crime now has two different meanings: illegal activity and SSL vulnerability.
Therefore I propose to leave this tag for SSL vulnerability and retag criminal questioons wiith blackhat. What do you think about it?
I think it's misleading, unless someone knows that crime is an ssl exploit it's going to confuse people. I would say that keeping crime as criminal activity of some sort makes sense, as it's more likely that people will be searching this forum for that than the ssl exploit. I'd say having a separate crime-ssl tag makes more sense.
Since it's ambiguous, perhaps we should avoid the tag altogether. Alias it to blackhat so that it's clear you can't use the crime tag for CRIME, and use ssl and exploit for CRIME-related posts. It can't be that many, and I don't find a single exploit deserving a whole tag anyway. It's a very high-impact exploit, but a single exploit nevertheless.
I agree that
crime should alias to
blackhat, but I do not agree with having the SSL derived
CRIME take over.
Several individual exploits have their own tag, some being more common than others. A common naming convention is
Subject-ExploitCategory. For instance,
LDAP-Injection or in this case
Given that SSL-CRIME is in caps, it serves as a visual cue that it is an acronym. Additionally, with a properly written tag description, any remaining confusion will be put to rest. I believe that this would be the best approach to remove confusion between the two now ambiguous terms.