Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crowdfense

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Many of the arguments on the Keep side were based primarily on the weakness of the nomination, which by itself, is not a valid reason to retain an article. Among those who examined sourcing vis-à-vis NCORP, I see a rough consensus that the subject does not meet our notability criteria. This view was also shared by the lone "Neutral" !vote here. The outcome is the same whether or not I discard the (canvassed?) SPA vote by the account created for this AfD. Kudos to HighKing for the thorough source assessment work. Owen× ☎ 13:28, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Crowdfense

[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Crowdfense (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Typical advertising spam and not notable company that deserves to be deleted Xrimonciam (talk) 08:04, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I'm the page creator. I trust the AfD process to determine notability and obviously recurse myself from voting (if I was to vote, I would agree with Weak Keep), however I strongly object to the claim of "Typical advertising spam." I have no affiliation with the company, have a history of anti-vandalism work, and I have never been paid to edit Wikipedia.
While I'm here, I want to offer another source on top of what @WeirdNAnnoyed provided: https://techcrunch.com/2024/04/06/price-of-zero-day-exploits-rises-as-companies-harden-products-against-hackers/. Please note WP:TECHCRUNCH, however the article appears to be written by a staff writer without a COI, so thus should be sufficient in contributing to notability.
Thanks, Scaledish! Talkish? Statish. 00:53, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Sources don't prove notability and my searching didn't find anything else useful. Moritoriko (talk) 00:16, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The vice source is okay. I don't think the TechCrunch article counts as significant coverage. If they had sold a zero day exploit to someone that had an effect (that has been publicly reported) I think that would show how it is a notable company. Moritoriko (talk) 00:23, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral - Deletion argument is misguided. The article is true to its sources and is only "spam" in the sense that the company intentionally made bold claims to get press coverage and then did. On the other hand, making a splash one time in 2018 does not meet my bar for keep. Regardless of outcome, thank you @Scaledish for writing this article. Brandon (talk) 08:31, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:39, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I mentioned GNews, not because it is a measure of notability. If there are only two pages in GNews, it is a strong indicator the press don't feel the topic is worthy of being covered. If there were enough sources meeting ORGCRIT (there are not), I would have done HEY myself.--CNMall41 (talk) 18:27, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose deletion, keep due to misguided nomination, company is legitimate and there are reliable sources about it, nbminator should perform WP:BEFORE submitting AfD, the "... company deserves to be deleted" appears subjective Nayyn (talk) 13:33, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are you able to opine on notability assuming the AfD is judged on the NCORP arguments and not the merits of the nomination? --CNMall41 (talk) 17:20, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Let's not get sidetracked by the nom statement - do we have sources for WP:NCORP or not?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:02, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
oppose deletion, keep It clearly meets Wikipedia’s notability and sourcing requirements, and none of the deletion criteria apply.
1. Notability (WP:N)
It has received significant independent coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources: ** la Repubblica: “Vita da cacciatore di bachi informatici. ‘Vi racconto il grande mercato dello spionaggio digitale’”.[1] ** Vice: Lorenzo Franceschi‑Bicchierai, “Startup Offers $3 Million to Anyone Who Can Hack the iPhone”.[2] Joseph Cox, “As Phones Get Harder to Hack, Zero Day Vendors Hunt for Router Exploits”.[3] ** TechCrunch: Lorenzo Franceschi‑Bicchierai, “Price of zero‑day exploits rises as companies harden products against hackers”.[4] ** SC Media: “Crowdfense expands exploit acquisition program”.[5] ** Intelligence Online: “UAE : Abu Dhabi‑based vulnerability researcher Crowdfense undergoes a small revolution”.[6] “Emerging SIGINT powers seek own cyber‑bounty hunters”.[7]
2. Verifiability & Reliable Sources (WP:V, WP:RS)
All statements are supported by reputable third‑party publications; no self‑published sources are used except for uncontroversial corporate details (founding date, headquarters).
