Hi people i have created a code and have encrypted a word with it, i am
posting that word here, i would like to see if there is anyone out there
that can crack it, if you have cracked it please email me the word you think
it is...
Cypher:
4F/Y7E8G#X"M5J0Z9I^V
from
phil
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.718 / Virus Database: 474 - Release Date: 09/07/2004
Cette action est irreversible, confirmez la suppression du commentaire ?
Signaler le commentaire
Veuillez sélectionner un problème
Nudité
Violence
Harcèlement
Fraude
Vente illégale
Discours haineux
Terrorisme
Autre
Roland
Je ne comprends pas comment, sans avoir d'idée sur le texte en clair ou sur le code, on peut déchiffrer cela. Ce soit disant "cypher" ne se distingue pas d'une suite alétoire de caractères Ou alors je me trompe...
Phil Croft wrote:
Hi people i have created a code and have encrypted a word with it, i am posting that word here, i would like to see if there is anyone out there that can crack it, if you have cracked it please email me the word you think it is...
Cypher: 4F/Y7E8G#X"M5J0Z9I^V
from
phil
--- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.718 / Virus Database: 474 - Release Date: 09/07/2004
Je ne comprends pas comment, sans avoir d'idée sur le texte en clair ou
sur le code, on peut déchiffrer cela.
Ce soit disant "cypher" ne se distingue pas d'une suite alétoire de
caractères
Ou alors je me trompe...
Phil Croft wrote:
Hi people i have created a code and have encrypted a word with it, i am
posting that word here, i would like to see if there is anyone out there
that can crack it, if you have cracked it please email me the word you think
it is...
Cypher:
4F/Y7E8G#X"M5J0Z9I^V
from
phil
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.718 / Virus Database: 474 - Release Date: 09/07/2004
Je ne comprends pas comment, sans avoir d'idée sur le texte en clair ou sur le code, on peut déchiffrer cela. Ce soit disant "cypher" ne se distingue pas d'une suite alétoire de caractères Ou alors je me trompe...
Phil Croft wrote:
Hi people i have created a code and have encrypted a word with it, i am posting that word here, i would like to see if there is anyone out there that can crack it, if you have cracked it please email me the word you think it is...
Cypher: 4F/Y7E8G#X"M5J0Z9I^V
from
phil
--- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.718 / Virus Database: 474 - Release Date: 09/07/2004
Phil Croft
hi the word was encoded with a code i have just made up and have made a computer program to encode and decode, the text that i have given here is a sample of the code which if you can decode will have a word, if you can decode the text and know what the word is please email me,
i am not likely to give you a plai text or anything other, as other people ie the ENIGMA machine all we had was pages and pages of code and no plain text,
4F/Y7E8G#X"M5J0Z9I^V
please try and decode the word above and email me if you no what the word is.
"Phil Croft" wrote in message news:ViYIc.166$
Hi people i have created a code and have encrypted a word with it, i am posting that word here, i would like to see if there is anyone out there that can crack it, if you have cracked it please email me the word you think
it is...
Cypher: 4F/Y7E8G#X"M5J0Z9I^V
from
phil
--- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.718 / Virus Database: 474 - Release Date: 09/07/2004
--- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.718 / Virus Database: 474 - Release Date: 09/07/2004
hi the word was encoded with a code i have just made up and have made a
computer program to encode and decode, the text that i have given here is a
sample of the code which if you can decode will have a word, if you can
decode the text and know what the word is please email me,
i am not likely to give you a plai text or anything other, as other people
ie the ENIGMA machine all we had was pages and pages of code and no plain
text,
4F/Y7E8G#X"M5J0Z9I^V
please try and decode the word above and email me if you no what the word
is.
"Phil Croft" <trek19832000@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ViYIc.166$3E6.13@newsfe2-win.ntli.net...
Hi people i have created a code and have encrypted a word with it, i am
posting that word here, i would like to see if there is anyone out there
that can crack it, if you have cracked it please email me the word you
think
it is...
