Talk:Zip bomb

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Merge with Zip of death

These two articles seem to be describing the same thing. This article is older, and the talk page of the other article suggests that the "zip bomb" usage is older. It would therefore probably make sense for the articles to be unified under the Zip bomb name. —phh (t/c) 00:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't think there will be any objections to that, it does make sense to merge them to zip bomb and create a redirect at Zip of death page. --Gimlei (talk to me) 10:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I decided to be bold, and performed the merge. Yay. --Gimlei (talk to me) 10:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


[edit] 42.zip

The current text relating to 42.zip is inaccurate. 42.zip describes *several thousand copies of* a 4 gigabyte file, by way of nested zip files, each of which contains a copy of said 4 gig file. Were 42.zip fully decompressed, it would consume over 4 petabytes of disk space. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.81.57.203 (talk) 00:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DOS??

I Disagree with the articles fist line that a zip of death is a DOS attack. The current Wiki for DOS also does not seem to reference anything like the Zip of death.

Zip of Death does one of two operations. It either cripples the antiviral software, similar to most worms. Or Destroys the entire system. If the system no longer turns on, or The antiviral software stop doing its job, these could be seen as a DOS, but under that Brod of a definition, every attack conceivably be as a DOS attack, rendering DOS attack meaningless term.

To put it another way, the 911 attacks are not DOS attack to the use of the elevators of the twin towers, it was just utter devastation.

DOS attack is meant to Deny, not Destroy (system corruption), or to Allow (New vunlabilties do to lack of antiviral) Larek (talk) 14:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)