11 ms·
200-year-old ciphers may reveal the location of treasure buried in Virginia
- Animats 8y agoA book code. Someone could run it against every digitized book earlier than the date of the code. With enough off-peak AWS instances...
- janwillemb 8y agoThe problem would be to define what is considered a successful outcome, measurable by an automated system.
- analogmemory 8y agoWouldn't a successful outcome just be recognizable sentences?
- tobinfricke 8y agoIndeed, even if you decode the supposedly "cracked" Beale letter, you get nearly complete gibberish: ihaie depos otedi nthec opntt olBed oorta boupf ourmi lesfr ombul ordsi nanep caiat ionor iault sipfe stbel owthe surla csoft hhgto undth sfotl owing artic issbe aongi ngjoi otltt othep artfe swhos lnamf sateg iieti nnumb erthr ffhtt ewith https://nibot-lab.livejournal.com/tag/beale%20ciphers https://nibot-lab.livejournal.com/tag/beale%20ciphers It's almost certainly a hoax.
- DoctorOetker 8y agoI also believe it was a hoax, but this is not a good argument for it being a hoax: The perpetrator would expect buyers of the pamphlet to try reproduce the decoding of the second ciphertext, so presumably there were versions of the declaration that correctly formed the key. For the edits (compared to original declaration) see also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beale_ciphers#Deciphered_message https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beale_ciphers#Deciphered_messa... I would like to see a python (or other) script with the most important observations reproduced (such as the alphabet like sequence)
- tobinfricke 8y ago> The perpetrator would expect buyers of the pamphlet to try reproduce the decoding of the second ciphertext, so presumably there were versions of the declaration that correctly formed the key. The version of the DoI that was used to decode ciphertext #2 was included with the pamphlet. It does not produce an error-free decoding. > I would like to see a python (or other) script with the most important observations reproduced (such as the alphabet like sequence) The link in the post to which you are replying contains, at the bottom, all three ciphertexts, the key text, and a C++ program that performs the decoding.
- DoctorOetker 8y agoRegarding the similar distribution you pointed out in the plot, I was considering that perhaps the cipher numbers were ordered in a gridlike fashion on the original, such that perhaps vertical or diagonal reading, or more exact positioning would reveal extra information. So I was browsing the NSA pdf files "The Beale Papers" from archive.org, and apperently according to these files theres even different versions of the CIPHERTEXTS! It is unclear to me why there would be different ciphertexts floating around, possibly: 1) the pamphlet author published multiple versions 2) after analysis, later authors "fixed" the ciphertexts as opposed to describing the encryption errors in the decoding mechanism 3) flat out disinformation by: the publisher (how does the anonymous author defend the true ciphertext? would other publishers at the time dare to publish a second version of the cipher? how does this author prove he is the same anonymous person?), disinformation by treasure hunters (you can recognnize your own manipulation, but this confuses everyone else) Do we know what happened with the publisher? did it merge with others, and is it still in existence under a new name? Do they perhaps have any early original (from the box, or original manuscript from the anonymous person, etc...)
- DoctorOetker 8y agoYou probably know of this page, but I think this has the clearest explanation for decoding errors: http://rogergrambihler.tripod.com/BealeHoax.htm http://rogergrambihler.tripod.com/BealeHoax.htm although he doesn't notice his own mismatcc of "hith" instead of "with" (I haven't checked/reproduced his mapping in code, I intend to implement his decoding with quirks by adapting your .c file, if you wish I can send it over when done)
- mickronome 8y agoIt's almost certainly a hoax, but any book substitution cipher is very sensitive to errors both in counting, and in exactly which book. From that perspective, if you remove the spaces, it's almost intelligeble even to a non native speaker. Observe: ihaiedeposotedinthecopnttolBedoortaboupfourmilesfrombulordsinanepcaiationoriaultsipfestbelowthesurlacsofthhgtoundthsfotlowingarticissbeaongingjoiotlttothepartfeswhoslnamfsategiietinnumberthr ffhttewith i haie deposoted in the copntt ol Bedoort aboup four miles from bulords in an epcaiation or iault sip fest below the surlacs of thh gtound ths fotlowing articiss beaonging joiotltto the partfes whosl namfs ate giiet in number thrffhtte with I have deposited in the county of Bedoort (Bedford?) about for miles from bulords in an epcaiation or vault/fault six feet below the surface of the ground. Supposedly epcaiation is excavation, that one I didn't get. Some of the latter parts I also have trouble reading without guessing a lot. Like 'joiotltto' and 'thrffhtte'.
