Slashdot Mirror


Contest To Crack William Gibson Poem Agrippa

An anonymous reader writes "A new cracking contest to cryptanalyse a William Gibson poem. The electronic poem ('Agrippa') was written back in 1992 and self-encrypts after being displayed once. The person who successfully cracks the encryption will win a copy of every published Gibson book." The poem/program binary was recovered in 2008, but it looks like no one has managed (bothered?) to crack the code.

102 comments

  1. What were security standards like in '92? by i+kan+reed · · Score: 1

    What was the standard length of an encryption key back then?

    1. Re:What were security standards like in '92? by Yvanhoe · · Score: 1

      Not all encryptions are key based.

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    2. Re:What were security standards like in '92? by i+kan+reed · · Score: 1

      Yes, but I wanted a grasp of what the state of key-based encryption was like in the era so I could get my bearings on the complexity we're dealing with.

    3. Re:What were security standards like in '92? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indeed, but there is archival evidence suggesting that it implements DES (and in 1992 that's a short key length). Then again, it's not clear that the programmer followed the standard (or even bothered "properly" encrypting it).

    4. Re:What were security standards like in '92? by djl4570 · · Score: 5, Informative

      DES is 56 bits and has been around since the seventies. Early browsers from c1995 used 64 bits because anything more required export licenses. That's what got Philip Zimmerman in trouble back in 1994 when PGP was first posted to boards and online services. Given that Gibson is a futurist he might well have used an early implementation IDEA which was first described in 1991 and is 128 bits.

    5. Re:What were security standards like in '92? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What were security standards like in '92? Pretty Good

  2. Well , I looked at it twice... by Viol8 · · Score: 4, Informative

    ... and it was still the same. Perhaps the 1992 tech doesn't work in my shiny new HTML5 browser? ;o)

    1. Re:Well , I looked at it twice... by SJHillman · · Score: 5, Informative

      Crappy summary. The poem is not self-encrypting, rather a program displays the poem once and then encrypts it... it's that program that needs to be cracked. As far as I can tell, the poem itself is just a MacGuffin

    2. Re:Well , I looked at it twice... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      The summary isn't clear. The posting on the web is just the text of the poem. Per the original linked-to summary:

      While the text of William Gibson's elusive electronic poem AGRIPPA is widely posted around the Web, it has not been seen in its original incarnation — custom-built software designed to scroll the poem through a single play before encrypting each line with an RSA algorithm — since 1992.

    3. Re:Well , I looked at it twice... by Dan+East · · Score: 2

      I also thought that the poem itself was written in some sort of scripting language, and that it literally contained the algorithm that encrypted itself. At first glance the frequency of numbers (years) in the poem also gave the impression that the poem was actually a program of sorts. It seems I was also mislead by the summary, as the poem is arbitrary text and the real challenge is the display program that modified the floppy disc to encrypt the poem text.

      --
      Better known as 318230.
    4. Re:Well , I looked at it twice... by polymeris · · Score: 3, Funny

      Weird. From here I couldn't even see the decrypted version once. Just see undecyphrable verses.

    5. Re:Well , I looked at it twice... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://agrippa.english.ucsb.edu/category/the-book-subcategories/the-poem-running-in-emulation

  3. And when they're done here by jxander · · Score: 5, Funny

    The next challenge is decrypting Finnegans Wake.

    --
    This signature is false.
    1. Re:And when they're done here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      I did that once.

      I ended up with a Tale of Two Cities. Typo in the first sentence, "blurst" of times for some reason.

    2. Re:And when they're done here by Verdatum · · Score: 5, Funny

      You stupid monkey!!

    3. Re:And when they're done here by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Everyone seems to assume it's a "master work" simpy because nobody can understand it.

      Maybe it's just a bad book?

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    4. Re:And when they're done here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      “Scrotie McBoogerballs.”
      'nuff said. :)

    5. Re:And when they're done here by Ubergrendle · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The difference of art over technology, is that art's definition is not binary. It changes based on personal experience, experience of exposure to the art itself, and perception of it can have its own meaning changed by evolving society and its values. Ontop of all of that, there's intricacies of language, meter, symbolism, etc that are not immediately apparentt but may be uncovered in time. In short, just because you don't understand it doesn't mean that its bad. Finnegan's Wake is not accessible to a high school english student, and it was never intended to be.

