This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Steve Gibson (computer programmer) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The contents of the Gibson Research Corporation page were merged into Steve Gibson (computer programmer). For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
User: Could you better explain the nature of the complaints against Steve Gibson? It is important to address them specifically. -- Alexwcovington 08:53, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Credited with coining the term spyware by who? First time ive heard it.... The article is POV and needs to be rewritten - for a start some discussion of what Gibsons critics (virtually the entire security industry) have said or the whole syn cookies debacle might help balance it a bit. Gibson is wonderfull at public relations but Id like to see any article that was a bit more honest than this fawning statement....
The GPA is more proof of this being written by a GRC acolyte - and gibsons written exactly one software program - Spinrite - and thats it - so i also question his credentials as a software engineer.
POV and boldly so—Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.237.206.85 ( talk) 08:21, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Regarding the bullet under the Criticism section that discusses his Windows Metafile vulnerability conclusions from episode 22 of Security Now: in the next episode of the same podcast, he retracts many of his allegations against Microsoft and takes a much more conciliatory tone about the whole issue. His comments on episode 22 are certainly an example of him irresponsibly jumping to a conclusion without having done sufficient research, but it seems unfair to mention that episode without also mentioning the other. -- Silpertan 02:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Please do not remove the part about excessive plugging of SpinRite in Podcasts. The new issue of Security Now has just been released and the plugging has already started to get complaints so is valid in the Criticism section. BackStagePass 09:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Have looked again at complaints made by Security Now listeners and along with edits by 'Zarek' I think we have covered the use of SpinRite mentioning in podcasts. BackStagePass 02:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Just went to transcript of show 83 and Spinrite was only said twice so looks like comments were taken on board. Looking back on this. In SN80 Leo said he did not want SN81 to be one big advert for Spinrite. When it came out 'Spinrite' got mentioned 29 times so probably what got some peoples backs up. BackStagePass 11:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
This article needs ALOT of work. It reads like a back and forth argument right now. -- Falcorian | Talk 05:07, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm wondering what purpose the Radsoft links serve. Both are either POV and/or out of date. If the content there is verifiable, wouldn't it be better to place the links in context as a part of the article? Sschinke 02:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree - article is rather weighted against Steve. I'm adding POV tags. -- XPMaster 00:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
I have removed three links, they are as follows:
-- Falcorian (talk) 18:21, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
I should point out that GRCSucks.com is already linked to in the Criticism section. Adding another link at the end of the page would be treating it more like a neutral source. -- AlexWCovington ( talk) 03:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Something I completely missed... Thank you for pointing it out. -- Falcorian (talk) 03:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Falcorian, do you feel the article has improved sufficiently to remove the NPOV tag? If not, What still needs to be done? -- AlexWCovington ( talk) 21:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I disagree, I think it is still POV... the reference links at the bottom smack of bias, linking to sites critical of Gibson. I still dispute this article's neutrality. Deltwalrus 13:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
62.103.255.73, please provide sourcing for your edits. The only sources I could find for some was radsoft.com, and even then it was wild speculation on the writers part. -- Falcorian (talk) 16:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I would like to add this information into the introduction, similar to the one on the Leo Laporte page, to clarify the use of the word engineer in this article:
Gibson studied EECS at UC Berkeley, but did not earn a degree.
I couldn't find any evidence that Gibson holds an Engineer's degree, List of University of California, Berkeley alumni says "attended", but does not mention any academic degree. Please comment. -- Ministry of Truth 06:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
If I may throw in my two cents before running off for two weeks: I'd have to see the evidence that he did not graduate, as the only bit that has been brought up so far is a site that is not all inclusive. Since there has been no good evidence either way, I think the current "Attended" works perfectly. -- Falcorian (talk) 20:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
It does not matter if an engineering degree is held or not. Self taught people are almost always the foremost in their field, only idiots need spoon feeding by professors at a university, who largely themselves are failures in their field and can only find employment "teaching". It is quite clear that Gibson is widely envied amongst the security industry due to his genius, and te fact that he has been proven correct in almost every situation. - John Farr—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.6.30.112 ( talk) 23:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Minitruth, could you please add how it is inferrior or source? Simply putting "It is inferrior" is rather POV and unverified. Thanks. -- Falcorian (talk) 20:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
You're welcome, Falcorian, always glad to oblige ;-) . While we're at it, would you help me find appropriate language to include the following facts into the syncookie story:
With this amount of exposure freely available to anybody interested in the field, Gibsons claim to have independantly re-invented the wheel is, to put it mildly, surprising. How could a NPOV version of this possibly look like ? -- Ministry of Truth 00:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Steve Gibson does NOT claim to have invented SYN Cookies. [1] Also, Steve DID talk to Dan Bernstein (from the same source) "I exchanged some eMail with Dan to discuss his implementation...". This whole section should just be removed.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.249.222.63 ( talk) 19:37, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
It's raining here, and I finally have net access, so I converted all the inline urls to cites. If someone could spell check it, and maybe double check I got the links right, it would be great! -- Falcorian (talk) 17:49, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, no idea how to use Wikipedia. Is there a typo on the date for InSpectre, currently has 2017 in (...)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A601:31E0:707:B958:6C61:2420:28B9 ( talk) 04:38, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
