×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

158 comments

No point in... (5, Funny)

fyngyrz (762201) | about a year ago | (#42308409)

...squabbling about this.

Makes some sense (4, Interesting)

MichaelSmith (789609) | about a year ago | (#42308425)

If you are in enemy territory sending messages back to your headquarters you want to be able to encode quickly and move fast to avoid capture. If the pidgeon is caught it is going to give away your position (somewhat) regardless of whether its message is decrypted so the strength of the crypto may not be so important to you.

These guys are killing me. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42308447)

The message - which attracted world-wide media attention - was put in the hands of Britain's top codebreakers at GCHQ at the beginning of November, but they have been unable to unlock the puzzle.

Isn't there old code books in museums anywhere?

He believes that the message is comprised mostly of acronyms."

Or it's another code, perhaps?

Re:These guys are killing me. (4, Funny)

tysonedwards (969693) | about a year ago | (#42308627)

"Things to do: Stop milk, pay papers, invade Czechoslovakia!"

Re:These guys are killing me. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42309487)

"Crisps sandwiches?!"

Re:These guys are killing me. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42309817)

banana and crisps!

Well, duh (4, Interesting)

WegianWarrior (649800) | about a year ago | (#42308457)

Gord Young, from Peterborough, in Ontario, says it took him 17 minutes to decypher the message after realising a code book he inherited was the key.

Not hard to "crack" a code if you have access to the relevant code book - which a) GCHQ says they don't have, and b) can hardly be called cracking the code. The possible point of failure is - as I'm sure I'm not the only one to spot - if Mr Young has the wrong codebook; codes got shifted and shuffled a lot, and the wrong code book might give a plausible plain text that is never the less incorrect.

Gonna be fun to see what more comes of this.

Re:Well, duh (5, Insightful)

Neil_Brown (1568845) | about a year ago | (#42308491)

Not hard to "crack" a code if you have access to the relevant code book

It was not a "code book" in any traditional sense of the term, at least in a crypto context — the message, according to this solution, was simply heavily-abbreviated plaintext.

It seems that "txtspk" actually originated from pigeon messaging :)

Re:Well, duh (2)

ceoyoyo (59147) | about a year ago | (#42308657)

That is precisely what a code book is. A "code" is a system of substituting letters or words for other letters or words. The one he's proposed is fairly simple but it's still a code.

Re:Well, duh (3, Interesting)

SomePgmr (2021234) | about a year ago | (#42308931)

I suppose so, but only as much as "wtf", "lol", and "brb" could be considered encrypted communications.

I think it's pretty neat that the history buff figured out what it was, complete with historical context of who sent it, from where, what he was doing, etc. That's what makes that stuff interesting.

Re:Well, duh (1)

harlequinn (909271) | about a year ago | (#42309041)

Show those three acronyms to someone who doesn't use computers - they probably won't know wtf you're talking about. They didn't have an internet in the 1930s/40s to look them up on. If the code has stumped code breakers now - maybe it stumped the opposing code breakers back then as well.

Re:Well, duh (1)

SomePgmr (2021234) | about a year ago | (#42309123)

I don't disagree... it's fair point. I'd just say it's excusable to refer to it either way.

This reminds me a bit of those Navajo (and other Native American) "code talkers", though I think they did employ some modest obfuscation on top of the languages.

Re:Well, duh (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42309201)

dammit now I need to change my cipher, thanks a lot.

Re:Well, duh (5, Funny)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about a year ago | (#42308803)

It seems that "txtspk" actually originated from pigeon messaging :)

I believe it's called pidgin messaging. *ducks*

Re:Well, duh (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42310389)

No ducks. Pigeons.

Re:Well, duh (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42308809)

Not hard to "crack" a code if you have access to the relevant code book

It was not a "code book" in any traditional sense of the term, at least in a crypto context — the message, according to this solution, was simply heavily-abbreviated plaintext.

It seems that "txtspk" actually originated from pigeon messaging :)

You do realize that codebook and coded information has meaning outside of cryptography right? Wikipedia lowers intelligence, I swear.

