Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cryptography

Shortcut

WT:CRYPT

Archives

Splitting public-policy from technical material at Computer security

FYI

– Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Talk:Computer security#Some initial ideas on a split and an overhaul.

Summary: The present article is a mish-mash of material of a general nature (technical, academic, practices, history, terms, incidents, notable-figures) and material of a socio-political nature (infrastructural, regulatory, legal, corporate, financial, espionage and cyberwar, public impacts).

This started as an RM discussion but turned into a scope one. I've proposed that a Cybersecurity article (using the term favored in technology-and-public-policy circles) should be a spinoff, per WP:SUMMARY, for the second group of material, leaving the bulk of the more general info at Computer security (the basic, non-jargon, descriptive term for the field). This would be in keeping with Cyberwarfare, Internet privacy, Internet censorship, Genetically modified food controversies, and numerous other clear splits between technology and technology policy articles (sometimes multiple such articles, e.g. Electronic cigarette → Regulation of electronic cigarettes, Safety of electronic cigarettes, and several others – but let's just start with one here).

I've done a section-by-section review of what needs to be done, but it's just one opinion, so additional input is sought.

Crypto: In particular, cryptography has had a huge but radically different role in both actual computer security (which would be essentially impossible without it), and computing and telecommunications policy (where its been subject to attempts to suppress public availability of the good stuff, from the Clipper Chip fiasco, to CALEA, to "Apple, give us an iPhone back door or else", to the US govt. for years classifying strong crypto as a "munition" and threatening prosecution of software deveopers for not having a "munitions export license" to have non-trivial crypto in their downloadable products, and so on). Perhaps in crypto we have the sharpest indication of a distinction between computer science as a technical topic versus governmental ideas about "cybersecurity" (which may equate to "you shouldn't have any we can't break") in the technology policy realm. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ< 10:43, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bitcoin RFC

Please stop by and vote on an RFC Talk:Bitcoin_scalability_problem#RFC_article_naming,_removing_"problem"_from_article_name_for_NPOV . Thanks Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:49, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stablecoins -- informational content

Hi I'm Jess and I work for the stablecoin project called MakerDAO: https://makerdao.com/

I'm quite new here but I was hoping to create a wikipedia page that overviews stablecoins and the different types e.g. collateral backed, seiginorage shares, centralized IOU's as well as a wikipedia page that overviews the MakerDAO project.

I'm aware of potential conflict of interests so I am wondering what is the best way to approach creating this kind of content.

I do see that Tether has had a wikipedia page since December but besides this I only see a wiktionary definition of stablecoins.

I'd love to hear your thoughts and recommendations! JessSalomon-Maker (talk) 19:47, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, here below is a draft of the page I have made so far. I would very much appreciate feedback!

User:JessSalomon-Maker/MakerDAO —Preceding undated comment added 19:58, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

I recommend not creating the pages at all. Note that Wikipedia strongly discourages editing with a conflict of interest. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. If independent, reliable sources have already published significant coverage on a given topic, the article will likely be written sooner or later by someone without a conflict. If such coverage does not yet exist, the article shouldn't anyway. I note that your draft doesn't cite any sources at all. At any rate, this is just an encyclopedia and doesn't need to have an article on every new thing right away. You might want to question your reasons for wanting the articles to exist. It's understandable that you would be excited about the project you're working on and want to get the word out, but that's exactly why you're the wrong person to do it. Ntsimp (talk) 20:03, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject collaboration notice from the Portals WikiProject

The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.

Portals are being redesigned.

The new design features are being applied to existing portals.

At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{Transclude lead excerpt}}.

The discussion about this can be found here.

Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.

Background

On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.

There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.

So far, 84 editors have joined.

If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.

If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.

