Talk:Cain (software)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] NPOV?
this article seems to commend the software for recovering 'lost passwords'. Someone should mention the use of the proigram for malicious security cracking. (would you need a packet sniffer if you lost your password?, this feature can only be used if the password is still in active use) I'd like to see this article improve over the coming months. MichaelBillington 07:51, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
It could also be used for many white hat purposes , including security audits ( well some features of it anyway). I should also note on xp it requires admin privliages to install but it has the potental to be used for many blackhat purposes. Im sure 99% of the time password crackers and such are used for malicious purposes. Kingpomba 08:30, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
My concerns have not been addressed by an expert on the subject, so i am doing my reasearch and i will edit for NPOV, i may also tag the page with an NPOV notice. One big thing i will do is add this to every (relevant) category possible so that it may get some attention. Thanks. MichaelBillington 12:11, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Why NPOV? This tool, and others like it, are neutral. This program can be used for both legitimate and less noble puposes. Legitimate uses would include systems administrators checking their own network security or recovering passwords lost by a user - the latter happens very frequently. Also, such programs are also used by security consultants and law-enforcement agencies. Less desirable uses would include people recovering your passwords to steal valuable personal or commercial information, such as your internet banking passwords or trade secrets.
Finally, agree with the post below - the problem is not one of NPOV, (otherwise guns and electricity would be too...), it's rather "do we need this in Wikipedia"?
- Take this as an example: if the article about Firearms didn't mention how much potential they have for misuse, it would not be neutral. This article is much the same, but with less blood. It's the article leaving ouut vital information that I'm worried about, not that the tool isn't neutral.
- I'm not a big fan of password recovery tools, I suggest you just write down your passwords in obscure places that nobody looks if you're worried about forgetting it. Here are some examples of "obscure" places. (I use none of them, mine are far better)
- The top of a blade on your ceiling fan, in invisible ink.
- The inside of an old nintendo cartridge in a dusty drawer
- The sticker on one of your RAM chips
- The inside of your enter key on your keyboard, you need a lever to get to it though
- (the best one) Your brain
- Remember not to keep your username and password in the same place though, and make it impossible to know that it's a password and not a serial number or other random piece of text, and - don't tell anyone it's there. Tada! this programme is out of a job. Anyway, all I ask for is a quick mention of it in the article, not a flip around to the other POV. MichaelBillington 23:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Discussion
i just created the page , i hope it grows in size and in information , cheers, Kingpomba 11:37, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
- I hope the same. Thanks for asking for my review. My comments are similar to the Brutus (software) page in that I think the article lacks context. In other words, why should we care. Wikipedia is not a collection of internet directory pages, so this tool's simple existence, IMHO, is not enough to justify the article. cmh 14:36, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
- Regarding style in this article, I'd put commas right after the term with a single space after. (So foo, bar, baz. Not foo , bar ,baz.) The first sentence is much too long and has several main ideas... consider breaking it up so there is one main idea per sentence. (I recommend reading the article aloud when there is no one around, you'll immediately spot problems like that.) Abel is not capitalized at the end of the first sentence. I wonder whether there is a need to identify every kind of hash in the world that it supports. This is an encyclopedia which means that we should be complete, but it also means, IMO, that we should present the important facts, not just all facts which are true. Lastly, this article should be linked to appropriate categories. Good luck in improving the article! cmh 14:36, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
- The capitalization in this article needs work. Let's not slip in our professionalism! (InternetBummer 16:01, 10 June 2006 (UTC))
[edit] Proposed deletion
User:Popcorn2008 threw a {{prod}} tag on the page just a while ago [1]. This is probably more like material for an AfD debate though, as it seems like a number of users on the #wikipedia IRC channel (me included) don't want to see it go. Please leave your opinions below, so we can determine if this page is to be thrown in the bitbucket. MichaelBillington 11:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
- I threw on a {{Prod}} because I read on the discussion page the NPOV arguments and thought that the article's real problem is it doesnt pass WP:SOFTWARE, but perhaps since some believe it should stay an AfD would be the best course of action. --Popcorn2008 16:03, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
- The Article isn't that important but it would be nice to see it stay but it's not exactly that cruicial. -Written in a rush(this comment) Kingpomba 08:38, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, it comes in at #9 on a (somewhat arbitrary) survey of the top 100 security tools by popularity conducted by the author of nmap, one of the most well-known security tools. [2] -- Random Passerby
- For the record, I'd also rather not see this page deleted. As mentioned above, it seems to have *some sort* of notability, and even if it isn't 100% NPOV (see higher up), that can be fixed. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 11:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- I'd prefer to see it stay... --Sugarskane 18:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
- There is no reason to delete this article- it definatly fits into the definition of Software, and is a major tool, used worldwide. Deletion would just be censorship, and you know what censorship gets us. RedWasp 05:57, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
