Slashdot Mirror


IBM using Napoleon Dynamite Quote to Encrypt Data

schmack writes "A developer discovers a quote from the movie Napoleon Dynamite is being used as the cipher key by IBM to publish encrypted XML at this year's Wimbledon grand slam. But is this a rather glaring lapse in security or an easter egg for curious hackers, many of whom would surely be fans of the quirky movie?"

5 of 170 comments (clear)

  1. Let me be the first to say... by ChePibe · · Score: 5, Funny

    Idiots!

  2. Preemptive Questioning Your Own Answers by soloport · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It was totally retarded, why do people like it?

    Look, it's all right there:
    Q. Why do people like it?
    A. It was totally retarded.

    You're, uh, one step away from Yoda-speak.

  3. Re:What is with that movie? by athakur999 · · Score: 5, Funny
    It was totally retarded, why do people like it?


    roman_mir, don't be jealous that I've been chatting online with babes, all day. Besides, we both know I'm training to become a cage fighter.

    --
    "People that quote themselves in their signatures bother me" - athakur999
  4. Re:Huh? by hyfe · · Score: 5, Insightful
    If a project doesn't require strong encryption, does it require encryption at all?

    Of course it does. The lock to your house is most certainly breakable. Does that mean you should throw away the door?

    Weak'ish encryption protects you against untargetted attacks, such as network-snooping. Anybody doing untargetted attacks are probably going to have massive amount of data to search through. Even the most simplistic encryption algorithm involving keys is going to force the attacker to include state-information in his application.. which as we all is just plain painfull on high-traffic networks.

    --
    "" How about taking the safety labels off everything, and let the stupidity-problem solve itself? """
  5. Re:Huh? by DerekLyons · · Score: 5, Insightful
    If a project doesn't require strong encryption, does it require encryption at all?

    Yes.
     
    It's a common misconception that encryption is supposed to be 'unbreakable' (for some large value of 'unbreakable'), in all instances. In the real world of security (I.E. DoD etc...) it's quite common to have the complexity and difficulty of the cipher or code to match the 'speed value' (to coin a term) of the information. For example, diplomatic messages need to be kept hidden essentially forever - thus strong encryption. Tactical communications between Army formations or Navy ships can have a much lesser grade of encryption applied because their value is almost always rendered moot before they can be broken.
     
    The 'need' for ultra-strong, resist-attack forever grade encryption for personal use is an artifact of the (not uncommon) geek need to be [bigger|faster|stronger] than anyone else when it comes to computer stuff.