-6

From FAQ:

Don't try to summarize your question using the tags. The point of tags on Stack Overflow is to help other interested persons find your question by sorting it into clear, specific categories. This is not the same as indexing or summarizing the question. The differences are subtle, but important.

Those tags are present in Stack Overflow's cleanup list:

Those tags aren't present there but I think that are too general or meta tags and should be removed:

If you think that there is value in those tags, please describe it.

3
  • 2
    Please keep in mind that StackOverflow is a site dedicated to code. So the tag cleanup list of SO is not a general list of bad tags, but a list that is very specific to the coding site. For example there is a suggestions to replace a tag with the tag "security". And a suggestion to migrate a good question with another tag to our site. – Hendrik Brummermann Jun 11 '12 at 15:32
  • @Hendrik I haven't included attacks to this list as it's valid at IT Security. I'm less keen about tags from list above. – Andrei Botalov Jun 11 '12 at 15:35
  • For example trust is used for too different purposes at IT Security – Andrei Botalov Jun 11 '12 at 15:39
8

The 2012 SO tag clean-up thread is a trainwreck. Don't take inspiration from it. There is a way to get a tag into the list, but no way to take a tag out, and no review as to what gets in. A lot of good tags have made it into the list.

I come to mostly the same conclusion as Rory Alsop: all the tags you cite make sense, except

  • , which I think should just be removed from the two questions that have it;
  • , which is a bit vague: a lot of questions here are about security requirements in a way or another.

The others are good, meaningful tags. I don't see how you find some of them to be meta-tags.

  • is ambiguous on SI, but here it clearly refers to security through obscurity (and not, say, to computer vision).
  • wasn't even proposed for removal on SO, only for disambiguation and merging into . On a site devoted to security, the tag is unambiguous and we want to be more precise. And I was opposed to removing from SO too.
  • is a well-defined concept in security. Look it up if you don't know it. It was coined by Bruce Schneier and has now been used even by the TSA.
  • is a long-established technical concept in security. I don't see why you're picking on it.
  • is also a common security concept. Again, I don't see what's meta about it.

I've suggested tag wikis for a few of these tags.

1
  • 2
    Regarding requirements, I dont think this is vague at all, it refers to that part/phase/activity near the beginning (hopefully) of system development / system definition. I agree about the rest. – AviD Jun 13 '12 at 7:07
5

For this site, I see value in the following, as they are used to categorise questions:

They all have specific meanings in the field of information security. Quite often when I am searching to find a specific question or topic I use tag searches, and in the last month I have used and in this context.

  • I'm less keen on - it seems a bit of a nothing tag, and almost indicates that something should be offtopic.
5
  • What't the value of them? I can't imagine them to be used for searching or following. IMHO they are too general for these purposes – Andrei Botalov Jun 11 '12 at 15:31
  • absolutely agree. @AndreyBotalov these are all relevant to specific issues that security professionals have to deal with - either by task, by risk or asset, or by "solution". – AviD Jun 11 '12 at 15:41
  • 1
    @Rory I'm actually considering about historical. While I dont like a history-type tag, however there are definitely legitimate categories of questions that have to do with events that occurred at a specific point in time. While not "Too Localized", the time aspect is/was still relevant. E.g. in that tag only the "XSS attacks in year X". However, there are many other "events" that should also be in the same category (either that one or a different one) - e.g. the Lulzsec attacks, the RSA leak, Stuxnet/Flame, etc. – AviD Jun 11 '12 at 15:44
  • In what sense exposure is used at IT Security? – Andrei Botalov Jun 11 '12 at 15:44
  • 2
    Exposure in a security context is usually exposure to a threat – Rory Alsop Jun 11 '12 at 18:32
1

Personally, I don't see anything wrong with . It reflects that the question is asking about past history, as opposed to current practice. That's not necessarily off-topic. The two questions that are currently tagged in that way seem reasonable to me. And the statement of the question is sufficiently clear and precise; they are not relying upon the tags to make clear what is being asked. In short, I don't see any need for any action here.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .