Digital Fortress - Dan Brown

[yourmysin]

Dan Brown is known for books containing misleading information. This is true for The Lost Symbol, The Da Vinci Code, Digital Fortress, Angels and Demons as well as Deception Point. I've read them all and can attest to this.

Otherwise, he's a decent writer. He likes to keep chapters short (sometimes to short). Digital Fortress was the first book I read by him. It held my interests while I was bored in Germany one summer. I would suggest giving it a try. Keep in mind, it is fiction. Take it's information with a grain of salt.

[parakkafaith]

I would suggest giving it a try. Keep in mind, it is fiction. Take it's information with a grain of salt.

Couldn't have said it better myself Just to clear up what this thread may seem to suggest.. even though the book is not 100% accurate, there are very, very few inaccuracies. There are a few not-so-obvious things thrown in for the sake of an interesting read, but they are, for the most part, still plausible. That's what leads to all kinds of interesting thoughts or discussions.

Wouldn't it be cool to write an unbreakable algorithm?! I know it's far-fetched, but how close do you think somebody could get? It would take a hell of a brilliant mind to create a conventional encryption better than anything we already have today.

[fashizzlepop]

I would suggest giving it a try. Keep in mind, it is fiction. Take it's information with a grain of salt.

Couldn't have said it better myself Just to clear up what this thread may seem to suggest.. even though the book is 100% accurate, there are very, very few inaccuracies. There are a few not-so-obvious things thrown in for the sake of an interesting read, but they are, for the most part, still plausible. That's what leads to all kinds of interesting thoughts or discussions.

Wouldn't it be cool to write an unbreakable algorithm?! I know it's far-fetched, but how close do you think somebody could get? It would take a hell of a brilliant mind to create a conventional encryption better than anything we already have today.

The book is not 100% accurate by any means... what are you smoking? An unbreakable encryption is completely implausible.

Hell, they've even broken quantum encryptions.

[s0fa]

Wouldn't it be cool to write an unbreakable algorithm?! I know it's far-fetched, but how close do you think somebody could get? It would take a hell of a brilliant mind to create a conventional encryption better than anything we already have today.

Code makers, code breakers - the ancient game again. Since the roman age there have always been algorithms which were "unbreakable" .. until somebody put enough effort behind it to break them. This pattern continued 'till today and will continue in the future. On Topic: Reordered the book via Amazon because my copy is .. well, lost in the chaotic circumstances in my room.

[pretentious]

Wouldn't it be cool to write an unbreakable algorithm?! I know it's far-fetched, but how close do you think somebody could get? It would take a hell of a brilliant mind to create a conventional encryption better than anything we already have today.

I once created a text file, encrypted it with one password and then encrypted the result again with another one. repeated this a few times and then opened the file in a Hex editor and changed some random values, corrupting it. I'd like to see anyone have a shot at reproducing my original text file. Maybe I'll add a salt just for the fun of it. I know you said conventional encryption, but obfuscation can exponentially complicate things. I mean, just imagine you're dealing with an MD5 encryption. what if you don't know it's MD5? You're screwed from the word go. You could make an unbreakable algorythm if you just don't let anyone know how it works

[fashizzlepop]

Well one-time pads are of course 100% secure (if password is not reused) as well as the 256bit AES such as Assange's "Thermonuclear" file (technically, it can be brute forced but it's not plausible by any means).

<br>I once created a text file, encrypted it with one password and then encrypted the result again with another one.

It can be bruted. No one is going to try though.

[pretentious]

<br>I once created a text file, encrypted it with one password and then encrypted the result again with another one.

It can be bruted. No one is going to try though.

[parakkafaith]

The book is not 100% accurate by any means... what are you smoking?

I meant to say not 100% accurate Wasn't smoking anything.. just tired! I apologize.

I once created a text file, encrypted it with one password and then encrypted the result again with another one. repeated this a few times and then opened the file in a Hex editor and changed some random values

Corrupting a file like that would be a pretty sneaky way to get around if you were to use some kind of steganography to help a recipient fix it up (provided it wasn't for just yourself).

The "rotating clear text" mentioned in the book, for those who have read even the beginning, is an interesting thought as long as you don't think about if for more than 2 seconds and realize it doesn't make sense

[fashizzlepop]

Reminds me of the mutating encryption algorithm used in Live Free or Die Hard... Where he punches in numbers so that it makes to connecting squares or something... lol.

[goluhaque]

When you walk into a book store do you focus more on the plain looking books? Or do you look at the shiny intriguing ones? Even legitimate non-fiction books need attention in order to sell.

Also, if you want a very interesting book, written by a great author, with a brilliant plot, you would read Little Brother by Cory Doctorow.

Sorry for the bump, but I read "Little Brother" and found it very interesting. Any other interesting recommendations?