Talk:Dan Kaminsky

Flaw in DNS

There should be some description there on how it works. 82.139.87.1 (talk) 08:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

And if it's true that OpenDNS wasn't affected by the flaw[1], it's perhaps not correct to say it's "a fundamental flaw in the DNS protocol itself"? --Espoo (talk) 12:21, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Do the research. There were no patches for OpenDNS or DJBDNS because they were LESS vulnerable than BIND was.--Elvey (talk) 20:52, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

// The attacker tries to hijack anybank.com by sending thousands of requests for fake Web pages (1.anybank.com, 2.anybank.com). 2// The ISP gives each query a transaction ID (unknown to the attacker) and attempts to locate the pages. 3// At the same time, the attacker sends hundreds of responses for each malicious request. Every answer includes a randomly generated ID number. 4// Eventually one of the answers carries an ID that matches, tricking the ISP into accepting and caching the information. The now-legitimized answer contains false details about anybank.com, such as the location of its servers. Legitimate answers from anybank.com ("No such page exists") will now be rejected. 5// Users looking for anybank.com get sent to the fake location already in the ISP's cache. 6// Anybank.com customers are now using a look-alike site built by the hacker. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Conqour1 (talk • contribs) 11:47, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Apropos the # of articles (dozens vs thousands) on this topic: Google News article counts are grossly misleading and fluctuate due to syndication. For example: Articles mentioning me appeared in thousands of articles according to Google News' article count in the past. However, the vast majority were copies of a few syndicated articles (i.e. from the Associated Press and Reuters) from the hundreds of news sites that have syndication rights. When the articles were removed from those sites (I assume the main reason is that syndication rights expire) the Google News article counts plummeted, because Google avoids linking to (and counting) news articles that have been taken down. I wish I'd archived more of the articles! PS: MrCheshire: your edit was NOT minor! --Elvey (talk) 20:52, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Dan Kaminsky/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Did a third grader write the first part of this article?

Last edited at 21:42, 24 May 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 12:45, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Citing Twitter to recent death

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

 Administrator note: Just yesterday, I protected a page following a death hoax (diff). Basically, an Indian MP got duped, posting the death of another Indian politician on her Twitter account, but she was very much alive. We have WP:TWITTER and WP:RSPTWITTER for a reason, folks. El_C 15:22, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

In this case, based on the people involved, I'm fairly confident that he is dead but that the family was hoping to wait a bit longer before officially announcing it. I expect a Sunday newspaper will have an obituary that can be used as a source, and will be available in 8-12 hours. There may be some other formal announcement before that. It shouldn't be in the article just based on 3 primary-source tweets. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 15:30, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

There's also https://www.latestnewssouthafrica.com/2021/04/24/security-researcher-dan-kaminsky-has-passed-away/ though I don't know much about the source... KJC (talk) 15:34, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

That source is worse than useless ... don't believe everything you find on Hacker News. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 15:35, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Why do people keep changing this articl e? There has been no official confirmation -- just a SINGLE TWEET that all these other sub-par "news" sites are relying on. That is *not* sufficient for Wikipedia, especially considering WP:BLP. MrAureliusR_Talk! 16:46, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

There are several independent original tweets. For example also here, here and here. And the date is 23rd, not 24th. Ansiwen (talk) 17:07, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Even 1000 independent original tweets are not enough. Stick to WP policy. -- Jibal (talk) 23:53, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

The tweet I saw is from Marc Rogers, who is credible about something like this. He is a well known security guy around here, and is apparently personally connected with Kaminsky. 2602:24A:DE47:BB20:50DE:F402:42A6:A17D (talk) 22:35, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

I was hoping this would resolve itself before I had to comment again, but it is not. Based on private information, I am sure he is dead. If you look very closely, you might find a credible journalistic source that has covered his passing. The EFF has tweeted about it, and I expect they didn't do so based on Twitter rumors. But The Register (yes, the notorious Register) doesn't seem to have covered it yet. I haven't seen a primary source funeral home posting or any "mainstream media" coverage. But it's good enough for Slashdot [3]. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 01:24, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

El Reg did post an obituary at 04:10, 25 April 2021 User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 19:22, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

