cluster so it would both show up in Live Articles, and I could start on Related Articles, the latter probably after I convince a (luckily small) cat that my fingers, on the keyboard, do not really need a warmer on top of them.
I'm interested in doing some work on surveillance for malware and exploits, again more on the network side.
I'll leave the Definition entry to you.Howard C. Berkowitz 18:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- Added some links, but also removed specific examples that probably belong in more detailed articles.
The term can also include be used to describe programs such winfixer, smitfraud, or MS Antivirus which attempt to defraud a user into sending money to a company which provides either no service or questionable services.
- While I don't know all of the specific programs, the general description sounds as if it might be mixing phishing, spyware and trojan (computer). This article, I think, is a top-level one that defines concepts and links to more specific subarticles.
- Virus (computers) exists but may look a little strange, due to some interim CZ software that causes the definition to be transcluded to the start of the article; this will be corrected.
- If I might, I'd like to suggest starting some of the subarticles, perhaps only in stub form. Of course, they can be extended in place, fully recognizing that some of the definitions are imprecise; miscreants do not create malware in conformance with best practices in software engineering. Howard C. Berkowitz 14:38, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Edits and references
I deleted the citation crediting the definition of malware to Webopedia. CZ isn't WP; it doesn't expect that every definition have a citation, if the term is reasonably well understood by experts in the field. In general, however, anonymous Wikis and many websites are not considered authoritative references, if the source of their information cannot be determined. Now, if there were a signed paper at a conference or in a journal, an IETF RFC, etc., that defined malware, that could be useful.
In like manner, with things such as education, while a corporate site might be a valid reference, the citation needs to be to a specific page.
Now, take the next part as stylistic, and advice only. The material on protection certainly will be useful, but, early in the process, I would argue it is more appropriate to get a definition of the nature and "biology" of malware, making it clear (even with links) what it is, before discussing how to protect against something ill-defined. Howard C. Berkowitz 14:58, 8 February 2009 (UTC)