Bruce Schneier | |||||||||||||||
Schneier on SecurityA blog covering security and security technology. « Backscatter X-Ray Machines and Your Privacy | Main | Hacking Reputation in MySpace and Facebook » December 6, 2006The Unabomber's CodeThis is interesting. Ted Kaczynski wrote in code: In a small journal written in code, he documented his thoughts about the crimes he was committing. That code was so difficult, a source says the CIA couldn't crack it -- until someone found the key itself among other documents, and then translated it. Look at the photo. It was a manual, pencil-and-paper cipher. Does anyone know the details of the algorithm? Posted on December 6, 2006 at 12:53 PM • 30 Comments To receive these entries once a month by e-mail, sign up for the Crypto-Gram Newsletter. IANA cryptographer but as a programmer my first impression is that the whole thing is fabricated. Assuming the commas are insignificant--which they seem to be from the two scanned pages--I would have dropped them after about the 10th number. On the other hand, what possible motivation would someone have for faking a code-book? The whole thing smells a little funny. Posted by: Ryan Tomayko at December 6, 2006 1:39 PM On first glance, it looks like the output of a matrix cipher. Posted by: erik V. Olson at December 6, 2006 1:53 PM Substituion cipher?, the numbers repeat every so often. e.g. 40,50 etc. Posted by: EH at December 6, 2006 2:07 PM This looks interesting, a bit of history on criminals who used ciphers, that were cracked. Posted by: EH at December 6, 2006 2:12 PM It might depend on just how much time the CIA [NSA?] spent on breaking it. What do they do these days, scan the numbers into an omnibus computer decrypter, or do humans still do this stuff? Posted by: Kevin Davidson at December 6, 2006 2:31 PM It looks like part of a modified DES cipher algorthim to me. DES uses a 14 x 4 matrix on its sbox configuration. He underlined the 4th line Posted by: Mike La Spina at December 6, 2006 2:55 PM I don't think its so surprising. Ted Kaczynski did after all do a PhD in math at U of Michigan and was hired as an Assistant Professor at Berkeley. One might also say that his mind worked in unusual ways---thus making it difficult to get a grip on the cipher. Posted by: Jon A. Solworth at December 6, 2006 3:02 PM I've seen many codes like that one, and even invented a few derivitves of my own. The following text, index-encoded, would look very similar to the two pages linked to: 03 01 13 07 21 15 08 28 09 00 09 15 22 26 03 00 09 15 17 20 08 18 05 22 09 03 24 25 20 06 16 22 18 14 15 16 09 24 14 27 28 23 21 08 10 01 01 ... ... it's a bit lengthy (it's a lot less lengthy and secure if you don't index encode it), but still usable as a pen-and-paper cipher with a good enough brain, or three alphabet discs: two rotating and one scrambled and replaceable. It even has nearly even letter distribution in the encoded text, so standard rotational cipher attacks don't work, it acts like a one-time-pad if the keyphrase is long enough, and auto-keying improves the evenness of key distribution. FYI the above decodes to "I HAVE BEEN ROLAND, BEOWULF, ACHILLES, GILGAMESH."... Posted by: Alice McGregor at December 6, 2006 4:43 PM Reminds of the codes by "CodeMaster" that are published in the back of "Boys' Life" magazine... particularly the one entitled Top and Bottom code. Especially neat because of how it appears to change each run... >cm_TopAndBottomCode.exe >cm_TopAndBottomCode.exe /encode I HAVE BEEN ROLAND, BEOWULF, ACHILLES, GILGAMESH >cm_TopAndBottomCode.exe /encode I HAVE BEEN ROLAND, BEOWULF, ACHILLES, GILGAMESH >cm_TopAndBottomCode.exe /encode I HAVE BEEN ROLAND, BEOWULF, ACHILLES, GILGAMESH This also can be done easily with pencil and paper as long as you know how it needs to be done. Israel Torres Posted by: Israel Torres at December 6, 2006 5:35 PM Can't believe he used spiral-bound paper and pencils. I thought he was against technological progress and modern technology... Wonder if the key is in The Secret Agent. Posted by: Davi Ottenheimer at December 6, 2006 5:37 PM "He wrote about everything. He wrote about what he had for lunch on May 5, 1979, where he got the food, how he prepared it and what did it taste like..." Like a blog but encoded. That would be a challenge. Bruce, howabout a few entries in ciphertext? First one to post the answer in the comments section gets a signed copy of your restaurant guide. ;) Posted by: Davi Ottenheimer at December 6, 2006 5:43 PM Why would the CIA decipher these codes? Isn't it the work of the FBI? Posted by: FBI at December 7, 2006 12:55 AM interesting quote: "And there are notes of his attempts to outwit law enforcement, as in one journal entry where he says that he intentionally put two human hairs acquired in a bus station into a bomb "to deceive the policemen, who will think that the hair belongs to whoever made the device." I know that DNA samples aren't everything, but for the media definitively are.. so to do a "mediatic kill" of someone this would be more than enough. Another thought is that biometric security based on dna/retina/whatever aren't that reliable if