Talk:Hacking: The Art of Exploitation Second Edition
 | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||
 | Hacking: The Art of Exploitation Second Edition received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
 | The contents of the Hacking: The Art of Exploitation Second Edition page were merged into Hacking: The Art of Exploitation on 2014-03-14 and it now redirects there. For the contribution history and old versions of the merged article please see its history. |
Peer Review
editThis article was very interesting! I honestly have no clue how to do any of the things mentioned, but it made me want to get the book and try it out. There are a few problems with the article, probably because it was just put up, but I'm going to just go ahead and say them anyway so you have a start on where to go.
- First, you need a lead at the top of the page that gives a breif description of the entire article.
- Also there are many sections of the article with only 2-3 sentences in them, try and expand these to maybe 4-5?
- The first paragraph is kind of choppy, try to switch up the sentence structure.
- Add citations (Im guessing you just did't get to this yet)
- Maybe add a section that deals just with the author ? Just if you have time.
Overall I liked the information in the article, just some small fixes to be made, but I thought it was very interesting! Megzie113 (talk) 12:39, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Hybrid Ciphers
editThis section makes the following statement: "The speed and efficiency of a hybrid cipher is much better than that of a symmetric or asymmetric cipher". This isn't true. It can't possibly be faster than a symmetic cipher as the point of hybrid ciphers is to use an asymmetric cipher to establish a session key for symmetric encryption. Excluding the overhead of establishing the session key, it is equal. (129.12.102.161 (talk) 16:00, 13 May 2011 (UTC))
Blatant errors in "Assembly vs. C"
editThe "Assembly vs. C" section is just wrong. Totally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.12.117.148 (talk) 21:19, 23 March 2012 (UTC)