4 ms·

Referring to Navajo code talkers I assume... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_talker https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_talker

SAI_Peregrinus 3y ago
Which is especially funny, because their communications were encrypted after they encoded them into Navajo.
- withinboredom 3y ago
  Encryption uses math, code uses a dictionary. These communications were not “encoded” but an actual language.
  - quonn 3y ago
    That‘s an arbitrary distinction, since encryption uses a key just like „code“ uses a dictionary. In a one time pad where your key is long, how is it different from a dictionary? And in a trivial cipher the key may still encode a dictionary. Basically you are taking a subset of encryption using only substitution and calling that a code.
    - withinboredom 3y ago
      Yep! You've pretty much nailed it. Cipher: exchanging letters to hide a message. Code: exchanging words/phrases to hide a message. Encryption: combining math + ciphers (sometimes code too!) to hide a message. Codes are great for real people having fluent conversations, not so great for computers. We actually use "codes" all the time, but when they're used in large groups (and not a 'secret'), we call it "jargon." "Push it to main, and I'll pull it in to my buggy branch to see if that works" will make almost no sense to anyone but a programmer who works with git and even then, only someone who's used git since everyone renamed the 'master' branch to 'main.'
- cynwoody 3y ago
  "Encrypted" is too strong a word. But the code talkers needed a way to represent English that didn't have a natural Navajo equivalent. So they developed a vocabulary of 411 Navajo words to stand for common military terms. E.g., BESH-LO, which is Navajo for "iron fish", meant "submarine". The vocabulary included a phonetic alphabet to represent the 26 English letters. E.g., the three Navajo words MOASI, TLA-GIN, and BA-GOSHI all represent English words beginning with C (cat, coal, cow). So, they could spell out arbitrary English words not in their vocabulary. It was secure against an enemy that lacked Navajos and probably didn't even know what language was being spoken or if they were intercepting some weird form of audio scrambling. But, if the Japanese had been able to translate the messages to English, the code would probably not have survived cryptanalysis for long. https://www.cia.gov/stories/story/navajo-code-talkers-and-the-unbreakable-code/ https://www.cia.gov/stories/story/navajo-code-talkers-and-th...
  - wkat4242 3y ago
    It's not really secure as such. It's a simple replacement cipher theoretically speaking. An adversary with enough time will easily be able to figure out what each word means by association of known plaintext. However it sounds like they were mainly used in heavy combat conditions where the enemy didn't have recording equipment for later analysis. So in that scenario specifically (but in that alone) it was pretty secure.
    - withinboredom 3y ago
      Yes, for the parts that needed to be distinctly translated from English, it was a cipher. However, it IS a language, with it's own grammar and vocabulary. They could have an entire conversation with none of the cipher bits... If you've ever gone to a foreign country, you know you will have zero idea what anyone is saying for quite a long time. They knew as long as they kept the messages short enough, nobody was going to learn it from immersion. There are still ancient languages that nobody have deciphered, despite having copious samples to choose from. I don't think it's as simple as you're making it out to be.

SAI_Peregrinus 3y ago

Which is especially funny, because their communications were encrypted after they encoded them into Navajo.

withinboredom 3y ago
Encryption uses math, code uses a dictionary. These communications were not “encoded” but an actual language.
- quonn 3y ago
  That‘s an arbitrary distinction, since encryption uses a key just like „code“ uses a dictionary. In a one time pad where your key is long, how is it different from a dictionary? And in a trivial cipher the key may still encode a dictionary. Basically you are taking a subset of encryption using only substitution and calling that a code.
  - withinboredom 3y ago
    Yep! You've pretty much nailed it. Cipher: exchanging letters to hide a message. Code: exchanging words/phrases to hide a message. Encryption: combining math + ciphers (sometimes code too!) to hide a message. Codes are great for real people having fluent conversations, not so great for computers. We actually use "codes" all the time, but when they're used in large groups (and not a 'secret'), we call it "jargon." "Push it to main, and I'll pull it in to my buggy branch to see if that works" will make almost no sense to anyone but a programmer who works with git and even then, only someone who's used git since everyone renamed the 'master' branch to 'main.'
cynwoody 3y ago
"Encrypted" is too strong a word. But the code talkers needed a way to represent English that didn't have a natural Navajo equivalent. So they developed a vocabulary of 411 Navajo words to stand for common military terms. E.g., BESH-LO, which is Navajo for "iron fish", meant "submarine". The vocabulary included a phonetic alphabet to represent the 26 English letters. E.g., the three Navajo words MOASI, TLA-GIN, and BA-GOSHI all represent English words beginning with C (cat, coal, cow). So, they could spell out arbitrary English words not in their vocabulary. It was secure against an enemy that lacked Navajos and probably didn't even know what language was being spoken or if they were intercepting some weird form of audio scrambling. But, if the Japanese had been able to translate the messages to English, the code would probably not have survived cryptanalysis for long. https://www.cia.gov/stories/story/navajo-code-talkers-and-the-unbreakable-code/ https://www.cia.gov/stories/story/navajo-code-talkers-and-th...
- wkat4242 3y ago
  It's not really secure as such. It's a simple replacement cipher theoretically speaking. An adversary with enough time will easily be able to figure out what each word means by association of known plaintext. However it sounds like they were mainly used in heavy combat conditions where the enemy didn't have recording equipment for later analysis. So in that scenario specifically (but in that alone) it was pretty secure.
  - withinboredom 3y ago
    Yes, for the parts that needed to be distinctly translated from English, it was a cipher. However, it IS a language, with it's own grammar and vocabulary. They could have an entire conversation with none of the cipher bits... If you've ever gone to a foreign country, you know you will have zero idea what anyone is saying for quite a long time. They knew as long as they kept the messages short enough, nobody was going to learn it from immersion. There are still ancient languages that nobody have deciphered, despite having copious samples to choose from. I don't think it's as simple as you're making it out to be.