Re:Well, duh (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42309135)

I don't think that is what the article says. The pictured message appears to be encoded in the manner used at the time. I interpreted Mr. Young's statements as meaning that the message, once decoded to plain text, is itself largely composed of acronyms.

Re:Well, duh (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42309907)

Did you even read the article? Part way through in a box on the right they say what several the 5 letter phrases mean and they are more or less acronyms.

Re:Well, duh (4, Insightful)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about a year ago | (#42308499)

Yep, "it's a bunch of acronyms", i.e. a bunch of random letters, is suspicious. Unless they line up with known shorthand, it's probably not actually decrrypted.

Re:Well, duh (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42308509)

This appears to be a rare case of the slashdot title and summary being more accurate than the original article. Yes, it was decrypted, not cracked.

Re:Well, duh (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42308515)

You forgot the part where the code was declared uncrackable. If a message is declared uncrackable and some guy from Ontario not only proves otherwise but also does so in 17 minutes, that's significant.

Re:Well, duh (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42308539)

Only if he actually did crack it. From what it sounds, in the best case what he did is decrypt it (i.e. using the key), not crack it.

Re:Well, duh (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42308517)

He cracked the book open and amazingly managed to read it (no mean feat for todays youth)

Re:Well, duh (0)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | about a year ago | (#42308655)

GCHQ says they don't have

Of course they are going to say that they don't have it, even if they do. They wouldn't even want to reveal methods that they were using back then. Maybe some those methods are still in use in Numbers Stations today: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numbers_station [wikipedia.org]

Seeing how they did it in the past, might give some clues on how they do it today. Even if the content is useless today, the process of cracking the messages would be a useful exercise for foreign spooks. The Americans and the Russians probably have piles of these messages, which they captured from the Germans.

In the spy cryptography business, mum's the word.

Re:Well, duh (2)

ntropia (939502) | about a year ago | (#42308667)

Not hard to "crack" a code if you have access to the relevant code book

Basically:
IDKFA
IDDQD

Re:Well, duh (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42309683)

Not hard to "crack" a code if you have access to the relevant code book

Basically:

        IDKFA

        IDDQD

IDSPISPOPD :P

OMG WTF BBQ? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42308479)

OMG (oh my god) TIAAS (this is amazing and shit). BTW (by the way) IANAL (I am not a lawyer) ATINLA (and this is not legal advice).

Also, I pissed in your coffee. But your coffee is so bad anyway, I probably improved the flavour.

It *would* be 'Gord' (2)

DarrenBaker (322210) | about a year ago | (#42308507)

Canada's singularity will be when all of us are named Gord. I figure we're about five years away.

Re:It *would* be 'Gord' (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42308791)

It's a gord name.

Re:It *would* be 'Gord' (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42309011)

Oh gord heavens.

Re:It *would* be 'Gord' (1)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | about a year ago | (#42308971)

I know nothing about singularities in Canada, but I'm convinced that we'll have to invade Canada soon, and confiscate all the old, obsolete code books.

Anyway - I thought the singularity was supposed to originate in India. Or, maybe it was England. Crap, who cares where it originates - let's just invade EVERYWHERE, so that we can head it off!

Re:It *would* be 'Gord' (1)

Kittenman (971447) | about a year ago | (#42309523)

Canada's singularity will be when all of us are named Gord. I figure we're about five years away.

Gord help us

All I have to say is... (4, Funny)

nuckfuts (690967) | about a year ago | (#42308527)

atyeu ushtr tasga poend
stsgd yyenb shjdm plkag

Re:All I have to say is... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42310323)

atyeu ushtr tasga poend

stsgd yyenb shjdm plkag

You Keep Using That Word, I Do Not Think It Means What You Think It Means ..

Too generic (5, Insightful)

Dan East (318230) | about a year ago | (#42308569)

I don't believe this is a correct "interpretation" of the message, as it is too generic. Nothing contained in the message is of any use whatsoever. "Hit Jerry’s right or reserve battery here", "Troops, panzers, batteries, engineers, here", "Counter measures against panzers not working", "Go over field notes", "Found headquarters infantry right here"

What good is any of that? Where is "here"? There would have to be precise coordinates or grid numbers to indicate exactly what is where.