      --
      John Maynard Keynes: "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?"
    6. Re:And when they're done here by newcastlejon · · Score: 1

      Art, like life, does not have an agreed-upon definition but I've settled on one (binary to boot) that's served me well: if it's done purposefully and has no practical use, it's art. It's very generous as regards art installations, photography and even "found art".

      That may earn the ire of any artists here (assuming there are any) but it came in very handy when I had to explain the difference between patents and copyright to someone. I think they may have even got their head around design patents, which can be tricky to grasp.

      --
      If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
    7. Re:And when they're done here by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 1

      Finnegan's Wake is not accessible to a high school english student, and it was never intended to be.

      Well, snoot snoot!

      But seriously, apperently it's not even "accessible" to most dedicated English Lit wonks, either. Most descriptions written by the highly edgeumakted run in circles and leap at random when trying to describe this work. In other words, most people accross the board just don't understand this piece of abstract art.

      And much of the abstract art out there is simply crap.

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    8. Re:And when they're done here by Illusion2269 · · Score: 1

      The next challenge is decrypting Finnegans Wake.

      Its much easier to understand, and enjoy, after having a few pints.

      We are talking about the Irish drinking song, right?

    9. Re:And when they're done here by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      'Bad' is not a binary absolute. It is an attribute of degrees. Perhaps Gibson's poem is just mediocre. Certainly many people could say that. And they could put it more simply by just saying it is a bad poem.

      Just because somebody doesn't understand it doesn't mean it isn't bad. There is a lot of terrible drivel out there. And remarkably, Gibson is not renowned for his poetry.

    10. Re:And when they're done here by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 2

      You aren't supposed to know what color the Emperor's clothing is. You darn peasant.

    11. Re:And when they're done here by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 1

      You aren't supposed to know what color the Emperor's clothing is. You darn peasant.

      Or whether or not his cat is dead...

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    12. Re:And when they're done here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://webstarts.com/?aff=wfaith

    13. Re:And when they're done here by Disfnord · · Score: 1

      Exactly. Anything that I don't like that other people claim to like must simply be explained by the fact that they are all lying about liking it.

  4. Losers will receive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    2 copies of every published Gibson book.

  5. "win a copy of every published Gibson book"?? by KrazyDave · · Score: 5, Funny

    There's your problem right there as to why no one has bothered. It's like that old joke - ".... second prize is two weeks in Cleveland, Ohio and the grand prize is one week in Cleveland, Ohio!"

    --
    www.chihuahuarescue.com- Help to end dog abuse, abandonment and cruelty
    1. Re:"win a copy of every published Gibson book"?? by snarfies · · Score: 1

      I hate to agree. I loved loved loved Neuromancer, but everything he has written since has been awful (well, Idoru was so-so) to the point where I'm half-convinced he didn't actually write Neuromancer himself. I gave up completely after All Tomorrow's Parties.

    2. Re:"win a copy of every published Gibson book"?? by realmolo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's true. I just re-read the "Sprawl Trilogy" in the last couple of weeks, just to see if "Count Zero" and "Mona Lisa Overdrive" were any better than I remember. They weren't. They're tedious-as-fuck.

      "Neuromancer" is great, but Gibson went up his own ass after that.

      Still, he wrote "Neuromancer", which gets him a lifetime pass.

    3. Re:"win a copy of every published Gibson book"?? by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1
      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    4. Re:"win a copy of every published Gibson book"?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...I just re-read...

      Well there's your problem. I've enjoyed every Gibson that I've read. But none that I've re-read.

    5. Re:"win a copy of every published Gibson book"?? by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      the short stories from burning chrome were best of Gibson so I guess that it fits that Neuromancer was best of sprawl.

      I rather liked Spook Country though.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    6. Re:"win a copy of every published Gibson book"?? by John+Bokma · · Score: 1

      A lot of people have the same problem with Larry Niven. Maybe some writers only have a limited time they can write something really good?

    7. Re:"win a copy of every published Gibson book"?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seriously? Mona Lisa was a bit disappointing, but I thought Count Zero was as good as Neuromancer.

