User talk:Chron

-Start page-

Early phishing

Hello Chron, welcome to Wikipedia. I read the PDF on the linked arXiv page with interest and I found your contributions well-written. Nevertheless I had to revert them, due to a lack of notability of the site pushstart.info and the total absence of reliable third party sources to substantiate the story. Best regards, WeatherFug (talk) 01:04, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've been a member here since 2004, but thanks for the welcome. You did not mention the San Jose Mercury News article which clearly states the functionality and is dated September 1995. Chron (talk) 01:18, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the arXiv article has been highlighted by MIT's Technology Review blog as one of the best (http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/26958/). Chron (talk) 02:16, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Chron, or should I say mr. Rekouche, you seem to be seeking recognition for having the dubious honor of being the author of the first automated "fishing" tool, and of being the guy who first named it phishing with ph. The mentioned San Jose Mercury News article does indeed state the functionality, and mentions Da Chronic as the apparent developer. I found this link to be third party and reliable enough to be used for that http://simson.net/clips/1995/95.SJMN.AOL_Hackers.html However, for the allegation that Rekouche = Da Chronic and for the f-ph allegation there is only your word. No verifiable evidence for that. The MIT's Technology Review highlight merely indicates they thought the article was quite interesting (so did I), but not if the content was all true. Best regards, WeatherFug (talk) 14:10, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. Regarding phishing, two changes were made. One about the term's date of origin, and one about the source of the term. The article had claimed that the first recorded use of the term 'phishing' was in 1996, and cited a self-published webpage of a person named Gunter Ollmann. In June of 2011, I wrote an academic paper that discussed the origins of phishing and the hacking tool that I created in 1995 called AOHell. The paper can be found on arXiv, which I cited when correcting the date and source in the wikipedia article.

Is the objection to this citation because I wrote the paper and I am the one making the edit, or does the objection have to do with the paper itself? The edits you are reverting back to have two citations to this subject, one of which is broken, and the other is the non-notable webpage mentioned earlier. If the objection is to the paper itself, I don't see the grounds. MIT's Technology Review magazine does a weekly review of arXiv and highlights what they think are the best papers published there. They selected this paper as one of the best (those are the words they used, not "merely interesting"). Your statement that they did not verifiy its 100% "truth" holds for any peer-reviewed paper ever published, much less the non-reviewed, self-published webpage that was previously cited for the 1996 date.

As an aside, one could additionally verify the term's origin and date in a few minutes by Googling "aohell.zip", downloading one of the archived copies, and searching the program's executable for the text "phishing". (Screen shots of the running program were provided in my paper). The program's release dates are clear and are not disputed by anyone, to my knowledge. Thanks. Chron (talk) 15:36, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted also that the change I made mentioned AOHell as the source, and I did not name myself (left for others to decide if and where that should be included in the article). Chron (talk) 16:18, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I am willing to believe your story, but all I am saying is that Wikipedia articles need reliable, verifiable third party sources. A thorough article about your outfit by a good investigating journalist in a well-respected media outlet certainly would help. WeatherFug (talk) 17:28, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The paper on Early Phishing is a reliable source for an important correction and my original edit conforms to WP:SELFCITE. For the Mercury News article, the archive copy held on simson.net that you found is preferable as it appears to be the website of one of the contributing journalists. Chron (talk) 12:02, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]