- killaken2000 8y agoAlso in the past there was no standardized way of writing words so its possible that some spellings are off by today's standards. I remember when the spellings of words became standardized.
- paulie_a 8y ago> Supposedly epcaiation is excavation I buy it, spelling in that area at that time wasn't exactly top knotch. I know that is stereotypical, but come on.
- DoctorOetker 8y agoYour frequency plot is very peculiar and almost unexplainable: 1) while it can be explained if the author was intelligent enough to understand letter frequency cryptanalysis, but how widespread would that idea have been in his day and age? 2) even though the symbol frequencies match up, the text seems gibberish, which for now I can only explain as follows: The author of the pamphlet somehow obtained the 3 original ciphertexts and sincerely believed in their authenticity. (even if his source may or may not have scammed him). He identified the DOI as the correct key for ciphertext 2 (this insight too may have come from the potential source). Trivially the same key is tried on ciphertext 1. The author notices the quasi alphabet and otherwise gibberish. Unable to solve the puzzle he notes that if he cuts up decipherable ciphertext 2 in say 7 letter chunks, they clearly form random parts of english phrases. Similarily he cuts up ciphertext 1 in say 7 letter chunks (but leaves the alphabet part intact), and publishes it, in the hope that someone will find a "weird convincing but failed decoding", such that he only has to restore the ordering of the letters (since he knows how he reordered the 7 letter chunks). I.e. the pamphlet author might sincerely believe in the authenticity of the originnal ciphertext, but is trying to scam his audience into solving the puzzle for him!
- DoctorOetker 8y agoI fixed your decryptor, the code is here, feel free to update no credit needed: ```cpp #include <iostream> #include <string> #include <vector> #include <fstream> using namespace std; char quirkdecode(int i, vector<string> dict); int main(int argc, char argv) { // Load the dictionary vector<string> dict; ifstream dictstream("doi.txt"); string str; while (dictstream >> str) dict.push_back(str); int i, j=0; while (cin >> i) { j ++; cout << quirkdecode(i,dict); if (j%5 == 0) cout << " "; if (j%75 == 0) cout << endl; //*/ } cout << endl; return 0; } char quirkdecode(int i, vector<string> dict){ int delta=0; if (i==155) return 'a';// Beale Paper DOI has extra 'a' in "institute a new government" if (i>155) delta-=1; // Compensate for missing 'a' in doi.txt if (i>=242) delta+=1; // 241 decrypts correct 246 not so delta +1 @ [241-245] if (i>=480) delta+=10; // 466 decrypts correct 485 not so delta +10 @ [267-285] known misnumbering if (i>=510) delta-=1; // TODO presicely ocate if (i>=621) delta+=1; // 620 decrypts correct 643 is not so delta +1 @ [621-643] if (i>=667) delta+=1; // 666 decrypts correct 807 is not so delta +1 @ [667-807] ? double check ?? // Hardcoded Jokers: NOTE 811 and 1005 are also the highest used codes, so it DOES seem to be intended as real if (i==811) return 'y' ; // fundamentallY if (i==1005) return 'x' ; // seXes i+=delta; if (i<dict.size()) return dict.at(i-1)[0]; else return '!'; } ``` which gives: ``` ihave depos itedi nthec ounty ofBed forda boutf ourmi lesfr ombuf ordsi nanex cavat ionor vault sixfe etbel owthe surfa ceoft hegro undth efoll owing artic lesbe longi ngjoi ntlyt othep artie swhos ename sareg iveni nnumb erthr eeher ewith thefi rstde posit consi stcdo ftenh undre dandf ourte enpou ndsof golda ndthi rtyei ghthu ndred andtw elvep ounds ofsil verde posit ednov eight eenni netee nthes econd Wasma dedec eight eentw entyo neand consi stedo fnine teenh undre dands evenp ounds ofgol dandt welve hundr edand eight yeigh tofsi lvera lsoje welso btain edins tloui sinex chang etosa vetra nspor tatio nandv alued atthi rteen rhous anddo llars theab oveis secur elypa ckedi niron potsw ithir oncov ersth evaul tisro ughly lined withs tonea ndthe vesse lsres tonso lidst onean darec overe dwith other spape rnumb erone descr ibest hcexa ctloc ality ofthe varlt sotha tnodi fficu ltywi llbeh adinf indin git ```
- ComplexSystems 8y agoThere are, I dunno, maybe 1,000,000 words in the English language. With a book cipher, almost all books will produce gibberish words not on the list. If you find one for which almost all words are magically on that list of 1,000,000 words, you win. I get the appeal of the notion that some second grader could stumble on the winning book and claim the prize, but this article is like halfway between cryptographic fantasy and reality. Google suggests there are only 130,000,000 books in existence, which would be more than easy enough to brute force if we had access to all of them. Furthermore, there is a clear success criterion. The limiting factor is that not all books have been digitized, but if the book is relatively well known, it should be. I'm surprised someone at Google hasn't just put this whole thing to bed by now.
