Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Firewalk (computing)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Keep: I think it passes GNG. Here's an extremely in-depth explainer that at least looks independent, which seems to have been written entirely about the method, and cites several more descriptions of it. More in-depth and independent-seeming articles in what look like reliable sources, including textbook mentions, are easy enough to find: see for example 1, 2, 3, 4. I even found questions about it as sample questions on IT exams and course answer websites, see here and here, which suggests that it's part of some standard network security curricula. This is further supported by the existence of plenty of tutorials devoted to explaining it, such as here and here. So I don't think there's any trouble putting together a GNG argument. But I'll also admit that computer security jargon is just opaque enough (to me at least) that I'm not completely confident these are all about the same thing, so I would welcome double-checking that all these sources apply. - Astrophobe (talk) 22:23, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The first three links are about the pentest software tool documented in the article while the fourth is a coincidentally named NSA exploit. — Charles Stewart (talk) 08:01, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The first link provided by Astrophobe is a solid source for establishing notability. I found two other network security books that discuss the tool via Google Books without much difficulty: first by one of the authors of the tool Building Open Source Network Security Tools: Components and Techniques and second Principles of Information Security, which is in its 6th edition. The GNG criterion seems to be comfortably met. — Charles Stewart (talk) 08:01, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]