Talk:2021 Microsoft Exchange Server data breach

Proposed merge of 2021 Microsoft Exchange cyberattack into 2021 Microsoft Exchange Server data breach

Relative size and quality of prose and citations. See Talk:2021 Microsoft Exchange cyberattack#Merge proposal Assem Khidhr (talk) 12:57, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and performed the merge, since there's no reason for two articles on the same topic to exist. GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:50, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

• @GorillaWarfare: The direction of the merger should be be reconsidered please, for the following reasons:

1. 2021 Microsoft Exchange cyberattack was the older article and WP:REDUNDANTFORK states that the "the more recent article" is the one that should be merged.
2. The word cyberattack is better than data breach as it is more general. There have been a variety of payloads and consequences, not just the copying of data. These include installation of shells to take control of machines, installation of cryptomining software and ransomware attacks which can disable entire organisations. The scale and scope of this is quite wide and will continue until the hundreds of thousands of compromised machines have been thoroughly cleaned.
3. Calling it a data breach makes it sound like a one-off event rather than a continuing calamity.

Andrew🐉(talk) 09:57, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

My major concern was just not having two articles on the same topic live at the same time. I don't have as strong feelings about which title ought to be used, and am happy to implement any consensus that's reached here. GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:35, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

As the creator of this article and proposer of the merge, I wasn't aware of WP:REDUNDANTFORK, although I do admit to it being fairer in terms of preserving creatorship according to precedence. I'd also support a more general title, but maybe in the plural as well: 2021 Microsoft Exchange cyberattacks, to avoid giving the very evaded impression (item 3 above). As a side note, the same plural issue might apply to 2020 United States federal government data breach? Assem Khidhr (talk) 16:04, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

ShortDesc

@GorillaWarfare: Thanks for the great work expanding the article. I really admire that it's swift and on-point. Suckup aside tho, I think the current Desc less aligns with WP:HOWTOSD in terms of avoiding duplicating information in the title. I originally tried to paraphrase "Microsoft Exchange Server" into something more descriptive; namely, a proprietary email service. I also previously used a wave of (and was about to use a series of) to emphasize that it's a plethora of continuous attacks rather than a snatch-and-run. I'd like to know your perspective. Assem Khidhr (talk) 15:32, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

I've just updated it to "Series of cyberattacks targeting Microsoft's email and calendar server", what do you think of that? GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:39, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Sounds like a cool compromise. Assem Khidhr (talk) 15:44, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Multiple breaches, not a single one.

Hello, I just want to note a subtle difference. These were multiple breaches, not just one. This is important because these servers are decentralized, unlike typical cloud technology like gmail. The body of the article uses 'breaches' correctly. But of course titles are more resistent to change. The vulnerability (I think) is the same one, or at least a single family of vulnerabilities, that existed since 2013. No proposal here, I just want to mention it.--TZubiri (talk) 23:14, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

@TZubiri: You may wish to see the above section on naming. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:43, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Western Australian parliament breached

Is it worth mentioning that the Western Australian parliament suffered one of these breaches? I don't know if its a notable enough organisation to be worth mentioning or not. 1. JT_dale^Talk~ 12:39, 17 March 2021 (UTC)