4

Regarding Q&As on this subject, if this kind of questions are welcomed here, does this proposal overlapping with our site:

Top rated examples of questions:

  • How can I practice and enhance my (database) hacking skills while not affecting any network or equipment that I don't own?
  • What process would I follow to reverse engineer a virus, and what tools would I need to begin this task and protect my hardware/software?
  • What are the rules for ethical hackers?
  • Please explain the differences between hackers and crackers?
  • I repeatedly hacked into a server, but after exactly 30 seconds, my connection was terminated by the server. How can I maintain access once connected?
  • What steps can I take to prevent cross-site scripting attacks?
4

Yes, it looks like there is significant overlap. Several of our moderators have been commenting on that proposal, so I think they are aware.

Personal opinion: it looks to me like there is significant overlap. Of the topics that don't overlap, that proposal looks likely to attract a lot more blackhat stuff -- which we probably don't really want on this site.

  • 2
    I would go further to say that of the topics that dont overlap, they are either not really welcome on any SE site, for being malicious/illegal/dangerous. Furthermore, many of those questions arent really very good questions to begin with... But yes, overall I agree with you. – AviD Aug 19 '12 at 0:18
2

Yes. The scope of that proposal is a subset of the scope of Security.SE.

There's a bit in the Sec.SE FAQ that goes “This site is not intended to be a resource for Black Hats”, which may have led observers that questions about security that take the offenstive point of view are out of scope. This statement in the FAQ does not, in fact, reflect the consensus attained on meta. Sec.SE does not in fact exclude questions for being black hat, and it wouldn't make any sense to split sites along these lines since the audience would be exactly the same.

All the questions on that proposal are either on-topic on Sec.SE or leftovers from the days when the proposal was about “hacking” for some unspecified meaning of the word. Many of them are not good Stack Exchange questions, which is always the case in any Area 51 proposal, but that doesn't affect the scope: the proposal is a subset (and a poorly-defined one at that) of Security.SE.

  • I don't think the statement in the FAQ is inconsistent with the views of the community. (Given the range of opinions expressed in that thread, I'd be reluctant to say that there is a clear consensus, but the statement in the FAQ seems reasonably consistent with the range of opinions in that thread. It looks to me like even those folks who are fine with attack questions are motivated primarily by the thought that this will help the good guys -- not because they want this site to be a resource for Black Hats.) – D.W. Aug 20 '12 at 6:29
  • @D.W. Which answer do you see justifying these words in the FAQ? Certainly not Rook's answer, he's strongly defending exploit questions. Not Thomas's answer, who finds them sissies' words. Not Rory's answer, who says he agrees that they don't represent the community's opinion. Not Andrew's answer, who defends questions about attacks. Not vsz's answer, since his concerns don't require these words in the FAQ at all. – Gilles Aug 20 '12 at 7:54
  • That paragraph in the FAQ is pretty much irrelevant (based on the reasons we have closed questions in the past) so it has been removed. – Rory Alsop Aug 20 '12 at 10:09

You must log in to answer this question.

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