- tobinfricke 8y agoSee my post below. Even using the supposedly-correct key, the decoding produces near-gibberish. It would certainly not pass a test that requires the decoded plaintext to consist of dictionary words.
- hagreet 8y ago"As long as a key is available, a substitution cipher is a safe, simple way to encrypt a message." ...quality article
- AppleseedJenny 8y agoYeah. They should just use ROT13 as substitution. Then key availability is not an issue anymore.
- onion2k 8y agoFor extra security it's important to run ROT13 twice.
- AppleseedJenny 8y agoYou get it.
- olliej 8y ago<3
- yorwba 8y agoI can't tell whether you're being sarcastic, but the article is essentially correct. The security of an encryption algorithm doesn't depend on how complex it is if you never reuse the key, because a uniformly random key produces uniformly random output for any input. Only key reuse can introduce statistical regularities that allow cryptanalysis to be applied. The reason most encryption algorithms are more complex than simple substitution is exactly that they are intended to allow applying a relatively short key multiple times, both to encrypt messages longer than the key and to encrypt multiple messages.
- ShorsHammer 8y agoAlso known as a One Time Pad for anyone wanting more info, generally the key and message are xor'd if its digital and that's the entirety of the encryption algorithm. Used properly it's proven to be unbreakable.
- wet_grass_sound 8y agoWhat is point of finding it if the govt is going to claim it?
- nighthawk1 8y agoAfter black swan, it seems like big treasure hunting is close to hopeless https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Swan_Project https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Swan_Project
- sethrin 8y ago> "The ineffable truth of this case is that the Mercedes is a naval vessel of Spain and that the wreck of this naval vessel, the vessel's cargo, and any human remains are the natural and legal patrimony of Spain." Legal opinion seems to be fairly solid on this point. Perhaps the lesson instead should be to not pillage national warships.
- macintux 8y agoVirginia has a finders keepers law per the article.
- killaken2000 8y agoI hear that money has a connection to crime. Time for a civil asset forfeiture.
- behringer 8y agoDon't store your treasure in the US...
- rwallace 8y ago> That attitude would reign among professional cryptanalysts until January 1970, when Dr. Carl Hammer, Director of Computer Sciences at Sperry-Univac, made a startling revelation at the Third Annual Simulation Symposium in Tampa, Florida. He had analyzed the Beale ciphers with a UNIVAC 1108 computer and compared the codes to the musings of a random number generator. The results showed signs of an intelligent pattern. > “Beale Cyphers 1 and 3 are ‘for real,’” Hammer concluded. “They are not random doodles but do contain intelligence and messages of some sort. Further attempts at decoding are indeed warranted.” Be careful of concluding that. The human brain is a bad random number generator. A hoaxer trying to write random gibberish in those days would do it by hand, not by rolling dice to ensure uniform randomness, and the handwritten gibberish would inevitably contain patterns.
- flashman 8y agoThe first cipher gives directions in yards, in this order: east, south, west, north. When followed in order, this gives a location just north of an old dolomite quarry, 3.95 miles from Buford's Tavern. It's not far off the Appalachian Trail, but not so close that you would stumble on it accidentally.
- DoctorOetker 8y agoWow! What is the probability that a trivial variation on the decoding method results in otherwise unreadable text BUT STARTING with "sited at" ??? roughly 26^6?!? 1) I used/fixed Tobin Fricke's (@tobinfricke) doi-decode.c to first fix the indexing/versions of the Declaration of Independence. The result can be found in the thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17337421 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17337421 2) Due to the quasi alphabetic sequences in beale.1 I came to the conclusion that beale.1 is in fact just scratchpad notes containing fragments of look-up table to use while encrypting, so is not the location file. Bummed at the lack of a location file, I just pressed on out of curiosity for the names file (beale.3) 3) I next tried some trivial variations on the cipher concept (second letter of each word, last letter etc) such that the kolmogorov complexity increase of the decoding would be nearly zero, but always got rubbish. 4) Until I tried a trivial variation (not giving yet, perhaps after convincing myself it is absurd coincidence), giving "sitedat...." with "..." being rubbish text. EDIT1: the same decoding also contains "twograil" somewhere in the middle, but not as convincing, does "two grail" signifiy something in the area?