Talk:Social engineering

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Disambiguation
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.
WikiProject Computer Security / Computing  (Rated Disambig-class)
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Computer Security, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computer security on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Disambiguation page Disambig  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This page is supported by WikiProject Computing.


Are the examples provided really social engineering? Dumpster diving is just another way of exploiting human weakness, but there aren't really any social aspects to it. Similarly the malicious attachment example has some aspects of social engineering as the cracker has to get the user to implicitly trust them and execute the attachmet, but for a self-propagating virus, it's not as clear.

...Infosecurity survey 90% of office workers gave away their password in exchange for a cheap pen.

Is that a correct falue, I mean did they check if i was the right password or just some bogus people made up.

Does anyone have any information about social engineering as it was used in 1950s adverts of General Electrics?

Few small problems[edit]

I think that social engineering needs to have at *least* 1 more page on it...the psychological factor. There also seems to be a negative bias on both of these articles thusfar. Not all social engineering is bad. In certain scenerios it can be used to help somebody (improving self esteem, anyone?).

If I edit them, I'll prolly do it later.

Patrick Flynn 07:07, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

maybe I'm missing something but why is this part of wikiproject California? last time I check social engineering was a global thing....

You are missing somethings so I'll fill you in. "Large scale" does not always mean "global" -- (talk) 18:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I apologize.[edit]

I apologize, but I'm in a predicament, please delete this post if you see it. It's not important at all, I'm just helping myself.

Life And Ethics Assignment: Abortion and Euathanasia

After reading the article on Abortion and Euthanasia, I was amused at how biased the author of that article was. I feel compelled to state my own opinion on their views on abortion. I think there should be a separation between church and state. Matters involving one’s ability or inability to raise a human being has absolutely nothing to do with religion. Just as laws are broken, religious principles are impossible to uphold in a modern world where we all fight for our right to make our own decisions regarding our own lives and yet find it necessary to dictate how everyone else should live theirs. There’s too much hypocrisy as it is. I respect their right to state their opinions, but unless we live in a Nazi-Communist country where the government or any single entity can dictate how the masses should live their lives, then we do not deserve to call this country the United States of America. For the author to belittle those who make their own choices in life because it offends his own religious sentiments is downright selfish and narrow-minded.

Abortion is a sensitive subject, but I feel that in cases where the parents are incapable of responsibly caring for another human’s life, it is justified. The world is full of latch-key children and abandoned offspring that overpopulate the overburdened child care system. “Adults” that aren’t responsible enough to have protected relations, but don’t want the responsibility of being parents treat their accidental pregnancies like unwanted trash. A child does not deserve to be raised in that environment. Consider all the un-adopted, uncared for, parentless children in the world. If every family adopted just one child, there’d still be many without a caring environment needed to grow into normal, healthy, happy human beings. It makes no sense for a young woman who was raped and impregnated to be forced to keep her baby, a constant living, breathing reminder of the most traumatizing violence a woman could be subjected to. Also, if a woman cannot support herself financially and responsibly, how could she support a child?

We all know how easy it is to make babies. It’s a perfectly human urge to love, but there are many who do not take the consequences of physical connections into consideration. How can one possibly control and ensure that only those who are psychologically, financially, and emotionally mature enough to fornicate are the ones who are allowed to get married and have physical relations. We live in a world where divorce is rampant and the prospect of marriage has become a temporary institution for almost 50% of those who do get married. Marriage no longer possesses the same sanctity as it did before the Dark Ages. Generation after generation has evolved from the notion of living life by a specific set of rules. If religion can dictate what is right, how can one dictate which religion IS right? Shall we force the whole world to abide by one? Shall we all be Muslims? Haven’t enough wars and bloodshed over religion proven what an impossibility and impractical solution that is?

Ultimately, it is our individual values as people, not what any entity dictates, that helps us become —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:22, 10 August 2010 (UTC)