Thank you. — The Transhumanist 07:34, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Page views

A new pageview table from Community Tech bot (operated by NKohli (WMF)) is now at Wikipedia:WikiProject Cryptography/Popular pages. I've linked it from the main project page as well, for anyone looking for high-visibility articles to cleanup/improve. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 01:40, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Featured article review of ROT13

I have nominated ROT13 for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 01:19, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Featured quality source review RFC

Editors in this WikiProject may be interested in the featured quality source review RFC that has been ongoing. It would change the featured article candidate process (FAC) so that source reviews would need to occur prior to any other reviews for FAC. Your comments are appreciated. --Izno Repeat (talk) 21:50, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SM9 (cryptography standard) doesn't look professional

Please check this article. Doesn't look very professional to me. I don't have any expertise in this field so cannot improve it myself. --Bbarmadillo (talk) 19:18, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A new newsletter directory is out!

A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.

– Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of Portal:Cryptography

Portal:Cryptography, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Cryptography and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Portal:Cryptography during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Guilherme Burn (talk) 14:04, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

David Chaum

I'm surprised that this article is so short relative to Chaum's work. He basically invented the proof of concept for cryptocurrency. I think this could be worked up to GA status with a little effort. BD2412 T 05:14, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User script to detect unreliable sources

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fresh Developments : Integer Factorization

I am referring to this presentation : ^[1] Does this presentation offer additional insight into this topic or add a new dimension of looking at the subject ?

Regards Subhendra — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aryabhata1978 (talk • contribs) 19:45, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Algorithm Intfact

Requested move at Talk:ProtonMail/Archive 1#Requested move 27 May 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:ProtonMail/Archive 1#Requested move 27 May 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 14:30, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FAR for Caesar cipher

I have nominated Caesar cipher for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 00:44, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New sub-template for Pairing-based cryptography

The cryptography template has keywords for "elliptic" and "hash" which invoke the respective sub-templates. Since there are currently 10 articles in Category:Pairing-based cryptography, I propose creating a new keyword in the template. My motivation is to get a better taxonomy around Attribute-based encryption, Predicate encryption and other related topics. I thought I would start by integrating Attribute-based encryption into this wikiproject first. I'm new here, so I'm asking for advice before I just do it. Thanks!

Dan Shearer (talk) 13:27, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Null Cipher Article needs work

To administrators: The Null cipher article needs it's name changed to Concealment Ciphers, as it is about Concealment ciphers in general. I have worked on the article several times in the past year, but I cannot fully fix name issues. 73.143.98.242 (talk) 13:47, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Project-independent quality assessments

Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class= parameter to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:55, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Code word#Requested move 8 October 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Code word#Requested move 8 October 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — Material Works 12:32, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello,
Please note that Keygen, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the Articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing!
_{Delivered by — MusikBot ^talk 00:05, 19 August 2024 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team}[reply]

Beale Ciphers Page - Overhaul Needed

Speaking from personal experience, I am mentioning that the Beale Ciphers Page is of a HIGH importance, whereas it is listed as LOW priority, and should be given more effort to create a better overall review of the ciphers on the page. It cites personal opinions and their assumptions as to the possible solves that exist, the historical review of theories that were unsubstantiated and proved nothing by adding confusion and conjecture. Statements were made to demonstrate a specific direction in research, while completely ignoring the technical examinations that are now available for anyone to see.

I have personally been able to break through the Beale Ciphers, have demonstrated that there are now a series of reference pages available to review. I have been able to provide a link to the Popular Mechanics article featuring research in their article, which is front page news. Yet there are people that are coming to the site, erasing information and links, and trying to continually manipulate the page to suit their own interests. You can see them on the history of the page.

It would only make sense that the people that are involved in stimulating the discussions of these topics, who edit the page, take consideration of new discoveries, as according to the page there is no progress made, which is just not the truth in the matter. I am asking if there are any interested people that would take the information about the breaks that have been made, and to edit the page on behalf of everyone that wants to see it solved, to do so with the interest of posting data that shows it in a generic format.

The solves were made in the ciphers, and continued research is being conducted to substantiate existence of facts behind the information that was extracted from a number of ciphers and their addendums. It should be considered of value to the community that wants to maintain their studies of Classic Cryptography, as much as their more modern studies of Technical Cryptology. They are both of HIGH priority to a number of industries that use these pages for their references. 2600:1011:B332:3C3D:F937:17B:5D23:E3AE (talk) 04:41, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Algorithm Intfact

[1]