Talk:Smurf attack

message: It would be really nice to have an etymology for this page.  It was called a smurf attack because the source file for the original implementation was called smurf.c.  But, why did the author choose that name. I believe the term originated in military slang for a style of amplifier.  And I believe the military's term originated in the idea of one smurf (Papa smurf) giving an order, and all the other smurfs saying "Yes, Papa smurf!" and carrying it out. But, I do not know this, it is only a guess.  Omnifarious 15:17, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Considering that the authors other program for UDP was fraggle.c (Fraggle Rock?), maybe there is no deeper meaning and the author simply chose 80's kids tv shows?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.97.110.61 (talk) 19:52, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology 

message: The link to http://www.netscan.org/ do not work. Should it be removed?
--Anka.213 13:27, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have done so.  We already have a link to the archive.org version of that page, so it isn't really a matter of Wikipedia:Citing sources#What to do when a reference link "goes dead" (although if there are published accounts of how fast systems got fixed, for example in an RFC, CERT publication, etc, that would be worth citing as well). Kingdon 17:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broken link 

message: First, much appreciated effort went into this page, most appreciated... but... The more techies of various flavors add to or remove references to tcp/ip four, seven and eleven layer models, the more 98% of the public will gasp. Initial idea is how about an analogy of a clown juggling and another clown juggler starts tossing ball after ball to the main act? At some point, the whole crowd-pleaser aspect of the router (this analogy needs simplify-speak, e.g., web-server, internet backbone devices, etc.). Put a very dumbed down version first, the current intro only impresses IT savants, not the public...
Raretrees (talk) 16:53, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It was requested that this article be renamed but the procedure outlined at WP:RM#Requesting potentially controversial moves did not appear to be followed, and consensus could not be determined. Please request a move again with proper procedure if there is still a desire for the page to be moved. Thank you for your time!Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 19:48, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  How technical? 

message: This form of attack doesn't solely relay on echo (ping) request. It can by any other icmp request (timestamp and address mask)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.15.60.2 (talk) 21:55, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: If true, the article would be incomplete, not incorrect, or am I missing something? Also, what you're saying is original research without a proper reference - do you happen to have one where this is described and called a "Smurf attack"? I expect that if it's true, it would not be called a Smurf attack unless it's implemented in smurf.c itself. — SkyLined (talk) 22:17, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article is incorrect in my opinion 

message: It looks like the link "Hendric, William (23 March 2016). "Fraggle attack". " was added after the text was written. It provides almost no information and seems to be promotional.
--Shoeper (talk) 13:45, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be mentioned in the article that Smurf attacks aren't exclusive to ICMP and can be used against UDP services too. I don't think it merits its own section with its own marketing name, attribution, and proof of concept code. Even Smurf itself is arguably just IP address spoofing except the insight of forging the source address as a broadcast address was clever enough to be noteworthy. --Jartine (talk) 18:01, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Promotional link?