Talk:List of security hacking incidents: Difference between revisions

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]

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" [7]

---

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

1. 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}}
2. 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}}
3. 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}}
4. 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}}
5. 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}}
6. FBI agents find explosives and biological weapons in the course of the raid. {{Fact|date=March 2007}}
7. It turned out this teen was also responsible for breaking into data broker LexisNexis' system in January. {{Fact|date=March 2007}}
8. 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}}
9. 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}}.

1. 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}}
2. January: Port7Alliance is born. {{Fact|date=March 2007}}
3. 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}}
4. March: The L10n worm is discovered in the wild attacking older versions of BIND DNS. {{Fact|date=March 2007}}
5. 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}}
6. AV experts identify Sadmind, a new cross-platform worm that uses compromised Sun Solaris boxes to attack Windows NT servers.{{Fact|date=March 2007}}
7. 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}}
8. 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}}
9. 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}}
10. 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 03:22, 28 October 2012 (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)

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)

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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)

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

• * 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