      And if you read between the lines, even though Neuromancer is more often cited, a lot of Shadowrun's concept comes from Count Zero. So even if you can't stand them, be glad he wrote them.

    8. Re:"win a copy of every published Gibson book"?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...I just re-read...

      Well there's your problem. I've enjoyed every Gibson that I've read. But none that I've re-read.

      I too enjoyed every Gibson book I've ever read. Total as of today: 0.

    9. Re:"win a copy of every published Gibson book"?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree Burning Chrome is probably the best of all his writing. I think the insight he is pushing tends to be missed if the story is too long. It also doesn't help that he has gotten away from the cyberpunk theme in his latter books so the audiences would be completely different.

    10. Re:"win a copy of every published Gibson book"?? by arth1 · · Score: 1

      A lot of people have the same problem with Larry Niven. Maybe some writers only have a limited time they can write something really good?

      Not just some, I think.

      Your milage may vary, but authors who I think have declined severely include:

      Neal Stephenson
      Robert A. Heinlein
      Orson Scott Card (very quickly)
      Terry Pratchett
      Spider Robinson
      Philip K. Dick
      And much as I hate to say it, Charlie Stross too

      Come to think of it, the only author whose writing I think didn't decline at all was Poul Anderson.

      Again, YMMV

    11. Re:"win a copy of every published Gibson book"?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or, maybe, people tend to like the work that first exposed them to an artist?

      Its not 100%, but my favorite album from most artists I like was the one I was first introduced to (doesn't have to be their earlier work, just had to be the first thing I came across).

      Same with most authors.

      Maybe its just me.

      But its not.

    12. Re:"win a copy of every published Gibson book"?? by greg1104 · · Score: 2

      Whether Philip K. Dick's works declined or improved over time really depends on how much you're looking for amphetamine fueled visions of bat-shit crazy. Like it or hate it, his later work really didn't go through the usual out of ideas curve most writers follow over time.

    13. Re:"win a copy of every published Gibson book"?? by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      Some of those authors are dead. I'd expect that to have an effect on their output....

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    14. Re:"win a copy of every published Gibson book"?? by demonlapin · · Score: 1

      I think Stephenson's always written like this. He just had better editors in the past, who would rein in his more autistic measures. Now that he's a big moneymaker, people are afraid to challenge him too much, even though it was the harsh editing that made his prose better.

    15. Re:"win a copy of every published Gibson book"?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Blimey. Tedious? I think, possibly, you need to de-arse your own head before criticising Gibson.

      I never the understood the fuss over The Difference Engine, but his other novels are eminently re-readable.

    16. Re:"win a copy of every published Gibson book"?? by arth1 · · Score: 1

      I think Stephenson's always written like this. He just had better editors in the past, who would rein in his more autistic measures. Now that he's a big moneymaker, people are afraid to challenge him too much, even though it was the harsh editing that made his prose better.

      That may be true.
      I also think there's an overall dumbing down of editors; much like most "journalists" nowadays being little more than copy/paste machines, book editors now seem little more than machines for rubberstamping the lastest harlequin parasmut, video game or TV rip-off, or other crap that would have been pulp or outright rejected in the past. And proofreading? That task has been relegated to computer programmes that don't understand the text, and cannot provide useful feedback.
      Seen a stet lately?

  6. I've cracked it by mmarlett · · Score: 5, Funny

    "Be sure to drink your Ovaltine."

    1. Re:I've cracked it by JustOK · · Score: 5, Funny

      Be sure to salt your Crypto-routine

      --
      rewriting history since 2109
  7. So in other words... by TeknoHog · · Score: 5, Funny

    They want you to hack the Gibson.

    --
    Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
    1. Re:So in other words... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Came here for this - was not disappoint.

    2. Re:So in other words... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Hack the planet!

    3. Re:So in other words... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Check the garbage file

    4. Re:So in other words... by VortexCortex · · Score: 1

      Mess with the best die like the rest.
      The code was in the place I put that thing that one time
      Crash and Burn.

      There, now you don't have to do those.

      Here's food for though. I'm an assembly programmer, and I decompiled the program. IT'S FUCKING CRACKED. What would you like me to do? NO-OP the cipher?!