The other question is where would the pigeon be delivering this message to? All the way back to some headquarters in Britain is where. In that case the context of the message is even less useful, especially considering there would be a several hour delay before the message could be delivered all the way from France to Britain.

More information on these sites, includes the various "decoded" phrases.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/12/16/world-war-2-pigeon-code-cracked_n_2311364.html [huffingtonpost.co.uk]
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2248818/Hit-Jerrys-panzers--code-dead-wartime-pigeon-cracked.html [dailymail.co.uk]

Re:Too generic (4, Insightful)

MichaelSmith (789609) | about a year ago | (#42308623)

Maybe "here" is known to the recipient, but the sender doesn't want to include it in the message. He was sent to a location and is reporting on his findings.

Re:Too generic (2)

interval1066 (668936) | about a year ago | (#42308915)

It may have been known to which unit the pigeon was assigned, yeah? So perhaps the recipient knew where "here" was?

Re:Too generic (1)

Shinobi (19308) | about a year ago | (#42308629)

Not necessarily too generic.

The intelligence service running this would have issued the specific "book" to a specific agent. That agent would have orders to operate inside a specific area and report from there.

Another potential identifier is the specific pigeon, which could also show which agent/cell, and thus what area the message concerned.

Re:Too generic (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42308785)

Furthermore, half the text isn't "decrypted" yet, the "decryption" is inconsistent in places and acronym-based crypts don't tend to yield a neat letter grid like this.
What makes matters worse is that not only is the proposed text not useful at all, but it's complete gibberish. There is no trace of a narrative there; it reminds me very much of the texts that ghost hunters produce after listening to the noise of detuned FM radios.
A more realistic text would be: Found Panzer Group West HQ in château Le Bourg at La Caine. Commander, X infantry, Y tanks. &c. &c.
My best bet is that given that the proposed acronym solution yields gibberish and that the letters form a neat grid, that this was either a one-time pad or a code-book based code. If a OTP message, it must have been sent very late in the war, but on the other hand OTP messages from the time do look exactly like this. Which is a downer because without knowing how to identify the key we'll never know what it says since OTP security is absolute (if a key at least as long as the message is used).

Re:Too generic (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42308859)

You didn't quote the entire decoded message, you simply quoted the very last two sentences and then made your assumption that coordinates weren't provided. In fact you seem to have modified it. The coordinates were included in the message as K-sector, along with additional information. Also, the words, "final note" might have been a code word for a particular location, specific mission details or code book that gave more information as well, as in "Final note known to headquarters." Also, it is worth noting the man decoding this skipped over some sections. For example, he didn't bother to decipher "NLXKG", "HVPKD", "DJHFP", "WYYYP" (is that 3 Ys? I can't tell), "MEMYK" (don't know if i identified this correctly), "RFEHT" (2 Es or FE? not sure), etc. But, this may be because his codebook told him to skip these as they were filler. And, you'll notice they didn't decode 27 1525/6. And, "NURP H0TW 194" and "NURP370K 76" and "LIB. 1025", etc..

It reads: "Artillery observer at 'K' Sector, Normandy. Requested headquarters supplement report. Panzer attack - blitz. West Artillery Observer Tracking Attack.
"Lt Knows extra guns are here. Know where local dispatch station is. Determined where Jerry's headquarters front posts. Right battery headquarters right here.
"Found headquarters infantry right here. Final note, confirming, found Jerry's whereabouts. Go over field notes. Counter measures against Panzers not working.
"Jerry's right battery central headquarters here. Artillery observer at 'K' sector Normandy. Mortar, infantry attack panzers.
"Hit Jerry's Right or Reserve Battery Here. Already know electrical engineers headquarters. Troops, panzers, batteries, engineers, here. Final note known to headquarters."
More deciphering is required although Young believes extra bits of code may have been inserted to confuse the enemy if they got their hands on it.

Re:Too generic (1)

nurb432 (527695) | about a year ago | (#42309013)

If they know who sent the message and he's an embedded spy, they may be able to determine 'where' is quote easily.

But i do agree, it doesn't 'sound' right. But then again, i wasn't spying writing 'code' back in WWII for the British.

