Looking for What Isn't There

Recently I came across (or went looking for) an interesting article about cryptography. The piece talked about a sub-field of cryptography called pseudocryptography. This references the hunting for hidden codes in great works of literature. The practice dates back to the late 1800’s. Among the most common works to look for hidden ciphers are the works of Shakespeare and the Bible. The process begins by taking out different intervals of letters through trial and error. For example, start by taking out every 3^rd letter and then every 19^th letter and so on and so forth. After you have your group of letters, you then arrange them and try to make sense of them. There is no doubt that using this process will result in some logical outcome, purely by circumstance. Michael Drosnin published an entire book on how the Bible actually contains predictions of past events. Critics point out that, in retrospect, it is easy to find coincidence and twist it into something that fits your theory. Drosnin never sited any examples that predicted future events. This begs the question, why look for codes that we do not know exist for sure. Is this logical? What are the chances of finding something legitimate, or are we likely to see only what we want to see. How does human bias affect our ability to accurately decipher codes?

I Know Something You Don’t Know!

            How many of you decided to read this blog solely because you read the title and immediately wanted to know more. You just could not stand the idea of being left in the dark about something, anything: it doesn’t matter what it is. You know the saying, “Secrets secrets are no fun, unless you share them with everyone.” Why are secrets so enticing? Why do whispers send out hearts racing and make us want to be on the inside of the clandestine gossip. Is this quality innate in all people? I believe so. The curious thing is what we do with the knowledge after we attain it. This is where variation occurs. Some keep the secrets to themselves under lock and key, bragging that they now know something others don’t know. Contrarily, some must share the information immediately, for what is the point in knowing a secret if others don’t know that you know it. Why do people behave in this strange manner? I know the answer to this secret. I’d tell you… but then I’d have to kill you ;)

Secrets Inhibit a Common Goal

In the world of cryptography and secrets, there are several different organizations and individuals essentially working on the same problems. Before September 11^th 2001, the CIA and FBI for example, operated separately on some of the same cases. If one group were to discover a little more information regarding the case, that discovery was kept within that group and not shared with the other. Though both groups were working towards a common cause, they were essentially working individually. This happens all the time, not just with the CIA and FBI. Scientific researchers, for example, though all may be searching for a common cure, they work individually. This could be for many reasons. Maybe each wants to be the one to solve the puzzle and win all of the glory. Perhaps each thinks that their way of working is the best. Regardless, isn’t it better to share ideas and secrets in search of a common solution? When is it okay to share information and when should it be kept secret?

Britian's Strategy and Flaw

                In our class about cryptology, we discussed the Zimmerman Telegram and whether the British were morally sound in their choice to deny the United Sates of immediate knowledge that its security was threatened by Germany, Mexico, and possibly even Japan. The majority of students seemed to believe that this was information that should not have been sat on as long as it did and should have been shared with the United States upon first discovery. Students also expressed their opinions that, even after factoring in Germany’s use of the new invention of the enigma, Britain’s publishing the knowledge that it cracked Germany’s codes was reasonable. It was seen as a moral boost to boast to the enemy its accomplishments.

            After about a month of taking an International Relations class, my view on this issue greatly differs from those expressed in class. The Zimmerman Telegram was written during a time of war, not a time of peace. In a world where the international system is one of anarchy, every sovereign state is responsible for looking out for its own security. Britain, like all other nations, is no exception and was merely acting on its best interests when it refused to share the Zimmerman telegram with the United States. The United States, at the time, was neutral, therefore keeping this information a secret served Britain’s interests the best. War is about winning, not about justice.

            Viewing the world with this paradigm, I further disagree with the class regarding Britain’s publication of its breaking Germany’s codes. Through the eyes of a realist, any sovereign state has the power to hurt other states. The world is in a constant state of war, where, whether you are physically in a war or not, you must be prepared for war. Because all countries only look out for the interests of themselves in a self-help system, you can never be sure of your neighbors’ intentions. In this international system, the only way to ensure survival is to maximize your relative power. Therefore, Britain’s letting Germany know that it had cracked its codes was not in any way helping to maximize its power. In fact, it did just the opposite by providing Germany with the knowledge it needed to gain more power, in the form of the enigma. Whether Britain saw Germany as a present threat or not, Germany should always have been viewed as a potential future threat. Giving Germany this leg up, so to speak, did nothing beneficial for Britain.

The Value of Secrecy

             Can you put a price tag on secrecy? How much are you willing to give to make sure your deepest and darkest thoughts and plots are strictly confidential? In the war between cryptanalysists and cryptographers, the goal is to create an unbreakable code to ensure ultimate privacy, but at what costs?

             At the end of the Great War, Major Joseph Mauborgne invented the concept of the random key. With this ideal came the philosophy of the onetime pad cipher. This cipher, which overcomes the weaknesses of all other ciphers, has been mathematically proven to be completely secure. Also known as the Holy Grail of cryptology, this cipher truly is undeniably unbreakable. Yet, this cipher, despite its astronomical advantages, is hardly ever used. The perfect cipher that undoubtedly offers the ultimate type of security is simply disregarded and the quest of cryptographers to find a better cipher continues. Why? How can you create a better cipher than one that is already perfect for protection from prying individuals? What could possibly be wrong with an unbreakable cipher?