    5. Re:So in other words... by Zaphod+The+42nd · · Score: 1

      Acid Burn, Crash Override, Cereal Killer
      Oh the lulz

      --
      GCS/MU/P d- s:- a-- C++++$ UL++ P+ L++ E+ W++ N o K- w--- O M+ V- PS+++ PE Y+ PGP t+ 5- X R++ tv+ b++ DI++ D++ G+ e++ h-
    6. Re:So in other words... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it isn't Leopard Boy and the Decepticons....Type "cookie", you idiot.

      It's in that place where I put that thing that time...

      What? It's Corinthians one, chapter thirteen verse eleven.

      Spandex: it's a privilege, not a right.

    7. Re:So in other words... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mr. The Plague.

    8. Re:So in other words... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stupid, man. It's universally stupid.

      Yo. Check this out guys, this is insanely great, it's got a 28.8 BPS modem!

      Look, you wanna be elite? You gotta do a righteous hack. None of this accidental shit.

  8. No need for new infrastructure by vlm · · Score: 3, Interesting

    No need for new infrastructure, just post it as a project euler problem and when you "win" the blog/psuedowiki thing has a link to the torrent file for a collection of his books... I've uh, heard, that such a torrent exists.

    Seriously though I've also heard second hand that if you really want to piss off Mr Gibson all you have to do it tell him you love his book iconic genre defining cyberpunk book "snowcrash". At least thats what I've heard. If you don't get the joke, if you ask people the name of a cyberpunk author then family feud style 90% of them will say Gibson but if you ask them their favorite cyberpunk novel a majority will say "snowcrash" which was actually written by Stephenson. I like Gibson's novels too, this is just funny how people assume the awesomest book must have been written by the awesomest author.

    --
    "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    1. Re:No need for new infrastructure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I read your comment twice, and wasn't able to decrypt it.

    2. Re:No need for new infrastructure by vlm · · Score: 1

      I read your comment twice, and wasn't able to decrypt it.

      Well, get cracking or you're not going to get a torrent collection of all my /. comments

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    3. Re:No need for new infrastructure by Maltheus · · Score: 1

      Snowcrash is downright goofy compared to Neuromancer. But Stephensons other books are better than Gibsons other books.

  9. Interesting - no ResEdit? by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

    MacOS 7 (System 7) apps were 68k, but they were stored as two "forks" - a resource fork (for icons/cursors/windows/menus and 68k code), and a data form (for free-form data - binary, text, or PowerPC code, but I doubt there's any PowerPC in it).

    It's kinda interesting the website doesn't link to ResEdit as it's the way to tell if the binary is runnable by MacOS. (ResEdit also has a primitive disassembler for code resources).

    And some old Apple documentaiton on how the Mac works would've been valuable as well - MacOS is a pretty strange OS (each resource can be up to 64k in size, and large programs are known to have multiple code segments).

    Especially since knowing how the file must look like helps in its decryption since it has to be well-structured.

    1. Re:Interesting - no ResEdit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't claim to know anything about the classic Mac OS internals, but System 7 was compatible with PowerPC processors as well.

      Wikipedia has a good write-up about the 68k software emulator, but with the poem being a native 68k app running on a 68k vCPU (Mini vMac), the emulator is a little out of the scope of this project.

    2. Re:Interesting - no ResEdit? by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      Umm, resource forks were there long before System 7. They were always there on Mac OS.

  10. Not encrypted by Dan+East · · Score: 5, Informative

    According to the diff of the disc image before and after the program runs (http://www.crackingagrippa.net/files/agrippa_diffs.txt) it's perfectly clear that the text is not being encrypted. The listing on the left is after the modification, and the listing on the right is the original disc image. A large portion of the disc (exactly 8,000 contiguous bytes) has been rewritten with only four different bytes: 0x41, 0x43, 0x47, 0x54.

    Thus a very significant portion of the original information is lost during the "encryption". It sure looks to me like the program merely overwrites the poem portion of the data with one of four randomly selected bytes. The poem, as listed in HTML on the web page, is 9190 characters, which correlates pretty close with the amount of bytes being modified on the disc image.

    --
    Better known as 318230.
    1. Re:Not encrypted by Dan+East · · Score: 1

      Correction. 6,000 contiguous bytes of data on the disc is modified, not 8,000.

