Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cookiemonster attack

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep‎. Nomination withdrawn (ironically there was an edit conflict as I was closing it at the same time). Editors interested in Merging content can discuss this option on the article talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:45, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cookiemonster attack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Standalone vulnerabilities are rarely notable on their own. While this particular vulnerability boasts of a impressive list of "affected parties", to me it just seems to be a misconfiguration/quirk of the HTTPS protocol (of which there a fair few) that then got discussed on BugTraQ and then later demoed at DEFCON.

Coming to the notability, while there is coverage from The Register and Information Week during 2008 and 2009, I don't think the vulnerability has recieved sustained coverage since. As such, I think it has failed the 10 year test and isn't notable for inclusion. (Also cc @Utopes since this is a contested BLAR) Sohom (talk) 22:55, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment; this existed as a redirect to Session hijacking for a few months. As nom points out, standalone vulnerabilities are rarely notable on their own. That being said, it was not a helpful redirect to Session hijacking either, as people who are looking for information on this vulnerability will not receive any of the pertinent information in their search, and "cookiemonster" is wholly unmentioned at the target as it was. I restored the article in its pre-BLAR state and suggested AfDing or merging as applicable, depending on desire for this topic. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 22:58, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge to Session hijacking#Exploits. Notability is not temporary, and while it only received a flurry of coverage before mostly fading out, the coverage that did get generated is substantial and detailed. It's also been mentioned in some books in the years since. DigitalIceAge (talk) 23:57, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:06, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per User:DigitalIceAge.--cyclopia^speak! 10:41, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per DigitalIceAge Encoded  Talk 💬 20:31, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn - Per above, withdrawing this AFD, I still think that a merge is appropriate, however, we can discuss that possibility off AFD. Sohom (talk) 22:37, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.