Talk:Red team

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleRed team has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 2, 2023Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on June 10, 2023.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that red teams are used to test airport security?


Did you know nomination[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Bruxton (talk) 23:25, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
  • ... that sometimes businesses and governments hack themselves using red teams?
    • ALT1: ... that red teams are used to double check important decisions, such as the raid to kill Osama Bin Laden?
    • ALT2: ... that red teams are used to test airport security?
    • ALT3: ... that physical red teams break into secure facilities legally?
    • Reviewed: [[]]

Improved to Good Article status by Novem Linguae (talk). Self-nominated at 02:09, 3 June 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Red team; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

  • GA pass confirmed. Hooks are based on in-article texts, are neutral, and referenced there. QPQ is not needed - according to the check, the nom has only two other credits (I'll however note that it is best practice to review stuff, so the nom is encouraged to do so before they hit the required treshold at fifth nom - friendly ping to User:Novem Linguae). Regarding whcich hooks to use, the first one is most broad, although one could quibble if another hook is not "more interesting". Promoting admin can roll the dice I guess. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:45, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Devil's advocate[edit]

I was surprised to see no mention of the devil's advocate, who performed a similar "contrary" or "opponent" function for many centuries before red teams were a thing. Is the omission deliberate? For example, it is where the introduction to Micah Zenko's book starts. Theramin (talk) 23:55, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there. I wouldn't object if someone wanted to work devil's advocate into the history section. Zenko page 10 does say The office of the Devil’s Advocate was the first established and routine use of “red teaming.” I'm not sure how much I agree with this idea of inventing the concept of red teaming in the 1900s, then going back in history and labeling things as red teaming though. That's what this quote does and that seems like a weak way to connect things. Red team to me has very specific and modern meanings. Hope this helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:29, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Partisan source[edit]

The United States Transportation Security Administration has used red teaming in the past. An analysis of some red team operations discovered that undercover agents were able to fool Transportation Security Officers and bring weapons, drugs, or explosives through security at some major airports at least 70% of the time in 2017, and 95% of the time in 2015.[1][2]

References

  1. ^ Bennett, Brian (2 June 2015). "Red Team agents use disguises, ingenuity to expose TSA vulnerabilities". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 3 June 2023.
  2. ^ Inserra, David. "Here's How Bad the TSA Is Failing at Airport Security. It's Time for Privatization". The Heritage Foundation. Retrieved 2023-06-02.

The Daily Signal is a highly partisan, dubiously reliable source. Is it needed, or can the statement be sourced entirely to the L.A. Times? If not, is there some other source that could be used instead? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 04:48, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed. Thanks for spotting that. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:12, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia feedback[edit]

Copying here so I don't forget. Some ideas on how to further improve the article: work in more of the Further reading sources, and lower the HOW TO feeling of the Infiltration section. And there may still be a few MOS:BADITALICS here and there. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:50, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sources[edit]

How is "Talamantes, Jeremiah (2019). Physical Red Team Operations. Hexcode Publishing" a RS?

Google offers nothing on the publisher (barely 50 hits). But all the four books from the house, sold across different ecommerce websites, have one thing in common - authored by Jeremiah Talamantes! So, the book is self-published.
This book does not appear to be in any library of repute, acc. to Worldcat.
Going by Linkedin, Jeremiah Talamantes received his masters from an online university but appears to have decent industry experience. However, there is nothing that demonstrates either academics or MSM consider him to be some kind of an expert in the field of cybersecurity. So, WP:SPS appears to be not met with.

TrangaBellam (talk) 20:41, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can go on making similar claims about "Rehberger, Johann (2020). Cybersecurity Attacks – Red Team Strategies. Packt Publishing" but that won't be needed. Starting reassessment in T minus 72h, pending nominator/reviewer comments to my observation on Talamantes (2019).
Btw, Novem, you might feel that I am targeting you — for the EFN episode — but it is not the case; I came across the GA badge on your u/p and started reading the article just because I found the concept (and, indeed, your writeup) interesting. Fwiw, every single GAR, I have done, is singularly focussed on the (poor) quality of sources. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:48, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there. No problem about the targeting. Fixing the article and helping me learn for future articles is the important thing. Do you have concerns about any of the other major sources, such as the books by Zenko, Hoffman, and Rehberger? Feel free to call out anything you see. Let's get it fixed. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:54, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To keep this as a GA, I need Talamantes and Rehberger out; the remainder of the sources, I take no concern with, as of now. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:58, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Go ahead and GAR it. I won't be able to replace those sources in 72 hours, since they're like two thirds the article. I'd rather start the GAR and get confirmation from others that those sources are unusable. I need to hear it from some other people before I take an axe to tens of hours of my work. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:03, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, we can go RSN before opening the GAR; give me a day :) TrangaBellam (talk) 21:19, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Red_team&oldid=1209398667"