Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment I think it's reasonable, if it was accurate (Score 2) 276

The simple fact is that BitCoin is drawing a lot of mainstream media interest. Given that nobody really knows who's behind it, (and for those really suspicious of a conspiracy, what all this crowd sourced crypto is analyzing), it's certain to draw questions. Like the ST:TNG episode "Clues", we have a series of minor mysteries on our hands.

But nevertheless, it isn't clear to me that Newsweek outed the right guy. As odd as Nakamoto appeared in the article, I'm left with feeling that the reporter is the one that's acting weird.

Submission + - On the trail of online mystery Cicada 3301

joeflies writes: The Telegraph reports on Cicada 3301, an online mystery that's built like a Dan Brown novel, testing knowledge of obscure books, history, stenography, and cryptography. Whether it's an elaborate alternate reality game or a recruitment tool, it's still unknown who's behind it and where it all leads.

Comment Strangely enough, it's still probably safer (Score 1) 138

Based on what I understand of the FIPS process (which is little, admittedly), the whole exercise to put your crypto under the microscope results in eliminating a number of coding mistakes and implementation problems. So even if the algorithms themeselves are potentially weakened (we don't know ), a FIPS approved product that's had 3rd party scrutiny is probably still better off than one that wasn't, due to cleaning up implementation issues with the keys, random numbers and algorithms.

Comment the biggest issue I see (Score 1) 380

is that this experience annoyed so many people, a lot of people will turn the feature off. Then when a real alert that affects a large population comes out, such as a Shelter in Place alert, a lot of people won't get the message.

The emergency system should only be used for disasters, not for amber alerts. I personally received the exact same alert 5 times.

Comment Contradiction (Score 2) 116

"The most common requests came from police investigating crimes or searching for people". Searching for people would mean that each request would affect one account. 4,000-5,000 requests affecting 10,000 accounts implies that each request touched on average two accounts (a caller and a recipient?). In addition, it doesn't say how much data was slurped out of each request either - is it a particular imessage or a whole dump of all imessage records, or is it tapping all imessages to come?

Slashdot Top Deals

"You'll pay to know what you really think." -- J.R. "Bob" Dobbs

Working...