I've discussed this briefly in Leo Laporte as a side issue and it prompted me to check here, is there any support (or sensible opposition) to stating Steve as a Journalist and dropping the computer engineer description? I'd even favour a Computer Engineering Journalist description. Steve is widely criticised for any of his products or services in computer engineering having been written by ghost writers and has no formal qualifications or notable experience in IT as and of itself. A journalist he may be, a DJ, a internet personality even, but he is not a computer engineer without verifiable education, experience, resultant products or services or something else that points to achievements of any note in the field. Elomis 05:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Ok. I guess the only way to settle this is to define what the minimum allowable threshold is to declare someone to be anything professionally. I would imagine that having done a year of law school years ago before I dropped out I would be publicly flogged for declaring myself an attorney. That's an example of an industry that has clear guidelines and IT perhaps due to it's infancy has much more lax considerations. I would personally consider Steve Gibson to be an computer engineer under the conditions that he either holds (perferably) or has held, an employment contract stating his title or function as such, held a diploma or higher in a computer engineering related discipline or industry certifications granted by information technology companies in line with their associated educational programs. It is widely accepted that Gibson studied computer engineering, like I studied law and with much the same result (no degree awarded). Gibson's resume available on his website shows no position in his employment history where he was a computer engineer, he was a Director of Engineering at one point, VP of Development at another and beyond that he has held consultative roles. He has in fact held no computer engineering position of a company he did not found personally, and therefore his employment as a computer engineer cannot in my opinion be validated. I have no intention of outting the guy as a charlatan, I just don't think that particular wording of the article is accurate. Elomis 06:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Ok I don't particularly like him but it's best settled with neutrality, not editing the page into a hate page which is why I checked first. It's been changed to enthusiast which is much easier to verify. Funny thing is I think expert is actually even better than engineer, an engineer is a very specific thing whereas expert probably has a lower burden of proof and can be more subjective (I consider my wife an expert cook, but not a Chef). I think enthusiast describes Steve most accurately. Elomis 20:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, I hate to stir the pot again, but may I suggest that "enthusiast" may not be the best term either? It's very broad and generic, for one thing. (In fact, one could easily argue that Leo, Steve, and the entire audience of the "Security Now!" podcast are "computer enthusiasts." What's needed is some adjective that describes why Steve is hosting the show and not any other random guy (like me) who also calls himself an "enthusiast".) I'd really rather go back to the "engineer" (or "software engineer") description. "Security expert" is probably too contentious to use, which is perhaps understandable since the term conveys a high level of qualification that not everyone wants to concede to Steve. But "software engineer" seems to be a much lower bar to reach. I think it's a fair term to use, especially given that 1) Steve has obviously written a lot of software and 2) gets a significant portion of income from his commercial product "Spinrite". The term "lawyer" (to address an earlier discussion) denotes what a person IS (as certified by a law school), but "software engineer" is more of a description of what one actually DOES. Based on that, I think it's fair for Steve to be described as an "engineer", and not simply an "enthusiast". Motley Fool 17:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Elomis 00:07, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
How about the term " pundit", as in a source of vocal opinion on a subject matter. -- Tomlouie | talk 03:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Elomis 07:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
I guess what I'm trying to feel around for here is some word that indicates Steve Gibson is more than just a talking head or a random guy who likes to play with computers. Let's think about it in this way - ask yourself "Why do people go to grc.com? What do people want from Steve Gibson?" The answer is "software" (Shields Up, Spinrite, Unplug 'n' Pray, etc.) It's not "technology opinions" or "journalism". I think of John C. Dvorak as a "pundit" - not in a derogatory way, but simply as an acknowledgement that his specialty is opinion technology journalism, not necessarily in diving deep into code, operating systems, etc. Steve certainly has his opinions (e.g. the debate over raw sockets, the origin of the WMF vulnerability, etc.) but his main "gig" is his software. I'm aware of the old feud with John Navas, but I don't think that disqualifies him as being described as a "software engineer". And unless someone can demonstrate that the software on his activity page is fraudulant, I think we have to take him at his word that he actually wrote (and still maintains) that stuff. Finally, I think it's reasonable to ask "What is Steve Gibson's day job?" I don't think he's making any money off his Security Now podcast, so it's probably fair to say that the Steve Gibson Corporation (and related software and/or consulting activites) IS his job. That's far more than "pundit" or "enthusiast", IMHO. -- Motley Fool 16:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
I'll take software developer as being accurate from an encyclopedic perspective, I honestly believe (along with a wide community) that Gibson has probably not written more than 20 lines of code in his life but anybody with a clue will concede that developing software is not neccessarily writing code. If you agree with me and mine that he didn't write the software, or you agree with others who insist he did, he certainly markets, supports, commentates, manages and version controls the software and according to any sensbile definition that is development of software. I've added it, rather than replaced enthusiast, to the article. I imagine in adding descriptions of him we will wind up with an average that is accurate :-) Elomis 23:06, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Falcorian – Point taken, perhaps too much of an ill conceived rant on my part, I have removed it. I fail to see why there is such speculation regarding Gibson’s credentials when anyone familiar with his work should know that he clearly knows his onions. This discussion page reads like a page from grcsucks.com, which, after all of Gibson’s “controversial claims” were proven to be correct suddenly stopped being updated. Perhaps the author of the site had a little too much egg on his face. I challenge anyone here to offer cold hard proof that Gibson is not all what he claims. He does not have to provide proof of an Engineering degree to be called an engineer here. In fact, one does not need an engineering degree to call themselves an engineer at all.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.6.30.112 ( talk) 13:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Regarding :
"He does not have to provide proof of an Engineering degree to be called an engineer here. In fact, one does not need an engineering degree to call themselves an engineer at all."