Re:Too generic (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42309799)

"What good is any of that? Where is "here"? There would have to be precise coordinates or grid numbers to indicate exactly what is where."

Perhaps that information--the exact location of the sender--was previously sent via another pair of pigeons. The receiver of those messages would know the location of the sender and thus make sense of the message containing acronyms. If you think about it, that makes perfect sense as the chances of the enemy intercepting both messages is rather low. As far as the location alone being intercepted, they could simply have predetermined offsets for the information--for example, the sender is always exactly one kilometer, southwest, from the sent location. If anyone intercepts the location message, they will be a kilometer off mark when trying to locate the sender, and the sender can simply watch that location with field glasses to see if his pigeon was captured.

Re:Too generic (1)

medv4380 (1604309) | about a year ago | (#42311493)

In the message there were several sets of numbers. One set it probably the decryption setting like the information for the one time pad or something similar and the other sets are probably the "here" you're so stressed out about.

The Alleged Decoded Message (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42308619)

The alleged decoded message:

        AOAKN - Artillery Observer At "K" Sector, Normandy
        HVPKD - Have Panzers Know Directions
        FNFJW - Final Note [confirming] Found Jerry's Whereabouts
        DJHFP - Determined Jerry's Headquarters Front Posts
        CMPNW - Counter Measures [against] Panzers Not Working
        PABLIZ - Panzer Attack - Blitz
        KLDTS - Know [where] Local Dispatch Station
        27 / 1526 / 6 - June 27th, 1526 hours

Re:The Alleged Decoded Message (1)

the_Bionic_lemming (446569) | about a year ago | (#42308653)

I have eight suitcases and each of those is the combination to one of them!

Re:The Alleged Decoded Message (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42310047)

A suitcase with eight combinations? Fascinating.

Re:The Alleged Decoded Message (4, Funny)

Tablizer (95088) | about a year ago | (#42308793)

I sometimes get email at work resembling:

"Please fix the JKUR web-site because the Chief of LKMSF is coming during the EYHFKD conference to inspect the MSFLSA before the JOTMS sees it. Thus, it has priority IBRKM! I mean it, too."

Maybe I should hire this Canadian dude.

Re:The Alleged Decoded Message (1)

SternisheFan (2529412) | about a year ago | (#42308861)

The alleged decoded message:

AOAKN - Artillery Observer At "K" Sector, Normandy HVPKD - Have Panzers Know Directions FNFJW - Final Note [confirming] Found Jerry's Whereabouts DJHFP - Determined Jerry's Headquarters Front Posts CMPNW - Counter Measures [against] Panzers Not Working PABLIZ - Panzer Attack - Blitz KLDTS - Know [where] Local Dispatch Station 27 / 1526 / 6 - June 27th, 1526 hours

I knew this all along. I just didn't want to tell anyone.

Re:The Alleged Decoded Message (2)

hpa (7948) | about a year ago | (#42310993)

It seems a bit odd that the groups would be exactly five characters long *except* PABLIZ (which looks more like PABUZ to me.) At the same time, the repetition of the group AOAKN would be consistent with the message *not* being encrypted with a one-time pad.

Re:The Alleged Decoded Message (5, Insightful)

interval1066 (668936) | about a year ago | (#42308957)

This message, if accurate, should be easily verifiable. This part of the message is particularly telling; "Counter Measures [against] Panzers Not Working". It should be a small matter to look at some archives for D-Day's "K" sector at 3:26 on the 27th of June '44 and see if any other dispatches mention any particular counter measures against the German armor in the area failed.

Re:The Alleged Decoded Message (1)

Bitsy Boffin (110334) | about a year ago | (#42309125)

Improvisation is a parlour trick, anybody can do it. Chewing gum is really gross, chewing gum I hate the most. See, exactly the same.

Re:The Alleged Decoded Message (1)

pbjones (315127) | about a year ago | (#42309331)

inconsistent use of acronyms seems to stick out here. Oh well, at least he got his name on /. I'll wait for more hard evidence, actually, IDGAS.

