Talk:Page hijacking

This article was nominated for deletion on 7 April 2021. The result of the discussion was merge.

Untitled

Some sentences here are a possible copvio from [1] so need to be rewritten quickly. (The explanation there isn't great, either: I'm not sure I understand it, and I administer several Apache servers. 302 is temporary redirect; I presume the Location header that is returned with the response is the victim page, and the script doesn't provide the content itself?) --Cedders^tk 22:45, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

302 Google Jacking → Page hijacking

Hello. I've merged 302 Google Jacking into this article as nobody was against it after waiting 5 days. I hope nobody minds the merge. I've also taken the liberty to clarify the article with a simple example. All the webmasters who edited the article added übernerd jargon which no mortal could understand. Mind you, I'm a webmaster myself but when I showed the original articles to a friend, she was totally lost. I tried my best to make everything more clear, but I'm no expert on this subject since I don't care about my position in search engine results. :) --Zabadab 19:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

I propose that Page hijacking be merged into Phishing. I think that the content in the Page hijacking article can easily be explained in the context of Phishing, and the Phishing article is of a reasonable size that the merging of Page hijacking will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. FockeWulf FW 190 (talk) 22:08, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@FockeWulf FW 190: This whole page should be cleared IMO. Worked in web security for around 10 years and "Page hijacking" refers to when a web page is hijacked through a web vulnerability or through other means like a irreputable advertiser script. The vulnerability could be from XSS, Code injection, File inclusion or another web vulnerability. It is not what this page claims i.e. "Page hijacking is a form of search engine index spamming", that is Spamdexing which already has a article. What is in this article isn't even worth merging into another article, just my opinion. Offnfopt^(talk) 09:11, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with anything this article says, but if you really wanted to keep the existing content and merge it somewhere then based on what the article claims, it should be merged to the "page hijacking" section on the spamdexing page. Offnfopt^(talk) 09:21, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Offnfopt:I've removed and altered most of it's content so the article is not as misleading as it once was.It's a start, but is better then it was before.

Also it has occurred that some phishing attacks have used page hijacking to compromise hard to reach targets. FockeWulf FW 190 (talk) 16:30, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose merger since the article does not have even a single source to support it. All sources I find online are low-effort blog spam. I do support deleting this page and replacing it with a redirect to Phishing to facilitate searches (but without any content move). Anton.bersh (talk) 08:12, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of this page

When I search for "Page hijacking" I get a bunch of blog-spam articles which in my opinion don't meet criteria for reliable sources. All of the uses of this term seem to refer to Phishing, which is a notable subject. Therefore I propose deletion of this page with and redirect to Phishing. See prior discussion above. Anton.bersh (talk) 08:16, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't going to work as a PROD, which is for "uncontroversial deletions". Suggest putting it at AfD for more input, especially since there are multiple options being talked about here (merger, deletion, rework). --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:34, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]