AND
This issue was discussed on the live recording of SG's show/pre show "Security Now E225: Same Origin Troubles" at 19:39, 2 December 2009 (UTC) between Leo Laporte and Steve Gibson. They essentially contend that by virtue of SG having used engineering techniques to develop product(s), and receiving kudos from Steve Wozniak of Apple SG is an engineer.
It is the case in most of the world that the title of engineer is reserved for persons with appropriate formal education and license. The United States is no exception as per [ [2]]; though in the US it make not be illegal to use the title without qualification as in other locales. Based on the fact that Steve Gibson is not licensed, and is not an engineering graduate he should not use the title engineer or any derivatives. Instead the term "Technologist" should be used. -- 67.230.128.133 ( talk) 19:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
For the discussion see Talk:Gibson Research Corporation#Merge. Greenshed 22:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
... at Call for Help, during the taping of episode 282. He talked with me, I didn't have a clue in the world who he was, let alone he coined the term spyware. Geez, so weird. That, and I had now clue in the world who Amber MacArthur and Leo Laporte were. Oh, blissful ignorance. -- Zanimum 15:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
I think he did claim this in a recent episode of Security Now... but I can't remember which one. I'll try and look it out. MartinBrook t 10:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Yup, here it is (Security now episode 44 ( transcript):
"it was during beta testing of the very first version of ZoneAlarm which offered outbound port blocking, which is to say application-level port blocking, that I discovered the very first piece of spyware on my machine and coined the term 'spyware.'"
MartinBrook t 11:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Except that he has no proof of this, and Zone Lab's press release beats him to any of his claims. He can't retroactively claim credit. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.194.140.83 ( talk) 15:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I know - I was just making the point in response to Malo's recent edit, "rv to previous, gibson doesn't claim it, the register simply reported it" - the point being that Gibson does claim it. Not sure if this point should be in the article though. MartinBrook t 18:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
User:myststixI just edited the spyware page, removing the reference to Gibson 's claim that he coined the term. If it can't be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, it should not be presented as fact. In fact, I find that most likely his mention was inserted so that he would get some traffic to his website, as the page reads just fine after removing his mention. Also, the Wiki page on SpinRite is full of the same technobabble as on Gibson's commercial site, leading me to believe it was planted on Wiki by him or cronies. Again, I would question the validity of having a SpinRite page at all.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Myststix ( talk • contribs) 22:49, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
The article section list Gibson's request that listener's vote for his Security Now podcast and his review of the Kindle as criticisms but provides not source as to what notable person(s) criticized him for these actions. Since I don't believe everyone would agree those actions are wrong then I think to be NPOV, a notable source making such criticisms should be added. The current sources only verify that he did make these requests but not that he was criticized for it. -- Cab88 ( talk) 00:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
To be fair on the unregistered Wikipedia users the other three criticisms are not sourced either, what makes them any more valid? -- BackStagePass ( talk) 21:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Have re-added it as the other three criticisms do not source the criticism so vote rigging on Security Now is perfectly valid. -- BackStagePass ( talk) 22:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I've renamed this section "controversy". There is a slightly lower bar for citing controversies than criticisms: you still need to provide verifiable sources to establish that the statement is controversial --- and, especially, that some reliable source has noted the controversy --- but you don't need to establish that someone was criticizing Gibson for it. This still doesn't allow the "vote rigging scandal"; Intgr and Cab88 are right: nobody has verified that this is at all unusual or untoward. --- tqbf 22:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't think The Register constitutes a reliable source for this article. The guidelines restrict news sources in biographical articles on living persons to "high-quality news organizations," but The Register often publishes satire. The cited articles are opinion pieces and not at all professional journalism. Mdavidn ( talk) 00:59, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
The Register is sort of the National Enquirer of the tech world. Their stories are often based on rumors and leaks, they cannot be considered 100% accurate or unbiased. All of the Register stories were written by the same person - Thomas C Greene. See link here: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/01/24/letters/ The author of http://radsoft.net/news/roundups/grc/ seems to have a personal grudge against Steve Gibson. Why does he have a page just filled with anti-Gibson stories? It seems to me that this is a clear BLP violation— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.196.199.168 ( talk) 04:27, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
I did a little editing of the page, and I know it needs verification. I have been conversing with Steve via e-Mail and this is the gist of what the "InfoWorld" section came from:
Hi James,
> I do understand, I was even considering not asking for that very reason.
I'm glad, thanks.
> If you've got anything else to add to it, feel free to do so. I think it's okay so far, I didn't write most of the article, although I am cleaning it up.
One thing I noted is that for eight years (1986-1995) I *was* a contributing editor and columnist for InfoWorld magazine, but I am no longer.
> Thanks for the support of Wikipedia...
Of course! Wikipedia has become a phenomenal resource on the web. I'm glad to see it so highly ranked by Google. I use and depend upon it a lot.
