Slashdot Mirror


U.S. Army Guide to Code Breaking

sebFlyte writes "From the introduction of this document, the U.S. Army's field manual guide to Cryptanalysis: 'This manual presents the basic principles and techniques of cryptanalysts and their relation to cryptography. Cryptanalytics is the art and science of solving unknown codes and ciphers.'"

12 of 249 comments (clear)

  1. Yes, however... by grub · · Score: 5, Funny


    ...you know what they say about "military intelligence".

    Private : Sir! I found this, it may be a clue. Should I consult the field manual to cryptopgraphy?
    Sergeant : "Gur jrncbaf bs znff qrfgehpgvba ner va Fnqqnz'f Onfrzrag"? [crumpling paper] These are obviously the scribblings of a madman, Private. Get back to your patrol!

    --
    Trolling is a art,
    1. Re:Yes, however... by GrAfFiT · · Score: 5, Funny

      For those who are too lazy, this is ROT13 for "The weapons of mass destruction are in Saddam's Basement"

  2. Light reading by Deekin_Scalesinger · · Score: 5, Funny

    A sneak peek at chapter 7:

    Solution of polygraphic substitution systems polyalphabetic substitution systems

    and that's just the title. Pack a lunch for this one...

    --
    "As the intrepid kobold companion continues his journey, he begins to wonder... if priests raises dead, why anybody die?
  3. US Army Guide to Everything. by k4_pacific · · Score: 5, Funny

    If it moves, shoot it.

    If it doesn't move, pick it up.

    If you can't pick it up, paint it.

    --
    Unknown host pong.
  4. Re:Page 2 reads... by nickfrommaryland · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This document is also 15 years old. Let's think about computing power available 15 years ago. Yes, there were computers more than powerful enough to do handle brute force decryption, not to mention more sophisiticated means. In terms of portability, however, there was nothing. Computing power has become so inexpensive and widespread now that more advanced forms of cryptography have (natrually) replaced the older, hand driven cyphers of old. Let's also think about the types of encryption that were being used back then. The mathematics that it takes to drive many of these algorithms was simply not practical in 1990. This document is serves more as a historical artifact now rather than a practial guide to decrypting like the government.

  5. Thinks a soldier needs to know about encryption by wowbagger · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Things a soldier needs to know about encryption and code breaking:
    1. How to use his encryption equipment in a secure fashion (e.g. not using old codes or keys)
    2. How to keep his encryption equipment from falling into enemy hands.
    3. How to recognise enemy encryption equipment, ranging from simple notepads with Civil-War style encryption cyphers to flash disks with encryption codes.
    4. How not to screw up any enemy encryption gear before the real cryptographers show up.
    5. How to recognize encrypted messages on the battlefield (e.g. code talkers on the radio, code scrawled on a building)


    Above and beyond that is gravy - if some soldier who's MOS is not codebreaking wants to try when he isn't doing his MOS, great.
  6. Re:Utility? by CodeMonkey4Hire · · Score: 5, Informative
    You're right. This isn't new. From the top of TFA:
    FIELD MANUAL
    NO 34-40-2 HEADQUARTERS
    DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
    Washington, DC, 13 September 1990

    The original for this came from <a href=http://www.atsc-army.org/cgi-win/$atdl.exe/fm /34-40-2/default.htm>here</a> on Tue Dec 17 01:21:11 EST 1996.
    This thing is 14 years old and has been public for over 8 years (at least) and somebody thinks that it is worth putting on slashdot. Thanks.
    (P.S. - note that the link they used for "here" doesn't even work. /.ed maybe?)
    --

    Let's go Hurricanes!!! 2006 Stanley Cup Champions!!!
  7. Modern Battlefield by john_anderson_ii · · Score: 5, Interesting
    I'm now a "former" Marine, but in January of '03 I found myself shipped to Kuwait, and eventually wound up in Iraq. I had it a bit lucky. I worked as an "Intel Analyst" for the 6th Engineers.

    In the COC (Combat Operations Center, center of confusion, or simply Circle of Cocksuckers), we had many little toys, ranging from Toshiba toughbooks to proxima projectors, etc. We used microwave relay to keep in touch with group and make sure our batallion commander was seeing the same operational picture that 1st FSSG was seeing.

    That was all done via an electronically encrypted network. Which is fine and dandy when you have:
    • Electricity
    • Computers
    • A network

    For forward units and combat units in the field the only thing they have that comes close is the field radio. While the encryption on these things is very advanced, the radio's are bullet, shock and explosion proof. Yes, the guy carrying your map, and perhaps a list of checkpoints might not be around forever. That is why field and forward units still have to employ non-electronic means of deciet and encryption. Even if it's as simple as one guy having the map, and the other guy having a clear piece of plastic with lines drawn on it.

    If U.S. Marines and soldiers are still using "old fasioned" techniqies such as this, one could surmise that our enemies are doing the same.

    Therefore, that old manual may have some relevance.
    --
    Be Safe! Sleep with a Marine. Semper Fi!
    1. Re:Modern Battlefield by Gregoyle · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Spot on. I agree with everything the parent said.

