BunnyRabbit wrote:
You can brute force a crib to unlock the whole thing if you can guess one thing that is in the plain text and have an idea that the technique used isn't based on a random pad.
You're talking about something different (attacks on large datasets encrypted with smaller keys). We're talking about one-time pads here, which done correctly mean that you can't reduce your guesses. Try every possible combination and all you'll get is every possible six-letter string.
was just thinking...lets say someone guesses the 6th num. it probably wont do anything till they enable whatever it is supposed to reveal. everything is probably timed. the release date is set. that wont change. it will either be the release date...or we'll be sitting with 6 nums till they let us know what its for.
Probably. It's only six digits long. If we knew what to do with the numbers, we could have a computer run through the possible missing number combinations in a fraction of a second and get our answer.
But we don't. I really think this information is meaningless until we get a numbers station pad to decrypt them with (which is why I don't find this all that interesting... it's just a collection game really. "Watch all of our ads!" instead of "do something clever with these clues").
I mean, hopefully we're just all too stupid to have seen what the clever thing is, but I'm betting on it being a "collect the numbers and then collect the key" thing
I don't really see this as something that comes right out of the minds of Mike and Marcus, either. Seems like a ad agency stunt to me.
It's kinda fun, but it's starting to smell more of marketing than intrigue.
Last edited by Waz on Sun Apr 28, 2013 11:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
!!!FNORD!!!
place the numbers at the top of this page in a list going down, one number on each line. each goes beneath the previous one. put that list next to this one, with the following new numbers ordered the same way (top to bottom): 667925 921341 987679 732592 412592 258765
not good at maths, but the 2592's seem to want to mate somehow. and there are FOUR of them.. order the list so 2592 stands out going top to bottom in the old numbers, left to right in these new numbers. this would seem to confirm all the numbers, at the least, provided we are right. i am having a very hard time getting this message out. copy as you will.
Each number corresponds to its letter in the alphabet (1 = a, 2 = b, etc.), and there's your answer.
And of course, the missing number is an Abelian pair, so we can predict that it's 632476 (with the corresponding transcyclic code 632456). That leaves us with the fully-deciphered text:
Each number corresponds to its letter in the alphabet (1 = a, 2 = b, etc.), and there's your answer.
And of course, the missing number is an Abelian pair, so we can predict that it's 632476 (with the corresponding transcyclic code 632456). That leaves us with the fully-deciphered text:
19 12 21 20 20 25
19/12/21/20/20/25
=
S/L/U/T/T/Y
=
OMGLOL
Last edited by Hexahedral on Mon Apr 29, 2013 12:23 am, edited 1 time in total.
Each number corresponds to its letter in the alphabet (1 = a, 2 = b, etc.), and there's your answer.
And of course, the missing number is an Abelian pair, so we can predict that it's 632476 (with the corresponding transcyclic code 632456). That leaves us with the fully-deciphered text:
19 12 21 20 20 25
since people might wonder:
19 12 21 20 20 25 = slutty (via alphabet conversion)
ilzmastr wrote:After sufficient testing, my results indicate that it is highly unlikely that BoC are reusing a 3 member OTP on the 36 digit code (unlikely and not impossible, since the 36 digit code is not completely known yet). the most legible results of my brute force crack are here:
What I did:
Basically I assumed that every 2 digits of the 36 digit code constituted 1 member of the final message (to represent every letter of the alphabet with a number in you have to use at least 2 digits), and I tried all combinations of 3 member pads (00,00,00 to 26,26,26 [no more is needed, bunch of redundancy if you do until 99,99,99]) repeating throughout the BoC code, and then searched the fragments of each of those outputs against the Oxford dictionary and a little BoC list.
(for the unknown 5th BoC code portion i just assumed 01,01,01 - so I tested: [69,97,42,62,83,15,71,72,28,93,65,57,01,01,01,51,92,25])
cool shit! (if somewhat inconclusive...) how long did this take to compute?
"foxyawhpjdimpwinjg" looks like something my sister and I used to type into the text-to-speech program on our first computer (ca. 1992) in one of our many attempts to break it...
believe it or not, running my python script only took 10 seconds! (hash tables have very fast access)
Waz wrote:Not sure if I've missed something about what you're trying to rule out ilzmastr, but the point of a (properly-done) message encrypted with a one-time-pad is that you couldn't rule out the decryption keys, because the pad/key will be long enough that your guesses would produce EVERY possible message. You could run through every possible decryption, and you'd find the messages "MILEY C", "BIEBER", "COFFEE" and "DEMONS" in your output. The point is that without the correct pad, you wouldn't know which one is the message you're after.
yea, if there is no repetition of a pad, then yes, you have no chance of decrypting. I was just reading about the venona project where Russian communications were compromised by a US lieutenant who realized that the Russians were being lazy and reusing pads.
The reason I tried this is because by failing to find a re-usable pad (although it could be any length, not just 3 characters/numbers) I prove that BoC will have to provide a key to their code, or at least that there is some key floating around somewhere. (and yes, I've tried keys specific to the 6 digit sub-codes like record, vinyl, bbc1... etc)
dredd1971 wrote:What is the significance and reason the codes were shown to us in the order they did xxxxxx/xxxxxx/xxxxxx/XXXXXX/xxxxxx/xxxxxx and so on............That is a big thing overlooked
That's an excellent point actually.
really think this maybe something we've overlooked
That seems like too much detail to me And could they even be sure the codes were found in the order they wanted? Somebody might not have found that record until yesterday, for example.