> ...as well as a very decent photograph. Might I ask what that photo's circumstances are for the caption?
I was in Toronto in April of '07 appearing on and taping four episodes of Leo Laporte's "Call for Help" television program on TechTV for Rogers Cable. I went up to Toronto every few months to appear as a guest on Leo's show to talk about technology, security, privacy, and such.
Love, Wikijimmy ( talk) 04:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
In a recent deletion discussion it was suggested the Security Now! may be merged with this article. Please read that AfD discussion and carry on here - Nabla ( talk) 19:45, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
I've changed the {{ advertisement}} tag to a {{ NPOV}} tag because half the artice is very pro and half is very anti. -- h2g2bob ( talk) 18:25, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
The information about "DNS Benchmark" is outdated, for example, "Gibson is currently working on DNS Benchmark". DNS Benchmark has been released - http://www.grc.com/dns/benchmark.htm -- Mortense ( talk) 07:11, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
FYI: Elaine is not an employee (as the term is normally used) of Gibson Research Corporation. She is a for-hire transcriptionist who runs her own company. Steve Gibson is one of her clients, hiring her to transcribe the Security Now podcasts. Her company, On-Site Media Transcription Services, can be found here: http://www.on-sitemedia.com/ Steve Gibson talks about using her services here: http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-186.htm (search for "On-Site Media") Rn86 ( talk) 04:59, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Imho a note about the movie "Hackers" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hackers_(film) ) would be appropriate. A quote from the movie - "Hack the gibson" already became a meme. In the movie the young hackers break into a "Gibson computer" which is a specially guarded high security system. It is obviously a cameo to Steve Gibson. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MasterKyodai ( talk • contribs) 21:17, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Umm, no, it's neither obvious nor correct. The phrase is an homage to the sci-fi writer William Gibson. Nathanm mn ( talk) 04:32, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
... but I don't care. Just had to say that I used to have a lot of respect for Gibson, but after following the M.I.C.E. link and reading his twisting and slippery pseudo-explanations that would do any politician proud, it's just a smouldering crater now.
Now that I've got that off my chest, feel free to revert. 101.118.174.51 ( talk) 17:17, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Does anyone know Steve's middle name? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LurryKiss ( talk • contribs) 09:06, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
California Secretary of State's Business information of record database Search
Record | GLI | GRC1 | GRC2 |
---|---|---|---|
Entity Name: | GIBSON LABORATORIES, INC. | GIBSON RESEARCH CORP. | GIBSON RESEARCH CORPORATION |
Entity Number: | C1111705 | C1143989 | C1411812 |
Date Filed: | 05/12/1982 | 06/15/1983 | 07/06/1987 |
Status: | FTB FORFEITED | FTB FORFEITED | ACTIVE |
Jurisdiction: | DELAWARE | DELAWARE | CALIFORNIA |
Entity Address: | 9 LAGO SUD | 23192 VERDUGO | 30251 GOLDEN LANTERN #E515 |
Entity City, State, Zip: | IRVINE CA 92715 | LAGUNA HILLS CA 92653 | LAGUNA NIGUEL CA 92677 |
Agent for Service of Process: | STEVEN M GIBSON | STEVEN M GIBSON | STEVEN GIBSON |
Agent Address: | 9 LAGO SUD | 21 TANGELO | 9 LAGO SUD |
Agent City, State, Zip: | IRVINE CA 92715 | IRVINE CA 92714 | IRVINE CA 92612 |
~~ Xb2u7Zjzc32 ( talk) 22:22, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Xb2u7Zjzc32 please back off. I am working this article over to source it properly. I'l be done in an hour or so. I tagged it under construction to keep things cool while I work. Thanks. Jytdog ( talk) 22:04, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Just FYI: Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Steve_Gibson_.28computer_programmer.29 Jytdog ( talk) 00:24, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
The TWIT network is a reliable source because it has a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking and features experts all across the IT industry including journalists from the Chicago Sun-Times, ABC News and many other respected news organizations. In any case, even if TWIT was not a reliable source (which I don't agree with), WP:SPS applies: surely, Steve Gibson is a reliable source on his own birth date. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 22:56, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
I noticed that this page makes no mention of the controversy surrounding Steve Gibson and his claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.223.162.78 ( talk) 05:33, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
I recall that roughly a decade ago I edited a section on criticism of Steve's claims, as well as descriptions of GRC products in the article which were marketing copy. It looks the article's NPOV problems eventually caused the baby to be thrown out with the bathwater: it has lost all references to the controversies which were one of the most noteworthy features of this person (and possibly the main justification for having an article in the first place). Triskelios ( talk) 06:27, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Triskelios I am also here for the controversies after hearing of his abhorrent AES password generator. We should probably find some reliable sources to resurrect the section. Artoria 2e5 🌉 09:14, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
Spinrite and his site haven't been updated since 2013. ----Verdana♥Bold 05:26, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: No Consensus User:Ceyockey ( talk to me) 00:57, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Steve Gibson (computer programmer) →
Steve Gibson (programmer) – Per
WP:CONCISE,
WP:DAB: don't use a longer disambiguation term than is necessary. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 02:03, 9 March 2021 (UTC) —Relisting. ~
Aseleste (
t,
c,
l)
05:02, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Steve Gibson (computer programmer) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The contents of the Gibson Research Corporation page were merged into Steve Gibson (computer programmer). For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
User: Could you better explain the nature of the complaints against Steve Gibson? It is important to address them specifically. -- Alexwcovington 08:53, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Credited with coining the term spyware by who? First time ive heard it.... The article is POV and needs to be rewritten - for a start some discussion of what Gibsons critics (virtually the entire security industry) have said or the whole syn cookies debacle might help balance it a bit. Gibson is wonderfull at public relations but Id like to see any article that was a bit more honest than this fawning statement....