Backronyms (5, Insightful)

Admiral Burrito (11807) | about a year ago | (#42308621)

I don't know about WWI/WWII acronyms but it seems unlikely that they were all exactly five letters long and had letter frequency like this (look at all those Qs, Xs, and Zs). I do know that ciphertext is usually written in groups of five letters to provide spacing without giving clues about the spacing of the plaintext. Also, there is a bit of stuff in the middle of the page below the ciphertext (cropped out of most photos), which if I remember right was used for metadata about what code was used.

This sounds like a case of someone looking at random stuff and trying a bit too hard to make sense of it.

Re:Backronyms (3, Informative)

pla (258480) | about a year ago | (#42308973)

I don't know about WWI/WWII acronyms but it seems unlikely that they were all exactly five letters long and had letter frequency like this

Regardless of either the plaintext or the encoding algorithm (though some specifically require this), splitting things into pentagrams (as in, 5-gram, not the occult symbol) pretty much ruled the crypto world for all of the modern era up to the computer age. It hides the original sentence structure (which can, in some cases, give away almost as much as an actual decryption), and works out conveniently for transcribing (that whole "seven short term memory slots" thing - If you've ever wondered why Microsoft keys use groups of five, now you know).

Re:Backronyms (3, Funny)

NJRoadfan (1254248) | about a year ago | (#42309137)

If you've ever wondered why Microsoft keys use groups of five, now you know).

That would explain why the coded message seems to work as a Windows XP key!

Slashdot: 2517 (4, Funny)

CanEHdian (1098955) | about a year ago | (#42308669)

On this date in the year 2517, slashdotters are trying to decode the following message (believe to be related to a covert intelligence op codename 'Twitter'): STOP #SOPA #PIPA #HR1981 #NDAA #CISPA #MPAA #RIAA #ACTA #TPPA

Re:Slashdot: 2517 (2, Interesting)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about a year ago | (#42308717)

On this date in the year 2517, slashdotters

You don't honestly believe this site will still be around in another 505 years, do you? Hell I'd be surprised if it was still around in 2015, considering how rapidly it is losing relevance.

Re:Slashdot: 2517 (1)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about a year ago | (#42309785)

Given the recent actions by the MPAA and RIAA I'd be surprised if the Internet was still around in 2017.

What relevance... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42310117)

... in the first place is twitter able to lose???

Re:Slashdot: 2517 (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42309085)

I have a simple solution and have written it in the margin.

Re:Slashdot: 2517 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42310463)

Since so many people believe human beings are less intelligent than 1000 years ago, in the year 2517 humanity will be trying to decode this message using hanky code (a homosexual code book).

Hilarious description (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42308695)

I love the title, "by a Canadian." Canada's national complex is such they can't even talk about breaking a code with the help of a codebook, without mentioning a Canadian did it.

Re:Hilarious description (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42308979)

Don't fret. In the movie version it'll be cracked by an American.

Re:Hilarious description (1)

Kittenman (971447) | about a year ago | (#42309569)

Don't fret. In the movie version it'll be cracked by an American.

Mod parent up, 'Insightful'

Re:Hilarious description (2)

lennier (44736) | about a year ago | (#42310071)

I love the title, "by a Canadian."

Is it worth mentioning here that a Canadian [wikipedia.org] pretty much single-handedly created the entire WW2 US-British intelligence establishment?

Nope, probably not.

sure acronyms (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42308727)

5 letter acronyms of random letters

one-time-pad (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42308741)

Um, yeah, it clearly needs a one-time-pad and this guy is a kook.

Gord-o, go back to beaver smoking, eh.

Not impossible to confirm... (4, Interesting)

shaitand (626655) | about a year ago | (#42308797)

His decoding of the data gives specific information about german troops present on a specific day and time in history at a particular location. At least some of it should be verifiable.

In 17 minutes he certainly wouldn't have time to find a set of conditions that matched the acronyms he was claiming.

Re:Not impossible to confirm... (2)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about a year ago | (#42309461)

In 17 minutes he certainly wouldn't have time to find a set of conditions that matched the acronyms he was claiming.

What about in the couple of months or so that this has been public knowledge?

Re:Not impossible to confirm... (2)

NicBenjamin (2124018) | about a year ago | (#42310833)

Re-read it. It doesn't actually say much you can verify without a lot more information.