      --
      Better known as 318230.
    2. Re:Not encrypted by zamboni1138 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      A large portion of the disc (exactly 8,000 contiguous bytes) has been rewritten with only four different bytes: 0x41, 0x43, 0x47, 0x54.

      Aren't those hex for ASCII characters A, C, G and T? Isn't that the same four characters that are used in DNA sequences?

    3. Re:Not encrypted by WillAdams · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Correct.

      The program was supposed to be over-writing itself w/ (randomly?) generated DNA information --- to match the DNA etchings / prints on the bundled cloth included w/ the physical original.

      --
      Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.
    4. Re:Not encrypted by Dan+East · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Well in that case the only question is if that "DNA" contains some other message or meaning. Each of the 6,000 DNA "bytes" can be one of 4 values. Thus each "byte" can store 2 bits of information. That's 12,000 bits of data. Assuming uppercase letters only, it takes 5 bits per letter minimum to encode text (without any compression). That only allows for 2,400 characters, which is 1/4th of the poem text.

      Looking at it another way, the poem contains 1649 words. That allows for 3.6 DNA "bytes" per word (6000 / 1649), which is 6 bits of data per word. I'll round it up to 7 bits per word to be generous. That's still only 128 unique values per word, which isn't enough to encode all the unique words in the poem.

      I just don't see any way to encode a 9,000 word poem into 12,000 bits of data. If the "DNA" does have meaning then it would have to be an excerpt of the poem, or additional verses that aren't in the plaintext version.

      The latter has my vote. If the author really is clever, then he came up with an algorithm that takes the original poem text and converts it into "DNA" looking data, which can further be decoded into text that contains additional readable text that completes the poem. If he pulled that off then he earns some major respect.

      --
      Better known as 318230.
    5. Re:Not encrypted by StuckInSyrup · · Score: 1

      Try to feed that AGCT stuff to a DNA to aminoacid translation table. The result in single letter aminoacid code should mean something, as there are 20 different aminoacids coded by triplets of DNA bases, e.g. ACT=T (for Thereonin). I would try myself, if I wasn't late allready...

      --
      Ni.
    6. Re:Not encrypted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      doesn't mean it's not encrypted. an alphabet of 4 symbols -> 2bits/sym. if the original
      poem were monocase (32 characters), you'd need 3 encoded symbols /
      original. if the original is 2000 bytes or less, then there is a simple encoding
      into the ACGT symbol set.

    7. Re:Not encrypted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yup, supposedly there is not enough information (in the Shannon sense) contained in the overwritten genetic sequence to contain the poem, however, it's not clear that this is where the poem is (the sequence is from the *compiled* binary). The available source code suggests something else (it doesn't just say "spit out random genetic sequence"). My guess is that the genetic sequence is a red herring, perhaps to throw people off.

    8. Re:Not encrypted by midgetpoker · · Score: 1

      Don't forget that there are multiple nucleic acid triplets which code for a single amino acid and that these triplets can overlap. So if the output doesn't make sense on the first attempt there are other means of encoding and it'll also change depending on if there's a start codon (AUG) or not.

    9. Re:Not encrypted by Sez+Zero · · Score: 1

      A large portion of the disc (exactly 8,000 contiguous bytes) has been rewritten with only four different bytes: 0x41, 0x43, 0x47, 0x54.

      So a poem that calls itself "the book of the dead" kills itself?

      Sounds more like a need for literary interpretation than a cryptographic one.

    10. Re:Not encrypted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ever heard of compression? :) Perhaps it's compressed, THEN encrypted. OTOH, what a waste of time and effort decrypting that would be. I'd much rather decrypt a document revealing the location of hidden treasure, than revealing something that rewards you with some books you could go get from the bargain bin at the Friends of the Library bookstore...

    11. Re:Not encrypted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wasn't most of the genome sequencing done in the 2000s? Would there have even been much DNA info available to people outside of the scientific community in the 90s? It's not like he could have just googled the information back then.

    12. Re:Not encrypted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe the encryption isn't at the word level....

    13. Re:Not encrypted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      According to the diff of the disc image before and after the program runs (http://www.crackingagrippa.net/files/agrippa_diffs.txt) it's perfectly clear that the text is not being encrypted. The listing on the left is after the modification, and the listing on the right is the original disc image. A large portion of the disc (exactly 8,000 contiguous bytes) has been rewritten with only four different bytes: 0x41, 0x43, 0x47, 0x54.

