>concept of rotating-cleartext ever existed.[1] >Charly Avital Thanks Charly Avital for explanations. I know, I'd had read his others books firstly... and yes... I read like Dan as who is reading comics books, no worrys.
The thing that really catch my attention was the concept of rotating-cleartext thing. But I think the book is good in the sense that it's encourage those who are not expert in the subject to know more about. Thats why I'm here asking. [s] -AA 2009/1/14 Charly Avital <[email protected]>: > Andre Amorim wrote the following on 1/14/09 9:49 AM: >> Hi all, >> >> Anyone knows what's is fact (real) and what is fiction in Dan Brown >> novel, Digital Fortress ? >> >> Kind Regards, >> [s] > > > I read it years ago. I believe it's the worst book ever written by Dan > Brown. > > Some excerpts from: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Fortress>. I > believe the following list of Mr. Brown's errors (or delusions) is not > exclusive, to say the least. > > Still, it's my opinion, only. > > Charly > > ---------- > "Although the book's website cites reviews lauding Digital Fortress for > being extremely realistic, the book contains a number of technical > errors and misunderstandings in computers, math and technology. > > * Brown mentions a Hungarian mathematician, Josef Harne, who in 1987 > proposed an encryption algorithm that, in addition to encrypting, > shifted decrypted cleartext over a time variant. However, neither Harne > nor the concept of rotating-cleartext ever existed.[1] > * Brown says the atomic bomb dropped on Nagasaki was fueled by the > uranium isotope U-238. The Fat Man bomb dropped on Nagasaki was fueled > by plutonium 239, and U-238 is not an easily fissionable isotope of > uranium (needing a fusion reaction to initiate fission in the U-238). > * Brown also inaccurately portrays the leadership of the NSA. As > part of the Department of Defense, the NSA director - by law - must be a > three-star Lieutenant General or Vice Admiral. > * Brown confuses bits with bytes, describing a 64bit string as > containing 64 alphanumeric characters. In fact it would be just 8 > assuming the most basic 8bit character encoding, each character being a > byte or 8 bits. > * Brown suggests that TRANSLTR, a machine capable of breaking a > 64bit key in 10 minutes would take just an hour to break a 10,000 bit > key. This is a gross misunderstanding of the relationship between key > lengths and the time required to brute force them. Such a machine would > take over 80,000 years to break a 96-bit key and over 350,000 billion > years (nearly 30,000 times the current age of the universe) to break a > 128-bit key. The number of years it would take to break a 10,000 bit key > isn't even practical to write down - it has 2,987 digits. > * Brown repeatedly confuses storage or processing of data with > execution. For example, TRANSLTR is threatened because it has tried to > crack Digital Fortress, which is actually a virus, and the database is > similarly threatened because Digital Fortress is sent to it by TRANSLTR. > Databases and password crackers do not execute the information presented > to them, so it wouldn't matter that Digital Fortress contains harmful > instructions. > * Characters who are supposedly experts in cryptography seem to > think there is no such thing as an unbreakable encryption scheme. See > one-time pad." > ---------- > -- Andre Amorim GnuPG KEY ID: 0x587B1970 FingerPrint: 42AE C929 4D91 4591 4E75 430F 78D9 53B4 587B 1970 Download: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x587B1970 _______________________________________________ Gnupg-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