For example "Jerry's right battery central headquarters here," is useless unless you know precisely where 'here' is. Apparently it's a magical place that not only contains a Nazi Artillery HQ, it also contains "Troops, panzers, batteries, engineers," an Engineer's HQ, Nazi HQ Front posts, and "extra guns." The guns seem to be British. A lot of the rest is just saying the unit sending the pigeon knows something.

Much of it doesn't make sense. In 1944 the Germans weren't blitzing in Normandy. "Hit Jerry's Right or Reserve Battery Here" is an incomplete thought. Did the unit sending the pigeon Hit the Germans already? Are they demanding someone else hit the German right because they're all about to die? Are they recommending somebody else hit the German right? Given that Artillery is kept to the rear, and reserves are (by definition) in a central position, how did a "Reserve battery" end up in a position where it could be hit by a unit that can also hit the German right?

Heck the list of things the Arty Observation Unit knows don't make much sense. Artillery Observers should be telling his Battery where this Electrical Engineers HQ is, with exact grid locations, so it can be killed. But the note just says they found the damn thing.

Message reads (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42309379)

ICMP Type 3 Code 666: Carrier burned in transit.

Re:Message reads (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42310869)

Should have used RFC 2549, IP over Avian Carriers with Quality of Service.

The decrypted message (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42309491)

The decrypted message: "Be sure to drink your ovaltine."

Smells like a hoax to me (1)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about a year ago | (#42309495)

Is there any evidence that five letter acronyms of this kind were ever used?

His decryption just sounds made up. JW stands for "Jerry's Whereabouts"? Would "Jerry" ever be used in an official communication? Why does the message use "HV" for "have," then later "D" for "determined," and later still "K" for "know," all which are used as more or less synonymous?

PABLIZ looks a lot more like "PABUZ" on the original note to me, too, and makes far more sense given the rest of the five-letter blocks.

Re:Smells like a hoax to me (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42311413)

Not sure if acronyms were ever used, but five letter code groups most certainly were, so...that seems like a more likely explanation? Especially, as you said, since the abbreviations could be entirely wrong even if they *are* abbreviations.

Does this mean we DIDN'T win WW II? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42309691)

Does this change the official results?

So, it appears ... (1)

PPH (736903) | about a year ago | (#42310161)

... that the SSL (Secure Squab Layer) implementation on IPoAC [wikipedia.org] isn't as secure as we thought.

Bullshit (3, Insightful)

OneAhead (1495535) | about a year ago | (#42310589)

I call bullshit on this whole story. The letter frequencies [wikipedia.org] are nicely consistent with a random OTP and woefully inconsistent with shorthand (which Mr. Young claims it is). 6 Q's, 4 X's and 4 Z's as opposed to 5 T's and 4 E's? Gee, there must have been a lot of Queens, Xylophones and Zebra's involved in that war! This alone is sufficient to sink the whole claim. And then there's the little problem that the story is shock full of holes:
- Mr Young claims they're using WWI-era codes. What makes him think this would be tolerated, in a war in which both sides were heavily reliant on encryption and codebreaking?
- A WWII artillery observer using carrier pigeons? Seriously??? We're talking about a very mobile war, with widely available radio equipment, and during which radar, jet engines, ballistic and guided missiles, and the atom bomb were invented. By the time the pigeon found home, the target could have moved 100miles. Yes, carrier pigeons were still used, but mainly in a backup capacity, and most certainly not for artillery observation missions.
- Why would the official codes use "panzers" and "jerries" as opposed to "tanks" and "germans/enemy"? Also, I'm not sure the word "blitz" was colloquial in allied countries before the end of the war. And it's used in a wrong context.
- "Counter Measures [against] Panzers Not Working?" There's so much wrong with that sentence I wouldn't know where to start. Not to mention all the other sentences he "decrypted". The guy has a lot of fantasy, I give him that.

ABC's new deal with XYZ... (4, Funny)

SeaFox (739806) | about a year ago | (#42310693)

...Gord Young claims to have deciphered the message in less than 20 minutes. He believes that the message is comprised mostly of acronyms.

Maybe they got the age of the message wrong. This sounds like a modern corporate press release.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...