Talk:Cyberweapon

Requested move 2 November 2015

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. What should ultimately be done with this article still remains a little unclear, but there is a definite consensus that it should not be renamed "State-sponsored hacking". Jenks24 (talk) 05:20, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

---

Cyberweapon → State-sponsored hacking – A definition of a 'cyberweapon' is tough, though we can usually agree when a state or state-sponsored agency uses it's arsenal, this is what a 'cyberweapon' is. This would also match the page State-sponsored Internet sockpuppetry. Deku-shrub (talk) 00:39, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

• Comment malware isn't necessarily hacking, since a computer operator is not being interactively involved in the process. Stuxnet doesn't require hacker interaction. And state-sponsored hacking, such as infiltrating systems and extracting information doesn't require "weaponry", since exploiting security holes can be done with badly secured or buggy systems without deploying malware. Also cyberwarfare is not called state-sponsored Internet warfare -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 09:31, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
• Comment I agree with 70.51. State-sponsored hacking is a significantly broader subject than Cyberweapon. It would make more sense to rename Cyberwarfare in that case, or merge this with Advanced persistent threat, although those wouldn't necessarily be a good ideas either. —Ruud 10:59, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I actually want to make a separate page for State-sponsored hacking but I thought it'd be easier to start from this page rather than later merge the two. Deku-shrub (talk) 14:03, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
    • I think you should just start a new article -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 07:06, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
• Comment. Hi. IMHO, "cyberweapon" is a buzzword at best. Having read the definition in the article, a cyberweapon is practically indistinguishable from a malware unless you know who built or operated it. It is like Agent 006 walking over to Agent 008 and say, "Hey, remember the cyberweapon that MI9 discovered two days ago? It was not a cyberweapon at all! It wasn't developed by that tiny African country; it was developed by a super-huge drug cartel." It is best if this article is dissolved and redirected to cyberwarfare, with parts merged into malware.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 18:08, 3 November 2015 (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.

History and Potential Regulations Section

Hi! I am a new editor to Wikipedia, and I am planning to add to this page. What I want to do is essentially expand the Controls section (now changing it into history, as that makes it a bit clearer) by adding history of some of the more important cyberweapons and what happened around them (Stuxnet, Flame, NSA leaks by Shadow Brokers and ATP3). Additionally, I plan on adding a short section about potential regulation of cyberweapons. Finally, I plan on adding a short part to the characteristics explaining the dangers behind cyberweapons (as compared to other weaponry). Looking forward to working with everyone on this! --Junglekarmapizza (talk) 08:24, 9 May 2022 (UTC)