Talk:Digital Fortress

Moved unsourced material

The following material, in a section titled "Real life scenarios", is unsourced, and so I have moved it here. If someone can source it, it can be restored to the article.

Extended content

==Factual basis== The book is loosely based around recent history of cryptography. In 1976 the Data Encryption Standard (DES) was approved with a 56-bit key rather than the 64-bit key originally proposed. It was widely reckoned that the National Security Agency had pushed through this reduction in security on the assumption that it could crack codes before anyone else. In fact the DES was first publicly broken in 1997, 96 days after the first of the DES Challenges. In 1998, the same year as Digital Fortress was published, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (featured in the book) built a piece of hardware costing less than $250,000 called the EFF DES cracker which broke it in 56 hours. The brute force search used by TRANSLTR takes twice as long for each extra bit added to the key (if this is done sensibly), so the reaction of the industry has understandably been to lengthen the key. The Advanced Encryption Standard established in 2001 uses 128, 192 or 256 bits, which take at least 1021 times as long (i.e. 270) to solve by this technique. Unbreakable codes are not new to the industry. The one-time pad, invented in 1917 and used for the cold-war era Moscow-Washington hotline, was proved to be unconditionally secure by Claude Shannon in 1949 when properly implemented. However it is inconvenient to use in practice. In chapter 4, 10^120 (ten with 119 zeros after it) is said to be the number of sand grains in a 3 mile beach... Well, 10^80 (10 followed by 79 zeroes), a MUCH smaller number than 10^120, roughly corresponds to the number of subatomic particles (e.g. protons, neutrons, electrons) that exist in the known Universe. We're lightyears away from a ridiculous 3 mile long beach ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.49.225.167 (talk) 04:55, 21 January 2011 (UTC) ==Inaccuracies== Although the book was clearly intended as entertainment for general audiences, there are several obvious factual errors during the book's finale that many informed readers would pick up on. At the end of the novel, the protagonists in trying to solve a riddle about the prime difference between the elements used in the bombs of Hiroshima and Nagasaki curiously consult the Internet from within the NSA. Brown incorrectly writes that the bomb used on Nagasaki was not a plutonium bomb as commonly perceived, but a uranium one. The bomb used on Nagasaki (as well as the Trinity test in New Mexico) was in fact, a plutonium bomb (239Pu) which used an implosion-type detonator, though it does employ uranium to a lesser extent as part of the detonator. In addition, plutonium-239 is created from uranium-238 which may be the source of Brown's error. The bomb used on Hiroshima, on the other hand, used uranium-235 (235U), and employed a gun-type detonator. The most obvious difference between the elements used in the two bombs academically would be the atomic numbers: 92 for uranium and 94 for plutonium providing a difference of 2 which is also coincidentally a prime number. The other obvious difference would be between the mass numbers of the isotopes: 235 for (235U) and 239 for (239Pu) providing a difference of 4 which is not a prime number. These are the only absolute values for these elements (i.e. statistically non-varying), and the only ones whose difference would produce a whole number. Even provided that this error was not made, the solution is also strange for the following reasons: The passkey of a single digit "3" although plausible would be extremely weak. The strength of passwords or passkeys are typically tied to their length as the number of characters or digits can typically be determined by even rudimentary analysis. It is almost unheard of for even the most basic security system to require only a one digit passcode. The NSA should have been able to determine that the passkey was only one digit in length based on the code that they had of the virus, giving them a 2 in 10 chance (0-9) of guessing correctly based on the fictitious situation in the book that one incorrect response coincidentally doubled the rate at which intruders were able to penetrate NSA's security measures and possibly any after that would have locked out the passkey permanently (unusual in itself due to the lack of safety counter-measures, and that this behavior was not predicted by NSA code-breakers). Any type of secure facility, especially one such as the NSA, typically blocks external public Internet access, but even assuming a connection was possible, the code breakers rely on the information they find on a random public website as reference level material. This was probably more believable in the early days of the Internet when the novel was written, but is comical in that the NSA did not have more reliable sources of information to consult with. Any data center can be shut down or disconnected without any damage to the data. For example, disconnecting an ethernet connection to a computer, router, or modem would end all communication. Even assuming an enormous facility such as the NSA with many points of network communication, parts of the system could be shut down or disconnected temporarily while the code-breakers tried to solve the passkey.

