Earlier quoted context omitted.
How do you get there? You have a message text and you have a cipher text and you have an algorithm to go from one to the other. Seems like a cipher to me.
It's splitting hairs to make a distinction, but a cipher has an intended recipient and potential eavesdroppers, whereas a puzzle has no known recipient other than the potential eavesdroppers. A good cipher has to be readable by the intended recipient, and not by eavesdroppers, whereas a good puzzle cannot be impossible to crack. In that sense, DRM is a sort of anti-puzzle, as the intended recipients are treated as th…
Famous cryptographers’ tombstone cryptogram decrypted
21–30 of 39 posts
Re: Famous cryptographers’ tombstone cryptogram decrypted
#22Re: Famous cryptographers’ tombstone cryptogram decrypted
#23also, a book just came out about Elizebeth Friedman and how a lot of her contributions to cryptology and the birth of sigint in general have been erased from histroy: https://www.amazon.com/Woman-Who-Smashed-Codes-Outwitted-ebo... it's supposed to be very good, but I just started it last night so don't have much of an opinion yet.
Re: Famous cryptographers’ tombstone cryptogram decrypted
#24Earlier quoted context omitted.
A decent threshold test is Kerckhoffs's principle.
Okay, read up on Kerckhoff. I realize that when I talk about ciphers I don't distinguish between those which are easily reversed and those which are difficult to reverse. Kerckhoff was really concerned with cryptographic systems as a whole but his first principle that "The system must be practically, if not mathematically, indecipherable." would seem to be a function of the environment and the adversary. To illustrat…
I think the point downthread, about cryptograms being designed deliberately so that unrelated readers might eventually have some hope of figuring them out, adds nicely to the definition.
Re: Famous cryptographers’ tombstone cryptogram decrypted
#25Anyone know why Twitter blocks any attempt to tweet this URL?
Re: Famous cryptographers’ tombstone cryptogram decrypted
#26Anyone know why Twitter blocks any attempt to tweet this URL?
Works for me, wait... are you from sophos?
And LOL, not from Sophos. I assumed it was because it had the word "naked" in the URL, but it was odd because I attempted to tweet it many times and it failed UNTIL I used the google amp version of the URL.
Re: Famous cryptographers’ tombstone cryptogram decrypted
#27Re: Famous cryptographers’ tombstone cryptogram decrypted
#28Earlier quoted context omitted.
Okay, read up on Kerckhoff. I realize that when I talk about ciphers I don't distinguish between those which are easily reversed and those which are difficult to reverse. Kerckhoff was really concerned with cryptographic systems as a whole but his first principle that "The system must be practically, if not mathematically, indecipherable." would seem to be a function of the environment and the adversary. To illustrat…
The conventional way to look at it would be to call rotation ciphers toy ciphers. They ostensibly depend on a key (the rotation) but fall apart trivially even without them. I think the point downthread, about cryptograms being designed deliberately so that unrelated readers might eventually have some hope of figuring them out, adds nicely to the definition.
> It is unknown how effective the Caesar cipher was at the time, but it is likely to have been reasonably secure, not least because most of Caesar's enemies would have been illiterate and others would have assumed that the messages were written in an unknown foreign language.
So perhaps it’s best to think of it as a real cipher that was obsoleted by technological advances... much as modern ciphers can be obsoleted by advances in cryptanalytic techniques or computer hardware.
For a more modern example you could consider Navajo code talkers in WWII. As I just learned (you might know way more about this than me :), the code talkers weren’t just translating their messages into the Navajo language; rather, they typically spelled out English text using one code word per letter. Thus, what they did can definitely be seen as a cipher, in more than just the vague sense of a way to keep a message secret. And the list of code words could be seen as a key... but only to some extent. If they had just invented a word-per-letter code in English, the enemy would have been able to write down the words, and perhaps ultimately decipher the code using frequency analysis, which was a well-known technique at that point. Much of the code’s security rather depended on the use of the Navajo language, which was tonally complex, had few speakers, and had no published dictionaries at the time. These are all factors that don’t follow Kerckhoff’s principle: if the enemy had obtained Navajo speakers and proceeded to decipher the code, rekeying with a new word list wouldn’t have brought back the original level of security.
Of course, the scheme would not stand up well to modern computer-based techniques, and if used today would have to mostly be considered a toy cipher. But in its original historical context it was not a toy.
(And on the flipside, there are other historical ciphers that are just as obsolete thanks to computers, but did follow Kerckhoff’s principle with respect to attacks available at the time - such as the Enigma machine.)
Re: Famous cryptographers’ tombstone cryptogram decrypted
#29My nit here would be that these things aren't "ciphers" so much as they are "puzzles".
Re: Famous cryptographers’ tombstone cryptogram decrypted
#30At first glance, having no information on this other than a title and an image, I assumed there was some data encoded in the odd pattern on the flags at the top of the tombstone. I then read through the article waiting to learn what was there, and of course it was never mentioned. A google search turned up a higher-resolution photo of the tombstone: http://elonka.com/friedman/Tombstone.JPG The lines on the flags appe…