Talk:Hacker

Talk:Hacker


Semi-protected edit request on 28 January 2024

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Role of White-hat hackers in securing organizations from outside:

White-hat hackers, play a crucial role in enhancing cybersecurity through their participation in bug bounty programs. These programs are initiatives where organizations invite hackers to identify and report vulnerabilities in their systems in exchange for rewards. This collaborative approach turns potential adversaries into allies, leveraging their skills to preemptively discover and rectify security flaws before malicious attackers can exploit them. By simulating real-world attacks, ethical hackers expose weaknesses in security systems, allowing companies to strengthen their defenses. This proactive defense strategy not only bolsters the security of the company but also contributes to the overall safety of the digital ecosystem. Through bug bounty programs, ethical hackers provide invaluable insights into security vulnerabilities, helping companies to stay one step ahead of cyber threats.

Companies like Google and Microsoft actively encourage white-hat hackers to participate in their bug bounty programs, recognizing the invaluable role these ethical hackers play in fortifying their cybersecurity. These tech giants offer substantial financial rewards for the discovery of vulnerabilities in their systems, creating a strong incentive for skilled hackers to seek out and report potential security issues. The rewards are often scaled based on the severity and complexity of the discovered bug, encouraging thorough and innovative exploration.

Additionally, these companies foster a community of ethical hacking by providing clear guidelines and resources, ensuring that participants can test and report safely and legally. They often host conferences and workshops, offering platforms for knowledge sharing and collaboration among cybersecurity professionals. Recognizing the contributors not only with monetary rewards but also with public acknowledgments and hall of fame listings, these companies build a positive relationship with the white-hat hacker community. This approach not only improves their own security posture but also advances the field of cybersecurity as a whole, promoting a safer digital environment for all users.

[1] [2] [3] [4] Kathan3009 (talk) 16:23, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Not done for now: It's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.
This is all good information, but where in the article does it belong? Also, if you could organize or add more to your references to align with individual claims, this would be great.
— Urro[talk][edits] 15:06, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

References

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:36, 19 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Wiki Education assignment: Social Informatics - ITI 547-200 Section 07

Latest comment: 9 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation–supported course assignment, between 4 September 2025 and 10 December 2025. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): NKirko (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Lassiegetter (talk) 21:51, 13 November 2025 (UTC)Reply


Structure

Latest comment: 2 months ago5 comments3 people in discussion

I was going to review this for GA, but I didn't even start because the article seems pretty poor for its organization. I'd suggest a structure similar to Engineer. -- mikeblas (talk) 14:05, 9 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

The article doesn't mention light- and dark-side hacking. There's also hats, these days: BlueHat hackers, Grey hat, Red team, Category:White hat (computer security). red hat and black hat, what is a Red Hat hacker?. Hatting is mentioned only in the side bar. I'm not sure this article "addresses the main aspects of the topic". -- mikeblas (talk)!
Well, it's certainly not going to GA with that banner, so I've withdrawn the application. Broadly I was putting it forward because I'd completely rewritten this, and I really just wanted some constructive criticism so I wasn't quite so alone on it. Thank you for updating the main template to See Also. FWIW I did quite a lot of work on the white hat and black hat articles recently (and indeed, PROD'd the blue hat one). They, and all related things, are well represented in the security hacker article. The whole cyber security area on Wikipedia is a mass of the same things said over and over again with almost no sourcing. :(. I'll review the Engineer article, if you had any other pointers (like, what needs to happen to remove that banner) I'd very much appreciate it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Joereddington (talk • contribs) 2026-06-09T08:18:18 – Please sign your posts!
For clarity, I didn't add the {{rewrite}} banner. It was added by @Boneless Pizza!:. They're an experienced editor, so I'm surprised they made such an edit without starting a conversation on the talk page enumerating the things they see wrong and justifying the template.
For me, I think there's at least a bit of scoping trouble. How is this artlce meant to realate to the other hacker-related articles? I like the Engineer article as an example because it has a similar problem, and seems to gracefully deal with the difference between "Engineer" and "Engineering" as a practice, and the different and diverse "engineer" roles. There are enough parallels so I think using that structure would be helpful. To be honest, I think a lot of this articles content should be removed. "Civic Hacking" is a kind of hacking, not anything about a hacker. "Security-related hacking" is about hacking, too. This article probably should be about "hackers"; people who hack, or the term "hacker" itself. -- mikeblas (talk) 23:15, 10 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
I would agree absolutely.
To give a bit more of a wide angle context... If we look at the state of the article a month ago it was quite clearly the result of some editors with very strong opinions about the meaning of words, and it’s not too much of a stretch to imagine that’s how we ended up with lots of the content over in Security hacker. I feel like I've dealt with a lot of the issues but as you say, some fundamentals are a problem. Now, I'd like to make the most of having the attention of an experienced editor: do you think you might support the merging of Hacker and Security hacker into something that looks a lot more like the article it could be?
In general the whole cybersecurity area of Wikipedia is enormously odd, with dubiously sourced content duplicated among many many articles that then evolve separately… At the moment I’m just wandering around getting rid of the most obviously out of date/badly sourced stuff but it’s clear something structural needs to happen and I suspect I'm likely to get in trouble if I do something dramatic... Joe (talk) 11:59, 12 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Joereddington "Enormously odd" is a good way to put it. I'm trying to revive Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer security to support and motivate improvement in this area.
Agree that this article is weird and not serving readers well. It gets about ten times the page views of security hacker, and I doubt people are coming to this article to learn about "life hacks" and and "civic hacking". Dreamyshade (talk) 20:56, 14 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
When you mentioned the 'ten times the page views' I was like 'that's odd, I don't remember it in Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer security/Popular pages..." but of course for some reason, presumably the result of an argument in the archives, this article wasn't in the cybersecurity project... @Dreamyshade - would you mind having a bit of go over this article and Security hacker and see what bits are superfluous? I slightly suspect that when we get rid of the stuff that is badly sourced and out of date, it will be a lot easier to make the case for or against more structural changes... Joe (talk) 12:31, 15 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Content Disclaimer

Informasi ini disarikan dari Wikipedia dan disajikan kembali untuk tujuan edukasi. Konten tersedia di bawah lisensi CC BY-SA 3.0. Kami tidak bertanggung jawab atas ketidakakuratan data yang bersumber dari kontribusi publik tersebut.

  1. The information displayed on this website is sourced in part or in whole from Wikipedia and has been adapted for the purpose of restating it. We strive to provide accurate and relevant information, however:
  2. There is no guarantee of absolute accuracy. Wikipedia is an open, collaborative project that can be edited by anyone, so information is subject to change.
  3. It is not intended to constitute professional advice. The content displayed is for informational and educational purposes only. For important decisions (e.g., medical, legal, or financial), please consult a professional.
  4. Content copyright. Wikipedia is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC BY-SA). This means that content may be reused with appropriate attribution and shared under a similar license.
  5. Responsible use. Any risk arising from the use of information from this website is entirely the responsibility of the user.