Nightscream (talk) 02:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

This is ridiculous censorship. There are 11 references to other Wiki articles in that paragraph, each of which provides plenty of follow-up and confirmatory material. Why is it necessary to provide "footnotes" or "references"? Chris55 (talk) 06:53, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia:Verifiability is a core policy, one that is responsible for the reliability of article content. There are no "references" in the passage, as those are wikilinks, not references. Material must be supported by reliable, verifiable third party sources, and not other Wikipedia articles, which cannot be used as sources, as that would be circular. If there are sources in those wikilinked articles, then they should be placed in the above passage, and only if they explicitly mention this novel. If sources do not mention the novel, then it is not appropriate to include such a section, since that would be Original Research. That's not censorship. It's adherence to a valid policy that's in place to ensure the reliability of an article's material. Nightscream (talk) 01:45, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The entire article currently reads like an advertisement, and excising the inaccuracies section has made computer security a disfavor. Attempts to add anything that mentions the inaccuracias are actively stymied. -Mardus /talk 12:19, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Your edits were "stymied" when it appeared as if you are attempting to push your personal point of view across by adding a reception section with nothing more than "A comically awful and ridiculous[1] book that mixes and confuses simple computer terms for cryptography, computer security, network defense, Big Data, and high-tech in general." This is a "statement" that is sourced for the first half (with a blog, contrary to WP:BLOGS), entirely unsourced for the second half, and entirely personal-bias-pushing unencyclopedic in language. -- Alex^TW 13:20, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

I'll give you as much. Despite that, all of that severe criticism is correct, but remains almost exclusively on specialist blogs and elsewhere outside the realm of reputable sources. They certainly could be trade publications, but not enough waves have been made yet, that actual trade papers would pick up the story of how terrible the factual and technical accuracy of the book is. I mean, look at

• this awesome twitter thread along with replies,
• and this collection of refutations and real facts in an expert setting (Alex Kasman's subsite at College of Charleston).

-Mardus /talk 15:50, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

You say that "not enough waves have been made yet". The book was released almost two decades ago; if it hasn't made waves yet, then I very highly doubt it ever will. All those threads and collections are great and all, but the talk page is as far as they can go if they don't meet WP:RS and WP:V. This case also seems to cherry-pick only the inaccuracies of the book, and not any positive reception whatsoever. On Wikipedia, we must remain WP:NEUTRAL. -- Alex^TW 16:02, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Section on foreign language editions

Hello. A complete list of links to all foreign language wiki articles seems a bit over the top. I think a sentence saying the number of foreign language editions released would be sufficient. I can not find any featured article books with a list such as this. The note at the top of the list, referring to wikipedia, also seems odd, in that it seems unusual to talk about the project within an article. Beach drifter (talk) 16:59, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I have responded to this message here. Nightscream (talk) 03:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Even with that clarification I still kind of agree with Beach Drifter - it seems a bit excessive to list all the different languages that the book has been translated into. Just a comment in the lede saying "The book has been translated into xx different languages for publication" would seem adequate to me. a_man_alone (talk) 08:35, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

This section isn't useful. The book was translated in French but this isn't even written in Dan Brown's website. So I guess a lot of other foreign language editions are missing. Why write a list that is incorrect ? Leontrague (talk) 13:19, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Hallo everyone, okay here I am adding what I hope to be a useful contribution to the discussion about the section of foreign language editions. A few days ago I have added a link to the italian language wikipedia article "Crypto".

This was reverted by Nightscream the very same day with the motivation "Removed unsourced material by Maurice Carbonaro per WP:V, WP:NOR. (Short cuts that stand for "Verifiability" and "No Original Research" problems). I honestly didn't understand what the "No Original Research problems" could have to do with a simple link to an allready existing italian language translation version that had allready a wikipedia article about it, but, however, seems like it wasn't "verified" enough with a page footnote that could "guarantee" that this italian language translation was really existing.