3. Neutral Point of View (WP:NPOV)
The article neutrally describes Crowdfense’s business model, pricing, and ethical considerations, with proper attribution (e.g. “According to TechCrunch…”, “Vice reports…”).
4. Deletion Criteria
It is not a trivial or ephemeral subject, nor promotional spam, and contains no copyright or BLP issues.
In summary, it satisfies WP:NOTABILITY, WP:VERIFIABILITY, and WP:NPOV. Mollatim (talk) 11:06, 14 April 2025 (UTC)— Mollatim (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

References

  1. ^ D’Alessandro, Jaime (5 August 2019). "Vita da cacciatore di bachi informatici. "Vi racconto il grande mercato dello spionaggio digitale"". la Repubblica (in Italian). Retrieved 14 April 2025.
  2. ^ Franceschi‑Bicchierai, Lorenzo (25 April 2018). "Startup Offers $3 Million to Anyone Who Can Hack the iPhone". Vice. Retrieved 14 April 2025.
  3. ^ Cox, Joseph (7 March 2019). "As Phones Get Harder to Hack, Zero Day Vendors Hunt for Router Exploits". Vice. Retrieved 14 April 2025.
  4. ^ Franceschi‑Bicchierai, Lorenzo (6 April 2024). "Price of zero‑day exploits rises as companies harden products against hackers". TechCrunch. Retrieved 14 April 2025.
  5. ^ Staff, SC (9 April 2024). "Crowdfense expands exploit acquisition program". SC Media. Retrieved 14 April 2025.
  6. ^ "UAE : Abu Dhabi‑based vulnerability researcher Crowdfense undergoes a small revolution". Intelligence Online. 30 August 2023. Retrieved 14 April 2025.
  7. ^ "Emerging SIGINT powers seek own cyber‑bounty hunters". Intelligence Online. 16 May 2018. Retrieved 14 April 2025.
  • Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability and the references provided miss the mark. For example, the references provided by first-time-contributor Mollatim above mostly fail ORGIND as follows:
  • la Repubblica (in Italian) article relies entirely on information provided by the founder, Manzoni, who the author met in Rome, and has no "Independent Content", fails ORGIND
  • This first Vice article fails for the same reasons. The author was "told" by Manzoni all of the details and the article has no "Independent Content", fails ORGIND.
  • This also from Vice is totally based on an "announcement" and PR from Manzoni, fails ORGIND for the same reasons as the others above
  • Techcrunch article based on the company publishing an updated price list and regurgitates from that list what it is offering and what it offered previously. Unfortunately, the company doesn't provide any "Independent Content" about the company, it instead comments on the overall marketplace, and fails to provide in-depth info on the company. Fails ORGIND and CORPDEPTH.
  • This from SCWorld is based on the same "updated price list" information as the TechCrunch article, comes with the obligatory comments from the company, it is regurgitated PR, fails ORGIND and CORPDEPTH
  • The two references from Intelligence Online requires a subscription and I cannot access them right now. Based on the other references which first-time contributor posted above, none of which come close to meeting NCORP criteria, I'm inclined to assume these also will fail our criteria. Happy to change my stance if somebody can check out those article and confirm I'm mistaken tho. HighKing++ 12:38, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The two references from Intelligence Online requires a subscription and I cannot access them right now
Perhaps something has changed or it is my computer's configuration but both pages are showing the message "An error occurred while loading the page, please contact customer service for assistance." Is this the same message you got?