      Thus a very significant portion of the original information is lost during the "encryption". It sure looks to me like the program merely overwrites the poem portion of the data with one of four randomly selected bytes. The poem, as listed in HTML on the web page, is 9190 characters, which correlates pretty close with the amount of bytes being modified on the disc image.

      Assuming the data is not compressed somehow, switching from about 70 symbols/byte to 4 symbols/byte, while maintaining the same number of bytes, indicates that some of the original information is missing. IE. the file is probably scrambled, NOT ENCRYPTED.

    14. Re:Not encrypted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if there isnt enough DNA bits of info, then perhaps it is placed into DNA form, then compressed ala an algorithm like gzip.

  11. I found the problem by Phoenixlol · · Score: 3, Funny

    Perhaps "no one has managed (bothered?) to crack the code" because "The person who successfully cracks the encryption will win a copy of every published Gibson book." Just speculation, being unfamiliar with his work.

    1. Re:I found the problem by JustNiz · · Score: 1

      If you haven't read any Gibson you're missing out.

    2. Re:I found the problem by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      You're certainly missing out on an experience, in much the same way that you are missing out on an experience if you've never accidentally fallen in a river.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    3. Re:I found the problem by greg1104 · · Score: 2

      I'd intentionally fall into a river if the other option was reading more Gibson.

    4. Re:I found the problem by chrismcb · · Score: 1

      Falling in a river can be a lot of fun.

  12. Boring, though, isn't it? by eyenot · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I mean, what's to stop a programmer, who isn't necessarily a heady cryptanalyst, from simply reverse-engineering the Mac application and figuring out exactly how it's done without looking at the poem itself (or the encrypted version) at all?

    So, this isn't a cryptanalysis contest. It's a reverse-engineering contest. A cryptanalyst isn't given the actual encrypting mechanism, the original, and the cipher all out front and asked for an explanation. They just get the cipher and some reasonable expectation of what the original might possibly contain (the words "fuhrer" or "atom" for example).

    So it's kind of boring for me -- a hobbyist with an ardent interest in cryptography -- to bother tackling the problem, when somebody with some familiarity with Macintosh machine language is going to have a severe advantage.

    The contest caters to the wrong crowd and packages itself all wrong.

    --
    "Stratigraphically the origin of agriculture and thermonuclear destruction will appear essentially simultaneous" -- Lee
    1. Re:Boring, though, isn't it? by gl4ss · · Score: 2

      well, you'd still have to figure out the algorithm to decrypt it if it's really devious, I guess that's the point.

      maybe it's a joke and it just a one way hashing algo.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    2. Re:Boring, though, isn't it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A cryptanalyst isn't given the actual encrypting mechanism, the original, and the cipher all out front and asked for an explanation. They just get the cipher and some reasonable expectation of what the original might possibly contain (the words "fuhrer" or "atom" for example).

      So it's kind of boring for me -- a hobbyist with an ardent interest in cryptography -- to bother tackling the problem, when somebody with some familiarity with Macintosh machine language is going to have a severe advantage.

      The contest caters to the wrong crowd and packages itself all wrong.

      It sounds like you are talking of WWII era code-breaking. The state of the art has advanced significantly since then. A modern cryptanalyst most certainly would get this information. That would be a known plaintext attack. This can be quite common, for example, if you are trying to decrypt a file type with a consistent header, or trying to break an SSL session, where the first page is always the login page. Knowing the algorithm used isn't uncommon either, such as with SSL.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Known_plaintext_attack

      This is also explained in the first section of Applied Cryptography. If you haven't read Applied Cryptography, check it out. It will take your hobby to the next level.

    3. Re:Boring, though, isn't it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As pointed out elsewhere in the thread, the encrypted data isn't large enough to contain the whole poem. Either it's not really an encryption mechanism or the encrypted text is something other than the poem.

    4. Re:Boring, though, isn't it? by Zaphod+The+42nd · · Score: 1

      So it's kind of boring for me -- a hobbyist with an ardent interest in cryptography -- to bother tackling the problem, when somebody with some familiarity with Macintosh machine language is going to have a severe advantage.