The GPA is more proof of this being written by a GRC acolyte - and gibsons written exactly one software program - Spinrite - and thats it - so i also question his credentials as a software engineer.
POV and boldly so—Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.237.206.85 ( talk) 08:21, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Regarding the bullet under the Criticism section that discusses his Windows Metafile vulnerability conclusions from episode 22 of Security Now: in the next episode of the same podcast, he retracts many of his allegations against Microsoft and takes a much more conciliatory tone about the whole issue. His comments on episode 22 are certainly an example of him irresponsibly jumping to a conclusion without having done sufficient research, but it seems unfair to mention that episode without also mentioning the other. -- Silpertan 02:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Please do not remove the part about excessive plugging of SpinRite in Podcasts. The new issue of Security Now has just been released and the plugging has already started to get complaints so is valid in the Criticism section. BackStagePass 09:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Have looked again at complaints made by Security Now listeners and along with edits by 'Zarek' I think we have covered the use of SpinRite mentioning in podcasts. BackStagePass 02:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Just went to transcript of show 83 and Spinrite was only said twice so looks like comments were taken on board. Looking back on this. In SN80 Leo said he did not want SN81 to be one big advert for Spinrite. When it came out 'Spinrite' got mentioned 29 times so probably what got some peoples backs up. BackStagePass 11:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
This article needs ALOT of work. It reads like a back and forth argument right now. -- Falcorian | Talk 05:07, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm wondering what purpose the Radsoft links serve. Both are either POV and/or out of date. If the content there is verifiable, wouldn't it be better to place the links in context as a part of the article? Sschinke 02:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree - article is rather weighted against Steve. I'm adding POV tags. -- XPMaster 00:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
I have removed three links, they are as follows:
-- Falcorian (talk) 18:21, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
I should point out that GRCSucks.com is already linked to in the Criticism section. Adding another link at the end of the page would be treating it more like a neutral source. -- AlexWCovington ( talk) 03:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Something I completely missed... Thank you for pointing it out. -- Falcorian (talk) 03:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Falcorian, do you feel the article has improved sufficiently to remove the NPOV tag? If not, What still needs to be done? -- AlexWCovington ( talk) 21:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I disagree, I think it is still POV... the reference links at the bottom smack of bias, linking to sites critical of Gibson. I still dispute this article's neutrality. Deltwalrus 13:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
62.103.255.73, please provide sourcing for your edits. The only sources I could find for some was radsoft.com, and even then it was wild speculation on the writers part. -- Falcorian (talk) 16:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I would like to add this information into the introduction, similar to the one on the Leo Laporte page, to clarify the use of the word engineer in this article:
Gibson studied EECS at UC Berkeley, but did not earn a degree.
I couldn't find any evidence that Gibson holds an Engineer's degree, List of University of California, Berkeley alumni says "attended", but does not mention any academic degree. Please comment. -- Ministry of Truth 06:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
If I may throw in my two cents before running off for two weeks: I'd have to see the evidence that he did not graduate, as the only bit that has been brought up so far is a site that is not all inclusive. Since there has been no good evidence either way, I think the current "Attended" works perfectly. -- Falcorian (talk) 20:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
It does not matter if an engineering degree is held or not. Self taught people are almost always the foremost in their field, only idiots need spoon feeding by professors at a university, who largely themselves are failures in their field and can only find employment "teaching". It is quite clear that Gibson is widely envied amongst the security industry due to his genius, and te fact that he has been proven correct in almost every situation. - John Farr—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.6.30.112 ( talk) 23:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Minitruth, could you please add how it is inferrior or source? Simply putting "It is inferrior" is rather POV and unverified. Thanks. -- Falcorian (talk) 20:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
You're welcome, Falcorian, always glad to oblige ;-) . While we're at it, would you help me find appropriate language to include the following facts into the syncookie story:
With this amount of exposure freely available to anybody interested in the field, Gibsons claim to have independantly re-invented the wheel is, to put it mildly, surprising. How could a NPOV version of this possibly look like ? -- Ministry of Truth 00:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Steve Gibson does NOT claim to have invented SYN Cookies. [1] Also, Steve DID talk to Dan Bernstein (from the same source) "I exchanged some eMail with Dan to discuss his implementation...". This whole section should just be removed.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.249.222.63 ( talk) 19:37, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
It's raining here, and I finally have net access, so I converted all the inline urls to cites. If someone could spell check it, and maybe double check I got the links right, it would be great! -- Falcorian (talk) 17:49, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, no idea how to use Wikipedia. Is there a typo on the date for InSpectre, currently has 2017 in (...)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A601:31E0:707:B958:6C61:2420:28B9 ( talk) 04:38, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
