Yesterday, Mark Zuckerberg joined the ranks of the digitally violated after an alleged hacker broke into his Facebook fan page ... to post the world's most mundane rant.

An update, seemingly from Zuck himself, read: "Let the hacking begin: If facebook needs money, instead of going to the banks, why doesn't Facebook let its users invest in Facebook in a social way? Why not transform Facebook into a social business' the way Nobel Price winner Muhammad Yunus described it?

What do you think? #hackercup2011"

The message seems to be in response to the recent Facebook-Goldman deal, which could bring in up to 750 new investors all grouped together as one fund through Goldman, and ultimately, bring about a soon-to-be publicly traded Facebook. The recent mysterious status was deleted soon after it was discovered, but not before it garnered more than 1,800 likes and nearly 500 comments (says Tech Crunch).

Does this point to specific Facebook insecurities? Yes and no. All that's needed to login to a Facebook account is an email address and a password - and today, that's not enough. Though personal social feeds typically contain very little sensitive information about the user, their potential as a reputation slasher is undeniably high. So why don't we safeguard our images as carefully as we do, say, our bank accounts? It's not like the online security options aren't already there.

Banks deploy software that will "remember" your home or work computer, allowing users to enter their username/password combination for entry, but will ask for further information each time you log in from a new machine. A one-time TAN (transaction authorization number) is issued, either via e-mail or text message, allowing for a secure login. If it won't take Zuck himself being hacked to launch a better security system, who knows what will.