first-time contributor
Interesting. Before going further I don't think this has any bearing on the notability debate, but a first time contributor with such proper formatting is rare. Hell, I can't format like that. I was curious how the Crowdfense article had grown in size so I looked at the edit history. IP 5.195.224.90 also added intelligence online citations to Zerodium as well as Crowdfense. They did turn up this article which could count towards notability? Article interweaves original thought, even though information still comes from the founder:
The policy of avoiding selling zero-day exploits to certain countries certainly sets Crowdfense apart. But it’s an interesting choice for a company headquartered in a nondemocratic Asian country notorious for both its love of new and expensive technology alongside its longstanding and continuing human rights abuses. Scaledish! Talkish? Statish. 04:13, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The links provided by the Mollatim, the knowledgeable first-time contributor, point to a "paid-up subscription" page which is why you see the error message. This link shows a cut-off version inviting a subscription. You can do the same with the second link if you like. I pointed out that Mollatim was a first-time contributor for the same reasons you've highlighted - the editor demonstrates knowledge of formatting and referencing beyond an editor with comparable (lack of) experience. I agree that your opinion and my opinion might be that Crowdfense is unusual, but that isn't how we determine notability, that is why we look for reliable third-party sources that meet NCORP criteria. HighKing++ 12:08, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that your opinion and my opinion might be that Crowdfense is unusual, but that isn't how we determine notability, that is why we look for reliable third-party sources that meet NCORP criteria.
    I assume you made comment in reference to the last paragraph of mine, which you erroneously (no hard feelings ^^) removed the blockquote from. It is a quotation from this article, which I remarked about. It is not my own opinion. Regards, Scaledish! Talkish? Statish. 00:11, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please note that there is no requirement for an article author to recuse themselves from an AfD about it. @Scaledish: feel free to amend your note to a !vote.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 06:24, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've already stated my vote but I would just like to argument a bit more on it: Mollatim (talk) 05:50, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to those already cited, I found further coverage in a variety of independent publications and industry sources:
  • DEF CON 32 presentation: The Rise and Fall of Binary Exploitation discusses Crowdfense’s unique position and influence within the exploit acquisition market.[1]
  • Tactical Report details EDGE’s strategic partnership with Crowdfense.[2]
  • Security Affairs covers Crowdfense’s $30M exploit acquisition program.[3]
  • Analisi Difesa analyzes the company’s impact on the cybersecurity sector.[4]
  • Red Hot Cyber explores Crowdfense’s role and market pricing for 0days.[5]
  • Additional coverage in Cybersecurity-Help.cz[6] and CyberScoop.[7]
There are existing articles for companies in the same niche (e.g., Vupen and Zerodium), which are similarly covered in the media and referenced in industry discussions. Applying a stricter standard here than for comparable entities risks inconsistency and could create the impression of selective enforcement.
While Crowdfense may not be a household name, its role within the international vulnerability research and cyber capabilities market is significant, as recognized by independent analysts, journalists, and conference presenters. Wikipedia notability is about reliable, significant coverage, not mainstream popularity. Mollatim (talk) 05:52, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I went and listened to the 47 minute DEFCON talk and it is not about Crowdfense's position or influence. As far as Stephen Sims is concerned, he just looked at their website to grab a number for how much exploits can bring in. I briefly checked some of the others and I think you are overstating the impact of all of them. Moritoriko (talk) 02:00, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Stephen Sims, "The Rise and Fall of Binary Exploitation", DEF CON 32, 2024, [1]
  2. ^ UAE’s EDGE advances cyber acquisition with Crowdfense and plans further expansion, Tactical Report, 2024, [2]
  3. ^ Pierluigi Paganini, "Crowdfense launches $30M exploit acquisition program", Security Affairs, 2024, [3]
  4. ^ EDGE Group punta ad acquisire Crowdfense per rafforzarsi nella cybersicurezza, Analisi Difesa, 2024, [4]
  5. ^ Boom dei costi degli 0day, no-click su mobile: 9 milioni di euro sul listino Crowdfense, Red Hot Cyber, 2024, [5]
  6. ^ Crowdfense: 0day broker rises acquisition price for 2024, Cybersecurity-Help.cz, 2024, [6]
  7. ^ ICS zero-day exploit makes debut at Idaho cyber lab's S4, CyberScoop, 2024, [7]
  • Comment, I agree w/ HighKing's source analysis so leaning delete (although I can't access the Intelligence Online sources either)- but I found a few paywalled sources that seem to discuss the subject, a book[9] and a journal article[10]. Linking here in case anyone has access. Zzz plant (talk) 12:49, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Crowdfense&oldid=1287469166"