4 ms·

so It held up pretty well, because he made several mistakes along the way, which made much harder than It is to figure out.

camjohnson26 6y ago
What does “much harder than it is” mean, it took 51 years to decipher it, that’s how hard it was.
- thatwasunusual 6y ago
  ...and still the killer is unknown. That's pretty good, IMO.
  - the_af 6y ago
    What's the connection between the killer's identity still being unknown and the strength of this cipher? The killer lied: the plaintext doesn't contain personal information, or if it does, it's a riddle unrelated to the cipher.
    - evolve2k 6y ago
      The killer sent three cipers, my reading is that maybe 1-2 are now solved, they are not all solved yet. Are they?
      - camjohnson26 6y ago
        They sent more than 3, the first 3 were solved quickly, this was a 4th that was sent years later. I believe the only undeciphered message is the text at the end of the 3rd cipher: ebeorietemethhpiti https://www.zodiacciphers.com/chronicle-letter.html https://www.zodiacciphers.com/chronicle-letter.html
        evolve2k 6y ago
        My error, article header mentioned 3 and then later said there was a forth.
    - thatwasunusual 6y ago
      > What's the connection between the killer's identity still being unknown and the strength of this cipher? Maybe none. This person killed several people, and THAT is your biggest problem?
      - nl 6y ago
        > This person killed several people, and THAT is your biggest problem? There's a discussion about how strong the cipher is, and: thatwasunusual> ...and still the killer is unknown. That's pretty good, IMO. Someone pointed out that measuring the strength of the cipher by the fact that the killer is unknown is a bad metric, and you seem to believe this as a defence of murder? They are merely pointing out there is no connection between the fact the killer is unknown and if the cipher was strong or weak.
- obilgic 6y ago
  He made mistakes using his own cypher.
- kshacker 6y ago
  Just curious. If someone were to start today, with today's computing power and knowledge of computers, how long would it take? The answer to this can tell how easy it may be to create a similar problem today.
elliekelly 6y ago
Mistakes? Or misdirection?
tomcooks 6y ago
I think the mistakes could have been intentional traps, to make code breaking more difficult and waste more resources. Once you solved it you can understand the message (good propaganda), but using misspelled words could throw off some attempts and generate "false negative" results when beginning to solve it, making detectives believe they are on the wrong tracks. Given he fooled everyone for 40+ years I find it hard to believe he would overlook details, especially when it's about his main publicity tool.
- saberdancer 6y ago
  In his public (non encrypted) letters he has some spelling mistakes. swiches instead of switches, cid instead of kid, figgure instead of figure, cerous instead of curious There are more. Even if it was intentional, I am not sure that spelling mistakes would make 60s/70s decryption attempts any worse. They did not work by brute force and it's unlikely he predicted someone will use a supercomputer to crack his code decades later.

camjohnson26 6y ago

What does “much harder than it is” mean, it took 51 years to decipher it, that’s how hard it was.

thatwasunusual 6y ago
...and still the killer is unknown. That's pretty good, IMO.
- the_af 6y ago
  What's the connection between the killer's identity still being unknown and the strength of this cipher? The killer lied: the plaintext doesn't contain personal information, or if it does, it's a riddle unrelated to the cipher.
  - evolve2k 6y ago
    The killer sent three cipers, my reading is that maybe 1-2 are now solved, they are not all solved yet. Are they?
    - camjohnson26 6y ago
      They sent more than 3, the first 3 were solved quickly, this was a 4th that was sent years later. I believe the only undeciphered message is the text at the end of the 3rd cipher: ebeorietemethhpiti https://www.zodiacciphers.com/chronicle-letter.html https://www.zodiacciphers.com/chronicle-letter.html
      - evolve2k 6y ago
        My error, article header mentioned 3 and then later said there was a forth.
  - thatwasunusual 6y ago
    > What's the connection between the killer's identity still being unknown and the strength of this cipher? Maybe none. This person killed several people, and THAT is your biggest problem?
    - nl 6y ago
      > This person killed several people, and THAT is your biggest problem? There's a discussion about how strong the cipher is, and: thatwasunusual> ...and still the killer is unknown. That's pretty good, IMO. Someone pointed out that measuring the strength of the cipher by the fact that the killer is unknown is a bad metric, and you seem to believe this as a defence of murder? They are merely pointing out there is no connection between the fact the killer is unknown and if the cipher was strong or weak.
obilgic 6y ago
He made mistakes using his own cypher.
kshacker 6y ago
Just curious. If someone were to start today, with today's computing power and knowledge of computers, how long would it take? The answer to this can tell how easy it may be to create a similar problem today.

elliekelly 6y ago

Mistakes? Or misdirection?

tomcooks 6y ago

I think the mistakes could have been intentional traps, to make code breaking more difficult and waste more resources. Once you solved it you can understand the message (good propaganda), but using misspelled words could throw off some attempts and generate "false negative" results when beginning to solve it, making detectives believe they are on the wrong tracks. Given he fooled everyone for 40+ years I find it hard to believe he would overlook details, especially when it's about his main publicity tool.

saberdancer 6y ago
In his public (non encrypted) letters he has some spelling mistakes. swiches instead of switches, cid instead of kid, figgure instead of figure, cerous instead of curious There are more. Even if it was intentional, I am not sure that spelling mistakes would make 60s/70s decryption attempts any worse. They did not work by brute force and it's unlikely he predicted someone will use a supercomputer to crack his code decades later.