      Not everything in the world is meant for you. Sorry, you aren't the target audience. You also likely aren't the target audience for barbie dolls, but are you going to complain when their marketing doesn't appeal to you?

      --
      GCS/MU/P d- s:- a-- C++++$ UL++ P+ L++ E+ W++ N o K- w--- O M+ V- PS+++ PE Y+ PGP t+ 5- X R++ tv+ b++ DI++ D++ G+ e++ h-
    5. Re:Boring, though, isn't it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First, the guy is wrong about their audience. It is the right audience. He just doesn't seem to realize the encryption can be asymmetrical and therefore the decryption process can be completely different from the encryption process. However, his complaint would be apt if he were correct with his original statement. To use your example, it'd be as if Mattel continued to try and market current barbie dolls toward you. it'd obviously be the wrong market. and you could be upset if they were using whatever your favorite hobby is and say that barbie dolls are an awesome representation of said hobby.

    6. Re:Boring, though, isn't it? by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      So who is the target audience, then? Macintosh 68K machine language enthusiasts? I have a few SE/30s in storage, but won't be plugging them in and booting them up for this.

      Possibly the best encryption needed would be to store the poem in plaintext on an 800K Mac floppy diskette.....

    7. Re:Boring, though, isn't it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Christ Jesus, shut the fuck up.

  13. Busted! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  14. 2nd Prize!! by drainbramage · · Score: 1

    Second prize Is TWO copies of every published Gibson book.

    --
    No brain, no pain.
  15. Good luck with that by mveloso · · Score: 1

    I met the guy who was doing this, and I think it was written in Mac Common Lisp, which obviates any 68k knowledge.

    The one thing it does do is change the NMI vector so you can't use the programmer's key to break into it. That was my small contribution. You may be able to bypass this by running it in multifinder, finding the process-specific NMI vector, and restoring it. You may also be able to set a breakpoint when the NMI vector changes and then reset it. It's been a really long time, and I've forgotten how multifinder dealt with the various vectors...but I do remember that they did get swapped out per-process.

    I suppose it must refuse to run when it's run off of read-only media. The whole point was to make sure it only ran once then destroyed itself. You could bit copy it onto floppies - I'm not sure how to do that anymore either. Damn, was that was only 20 years ago.

  16. Decrypted text by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Inigo Montoya: [Both characters are engaged in a sword fight] You are using Bonetti's Defense against me, ah?
    Man in Black: I thought it fitting considering the rocky terrain.
    Inigo Montoya: Naturally, you must suspect me to attack with Capa Ferro?
    Man in Black: Naturally... but I find that Thibault cancels out Capa Ferro. Don't you?
    Inigo Montoya: Unless the enemy has studied his Agrippa... which I have.

  17. Re:The ballad of Jim and Mary by greg1104 · · Score: 2

    Your quick summary could use a quick summary.

  18. Fools... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... the encrypted version IS the poem.

  19. Re:The ballad of Jim and Mary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm posting as AC because I already modded someone insightful, and instead of modding you "wrong" I figured I would respond instead.
     
    In short-- a paintbrush is not a painting, MS Word is not a poem-- you are confusing the quality of the tools at hand (story, meaning, word selection, etc) and dexterity with which they're used with the quality of experience that a work of art can provide.
     
    To be fair, "Finnegan's Wake" does have a high signal to noise ratio ("is noise art?" is not an interesting conversation) but some of us find that ratio intriguing. The fact that the book is widely regarded as a classic of literature and has stood the test of time should spur you to take a second look-- no one makes that kind of noise by accident. Try it-- it's tougher than it seems.
     
    You know, I just realized that your argument boils down to "I don't enjoy the aesthetic, so the technique must be lacking, therefore !=art". Only a fool or a child would be so simpleminded... I may have just been trolled.

  20. Cool! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can I have the encrypted copies?

  21. VM? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Interesting. Given that to run the program now a VM is required doesn't that open up all sorts of possibilities with regards to working out what is going on?

    After all, one should be able to run it in a modified VM which is able to trace the execution of the program as it does it's job and thus give one a better idea of what is going on and why...

  22. Agrippa has been cracked! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Details available here: http://www.crackingagrippa.net/ with full details to follow soon.