Talk:Firesheep

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Firesheep article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

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

Computer Security: Computing Mid‑importance

This article 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.Computer SecurityWikipedia:WikiProject Computer SecurityTemplate:WikiProject Computer SecurityComputer Security articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is supported by WikiProject Computing (assessed as Low-importance).

Things you can help WikiProject Computer Security with:

Article alerts will be generated shortly by AAlertBot. Please allow some days for processing. More information...

Review importance and quality of existing articles
Identify categories related to Computer Security
Tag related articles
Identify articles for creation (see also: Article requests)
Identify articles for improvement
Create the Project Navigation Box including lists of adopted articles, requested articles, reviewed articles, etc.
Find editors who have shown interest in this subject and ask them to take a look here.

The "Security Now" podcasts (#'s 272 and 273) discuss what using WiFi encryption (both WEP and WPA) does to prevent Firesheep from listening in to browser sessions on a public Wifi hotspot. In #272 (http://media.grc.com/sn/sn-272.mp3) the concept of using encryption to foil Firesheep is discussed. In #273 (http://media.grc.com/sn/sn-273.mp3) the difference between WEP and WPA encryption and what that means to Firesheep is discussed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.133.62.41 (talk) 11:24, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kudos

This is one of the best written articles I have read on a technical subject in Wikipedia. It only provides as much information as is required to understand the subject and the context of the subject, and it does this very well.

Well done. H.E. Hall (talk) 15:54, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Countermeasures

Hey there, I went ahead and removed the countermeasures subsection as well as the warning banner from the top because the past-tense info remaining was in the countermeasures section. Given that this software is defunct, keeping countermeasures on it seems not notable and somewhat original research. Johnathlon (talk) 17:49, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't the written to the best standards, but I do think the article now lacks an aftermath part.

Firesheep caused a big push to https-everywhere: to the usage of add-ons forcing https, and to browser updates forcing https. It caused web developers to realize how important TLS encryption of all communication was. It caused regular people to learn how dangerous public hot-spots can be.

At the time, those were countermeasures for Firesheep. But these measures lived on to be standard security practices. So the aftermath of the Firesheep add-on is definitely something notable enough to be included in the article IMO. 82.143.93.187 (talk) 14:45, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When 183.182.122.181 (talk) 16:26, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]