Cypher:
4F/Y7E8G#X"M5J0Z9I^V
from
phil
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.718 / Virus Database: 474 - Release Date: 09/07/2004
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.718 / Virus Database: 474 - Release Date: 09/07/2004
hi the word was encoded with a code i have just made up and have made a computer program to encode and decode, the text that i have given here is a sample of the code which if you can decode will have a word, if you can decode the text and know what the word is please email me,
i am not likely to give you a plai text or anything other, as other people ie the ENIGMA machine all we had was pages and pages of code and no plain text,
4F/Y7E8G#X"M5J0Z9I^V
please try and decode the word above and email me if you no what the word is.
"Phil Croft" wrote in message news:ViYIc.166$
Hi people i have created a code and have encrypted a word with it, i am posting that word here, i would like to see if there is anyone out there that can crack it, if you have cracked it please email me the word you think
it is...
Cypher: 4F/Y7E8G#X"M5J0Z9I^V
from
phil
--- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.718 / Virus Database: 474 - Release Date: 09/07/2004
--- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.718 / Virus Database: 474 - Release Date: 09/07/2004
Jacques Caron
On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 14:07:10 GMT, Phil Croft wrote:
i am not likely to give you a plai text or anything other, as other people ie the ENIGMA machine all we had was pages and pages of code and no plain text,
4F/Y7E8G#X"M5J0Z9I^V
please try and decode the word above and email me if you no what the word is.
The word is "duh". Your encoding is not very efficient, BTW ;->
Let's be serious: giving one short sample of an encoded message (I won't even say encrypted) and no other information, and not having anybody being able to decode it does not mean your encoding is worth anything at all. I can give you many such samples, where no one will *ever* be able to find the plaintext, even though the encoding is completely flawed.
Cryptanalysis does not mean decoding a short sample. It means studying lots of samples (as you said, people who broke the Enigma code had *pages and pages* of code) and an idea of the message (they may not have had the plaintext, but they new what the plaintext looked like: words, phrases, etc.). If you have only one short sample and no idea of what the plaintext might be, there is *no way* to decode it, but it doesn't mean *anything*.
Obviously, the more data you have to work with, the easier it gets (doesn't mean it's easy, but relatively it gets easier), so the strength of an algorithm is measured over time, not on a single word...
Jacques. -- Interactive Media Factory Création, développement et hébergement de services interactifs: SMS, SMS+, Audiotel... http://www.imfeurope.com/
On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 14:07:10 GMT, Phil Croft <trek19832000@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:
i am not likely to give you a plai text or anything other, as other
people ie the ENIGMA machine all we had was pages and pages of code
and no plain text,
4F/Y7E8G#X"M5J0Z9I^V
please try and decode the word above and email me if you no what the word
is.
The word is "duh". Your encoding is not very efficient, BTW ;->
Let's be serious: giving one short sample of an encoded message (I won't
even say encrypted) and no other information, and not having anybody being
able to decode it does not mean your encoding is worth anything at all. I
can give you many such samples, where no one will *ever* be able to find
the plaintext, even though the encoding is completely flawed.
Cryptanalysis does not mean decoding a short sample. It means studying
lots of samples (as you said, people who broke the Enigma code had *pages
and pages* of code) and an idea of the message (they may not have had the
plaintext, but they new what the plaintext looked like: words, phrases,
etc.). If you have only one short sample and no idea of what the plaintext
might be, there is *no way* to decode it, but it doesn't mean *anything*.
Obviously, the more data you have to work with, the easier it gets
(doesn't mean it's easy, but relatively it gets easier), so the strength
of an algorithm is measured over time, not on a single word...
Jacques.
--
Interactive Media Factory
Création, développement et hébergement
de services interactifs: SMS, SMS+, Audiotel...
http://www.imfeurope.com/
On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 14:07:10 GMT, Phil Croft wrote:
i am not likely to give you a plai text or anything other, as other people ie the ENIGMA machine all we had was pages and pages of code and no plain text,
4F/Y7E8G#X"M5J0Z9I^V
please try and decode the word above and email me if you no what the word is.