So I went back on the 26th of February to re-add the link to the italian language wikipedia article with a template at the end of the line (plus minor other edits). But this was reverted again by the same user Nightscream that created the section and that IMHO seems like is patronizing it somehow.

He then posted a message on my discussion page but I noticed that somehow tension was arising. Whatever, the three revert rule (WP:3RR) has not been broken yet, but it is very close to happening, and I am now posting this on the discussion page before WP:EDITWARRING.

As stated in my user page I am not a Don Quixote and don't like (anymore) to fight against wind mills. I don't feel in the mood for posting a notice in the Edit war/3RR Noticeboard nor posting a {{uw-3rr}} template on Nightscream discussion page or whatever. As I don't want to appear like I am trying to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point.

Dear Nightscream, if you read this please assume good faith and remember that even if you created the section noone gives you the right to patronize users. Leontrague asked a specific question before this post: "Why write a list that is incorrect ?" . Not even a man alone had an answer to his post. If you are so interested in this list they should have deserved answers by you because It seems like you are watching this article section very closely. Have a nice day. Maurice Carbonaro (talk) 11:44, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Your addition was reverted because that section is for foreign language editions of the novel, and not foreign language Wikipedia articles. A list of foreign language versions of this Wikipedia article is found in the sidebar on the lefthand side of the article, just as they are in all other Wikipedia articles. It says that in the note at the top of that section, and I clarified it yet again in the Angels & Demons article talk page discussion, to which I provided a link in my February 2010 post above, and again with the message I left on your talk page, the day before you left the message above.

Despite this, this addition you added was indeed a link to to Italian language Wikipedia version of this article. You did not provide any citation of a source supporting an Italian language version of the novel, again, despite the fact that the note at the top of the section reminds editors of this, as it is required by various policies and guidelines, such as WP:Verifiability, WP:No Original Research, WP:Citing Sources, etc. When you add material to an article that is based on personal knowledge rather than a citation of a published secondary source, that is called original research, and that is the reason for citing that policy, among others. You don't add such material, or re-add it with a citation needed tag. What is the purpose of such a tag? To indicate that you want someone else to find a source for it? Why is this? If you want that material to be in the article, then you have to provide a citation of a source for it. You don't add unsourced material to an article, and then act like others have to do the legwork for you.

The list is not "incorrect". If you contend that there are other language versions that are not indicated in the list, then that would mean that it is simply incomplete. I included the versions that were supported by sources that I was able to cite. If you have sources indicating other versions, then feel free to add them.

This is not "patronizing", nor does it indicate a failure to assume good faith on my part. It is simply reflective of this site's core policies and guidelines, which you apparently have little regard for, if your referring to them as "hidden rules" is any indication. The question that Leontrague asked, on the other hand, certainly was patronizing, as is the notion that I am somehow required to answer every single rhetorical question made during a discussion. Nightscream (talk) 15:35, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi there Nightscream. I read your message on my talk page and your comment before this one. I guess I am feeling some wikistress going on this page so I will get some time off before answering you thoroughly. Please let's try to have a nice and relaxing... wiki-week-end. Maurice Carbonaro (talk) 09:50, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Spain

This is one of my favourite books, but I'm really disappointed of the Spain image in the book. I'm from Spain and I can assure you that the Spain described in the book IS NOT SPAIN, it's more similar to the poor areas of Mexico. I'm translating a section of the Spanish Wikipedia that talks about it, but I need somebody who has read the book to help me with some things. --93.156.201.185 (talk) 13:51, 8 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.156.201.185 (talk) 13:48, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

There are so many errors you don't know where to begin with...😰 Ibn Gabirol (talk) 23:02, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Strathmore the bad guy?

