Re: Breaking polyalphabetic cipher..
From: David Wilson (email@example.com)
From: "David Wilson" <firstname.lastname@example.org> Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2003 07:28:11 -0400
"Joe Peschel" <email@example.com> wrote in message
> wrote in news:firstname.lastname@example.org:
> Being able to search on-line for a specific passage is,
> however, on occasion, handy.
True, I'm more the "book" (i.e., dictionary) guy, too, but when the age of
computers gives me a huge disorganized blob of resources (i.e., the
internet) without even having to get out of my chair, even the trusty French
Robert-Collins dictionary is getting dusty.
> > However, I quickly digress...
> Must perfume from a dress?
Could you tell me where that was from?
]Indeed, no amount of luck will help crack a moderately advanced
]cipher if the cracker doesn't know appropriate methods of
]analysis. So far, there has been a lot of totally wrong
]guesswork concerning the encrypted message at hand. As I
]suggested earlier, the time would be much more wisely spent in
]*studying* the subject, *then* (if it is still of interest)
]applying that new knowledge to the task of cracking this
To quote Joe Peschel:
> Learning and practicing traditional techniques, however, is
> essential if you expect to crack cipher messages.
I agree with you, DAGwyn that I am about as green as the grass with all
this. But it does not mean that just because you (i.e., DAGwyn) are good at
cracking a Vigenère cipher because you have "seen it before", that warrants
voiding the step by step process of learning, making errors, learning, going
back, and learning some more. However, if you want to roll up your sleeves
and "dig in" to this code, you may. But don't waste your precious time
either with a nOOb, DAGwyn, you've solved -these- kinds of puzzles before...
David A. Wilson