The word is "duh". Your encoding is not very efficient, BTW ;->
Let's be serious: giving one short sample of an encoded message (I won't even say encrypted) and no other information, and not having anybody being able to decode it does not mean your encoding is worth anything at all. I can give you many such samples, where no one will *ever* be able to find the plaintext, even though the encoding is completely flawed.
Cryptanalysis does not mean decoding a short sample. It means studying lots of samples (as you said, people who broke the Enigma code had *pages and pages* of code) and an idea of the message (they may not have had the plaintext, but they new what the plaintext looked like: words, phrases, etc.). If you have only one short sample and no idea of what the plaintext might be, there is *no way* to decode it, but it doesn't mean *anything*.
Obviously, the more data you have to work with, the easier it gets (doesn't mean it's easy, but relatively it gets easier), so the strength of an algorithm is measured over time, not on a single word...
Jacques. -- Interactive Media Factory Création, développement et hébergement de services interactifs: SMS, SMS+, Audiotel... http://www.imfeurope.com/
Phil Croft
well you decoding of the word is wrong,
but i do understand what you said in you messeage,
anyway if you can crack the code let me no i choose a common word with a lot the same letters and long'ish to make it a bit easyer.
anyway cheers,
"Jacques Caron" wrote in message news:
On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 14:07:10 GMT, Phil Croft wrote:
i am not likely to give you a plai text or anything other, as other people ie the ENIGMA machine all we had was pages and pages of code and no plain text,
4F/Y7E8G#X"M5J0Z9I^V
please try and decode the word above and email me if you no what the word
is.
The word is "duh". Your encoding is not very efficient, BTW ;->
Let's be serious: giving one short sample of an encoded message (I won't even say encrypted) and no other information, and not having anybody being able to decode it does not mean your encoding is worth anything at all. I can give you many such samples, where no one will *ever* be able to find the plaintext, even though the encoding is completely flawed.
Cryptanalysis does not mean decoding a short sample. It means studying lots of samples (as you said, people who broke the Enigma code had *pages and pages* of code) and an idea of the message (they may not have had the plaintext, but they new what the plaintext looked like: words, phrases, etc.). If you have only one short sample and no idea of what the plaintext might be, there is *no way* to decode it, but it doesn't mean *anything*.
Obviously, the more data you have to work with, the easier it gets (doesn't mean it's easy, but relatively it gets easier), so the strength of an algorithm is measured over time, not on a single word...
Jacques. -- Interactive Media Factory Création, développement et hébergement de services interactifs: SMS, SMS+, Audiotel... http://www.imfeurope.com/
--- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.718 / Virus Database: 474 - Release Date: 09/07/2004
well you decoding of the word is wrong,
but i do understand what you said in you messeage,
anyway if you can crack the code let me no i choose a common word with a lot
the same letters and long'ish to make it a bit easyer.
anyway cheers,
"Jacques Caron" <jc@imfeurope.com> wrote in message
news:opsa4ve0ljzscttn@news.free.fr...
On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 14:07:10 GMT, Phil Croft <trek19832000@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:
i am not likely to give you a plai text or anything other, as other
people ie the ENIGMA machine all we had was pages and pages of code
and no plain text,
4F/Y7E8G#X"M5J0Z9I^V
please try and decode the word above and email me if you no what the
word
is.
The word is "duh". Your encoding is not very efficient, BTW ;->
Let's be serious: giving one short sample of an encoded message (I won't
even say encrypted) and no other information, and not having anybody being
able to decode it does not mean your encoding is worth anything at all. I
can give you many such samples, where no one will *ever* be able to find
the plaintext, even though the encoding is completely flawed.
Cryptanalysis does not mean decoding a short sample. It means studying
lots of samples (as you said, people who broke the Enigma code had *pages
and pages* of code) and an idea of the message (they may not have had the
plaintext, but they new what the plaintext looked like: words, phrases,
etc.). If you have only one short sample and no idea of what the plaintext
might be, there is *no way* to decode it, but it doesn't mean *anything*.
