Talk:2014 Russian hacker password theft

Comments

Those are all second or third hand sources. Where is the original report? 209.242.166.83 (talk) 18:30, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Hype/Marketing Ploy?

Considering that so far there's only been one original source reporting this breach, and they've been specifically mentioning their identity protection services for a fee in their announcements, I'm wondering if this is actually a new breach, or just a fear-mongering gimmick to get new customers. I get the impression that the 1.2 billion accounts reported compromised are not from a one-time breach, but an aggregate of several past breaches, and Hold appears to be trying to generate free PR. See the article from Sophos: http://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2014/08/06/1-2-billion-logins-scooped-up-by-cybervor-hacking-crew-what-you-need-to-do/ where their representative states: "This is quite an unusual approach to remediating an alleged major credentials compromise. For a long time the security industry has freely shared information on breaches within its own community." I'm skeptical, until I see some verification from more reputable sources. Bookbrad (talk) 18:37, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

@Bookbrad: - I understand your skepticism, and think you raise a good point. At the same time though, the NYT supposedly reviewed the evidence that Hold Security presented and seemingly backed their interpretation of it. I understand doubting a small private entity like Hold Security, but doubting both Hold Security and the NYT? NickCT (talk) 01:47, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Sensationalism and marketing ploys often go hand-in-hand. The New York Times article indicates the sources for their story are Hold and an unnamed "security expert" - while many named, reputable tech security experts are also casting doubt on the revelation. Bookbrad (talk) 03:13, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

@Bookbrad: - re "reputable tech security experts are also casting doubt on the revelation" - If that's true, and you have good sources to back it, why not add it to the article! It sounds like potentially useful information. NickCT (talk) 03:45, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Information added; it seems pretty shady to me. Added "alleged" to the introduction, noted the offer, and noted the shadiness highlighted by Forbes. Titanium Dragon (talk) 11:02, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry @NickCT: and thanks @Titanium Dragon: - I was too caught up in errands and school work to focus on this article. (It overlaps with my security studies, but that's not what's due first.) I also feel it would be good to wait on some more facts to actually be revealed. And I'm a little concerned about the timing, as the recent DHS contractor hack - http://www.usis.com/Media-Release-Detail.aspx?dpid=151 - seems to be getting much less press due to this hype. Bookbrad (talk) 14:18, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because it obviously meets WP:GNG?? Could someone caution the IP who proposed the speedy delete? I'd do it myself, but given that I created the article, it might not be appropriate. NickCT (talk) 01:44, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Contested deletion

Does not meet any of the speedy deletion criteria. --eritain (talk) 02:04, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because... (your reason here) --202.126.201.212 (talk) 02:41, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

It is a valid news, all over the internet. Wikipedia editors should spend more time reading news, rather than deleting everything randomly.

https://news.google.co.nz/news/rtc?ncl=dSQrzpk68FIPgEMP_8zufD-FYbpvM&authuser=0&topic=tc

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because the quantity of prominent news journals that reported it made it into news. Many reputable technical security web sites followed suit, if only to get their take on it. If it turns out to be an actual large-scale, previously unknown security breach, it is going to be studied by technical security analysts and presented as a study-case for a long time. If it turns out to be a marketing ploy, it will be presented as an example of gullibility by those same analysts, as well as studied by marketers, psychologists and sociologists - and probably the FTC. Hoaxes become news when they are widely believed. --Bookbrad (talk) 03:21, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Fixed the article

Made a bunch of edits. It should be in better shape now. --Jersey92 (talk) 20:26, 9 August 2014 (UTC)