The answer is that a price tag has indeed been put on secrecy. The cost of making one time ciphers is just too high, causing cryptographers to continue their search for a more efficient cipher. This begs the question will the war between cryptographers and cryptanalysts ever end? Originally, the thought was that once cryptographers created an unbreakable cipher, the war would be over. However, that time has come and past, yet the war continues. When, if ever, will cryptographers be satisfied with their new findings? This also gives rise to the question can cryptanalysts ever win this so-called war?  Cryptanalysts are driven by the new inventions of cryptographers. Once a new cipher is created, the burden now lies on the cryptanalysts to break the cipher. Therefore, if cryptographers are never satisfied with their new ideas, then cryptanalysts will constantly be put to work trying to break the resulting ciphers. As it seems, this war is indeed never ending.

This, in turn, brings us back to our original question. Can you put a price tag on secrecy? Is it so vital that information be hidden by encryption, but not vital enough to pay the top dollar to ensure the information will never be discovered? It is hard for me to wrap my mind around this concept. When people utilize ciphers that they know can be broken, for the sake that they are less expensive, what is the point in creating the cipher in the first place? It seems as though the only thing you are paying when you use a cipher that has any possibility of being broken is the time in which it takes your enemy to break it. Do you agree?

Mission Impossibl_

It is habitually thought of as an impractical task, ridiculous for any to try.  Victory is uncommon, for this arduous mission is known to mystify all. From dim folks, to individuals with brains of prodigious capacity, most all fall upon the ground in anguish. It is said only the foolish would try. But for yours truly, all of this only adds to its attraction.

 If you do flourish with such a laborious task, I cannot warrant that you will gain an award for your pains. Your gift all banks on your initial motivation to start this tricky job. For instance, you will profit nothing substantial if your goal was your own satisfaction in winning at what most fail. If privacy is what you want, your labors may bring an approving upshot. Your triumph grants you a major gain which obstructs any who try to dig up what you want unknown.  A straightforward approach of analysis of your work will not avail. Still, cryptanalysts will, without a doubt, work doubly as hard with the goal of foiling your plans. If cryptanalysts catch on to your smart trick, all of your work will turn out insignificant.

                I must admit to, up until now, not having won this fight of which I account on a solitary occasion. In fact, my first triumph will occur as I put a last punctuation mark on this composition, closing my thoughts. Truthfully, at points, I did doubt my ability to finish this taxing act. Allow my saying, if you will, that it is difficult to talk about not utilizing a particular part (and significantly important part) of our ABC’s without applying this script throughout my own account. Now, to quiz your skill with this task. Post a good word about this blog, but try not to employ this popular thing of which I am discussing. Good luck!

Privacy and Security in the Digital Age

          Written in 1949, George Orwell’s 1984 depicts a dystopian world where the absolute governmental power, with the aid of technological advances, completely strips citizens of any rights. Under consistent video and audio surveillance, with even the slightest alteration of facial expression scrutinized, every citizen of the society has even been denied the ability to think his or her own thoughts. Orwell’s prediction of how the abuse of technology can steal an individual’s right to privacy, though exaggerated, is not exactly inapplicable to the direction the world is headed.

          In this Age of Technology, information is becoming more valuable.  More and more businesses are constantly being conducted through cyberspace. On the same note, as information increasingly becomes more significant, it also becomes more vulnerable to falling into the wrong hands.  As a result, the general public has increasingly employed cryptology, the art of secret communication, in their everyday lives to protect their privacy. This, however, interferes with law enforcement and national security. Before, law enforcers largely relied on phone taps, which also was debatable in terms of privacy, to secure vital information. Now, with the widespread use of encrypted messages as a means of secret communication, officers are severely limited in their ability to effectively do their job. Consider the laws regarding police warrants. Even if an officer finds damning evidence that a person is guilty of a crime, the perpetrator could walk free on account of a technicality in the protocol of receiving a warrant. This corresponds to the issue of invading the criminal’s privacy. The debate of cryptology is founded on the question posed by Simon Singh, “Which do we value more- our privacy or an effective police force? Or is there a compromise?” Where do we draw the line in allowing the government access to our personal lives? How far-fetched is Orwell’s prediction of the future?

Alberti's Cipher Disk

In the never-ending war of secrecy and information,

Involving code makers and breakers altering forms of communication,

Leon Battista Alberti, creator of polyalphabetic substitution,

Gave Cryptographers the upper hand with his contribution.

Cryptanalysts no longer had frequency analysis on which to rely,

So when breaking the cipher, they had to invent some other methods to apply.

While they were busy developing these new techniques,

Alberti made the job of enciphering messages easy, so to speak.

With a device called a Cipher Disk, one of Alberti’s own creations,

Cryptographers could efficiently complete their secret operations.

The device itself is made up of two overlapping disks of varying sizes
The larger disk has capital letters and numbers while the rotatable smaller comprises
Of only certain lower case letters, which represent the cipher text.  
It is important that the sender and recipient of the message know the index.
This index, previously agreed upon by both parties, will be a letter in upper case form.
This letter should be above the first of the cipher text and will reveal what rotation to perform.
Then, the decipherer should merely refer to the letter above the cipher text on the device.
Should a number come across in the plain text, mere observation will not suffice.
A rotation must be done until the cipher text that revealed the number is under the index
This explanation of Alberti’s cipher may have you feeling quite perplexed,
But practice makes perfect and solving the cipher is easier than explaining it in through rhyme
So grab your Alberti Cipher Disks and make some free time,
I have  used Alberti’s device to encipher a line
From a movie. See if you can solve my clever design…

Index: X

Encoded message:
 
X_ _IZ_BOSEKTY_EISLROCNCRT_SLMDS NSXX_YZNKHR 

 Note: the spaces do not represent spaces in the message, but rather letters that were not written on the cipher.

 BONUS POINTS IF YOU CAN TELL ME THE MOVIE THIS QUOTE IS FROM WITHOUT CHEATING!!!