Talk:Root kit

I checked out the root kit detectors available for Windows based systems and none of those listed work on win98 systems. --Randolph 23:34, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I added a section which attempts to compare and contrast root kits vs. viruses and worms. I'm not completely satisfied with the effort so I hope someone will improve upon it. I'm also not sure that chkrootkit and rkhunter warrant their own pages. In any event I think the external links to them should be listed at the bottom of the whole page (per the convention on most other Wikipedia pages).JimD 01:45, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

Rootkit vs Root Kit

The only place that I've seen "root kit" is here on Wikipedia, everywhere else it has been written "rootkit". — PhilHibbs | talk

What is going on is a mess. Rootkit is up for a speedy deletion whereas what needs to happen is an admin moves this article to rootkit. At the moment we have what should at the least be a redirect being a mess instead, SqueakBox 16:13, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

New Sony rootkit ?

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=27349 http://www.sysinternals.com/blog/2005/10/sony-rootkits-and-digital-rights.html

From talk:Rootkit

Radiojon, why do want remove redirect? Trainthh 08:38, 4 November 2005 (UTC) -I am stupid... Please forgive. No-one please do not touch this page! Trainthh 08:43, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

This page has relevance and should not be deleted as it has transpired that Sony / BMG is using a rootkit to hide its Digital Rights Management software using a rootkit, when a person tries to access one of their music CD's. Admittedly the listener is prompted but this is still a possible help to others that might want to hack PC's. People should be aware of what a rootkit is.

Steve [4th Nov 2005]. The info is not offensive. It is what the internet is about. That is a free information source and should not be effected by the goings on of a huge corporate entity like Sony BMG. If the page goes then its censorship brought about by corporate politics and a shame for Wiki.

Why this page needs to be removed? For a technical reason

There is nothing political here. Let me explain what we try to achieve here.

1. Currently in Wikipedia there is a page called Root kit. Have look at it!
2. However, more commonly used term is Rootkit (without space). The objective is to move page "Root kit" with all its on contents to replace this current page (that used to be a redirection)
3. The above is possible only as soon as this page is removed by administrators.

-- Trainthh 14:42, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Which Definition Should Rule?

I agree with the desire to consolidate it into one definition but should that definition be under "root kit" or "rootkit?" I feel like "rootkit" is the more proper form.

Agreed. This is not anyway a candidate for speedy deletion, which I for one oppose. Either this article should redirect to Root kit or Root kit should redirect here. As I cam here looking for the article I strongly support moving Root kit here, SqueakBox 16:07, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

• That is what I am trying to do! An admin has to do this however, since someone changed the original redirect. Once this is done, root kit will point to rootkit instead of the other way around.  –radiojon 16:22, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Until that moment this must be the talk page for Rootkit and there should just be a redirect to Root kit. This is a mess on a live encyclopedias, and we must be thinking of our readers now who (like me) will be looking for rootkit. Just let the admin do it and don't prepare for the future but focus on the present, SqueakBox 16:29, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Rootkit and root kit are synonymous, however rootkit is the more common usage among those with domain knowledge.

Yes, it seems the consensus is very clear to move the article. On the other hand a speedy delete won't achiebve that, and really shoul;dn't be on the article as there proper procedures to go through in a case like this and using ther speedy is not one of them, SqueakBox 18:01, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, but I don't much like the idea of validating radiojon's histrionics. --Golbez 18:23, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Indeed not, SqueakBox 18:57, 4 November 2005 (UTC)