Talk:Antivirus software: Difference between revisions
Line 60: | Line 60: | ||
Oh well done the Needs Citation spammer. That is SO irritating, especially when it is next to plain and simple facts such the statement on Word macro viruses emerging. I was there. They did. What's to cite? Posted by an alarming normal user - not a Wiki head so please don't flame me for having the temerity to suggest the page is now hard to read and commenting on it in this unsophisticated style. ...That posting needs citation at the end of every paragraph is annoying is a simple fact also. I use Wiki a lot as a reader and other pages don't suffer from this. |
Oh well done the Needs Citation spammer. That is SO irritating, especially when it is next to plain and simple facts such the statement on Word macro viruses emerging. I was there. They did. What's to cite? Posted by an alarming normal user - not a Wiki head so please don't flame me for having the temerity to suggest the page is now hard to read and commenting on it in this unsophisticated style. ...That posting needs citation at the end of every paragraph is annoying is a simple fact also. I use Wiki a lot as a reader and other pages don't suffer from this. |
||
I take it that reaction was due to |
I take it that reaction was due to the potential for AV manufacturers to interfere with and bias the page. Fine. All I am saying is it's gone a bit far / crudely applied to every para whether a company is mentioned or not. |
||
<span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/84.92.230.173|84.92.230.173]] ([[User talk:84.92.230.173|talk]]) 08:44, 14 June 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
<span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/84.92.230.173|84.92.230.173]] ([[User talk:84.92.230.173|talk]]) 08:44, 14 June 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
Revision as of 08:48, 14 June 2009
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Antivirus software article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | Computing Start‑class Top‑importance | |||||||||
|
![]() | Computer Security: Computing Start‑class Top‑importance | |||||||||||||||||
|
Merge with zero-day virus
The issue of zero-day virus needs to be more thouroly discussed in this article. Sections of the zero-day virus article is just a condensed version of sections from this article. If zero-day virus was merged with this article, it would recieve more exposure. TechOutsider' (talk) 21:09, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- zero-day virus is discrete and relevant enough to merit an article - maybe migrate some content from here to there and reduce duplication? Qbeep (talk) 21:06, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- It should at least be linked from this article, either from a short section of "See also" - Ahunt (talk) 15:10, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- It seems that there is no consensus to merge, so the tags will be removed. I have linked zero-day virus in this article. - Ahunt (talk) 16:43, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Antivirus vs. Virus
This article seems to have a lot of information that applies specifically to viruses, not virus scanners. Should we migrate some of this? Qbeep (talk) 02:05, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- In reading through the article I don't see a lot of information on viruses that isn't required at a basic level to explain antivirus software, so perhaps you can point out what you think is beyond the scope of this article? Obviously anything that isn't needed here could be moved to Computer virus. - Ahunt (talk) 12:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- as a top-of-the-head example, it's not necessary to name all the variations of virus polymorphism. The general concept of polymorphic virus detection may be cleaner without it Qbeep (talk) 00:06, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- a more concrete example. Consider the following:
"Powerful macros in word processors such as Microsoft Word presented a further risk. Virus writers started using the macros to write viruses that attached themselves to documents; this meant that computers could now also be at risk from infection by documents (with hidden attached macros) as programs. Later email programs, in particular Microsoft Outlook Express and Outlook, became able to execute program code from within a message's text by simply reading the message, or even previewing its content. Virus checkers now had to check many more types of files. As broadband always-on connections became the norm and more and more viruses were released, it became essential to update virus checkers more and more frequently; even then, a new virus could spread widely before it was detected, identified, a checker update released, and virus checkers round the world updated."
- we're looking at an unwieldly mix of history and virus classification; with some careful editing (and possibly relocation of some content to other parts of the article) this could be trimmed down to about two sentences without harming the utility of the article. Qbeep (talk) 00:14, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- Makes sense to me to trim that down and make it more concise, then. - Ahunt (talk) 13:17, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Antivirus security issues?
The inherent risk associated with having an antivirus product running as a privileged user isn't unique to virus scanners, has no commonly-used exploits that I've ever heard of, and seems to take up a lot of space in this article. Maybe we should run a fine-toothed comb over sources (and seek counter-sources?) Qbeep (talk) 00:53, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- You are right, if this isn't an issue and essentially doesn't exist then it should be trimmed out. As you indicate, the key would be what the refs say, if it isn't supported there then it shouldn't be in the article. Feel free to get out the scissors! I will also have a run through the article, perhaps later on today and see what I can do to tighten it up. - Ahunt (talk) 13:21, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- Okay I see you are reworking the article at Talk:Antivirus software/project, so will hang off doing anything to it until you post your changes to the main article. Incidentally creating a new page like that is probably not the best way to rework an article. If you want to take it somewhere and work on it you can create a "sandbox" page in your own user space (like I did here to work on templates). I have also copied articles into a text editor offline and worked on them there. The danger even then is that other editors may change the base article while you are working on a copy elsewhere, meaning if you copy your new version over the existing one it will eliminate all changes made since you made your copy. It may be best if you want to work on an article uninterrupted for a while to just tag it with {{inuse}} instead. That produces the box below: - Ahunt (talk) 14:50, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This talk page is actively undergoing a major edit for a short while. To help avoid edit conflicts, please do not edit this page while this message is displayed. This page was last edited at 08:48, 14 June 2009 (UTC) (15 years ago) – this estimate is cached, . Please remove this template if this page hasn't been edited for a significant time. If you are the editor who added this template, please be sure to remove it or replace it with {{Under construction}} between editing sessions. |
- Too late - it has been mostly re-written! ;) - Ahunt (talk) 21:50, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Cloud AV
Is it just me, or does this section seem more like an advertisment? FSBDavy (talk) 17:29, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
- I agree, it certainly does. - Ahunt (talk) 17:37, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
- Have a look now and see if that is an improvement. - Ahunt (talk) 17:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
- Better! But- does it belong in the "Issues of concern" section at all?218.166.149.111 (talk) 18:35, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
- That is a very good point! In looking at it, I agree and have moved to to its own section. Have a look at it, though perhaps it would better fit in elsewhere? - Ahunt (talk) 18:46, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Do we really need Needs Citation absolutely everywhere?
Oh well done the Needs Citation spammer. That is SO irritating, especially when it is next to plain and simple facts such the statement on Word macro viruses emerging. I was there. They did. What's to cite? Posted by an alarming normal user - not a Wiki head so please don't flame me for having the temerity to suggest the page is now hard to read and commenting on it in this unsophisticated style. ...That posting needs citation at the end of every paragraph is annoying is a simple fact also. I use Wiki a lot as a reader and other pages don't suffer from this.
I take it that reaction was due to the potential for AV manufacturers to interfere with and bias the page. Fine. All I am saying is it's gone a bit far / crudely applied to every para whether a company is mentioned or not.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.92.230.173 (talk) 08:44, 14 June 2009 (UTC)