User talk:Thompor

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Thompor, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! VIRGIN INFATUATION (talk) 17:33, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TLS edits[edit]

I'm perfectly well aware that Yoel Gluck, Neal Harris, and Angelo Prado, the co-authors of BEAST give full credit to Juliano Rizzo and Thai Duong, the co-authors of CRIME/BREACH.

I'm also perfectly well aware that you have just created a user account for the sole purpose of making this edit and related edits to HTTP compression. I hope you do not have an undeclared COI.

CRIME is effectively dealt with by turning off TLS compression and this is widely understood as a counter-defence. This does NOT defeat BEAST which exploits HTTP compression. Any web master who thinks they are secured from CRIME by turning off TLS compression needs to be aware that they are NOT safe from BREACH. You are therefore deleting useful information on security weaknesses in the implementation of TLS that are sourced with reputable citations. Please actually read the Dan Goodin article in the citation: http://arstechnica.com/security/2013/08/gone-in-30-seconds-new-attack-plucks-secrets-from-https-protected-pages/ In that article, Goodin describes BEAST as "a new attacK." You seem unusually concerned with the subtleties of whether BEAST is an attack, an attack variant, or a new implementation of a pre-existing attack. Edit the text as you see fit, but please don't delete useful, relevant, sourced text. Also, before changing a section title, please read the anchor tag text! You are otherwise breaking wiki links.

Please revert the deletion. Ross Fraser (talk) 22:49, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Thompor, I'd appreciate if you'd use the talk page at Talk:Transport Layer Security to discuss before making the same edit / reverting [1] - see WP:BRD. That edit removes the anchor and all the info on BREACH. Widefox; talk 10:36, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

September 2013[edit]

Your recent editing history at Transport Layer Security shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Widefox; talk 10:40, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Transport Layer Security. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Please don't remove sources or change text from the source. It would be best to start discussing your contentious edits on the talk page before making them, as the consensus here is against you, so you must convince others that your edit has merit. Use talk page before changing breach to crime from now on. Note if you carry on you may be blocked as a disruptive editor. Widefox; talk 19:00, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at Transport Layer Security. Your edits have been reverted or removed.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. [2] removed the essential difference between the two that was backed by the source. Removing sourced content is disruptive. See WP:BRD - I reverted your change. Use the talk page to discuss. Why are you carrying on? If you continue you will be blocked. Just discuss on the talk page. Widefox; talk 01:20, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Transport Layer Security, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. conflating CRIME and BREACH. Repeatedly saying they are the same thing and refusing to discuss is disruptive. You need a source that says CRIME in 30 seconds. Even then, you cannot combine the two - see WP:SYN. Why not try using the talk page? Trying to force your edits through without discussing may result in being blocked. Widefox; talk 12:52, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message. Your input at Talk:Transport Layer Security#Conflation of CRIME and BREACH would be good. Sorry to be technical but when you use talk pages, you should add to the bottom of the page and sign them. Hope that helps, regards. Oh, and communicating with others editors may seem annoying but we work by consensus. Widefox; talk 21:17, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at CRIME (security exploit), you may be blocked from editing without further notice. you need a reference for "breach is a demo of crime". The sources I've seen say otherwise. This is your last warning about adding WP:OR to articles [3], removing sourced info, and refusing to discuss on the talk page to gain consensus BEFORE adding this OR, but instead repeatedly adding in the same assertion - consensus is against you - this is disruptive, and disruptive editors are blocked. You need use the talk page as the consensus of other editors do not agree with you. You need to make a case on the talk page as you did [4] and if the consensus is against you to just drop it. What you think isn't important, we only add what sources say, OK? Widefox; talk 09:47, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message on the TLS talk page, I crossed out the warning above and encourage you to participate on the talk page to include wording we all find acceptable, thanks Widefox; talk 11:11, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]