I've discussed this briefly in Leo Laporte as a side issue and it prompted me to check here, is there any support (or sensible opposition) to stating Steve as a Journalist and dropping the computer engineer description? I'd even favour a Computer Engineering Journalist description. Steve is widely criticised for any of his products or services in computer engineering having been written by ghost writers and has no formal qualifications or notable experience in IT as and of itself. A journalist he may be, a DJ, a internet personality even, but he is not a computer engineer without verifiable education, experience, resultant products or services or something else that points to achievements of any note in the field. Elomis 05:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Ok. I guess the only way to settle this is to define what the minimum allowable threshold is to declare someone to be anything professionally. I would imagine that having done a year of law school years ago before I dropped out I would be publicly flogged for declaring myself an attorney. That's an example of an industry that has clear guidelines and IT perhaps due to it's infancy has much more lax considerations. I would personally consider Steve Gibson to be an computer engineer under the conditions that he either holds (perferably) or has held, an employment contract stating his title or function as such, held a diploma or higher in a computer engineering related discipline or industry certifications granted by information technology companies in line with their associated educational programs. It is widely accepted that Gibson studied computer engineering, like I studied law and with much the same result (no degree awarded). Gibson's resume available on his website shows no position in his employment history where he was a computer engineer, he was a Director of Engineering at one point, VP of Development at another and beyond that he has held consultative roles. He has in fact held no computer engineering position of a company he did not found personally, and therefore his employment as a computer engineer cannot in my opinion be validated. I have no intention of outting the guy as a charlatan, I just don't think that particular wording of the article is accurate. Elomis 06:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Ok I don't particularly like him but it's best settled with neutrality, not editing the page into a hate page which is why I checked first. It's been changed to enthusiast which is much easier to verify. Funny thing is I think expert is actually even better than engineer, an engineer is a very specific thing whereas expert probably has a lower burden of proof and can be more subjective (I consider my wife an expert cook, but not a Chef). I think enthusiast describes Steve most accurately. Elomis 20:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, I hate to stir the pot again, but may I suggest that "enthusiast" may not be the best term either? It's very broad and generic, for one thing. (In fact, one could easily argue that Leo, Steve, and the entire audience of the "Security Now!" podcast are "computer enthusiasts." What's needed is some adjective that describes why Steve is hosting the show and not any other random guy (like me) who also calls himself an "enthusiast".) I'd really rather go back to the "engineer" (or "software engineer") description. "Security expert" is probably too contentious to use, which is perhaps understandable since the term conveys a high level of qualification that not everyone wants to concede to Steve. But "software engineer" seems to be a much lower bar to reach. I think it's a fair term to use, especially given that 1) Steve has obviously written a lot of software and 2) gets a significant portion of income from his commercial product "Spinrite". The term "lawyer" (to address an earlier discussion) denotes what a person IS (as certified by a law school), but "software engineer" is more of a description of what one actually DOES. Based on that, I think it's fair for Steve to be described as an "engineer", and not simply an "enthusiast". Motley Fool 17:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Elomis 00:07, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
How about the term " pundit", as in a source of vocal opinion on a subject matter. -- Tomlouie | talk 03:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Elomis 07:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
I guess what I'm trying to feel around for here is some word that indicates Steve Gibson is more than just a talking head or a random guy who likes to play with computers. Let's think about it in this way - ask yourself "Why do people go to grc.com? What do people want from Steve Gibson?" The answer is "software" (Shields Up, Spinrite, Unplug 'n' Pray, etc.) It's not "technology opinions" or "journalism". I think of John C. Dvorak as a "pundit" - not in a derogatory way, but simply as an acknowledgement that his specialty is opinion technology journalism, not necessarily in diving deep into code, operating systems, etc. Steve certainly has his opinions (e.g. the debate over raw sockets, the origin of the WMF vulnerability, etc.) but his main "gig" is his software. I'm aware of the old feud with John Navas, but I don't think that disqualifies him as being described as a "software engineer". And unless someone can demonstrate that the software on his activity page is fraudulant, I think we have to take him at his word that he actually wrote (and still maintains) that stuff. Finally, I think it's reasonable to ask "What is Steve Gibson's day job?" I don't think he's making any money off his Security Now podcast, so it's probably fair to say that the Steve Gibson Corporation (and related software and/or consulting activites) IS his job. That's far more than "pundit" or "enthusiast", IMHO. -- Motley Fool 16:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
I'll take software developer as being accurate from an encyclopedic perspective, I honestly believe (along with a wide community) that Gibson has probably not written more than 20 lines of code in his life but anybody with a clue will concede that developing software is not neccessarily writing code. If you agree with me and mine that he didn't write the software, or you agree with others who insist he did, he certainly markets, supports, commentates, manages and version controls the software and according to any sensbile definition that is development of software. I've added it, rather than replaced enthusiast, to the article. I imagine in adding descriptions of him we will wind up with an average that is accurate :-) Elomis 23:06, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Falcorian – Point taken, perhaps too much of an ill conceived rant on my part, I have removed it. I fail to see why there is such speculation regarding Gibson’s credentials when anyone familiar with his work should know that he clearly knows his onions. This discussion page reads like a page from grcsucks.com, which, after all of Gibson’s “controversial claims” were proven to be correct suddenly stopped being updated. Perhaps the author of the site had a little too much egg on his face. I challenge anyone here to offer cold hard proof that Gibson is not all what he claims. He does not have to provide proof of an Engineering degree to be called an engineer here. In fact, one does not need an engineering degree to call themselves an engineer at all.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.6.30.112 ( talk) 13:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Regarding :
"He does not have to provide proof of an Engineering degree to be called an engineer here. In fact, one does not need an engineering degree to call themselves an engineer at all."
