Re: A New/Old code Just For Fun

Fiziwig wrote:
On Jul 20, 10:47 am, Paulo Marques <pmarq...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I wanted to keep it as simple as possible for a human being using a
hard copy code book and pencil and paper. More optimal encodings,
while more efficient, would necessarily be more complex for use by
mere humans.

I don't see a reason for that. If you calculate the optimal encoding
using huffman and then write the "codebook" in alphabetical sorting
order, there is no reason for it to be more difficult to use.

And don't forget, if the empire falls and civilization
crumbles, future feudal lords and kings will once again have to rely
on paper and pencil cryptography. ;-)

Even on such a scenario, the huffman algorithm is easy enough to be
executed by hand...

This group takes cryptography seriously and your description just sounds
like an extremely "weak" cypher...

Yes, very weak indeed. But I'm enjoying the project all the same. And
besides, Byrne's "weak" cipher resisted cracking for many decades.
(See my functional equivalent of the Choacipher machine at )

Yes, because it didn't respect the Kerckhoffs' principle [1], so only
cryptographers with nothing better to do would even consider looking at
it. The moment the algorithm was made public, it was just a question of
days (IIRC) before it fell apart...

If you want a practical way to encrypt/decrypt emails to/from friends,
just take a look at gpg.

yes, there are better ways to encrypt email for security, but this is
a pencil and paper system, which appeals to my retro nature.

There are other pencil and paper systems out there, that have at least
not been completely broken yet and respect the Kerckhoffs' principle,
like Solitaire [2].

Paulo Marques -

"I used to be indecisive, but now I'm not so sure."