I am very sad to hear of Kaminsky’s passing at such a young age; it has been an honor interacting with him while he was still with us. There nothing green at WP:RSP reporting his death (yet), but there is https://www.circleid.com/posts/20210424-security-researcher-dan-kaminsky-has-died, and, as another mentioned, EFF’s tweet on the subject. Samboy (talk) 08:37, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Related question for somebody who knows more than me - I did a quick search of his twitter feed and found this - is it ok to use as a source for his year of birth, or do we actually have to use that template to back-calculate it to 78/79, as we can only use reliable sources? If not acceptable on its own, can it at least be used to break the tie between 78/79? EditorInTheRye (talk) 11:32, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Allowed, as per WP:ABOUTSELF Samboy (talk) 18:56, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

I second those taking issue with the Twitter citation. There's a reason we have an RS policy, and there's no reason to violate it in this case. Stuff like an IP editor claiming some guy is "credible about something like this" or "there are several independent tweets" just don't meet the standard of any encyclopedia. We're not a newspaper—let alone a social-media platform—and surely there will be reliable information soon. Elle Kpyros (talk) 22:56, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

There are now multiple reliable sources reporting his death. -- Jibal (talk) 23:53, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

I think there is enough sourcing now; I'd also trust Power-enwiki's judgment, or you could try typing Marc Rogers' name into a search engine. 2602:24A:DE47:BB20:50DE:F402:42A6:A17D (talk) 00:00, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Any relation to Danny Kaye?

The original name of the actor and entertainer Danny Kaye (1911-87) was David Daniel Kaminsky.

So I am curious to know if there might have been any relation between him and the subject of this article. 2601:200:C000:1A0:BCFD:A8F4:979D:F962 (talk) 14:24, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Surely just a coincidence - it's the 6th most common surname in Poland and there's no shortage of Daniels either. EditorInTheRye (talk) 09:33, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

NPOV

The article has been excessively added to in the weeks following Dan's death. Choice quotes from multiple sources seem to have been picked for their good optics rather than actual encyclopedic value. In short, the article reads like it was written by stans, lacking WP:NPOV.

Per WP:DUE, WP:NOTEVERYTHING some of the choice quotes and content could be done away with. I haven't had the time to weigh what could be removed without destroying the article's encyclopedic value, but leaving my thoughts here for other editors to mull upon. I do realise I may be off the mark here. So, welcome a correction, too. Murtaza.aliakbar (talk) 19:23, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

You are off the mark. I have removed your drive-by tag since it seems like you actually have no real objections. You've not stated what is "NPOV" or how, nor have you provided contrary sources, and you have indicated that you're not interested in doing any work on it. You don't get to shit in the pool and walk away, saying "someone else should clean this up."--Jorm (talk) 20:14, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't like your dismissive tone. Don't be such a toxic presence here. We all share a common goal. That said, I clearly pointed out that choice quotes in the article seemed like they exist for just for the optics. If you expect me to pick out each one of those for you, then you're not the right kind of person to engage in this discussion with me. There are many such quotes, not the least a caption on an image that goes, 'Kaminsky in 2012, wearing an ironic T-shirt depicting a Ishihara test reading "I ♥ Color". Kaminsky developed an app helping people with color blindness, inspired by a friend of his with the disorder.'

Anywho, I added the tag because I wanted to flag it for NPOV which I think this article is, and also, to me, this article doesn't come off as encyclopedic given the tone is excessively stan-ish.

I'm no drive-by editor. I contributed to the article in whatever little time I had. Murtaza.aliakbar (talk) 22:37, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Find critical information you think is missing, then. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 22:42, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

It ain't about missing information. It is about removing it. Whatever that isn't encyclopedic. @AllegedlyHuman: I realise you contributed a substantial amount to the article, and so, I'm glad you're here. When I'm at my desk later in the day, I'll pull up some suggestions to reword or delete statements for your consideration. Murtaza.aliakbar (talk) 22:47, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

replace infobox pic

Should this pic (allegedly, c. 2007) be instead in the infobox? Subjectively speaking, it looks better than the current one (allegedly, c. 2014).

2007: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Dan_Kaminsky_cropped.jpg

2014: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Dan_Kaminsky_2014.jpg Murtaza.aliakbar (talk) 22:43, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

 Done done'ing myself here. Murtaza.aliakbar (talk) 07:06, 15 May 2021 (UTC)