AND
This issue was discussed on the live recording of SG's show/pre show "Security Now E225: Same Origin Troubles" at 19:39, 2 December 2009 (UTC) between Leo Laporte and Steve Gibson. They essentially contend that by virtue of SG having used engineering techniques to develop product(s), and receiving kudos from Steve Wozniak of Apple SG is an engineer.
It is the case in most of the world that the title of engineer is reserved for persons with appropriate formal education and license. The United States is no exception as per [ [2]]; though in the US it make not be illegal to use the title without qualification as in other locales. Based on the fact that Steve Gibson is not licensed, and is not an engineering graduate he should not use the title engineer or any derivatives. Instead the term "Technologist" should be used. -- 67.230.128.133 ( talk) 19:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
For the discussion see Talk:Gibson Research Corporation#Merge. Greenshed 22:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
... at Call for Help, during the taping of episode 282. He talked with me, I didn't have a clue in the world who he was, let alone he coined the term spyware. Geez, so weird. That, and I had now clue in the world who Amber MacArthur and Leo Laporte were. Oh, blissful ignorance. -- Zanimum 15:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
I think he did claim this in a recent episode of Security Now... but I can't remember which one. I'll try and look it out. MartinBrook t 10:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Yup, here it is (Security now episode 44 ( transcript):
"it was during beta testing of the very first version of ZoneAlarm which offered outbound port blocking, which is to say application-level port blocking, that I discovered the very first piece of spyware on my machine and coined the term 'spyware.'"
MartinBrook t 11:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Except that he has no proof of this, and Zone Lab's press release beats him to any of his claims. He can't retroactively claim credit. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.194.140.83 ( talk) 15:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I know - I was just making the point in response to Malo's recent edit, "rv to previous, gibson doesn't claim it, the register simply reported it" - the point being that Gibson does claim it. Not sure if this point should be in the article though. MartinBrook t 18:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
User:myststixI just edited the spyware page, removing the reference to Gibson 's claim that he coined the term. If it can't be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, it should not be presented as fact. In fact, I find that most likely his mention was inserted so that he would get some traffic to his website, as the page reads just fine after removing his mention. Also, the Wiki page on SpinRite is full of the same technobabble as on Gibson's commercial site, leading me to believe it was planted on Wiki by him or cronies. Again, I would question the validity of having a SpinRite page at all.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Myststix ( talk • contribs) 22:49, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
The article section list Gibson's request that listener's vote for his Security Now podcast and his review of the Kindle as criticisms but provides not source as to what notable person(s) criticized him for these actions. Since I don't believe everyone would agree those actions are wrong then I think to be NPOV, a notable source making such criticisms should be added. The current sources only verify that he did make these requests but not that he was criticized for it. -- Cab88 ( talk) 00:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
To be fair on the unregistered Wikipedia users the other three criticisms are not sourced either, what makes them any more valid? -- BackStagePass ( talk) 21:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Have re-added it as the other three criticisms do not source the criticism so vote rigging on Security Now is perfectly valid. -- BackStagePass ( talk) 22:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I've renamed this section "controversy". There is a slightly lower bar for citing controversies than criticisms: you still need to provide verifiable sources to establish that the statement is controversial --- and, especially, that some reliable source has noted the controversy --- but you don't need to establish that someone was criticizing Gibson for it. This still doesn't allow the "vote rigging scandal"; Intgr and Cab88 are right: nobody has verified that this is at all unusual or untoward. --- tqbf 22:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't think The Register constitutes a reliable source for this article. The guidelines restrict news sources in biographical articles on living persons to "high-quality news organizations," but The Register often publishes satire. The cited articles are opinion pieces and not at all professional journalism. Mdavidn ( talk) 00:59, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
The Register is sort of the National Enquirer of the tech world. Their stories are often based on rumors and leaks, they cannot be considered 100% accurate or unbiased. All of the Register stories were written by the same person - Thomas C Greene. See link here: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/01/24/letters/ The author of http://radsoft.net/news/roundups/grc/ seems to have a personal grudge against Steve Gibson. Why does he have a page just filled with anti-Gibson stories? It seems to me that this is a clear BLP violation— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.196.199.168 ( talk) 04:27, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
I did a little editing of the page, and I know it needs verification. I have been conversing with Steve via e-Mail and this is the gist of what the "InfoWorld" section came from:
Hi James,
> I do understand, I was even considering not asking for that very reason.
I'm glad, thanks.
> If you've got anything else to add to it, feel free to do so. I think it's okay so far, I didn't write most of the article, although I am cleaning it up.
One thing I noted is that for eight years (1986-1995) I *was* a contributing editor and columnist for InfoWorld magazine, but I am no longer.
> Thanks for the support of Wikipedia...
Of course! Wikipedia has become a phenomenal resource on the web. I'm glad to see it so highly ranked by Google. I use and depend upon it a lot.
