Talk:String exploits Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:String_exploits

This article was nominated for deletion on 22 February 2011 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Computer security: Computing Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computer security, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computer security on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Computer securityWikipedia:WikiProject Computer securityTemplate:WikiProject Computer securityComputer security Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Computing (assessed as Low-importance). Things you can help WikiProject Computer security with: Article alerts are available, updated by AAlertBot. More information... Review importance and quality of existing articles Identify categories related to Computer Security Tag related articles Identify articles for creation (see also: Article requests) Identify articles for improvement Create the Project Navigation Box including lists of adopted articles, requested articles, reviewed articles, etc. Find editors who have shown interest in this subject and ask them to take a look here.

I just corrected this one a few days ago. Why de-correct it? If there is a redirect to the wrong name, I missed it and will correct it. Is there some exception to the singular-as-title rule?Shajure (talk) 02:08, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Database server lag... the rename / redirect was... odd. Pay no mind.Shajure (talk) 02:11, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unscintillating (talk) 20:46, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is gone. The examples given in the article are all examples of vulnerabilities that may lead to exploits; they are not themselves exploits. The term "string exploit" is, moreover, not found as a term of art in the literature.  --Lambiam 00:10, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Improper input validation can occur within a program built by the programmer that will only be used by the programmer. Therefore, the term does not, as the article says now, define a "vulnerability", since such depends on context.  I'm not saying I've studied this issue, but where this has gone isn't making sense.  An Asciiz exploit is not something that may "lead" to an exploit, it is an exploit, for example.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:42, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because you piped the link, which is to the article Null character, which doesn't discuss that exploit but only states that a certain kind of vulnerability "can lead to security exploits". To avoid confusion, I've replaced the link. If you take the ENISA definition of vulnerability (given in our article): "The existence of a weakness, design, or implementation error that can lead to an unexpected, undesirable event", such events do not have to be due to a malicious attack and could also happen if the vulnerable software is not meant for public use but the programmer/user makes an unintentional input error. Likewise for the definitions by The Open Group, ISACA, and several other sources quoted in the article.  --Lambiam 14:40, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There just isn't enough here for an article. The name doesn't matter, really, the value here is in making sure that the readers can find what they are seeking.Shajure (talk) 06:15, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is, I see the main value in the various redirects and the article link-outs.Shajure (talk) 06:30, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The name is not supported by the sources, it needs to say something like (and I'm not thrilled with this) "Input-validation vulnerability".  Unscintillating (talk) 16:10, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]