Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Buffer overflow/archive1

Buffer Overflow edit

I think this page has stabalised and provides a clear and concise introduction to the subject aswell as a good overview of associated issues which have their own daughter pages. If it is not up to the standard, I think any problems can be fixed. -- Tompsci 15:31, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object, some sections way too short. Merge some info back from the main articles. See WP:SUMMARY. —mercuryboard^talk 15:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which sections, I added some material to two of the shortest sections. -- Tompsci 16:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see Heap overflow, Executable space protection, and Deep packet inspection merged into the main article, with expansions in the other areas of Protection against buffer overflow coming from the main articles. No section should have fewer than a full paragraph, and in most cases should probably be a couple small paragraphs as a summary (depending on the main article size). History could use some expansion. Additional example source code in a higher level language might be clearer to the novice reader. Consider your audience. WP:LEAD is going to need to be expanded and definitely written for understanding by a more general audience. I understand the article, but I'm also a CS major. You also need to cite references, see WP:CITE. I know somebody's going to bring that up soon. I've just finished a monstrous overhaul for my own FAC, so I know it's a daunting task, but definitely possible. —mercuryboard^talk 16:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good points, but a few objections. A higher level language is probably immune to buffer overflows, since they have bounds checking (i.e. Java). Also, I don't think the article should cater for a more general audience as is it of no use to them. Maybe the wording could be tweaked to make it more accessible though. About references, where are they needed?^{[citation needed]} Cheers -- Tompsci 18:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure your External links could be converted to References and give you a start as to making sure this article is properly cited. —mercuryboard^talk 18:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You need to read WP:FOOT and WP:CITE. —mercuryboard^talk 20:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More references added. Still more to come. -- Tompsci 13:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would be best to use the {{cite}} templates as described in the above links. —mercuryboard^talk 23:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Could do with more images to break up the text, particularly the long last section, and more references (would also be better to use the reference template/footnote stuff to replace inline links). NicM 18:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]

It can be improved by reducing links to solitary years. A monobook tool allows this to be done with one click on a 'dates' tab in edit mode. You can then accept or reject the changes offered and/or do more editing before pressing 'Save'. Simply copy the entire contents of User:Bobblewik/monobook.js to your own monobook. Then follow the instructions in your monobook to clear the cache (i.e. press Ctrl-Shift-R in Firefox, or Ctrl-F5 in IE) before it will work. Hope that helps. bobblewik 19:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object For one, the "history" section starts out at 1988 - surely they were known before then, or perhaps it needs to be restructured accordingly with a different section name (i.e. moved to exploits or something). Referencing is inadiquite - a general reference such as a good C book should probably be used. Also, as a nitpick I'd like it to be a bit more descriptive and the lead a bit longer - i.e. often "crashes" are the result of memory protection. RN 07:29, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Title now more specific, more references and altered lead. -- Tompsci 13:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WOW! Well done :). I'm sort of lukewarm about the examples (even though they are nice :)) though as they seem kind of unencyclopedic, but consider this my Tentative Support pending the below issue addressed! RN 06:58, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, "Use of safe libraries" could use an inline citation or two, ditto for "Choice of programming language."RN 07:33, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object as per above--ppm 22:04, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The link under Deep Packet Inspection to Heuristics points to a very general page on Heuristics. I believe it needs link to Heuristic_(computer_science)--FrostFiend 12:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. -- Tompsci 13:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]