> ...as well as a very decent photograph. Might I ask what that photo's circumstances are for the caption?
I was in Toronto in April of '07 appearing on and taping four episodes of Leo Laporte's "Call for Help" television program on TechTV for Rogers Cable. I went up to Toronto every few months to appear as a guest on Leo's show to talk about technology, security, privacy, and such.
Love, Wikijimmy ( talk) 04:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
In a recent deletion discussion it was suggested the Security Now! may be merged with this article. Please read that AfD discussion and carry on here - Nabla ( talk) 19:45, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
I've changed the {{ advertisement}} tag to a {{ NPOV}} tag because half the artice is very pro and half is very anti. -- h2g2bob ( talk) 18:25, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
The information about "DNS Benchmark" is outdated, for example, "Gibson is currently working on DNS Benchmark". DNS Benchmark has been released - http://www.grc.com/dns/benchmark.htm -- Mortense ( talk) 07:11, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
FYI: Elaine is not an employee (as the term is normally used) of Gibson Research Corporation. She is a for-hire transcriptionist who runs her own company. Steve Gibson is one of her clients, hiring her to transcribe the Security Now podcasts. Her company, On-Site Media Transcription Services, can be found here: http://www.on-sitemedia.com/ Steve Gibson talks about using her services here: http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-186.htm (search for "On-Site Media") Rn86 ( talk) 04:59, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Imho a note about the movie "Hackers" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hackers_(film) ) would be appropriate. A quote from the movie - "Hack the gibson" already became a meme. In the movie the young hackers break into a "Gibson computer" which is a specially guarded high security system. It is obviously a cameo to Steve Gibson. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MasterKyodai ( talk • contribs) 21:17, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Umm, no, it's neither obvious nor correct. The phrase is an homage to the sci-fi writer William Gibson. Nathanm mn ( talk) 04:32, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
... but I don't care. Just had to say that I used to have a lot of respect for Gibson, but after following the M.I.C.E. link and reading his twisting and slippery pseudo-explanations that would do any politician proud, it's just a smouldering crater now.
Now that I've got that off my chest, feel free to revert. 101.118.174.51 ( talk) 17:17, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Does anyone know Steve's middle name? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LurryKiss ( talk • contribs) 09:06, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
California Secretary of State's Business information of record database Search
Record | GLI | GRC1 | GRC2 |
---|---|---|---|
Entity Name: | GIBSON LABORATORIES, INC. | GIBSON RESEARCH CORP. | GIBSON RESEARCH CORPORATION |
Entity Number: | C1111705 | C1143989 | C1411812 |
Date Filed: | 05/12/1982 | 06/15/1983 | 07/06/1987 |
Status: | FTB FORFEITED | FTB FORFEITED | ACTIVE |
Jurisdiction: | DELAWARE | DELAWARE | CALIFORNIA |
Entity Address: | 9 LAGO SUD | 23192 VERDUGO | 30251 GOLDEN LANTERN #E515 |
Entity City, State, Zip: | IRVINE CA 92715 | LAGUNA HILLS CA 92653 | LAGUNA NIGUEL CA 92677 |
Agent for Service of Process: | STEVEN M GIBSON | STEVEN M GIBSON | STEVEN GIBSON |
Agent Address: | 9 LAGO SUD | 21 TANGELO | 9 LAGO SUD |
Agent City, State, Zip: | IRVINE CA 92715 | IRVINE CA 92714 | IRVINE CA 92612 |
~~ Xb2u7Zjzc32 ( talk) 22:22, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Xb2u7Zjzc32 please back off. I am working this article over to source it properly. I'l be done in an hour or so. I tagged it under construction to keep things cool while I work. Thanks. Jytdog ( talk) 22:04, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Just FYI: Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Steve_Gibson_.28computer_programmer.29 Jytdog ( talk) 00:24, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
The TWIT network is a reliable source because it has a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking and features experts all across the IT industry including journalists from the Chicago Sun-Times, ABC News and many other respected news organizations. In any case, even if TWIT was not a reliable source (which I don't agree with), WP:SPS applies: surely, Steve Gibson is a reliable source on his own birth date. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 22:56, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
I noticed that this page makes no mention of the controversy surrounding Steve Gibson and his claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.223.162.78 ( talk) 05:33, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
I recall that roughly a decade ago I edited a section on criticism of Steve's claims, as well as descriptions of GRC products in the article which were marketing copy. It looks the article's NPOV problems eventually caused the baby to be thrown out with the bathwater: it has lost all references to the controversies which were one of the most noteworthy features of this person (and possibly the main justification for having an article in the first place). Triskelios ( talk) 06:27, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Triskelios I am also here for the controversies after hearing of his abhorrent AES password generator. We should probably find some reliable sources to resurrect the section. Artoria 2e5 🌉 09:14, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
Spinrite and his site haven't been updated since 2013. ----Verdana♥Bold 05:26, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: No Consensus User:Ceyockey ( talk to me) 00:57, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Steve Gibson (computer programmer) →
Steve Gibson (programmer) – Per
WP:CONCISE,
WP:DAB: don't use a longer disambiguation term than is necessary. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 02:03, 9 March 2021 (UTC) —Relisting. ~
Aseleste (
t,
c,
l)
05:02, 16 March 2021 (UTC)