they're based on something we can leave behind (saliva, hair, skin, pictures of retina, fingerprints) everywhere we go. Another quote: Oh well. Posted by: lorenzo at December 7, 2006 2:33 AM i love how they call the as-yet-undeciphered text "evidence" Posted by: scosol at December 7, 2006 2:42 AM @lorenzo "Another thought is that biometric security based on dna/retina/whatever aren't that reliable if they're based on something we can leave behind (saliva, hair, skin, pictures of retina, fingerprints) everywhere we go." And CCTV grabs the rest of the current stuff, such as gait / facial structure / Height / hand structure etc. And now with backscatter techniques (X-Ray / IR / Microwave / acoustic) the last little surface bits get picked up. And possibly some other info like medical abnormalities etc... Soon there will be RFIDs in your underwear and other clothing to tag and identify you as well. So just colate it all together and, "Welcome to the goldfish bowl" Posted by: Clive Robinson at December 7, 2006 3:19 AM It also looks a bit like the book ciphers used by secret services, way back when. Without knowing what book was used, and what index page, it would be tough to decode. Posted by: Oddscurity at December 7, 2006 6:40 AM In case anyone interested here is another cool codebook: However it is not by a criminal exactly (as far as I am aware :) Posted by: Ilya Levin at December 7, 2006 7:12 AM Since Ted did his thesis/research in wave harmonics/acoustics, I would guess that he stuck with what he knew and used a fourier series. The key they found was probably what he used to start hte series. Posted by: Bob at December 7, 2006 8:59 AM @Ilya Levin: ohoe from furthest top right down to next top left down (repeat) will produce: Which we certainly do. Israel Torres Posted by: Israel Torres at December 7, 2006 10:02 AM I don't think its so surprising. Ted Kaczynski did after all do a PhD in math at U of Michigan and was hired as an Assistant Professor at Berkeley. One might also say that his mind worked in unusual ways---thus making it difficult to get a grip on the cipher. Posted by: RFID at December 7, 2006 10:51 AM The cipher does not have to be that complicated to remain un-solved. Providing you follow a few basic rules, you might have a modicum of success. For the simple reason that "to break an unknown cipher takes resources". So you get into an ROI situation. Clasicaly to break an unknown cipher you first need to be able to spot statistics in the cipher text to give you clues to the system type. You then need to spot a reliable change in the output statistics or find recognisable known plain text to confirm your trial guesses. To do this in a reasonable time or with reasonable resources you usually need to have either, 1) a depth under the same key, or 2) known plaintext to work backwards from. Failing the above a lot of time and resources and do the statistics game, in which case you need a real good reason to justify the costs. In the past one (fairly) reliable method was to split the process into two or more parts that, 1) Flatten the frequency distrubution of the plain text. 2) Encode with your chosen key using both transposition and substitution. You could also optionaly, A) add nulls to plain text Most of the above have been done at one time or another with quite good success (at the time ;) One "agent" system actually did the reverse and used a One Time Pad to encode followed by a second stage to make the frequency distibution look like a transposition cipher. Apparently this was for two reasons, the first so that the traffic did not stand out and the second to waste the time of "enemy cryptographers". Posted by: Clive Robinson at December 7, 2006 12:25 PM Its the Solitaire Cipher!!! Congrats, Bruce. You now belong to the Ages. Posted by: Sean at December 7, 2006 1:01 PM Strange. When I decypher it, it reads: Gotta remember to wash that sweat jacket! Posted by: Manni Festo at December 8, 2006 11:42 AM FTW. On the handwritten page, arrows appear to show the direction that a page packed with numbers should be read. Then, in a complex series of decoding steps that Kaczynski calls "phases," numbers are added, subtracted, and married, revealing a new set of numbers that translate to letters and word fragments." Israel Torres Posted by: Israel Torres at December 29, 2006 11:10 PM How does that "top and bottom code" thing work? Posted by: Aldarion at January 8, 2007 2:27 PM Aldarion, it's just a "kid's code", of course: Posted by: res at January 23, 2007 11:56 AM I believe the unabomber is also the Zodiac. Take a look at his codes and the police composites. They look so much alike. They are the same person. Posted by: Sherry Pearson at June 16, 2007 2:58 PM Since he did his thesis/research in wave harmonics/acoustics, I would guess that he stuck with what he knew and used a fourier series. The key they found was probably what he used to start hte series. Posted by: JJ Gulka at December 29, 2007 3:50 PM Post a comment
Powered by Movable Type. Photo at top by Steve Woit.
Schneier.com is a personal website. Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of BT. |
|
Comments