      I was in a unit which replicated Marxist/Viet Cong style guerrillas, and we were able to use methods like this to great effect. Since we were replicating low-tech guerrillas, most of our radios were Vietnam-era, with controls like Fisher Price's My First Radio (PRC-77 for those interested). However, we were able to confound our opponents (the regular Army) on a regular basis using very simple codes, while at the same time penetrating their networks almost as regularly.

      We had a pre-defined encryption scheme that radio operators were required to memorize. Mostly it was just simple word substitution, along with a simple way of encoding numbers. The key was that we all new each other and used knowledge common to all that the enemy had no way of knowing. We would avoid giving out locations more detailed than "300m South of that place we had lunch last week".

      The reason these methods worked was twofold. First, the information was only useful for a limited amount of time. So even if you figured out that "Beaker plus one, minus 5, Donkeypunch plus 3 plus 1 Boomhauer minus 6 plus 2" was really grid VQ 606 419, it wouldn't do you much good because we weren't there anymore. Second, the people who were actually capable of figuring this stuff out were way in the rear, and the overhead of getting the information to the grunts (or crunchies as we always called them) on the ground was so much that it basically never happened.

      --

      "He's more machine now than man, twisted and evil."

  8. Re:Cryptanalytics 101: Pop Quiz by abb3w · · Score: 5, Insightful
    "B22 z1vs cb64 S c4m1o7 3 vt!!!"

    Case sensitive +1 shift on 1337 translation of Engrish text, punctuation/spacing excluded.

    0) Cypertext: "B22 z1vs cb64 S c4m107 3 vt!!!"
    1) Intermediate 1337: "A11 y0ur ba53 R b3l0ng 2 us!!!" --NB, "A11" not "All" as previous translators have given.
    2) Engrish Plaintext: "All your base are belong to us!!!"

    55 47 55 2e 20 55 4e 41 51 2e

    --
    //Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
  9. This is the is the manual for 98C's... by Autonin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is the manual I used when I trained as a 98C (Signals Intelligence Analyst = SigInt) some 10 years ago. This is *still used* now.

    FOUO classification means it shouldn't have been published at all. Just because it's common knowledge does NOT declassify a document. The document can only be declassified by the originating authority (the people who wrote it, and classified it to begin with). You'll see "DECL:OADR" on these docs a lot - "Declassify on Originating Authority Directive".

    This FM is meant to teach the basics of cryptology to ASVAB-passing recruits. We run through the whole thing. Some very smart people go into Intel. Some pretty dumb ones do too :).

    Everyone is expected to pass the final after this is taught, which consists of 4 days worth of simulated "traffic" being passed between target stations. We've reference books for traffic pattern types, run locational analysis, crack subsitution ciphers - it's romping good fun.

    The encryption methods taught are still used in the field, though less and less thanks to the Internet, crypto-secured frequency-hopping radios, and whatnot, mostly for Meteo and Logistics.

    Brings back some nostalgia, reading though this. I hope they don't get into too much trouble for posting it.

    --
    -AutoNiN
  10. Re:Page 2 reads... by Dun+Malg · · Score: 5, Interesting
    This document is also 15 years old. Let's think about computing power available 15 years ago. Yes, there were computers more than powerful enough to do handle brute force decryption, not to mention more sophisiticated means. In terms of portability, however, there was nothing. Computing power has become so inexpensive and widespread now that more advanced forms of cryptography have (natrually) replaced the older, hand driven cyphers of old. Let's also think about the types of encryption that were being used back then. The mathematics that it takes to drive many of these algorithms was simply not practical in 1990. This document is serves more as a historical artifact now rather than a practial guide to decrypting like the government.

    I can attest that your assertion is exactly right. I was a Signal Intelligence Analyst in the US Army from '87 to '91, and most of what we saw was pretty crude. Remember, the Army doesn't generally intercept diplomatic comm's encrypted with sophisticated devices locked in embassy basements. It's probably more sophisticated now, but back then we mostly got stuff encoded by drafted soldiers and sent via morse code! I was trained in basic cryptanalysis, but most of what we saw was (Soviet) Red Army code table stuff. Morse transmissions would come in as a bunch of 3-digit numbers. The first two digits correspond to the X and Y axes of a 10x10 grid. Each square in the grid would contain 3 to 9 numbered code "snippets", and the 3rd digit of the 3-digit number refers to which. These snippets could be anything-- "weather report", "infantry", "battalion", "heading", a single number, a single letter, etc-- that might make up part of a message. Codes like this are tough to break when used properly, but of course they weren't. Some red army private would send "225 171", and the guy on the other end would say "huh? say again?" because he was holding his code table upsode down or something. They'd go back and forth five or six times before the first guy would just lose his shit and say "GIVE ME A BALLISTIC WEATHER REPORT, YOU STUPID TARD!" and then we'd know that "225 171" meant "REQUEST" and "BWX(ballistic weather report)".

    But at about the time of the fall of the Soviet Union, all that started to change. The russkies were gone, and most of the "warsaw pact interoperability" tendency for all their client states disappeared with 'em. A prime example of a military with excellent COMSEC was the Iraqi army, and they did it very simply as well. Instead of using radio, they ran wire and used field telephones for nearly EVERYTHING. When we were deployed for DESERT SHIELD we found the airwaves almost dead. The days of morse code and ciphers are pretty much gone.

    --
    If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.