Obviously, the more data you have to work with, the easier it gets
(doesn't mean it's easy, but relatively it gets easier), so the strength
of an algorithm is measured over time, not on a single word...
Jacques.
--
Interactive Media Factory
Création, développement et hébergement
de services interactifs: SMS, SMS+, Audiotel...
http://www.imfeurope.com/
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.718 / Virus Database: 474 - Release Date: 09/07/2004
but i do understand what you said in you messeage,
anyway if you can crack the code let me no i choose a common word with a lot the same letters and long'ish to make it a bit easyer.
anyway cheers,
"Jacques Caron" wrote in message news:
On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 14:07:10 GMT, Phil Croft wrote:
i am not likely to give you a plai text or anything other, as other people ie the ENIGMA machine all we had was pages and pages of code and no plain text,
4F/Y7E8G#X"M5J0Z9I^V
please try and decode the word above and email me if you no what the word
is.
The word is "duh". Your encoding is not very efficient, BTW ;->
Let's be serious: giving one short sample of an encoded message (I won't even say encrypted) and no other information, and not having anybody being able to decode it does not mean your encoding is worth anything at all. I can give you many such samples, where no one will *ever* be able to find the plaintext, even though the encoding is completely flawed.
Cryptanalysis does not mean decoding a short sample. It means studying lots of samples (as you said, people who broke the Enigma code had *pages and pages* of code) and an idea of the message (they may not have had the plaintext, but they new what the plaintext looked like: words, phrases, etc.). If you have only one short sample and no idea of what the plaintext might be, there is *no way* to decode it, but it doesn't mean *anything*.
Obviously, the more data you have to work with, the easier it gets (doesn't mean it's easy, but relatively it gets easier), so the strength of an algorithm is measured over time, not on a single word...
Jacques. -- Interactive Media Factory Création, développement et hébergement de services interactifs: SMS, SMS+, Audiotel... http://www.imfeurope.com/
--- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.718 / Virus Database: 474 - Release Date: 09/07/2004
Jacques Caron
On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 20:30:01 GMT, Phil Croft wrote:
but i do understand what you said in you messeage,
anyway if you can crack the code let me no i choose a common word with a lot the same letters and long'ish to make it a bit easyer.
Seems like you didn't actually understand what I wrote. I can find lots of words that might, or might not, match the plaintext. There is not enough information to know that. The bare minimum to actually know you have "found" it is to have at least two encoded results, so one can check that the algorithm used on the first one to "decode" it works on the second. And, again, the fact that nobody will find the result with one or two results doesn't mean the encoding is safe in any way. Only experience (i.e. lots of attemps on lots of cyphertext) will be able to tell if the encryption is solid or not.
Also, one thing about Enigma (and many other broken encryption systems)... You say those who decoded it only had the encoded version. That's not true. On top of having a faint idea of the structure of the plaintext (text) and of its contents (words that do exist), a common method is to trigger the inclusion of known plaintext. You make sure your opponent knows of some specific event or place or person or anything else with a name that will be transmitted, and you try to find it in the cyphertext.
You should read a bit about cryptanalysis before launching such meaningless challenges...
Jacques. -- Interactive Media Factory Création, développement et hébergement de services interactifs: SMS, SMS+, Audiotel... http://www.imfeurope.com/
On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 20:30:01 GMT, Phil Croft <trek19832000@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:
but i do understand what you said in you messeage,
anyway if you can crack the code let me no i choose a common word with a
lot the same letters and long'ish to make it a bit easyer.
Seems like you didn't actually understand what I wrote. I can find lots of
words that might, or might not, match the plaintext. There is not enough
information to know that. The bare minimum to actually know you have
"found" it is to have at least two encoded results, so one can check that
the algorithm used on the first one to "decode" it works on the second.
And, again, the fact that nobody will find the result with one or two
results doesn't mean the encoding is safe in any way. Only experience
(i.e. lots of attemps on lots of cyphertext) will be able to tell if the
encryption is solid or not.
