Re: A Kryptos Warning

From: Douglas Eagleson (eaglesondouglas_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 09/02/05 

Date: 1 Sep 2005 17:41:37 -0700

Douglas A. Gwyn wrote:
> Douglas Eagleson wrote:
> > Here is a real nice web site containing the Kryptos
> > sculpture located at the CIA headquarters in
> > the Langley VA location.
> > http://www.elonka.com/kryptos/
>
> Yes, that is a good Web site, at least as of last time I
> looked at it some time ago.
>
> > Given the truthfulness of the website, kryptos is a very uncommon
> > algorithm. An old style is apparent by the table accompanying the
> > cipher. And the question then becomes the method of decrpyting.
>
> I think you're referring to the Vigenere tableau. If you read
> up on design goals of Kryptos, you will find that it was
> intended that the ciphertext could be cracked by manual
> methods, similar to those taught in the MilCryp textbooks.
>
> > A two's complement pattern is immediatly apparent. Making the rela
> > hard cipher. A pattern that is replacable with the two.
> > A set of zero.
> > And the last two hints denote the level of difficulty in cracking. It
> > has not even been approached.
>
> There can be no "two's complement" when the symbol set has
> more than two members. All the Kryptos ciphertext has been
> legitimately deciphered, except for the small final
> fragment. What make it difficult is primarily that it is
> such a short message.
>
> Some people think there may be additional messages or
> clues contained in some letter-position irregularities, etc.
> but I'm skeptical about that.
>
> > A professional made the table system and the artist just inscribed,
> > obviously.
>
> The ciphertext was prepared by a retired CIA cryptographer.
> It should *say* that somewhere on Elonka's Web site.
>
> > And to crack, the computer is almost necessary.
>
> No. Indeed, at least one of the people who cracked the bulk
> of it so far made no essential use of the computer, but used
> manual methods, and of course you don't need a computer to
> cryptanalyze at the level of MilCryp.
>
> The rest of your posting was nearly unintelligible.
> If you have actually dicovered something new, you need
> to spell out enough detail so that others can verify it.
> There have been a lot of people (and at least one other
> Kryptos Web site) that have wandered into fantasyland.

Sorry about the relation of intelligibility to abstract form it
separates communications sometimes.

A set of two complements numbers was the second table. The form was the
decimalset of one to ten. And the encoding to obtain the set was the
mysterious part. Some algorithm may have been utilized, but it is
unnecessary to know to crack. A claim by me was made to the wind.

And the fantasy is the legitimate cracking process for the sculpture.
The CIa needs an official office of crack attempts, to warrent the
title of official cracking recognition.

If somebody was to recognize the intelligible but wrong crack they
would be recognizing hard work only. Many stories can be formulated.
That is heavey encryption reality.

Douglas Eagleson
Gaithersburg, MD USA

Quantcast