I don't see how Commander Strathmore is the bad guy. I know he wanted Susan, but that doesn't really count as harming her. Ensei Tankado Numataka's father Tokugen on the other hand would be for his deal with Strathmore. Luckily, the plan was foiled. Maybe, he sent one of the "sharks" to NSA's data bank to wait for his son's worm to destroy the security fields, then he could get America private secrets. The assassin Strathmore hired Hulohot could be the secondary villain. Strathmore is really the TRAGIC HERO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.10.96.51 (talk) 15:45, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Strathmore employs Hulohot with specific instructions to kill David Becker, and he kills both Chartrukian & Greg Hale himself. That seems pretty antagonistic to me. The rest of your reasoning is pretty much Original Research, I'm afraid. a_man_alone (talk) 16:30, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

It's also a violation of WP:TALK, since talk pages are for discussing ways to improve the article, and not are not forums for general discussion of the article's topic, and nowhere does the above user mention the article or anything wrong with it, as it never mentions Strathmore as a "bad guy". Nightscream (talk) 15:50, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Not strictly true - the character list states: "Commander Trevor Strathmore — NSA Deputy Director of Operations and the main antagonist" Antagonist is just another way of saying "bad guy", and if we agf then the IP is asking for "Antagonist" to be removed from his description. Which I disagree with - I think he's rotten to the core and gave examples to support. a_man_alone (talk) 16:26, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Although "protagonist" and "antagonist" may sometimes used synonymously in common parlance, they actually do not mean "good guy" and "bad guy". In strict literary terms, the antagonist is the obstacle against which the protagonist, or central character, acts within a narrative. This point comes into high relief when you consider stories whose protagonist is certainly not a "good" guy, as in films like In the Company of Men, Hannibal, Heist, or any story that focuses on a bank robber, criminal, a biography of people like Adolf Hitler or Jack the Ripper, etc. "Good" or "Bad" are value judgments, rather than objective descriptions of a character's function in a narrative. In this sense, the description of Strathmore as an antagonist is accurate, as it is free from personal value judgments. Nightscream (talk) 00:03, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

As I said - he's a bad guy. a_man_alone (talk) 08:18, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not debating that. My point is the it doesn't matter if he's good or bad, because the passage uses the more value-neutral antagonist. Nightscream (talk) 22:24, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

About the characters

We can add minor characters as well E.g. 1. The canandian old man whom David Becker meets in Spain for the ring. 2. Rocio : The prostitute whom David meets the hotel. 3. The girl who gived David the ring on the Airport.

and so on...

Also the major characters may have some more description.

E.g David Becker : A university professor on languages and the fiancé of Susan Fletcher. He is instructed to travel of Spain and retrieve the pass-key from dead Ensei Tankado. SalilSBudhe (talk) 11:36, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Caesar box redirect?

I'm sure the coding system preceded this book.... 145.100.125.133 (talk) 17:51, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Easter Egg

Shouldn't this article include (at least a mention of) the 128-10-93-85-10-128-98-112-6-6-25-126-39-1-68-78 easter egg following the epilogue? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amonroejj (talk • contribs) 01:57, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Does it appear in secondary sources? Nightscream (talk) 05:32, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

And to be honest - even if it does - is it really notable to the article, apart from more code japery? The book's so stuffed with them they begin to pall after a while. Chaheel Riens (talk) 06:39, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Inaccuracy in Nagasaki bomb math

I wanted to mark the 235->238 math on the Nagasaki bomb as innacurate. What is the WP style for doing so? even tho it is accurate to the novel, i'd appreciate grossly incorrect facts marked or footnoted in some way. e.g. (sic) or [Incorrectly...] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ameres (talk • contribs) 14:48, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Do you have a secondary source that mentions the inaccuracy, which can be cited per WP:V, WP:CS, WP:NOR/WP:SYNTH, etc.? Nightscream (talk) 22:26, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Also, even if you do have sources, they are not worthy. If we're prepared to believe in the story that TRNSLTR exists, then we should also believe everything else in the context of the novel. It all falls under suspension of belief. I would be against pointing out such things. Chaheel Riens (talk) 15:44, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Digital Fortress. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090531115511/http://www.rsa.com:80/rsalabs/node.asp?id=2227 to http://www.rsa.com/rsalabs/node.asp?id=2227

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:56, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Complicated plot

I cannot make anything out of it, needs cleanup. Rearrangement will help to understand plot better. B947116 (talk) 00:20, 20 July 2021 (UTC)