Also, one thing about Enigma (and many other broken encryption systems)...
You say those who decoded it only had the encoded version. That's not
true. On top of having a faint idea of the structure of the plaintext
(text) and of its contents (words that do exist), a common method is to
trigger the inclusion of known plaintext. You make sure your opponent
knows of some specific event or place or person or anything else with a
name that will be transmitted, and you try to find it in the cyphertext.
You should read a bit about cryptanalysis before launching such
meaningless challenges...
Jacques.
--
Interactive Media Factory
Création, développement et hébergement
de services interactifs: SMS, SMS+, Audiotel...
http://www.imfeurope.com/
On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 20:30:01 GMT, Phil Croft wrote:
but i do understand what you said in you messeage,
anyway if you can crack the code let me no i choose a common word with a lot the same letters and long'ish to make it a bit easyer.
Seems like you didn't actually understand what I wrote. I can find lots of words that might, or might not, match the plaintext. There is not enough information to know that. The bare minimum to actually know you have "found" it is to have at least two encoded results, so one can check that the algorithm used on the first one to "decode" it works on the second. And, again, the fact that nobody will find the result with one or two results doesn't mean the encoding is safe in any way. Only experience (i.e. lots of attemps on lots of cyphertext) will be able to tell if the encryption is solid or not.
Also, one thing about Enigma (and many other broken encryption systems)... You say those who decoded it only had the encoded version. That's not true. On top of having a faint idea of the structure of the plaintext (text) and of its contents (words that do exist), a common method is to trigger the inclusion of known plaintext. You make sure your opponent knows of some specific event or place or person or anything else with a name that will be transmitted, and you try to find it in the cyphertext.
You should read a bit about cryptanalysis before launching such meaningless challenges...
Jacques. -- Interactive Media Factory Création, développement et hébergement de services interactifs: SMS, SMS+, Audiotel... http://www.imfeurope.com/
Serge Paccalin
Le jeudi 15 juillet 2004 à 00:15:36, Jacques Caron a écrit dans fr.misc.cryptologie :
On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 20:30:01 GMT, Phil Croft wrote:
[des trucs dans la langue des maîtres]
Bon, vous êtes gentils, tous, mais c'est un forum francophone, ici. Si vous tenez à parler de crypto en anglais, sci.crypt vous tend les bras. Merci.
-- ___________ 2004-07-15 07:33:41 _/ _ _`_`_`_) Serge PACCALIN -- sp ad mailclub.net _L_) Il faut donc que les hommes commencent -'(__) par n'être pas fanatiques pour mériter _/___(_) la tolérance. -- Voltaire, 1763
Le jeudi 15 juillet 2004 à 00:15:36, Jacques Caron a écrit dans
fr.misc.cryptologie :
On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 20:30:01 GMT, Phil Croft <trek19832000@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:
[des trucs dans la langue des maîtres]
Bon, vous êtes gentils, tous, mais c'est un forum francophone, ici. Si
vous tenez à parler de crypto en anglais, sci.crypt vous tend les bras.
Merci.
--
___________ 2004-07-15 07:33:41
_/ _ _`_`_`_) Serge PACCALIN -- sp ad mailclub.net
_L_) Il faut donc que les hommes commencent
-'(__) par n'être pas fanatiques pour mériter
_/___(_) la tolérance. -- Voltaire, 1763
Le jeudi 15 juillet 2004 à 00:15:36, Jacques Caron a écrit dans fr.misc.cryptologie :
On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 20:30:01 GMT, Phil Croft wrote:
[des trucs dans la langue des maîtres]
Bon, vous êtes gentils, tous, mais c'est un forum francophone, ici. Si vous tenez à parler de crypto en anglais, sci.crypt vous tend les bras. Merci.
-- ___________ 2004-07-15 07:33:41 _/ _ _`_`_`_) Serge PACCALIN -- sp ad mailclub.net _L_) Il faut donc que les hommes commencent -'(__) par n'être pas fanatiques pour mériter _/___(_) la tolérance. -- Voltaire, 1763
