# Tag purpose: attack

Cryptography is all about defending against attacks by intelligent adversaries. What purpose does the tag serve that is not served by the mere use of Crypto.SE as a medium in the first place? Should we delete it?

• ..... bump ..... – Maarten Bodewes Oct 22 '19 at 18:59
• The votes are tied but so far nobody has written a reason why the attack tag is helpful for categorization. – Squeamish Ossifrage Oct 23 '19 at 2:49

We should delete the tag because it is implied by the mere use of Crypto.SE as a medium.

(There are plenty of tags for more specific models of attacks like ; the tag does not serve this purpose.)

We should keep the tag because…

It seems hard to anticipate all the types of attack, and consequently all the categories that would cover this concept. [Can you please expand on how this is helpful for categorization? For example, which questions doesn't it apply to?]

• Fun stuff: because an attacker provides a good badge name! – kelalaka Sep 28 '19 at 19:23
• I've found 5 questions 1, 2c, 3, 4, 5. c is closed. need processsing. – kelalaka Sep 28 '19 at 19:26
• (Continue: Comment restriction reached max) These 5 question has nothing but attack tag. If we close we have to find a proper tag for them. – kelalaka Sep 28 '19 at 19:28
• @kelalaka I suggested closing the two that are unclear and tagged the two remaining ones with more appropriate tags. – Squeamish Ossifrage Sep 28 '19 at 19:56
• the ... attack vectors... question may need attack vectors – kelalaka Sep 28 '19 at 20:01
• @kelalaka What purpose would that serve? The question is an algorithm design question: Is $(x_1, x_2, \dots, x_{k-1}, \hat x, x_{k+1}, \dots, x_n)$ a secure cipher for message $\hat x$, random $x_i$, and secret key $k$? How would a generic attack or attack-vectors tag help to organize it? – Squeamish Ossifrage Sep 28 '19 at 20:03
• Yes, it is not related to this question. Information security has an attack-vector tag. info: Attack vectors are methods and channels used by attackers during a hacking attempt. Therefore, we don't need. – kelalaka Sep 28 '19 at 20:07