| Story Views | |
| Now: | |
| Last Hour: | |
| Last 24 Hours: | |
| Total: | |
Three Letters Re: Forget Codes: Using Constructed Languages for Secure Communication
Jim:
The article on constructed languages [by Snow Wolf] was fascinating. Just two concerns: An outsider might be able to crack your code based on repeated grammar. As was mentioned in the letter, “sentences follow the common subject-verb-object pattern”. This pattern is predictable and could help a very intelligent decoder. Also your activity can be observed after communication, helping one define terms.
Both of these concerns can be mitigated with re-aligning, as mentioned in the letter. So take care not to overlook that step.
Finally, if every tip in this article (such as re-aligning and custom grammar) were practiced, and on top of this was layered a nice encryption method, such as was described in the 9/11/12 letter, you’d seriously give an enemy a run for their money!
I know this is true, for during WWII, Navajo-speakers were employed for code talking; that is, the messages were first translated into Navajo and then encrypted. Navajo almost fully qualifies as a constructed language. The following is from Wikipedia:
“Navajo was an attractive choice for code use because few people outside the Navajo themselves had ever learned to speak the language. Virtually no books in Navajo had ever been published. Outside of the language itself, the Navajo spoken code was not very complex by cryptographic standards and would likely have been broken if a native speaker and trained cryptographers worked together effectively. The Japanese had an opportunity to attempt this when they captured Joe Kieyoomia in the Philippines in 1942 during the Bataan Death March. Kieyoomia, a Navajo Sergeant in the U.S. Army, but not a code talker, was ordered to interpret the radio messages later in the war. However, since Kieyoomia had not participated in the code training, the messages made no sense to him. When he reported that he could not understand the messages, his captors tortured him. Given the simplicity of the alphabet code involved, it is probable that the code could have been broken easily if Kieyoomia’s knowledge of the language had been exploited more effectively by Japanese cryptographers. The Japanese Imperial Army and Navy never cracked the spoken code.”
Jim,
The recent
submission, “Forget Codes…” while interesting, seems to neglect one rather important point: what the author is suggesting IS a code, and a fairly simple one at that!
Rather than substituting symbols for letters or letters for each other, this code is substituting words for other words. That the substituted words are made up isn’t of any consequence at all.
What is proposed is thus a substitution cipher and like all such ciphers, can and will be cracked by a determined individual or group. It is more complex than the simple Caesar Ciphers we used as children to keep our “secret clubs” secret, but it’s not a secure cipher by any means.
All that is needed to crack it is a sufficient collection of enciphered phrases and some indication of their meaning. These meanings could be gotten by intercepting the enciphered communication and observation of events before or after the communication.
Source:
