Talk:BSAFE

Edit request

I would like to request that this page be reverted back to a point where it listed products in specific sections just like it was in Old revision of BSAFE. The way the page has been recently re-worked does not do due justice to this notably historical product, which is still in use and being developed today.

Furthermore, moving all products into a section called Varieties is inaccurate. There are varieties of apples like Spartans and Empires, and varieties of candies like licorice and lolliepops. Those are example where the word variety can be used. In this case, the different bullet points placed under the Varieties section are in fact different Products. Just like the McAfee lists multiple products, here the BSAFE product line is composed of multiple products. Old revision of BSAFE was making this clear distinction while the current revision is not.

And lastly, I would request that this page also has the same treatment as other WP pages, which is to place the controversies last, and at the top of the page and above the fold. The page about McAfee is a good example of unfairness to the page about BSAFE. Why would the McAfee page has Controversies last, while the current revision of BSAFE has its controversy first? Same goes with OpenSSL: the page does not list notable vulnerabilities first and above the fold. The page describes the offering first then move on to vulnerabilities.

I am hereby requesting the same fairness in this article, and that this page be reviewed by an independent account different from those who have been watching my edits lately.

Please also note that I am attempting to follow the WP:COIREQ process. No need to point me to it, but if there is something wrong with this request I will accept any guidance.

Regards - Security in mind (talk) 16:10, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

I obviously oppose this, as I made the edits, but I will leave this open for another editor to review. The controversies detailed at McAfee (SEC investigations and obvious errors rolled out to customers) and OpenSSL (vulnerabilities that were rapidly disclosed and fixed) are of an entirely different character than what we have here, which is a crypto library that was deliberately weakened in exchange for payment from the government. These are extremely significant events, and lack of trust in this library is one of its most notable features. - MrOllie (talk) 16:39, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Declining. MrOllie's edits bring the article closer to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, especially in regards to formatting. Furthermore, the old version seemed to mostly be a list of products, when an article about a company is supposed to focus on the company. If Security in mind wants, they can propose specific changes below to text using Wikipedia:Edit Request Wizard/COI. Z1720 (talk) 17:08, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Unfair. Why remove {{Infobox_software}}, that were previously present, which helps WP users know which version is the {{LSR}}? Can BSAFE get the same treatment of other crypto toolkits like Bouncy Castle, Botan, OpenSSL and many others? Why were those infoxboxes removed for BSAFE products? Isn't it part of the formatting guidelines and good practices to have infoxbox_software? Also, BSAFE is not a company, but a product suite, just like Microsoft Office. The MS Office page lists products and a small description about those products. I wish that the same rules applies for all product suites please. Also I find this very strange that when I created the Edit Request WP system told me there were many, many articles to review first. How come this ER got reviewed and declined so fast? May I be pointed to the the WP guideline that says controversies should be listed first? - Security in mind (talk) 17:18, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Security in mind your edit request asked an editor to revert MrOllie's edits and restore to the previous version. I evaluated the old version you linked to with the article's current prose and decided that MrOllie's changes were a net-improvement. If there are specific changes that you would like to make, such as restoring the infobox_software, please submit a new edit request below outlining these changes and another editor will evaluate your request. Z1720 (talk) 17:26, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Most of the article is just about the backdoor stuff. I agree that it seems appropriate to include information on... you know, the actual library. You were the main editor since 2018, then in 2021 MrOllie waltz in and deletes a bunch of stuff. Dlesos (talk) 14:44, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the 'main editor' was an employee of the company making the thing, and they turned it into a borderline advertisement while minimizing the most notable information about the product - that it was knowingly compromised for years because the makers accepted money from the government to keep it that way. You don't see a problem with that? - MrOllie (talk) 15:06, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

The article shouldn't be an advertisement or try to downplay what happened, you're right. I don't think all their contributions were so bad. Just straight up deleting a bunch of stuff, on pretty much first edit, doesn't seem right. Dlesos (talk) 21:04, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I do not believe the version Old revision of BSAFE, before reverts, was written as an advertisement, nor did it downplayed anything. Thank you Dlesos for saying my contributions weren't that bad. I take this as a compliment of proper authoring. As I have been banned from writing anything on that page to help improve it, all I can do is hope that people like you will realize the page was much better in its previous state, and ask for a revert. It is just a shame that Subject Matter Experts who do their best to improve WP get their work trashed by users with more points. Security in mind (talk) 20:22, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Edit Request

1. Please rename Varieties to Products. There is no such things as "varieties of BSAFE". What the list shows is different products, as BSAFE is a product suite, just like Microsoft Office has multiple products listed. Use Products or Product suite components if you prefer, but please do not use Varieties.
2. Please add {{further}} from topics of SSL-J and Micro Edition Suite to Comparison of TLS implementations
3. Please add {{further}} from topics of Crypto-J, Micro Edition Suite and Crypto-C Micro Edition to Comparison of cryptography libraries
4. Please move Products top of page as one controversy does not define this product suite
5. Please add back infobox_software that were previously visible (see source, sorry, I don't know how to just write them without WP not rendering them)

Cert-J

Stable release	6.2.4 / February 21, 2018 (2018-02-21)
Written in	Java

BSAFE Crypto-C Micro Edition

Stable release	4.1.5 (December 17, 2020 (2020-12-17)) [±]
Written in	C, assembly

BSAFE Crypto-J

Stable release	7.0 (September 7, 2022 (2022-09-07)) [±] 6.3 (April 4, 2023 (2023-04-04)) [±]
Written in	Java

BSAFE Micro Edition Suite

Stable release	4.6.2 (May 2, 2023 (2023-05-02)) [±] Micro Edition Suite 5.0.2.1 (September 18, 2023 (2023-09-18)) [±]
Written in	C, assembly

SSL-C

Final release	2.8.9 / March 13, 2014 (2014-03-13)
Written in	C, assembly
Operating system	Linux and Microsoft Windows

BSAFE SSL-J

Stable release	6.6 (July 2, 2024 (2024-07-02)) [±] SSL-J 7.3.1 (October 7, 2024 (2024-10-07)) [±]
Written in	Java

Regards - Security in mind (talk) 17:59, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

References

I oppose this for the same reasons as detailed in the previous section. - MrOllie (talk) 21:06, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Here is my reasoning. 1) Using Variety is grammatically incorrect given what the itemized list is about. The list includes different Products, not different Varieties. 2) Using {{further}} improves awareness and cross-linking multiple articles cross WP, which is a strength. The more you cross-link, the easier it will be for readers to jump from topics to topics. 3) Infobox_software: all other well-maintained WP pages about computer software and Software development kit have an infobox. Why would this page be treated any differently? 4) Moving Products to the top, while I understand that given my apparent COI this may look as if I am trying to push the controversy further down the page, the fact is there is more to say about BSAFE than just this part in its long history, and it looks like MrOllie would prefer that the article not be written with a WP:NPOV by focusing on the negative, past history of this product suite. - Security in mind (talk) 22:01, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Request denied for the same reasons as last time. Quetstar (talk) 04:21, 26 July 2021 (UTC)