Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Another Hint For Kryptos

Posted by timothy on from the it's-about-where-to-get-local-donuts dept.

rastos1 writes Four years ago Jim Sanborn, the sculptor who created the wavy metal pane called Kryptos that sits in front of the CIA in Langley revealed a clue for breaking the last remaining part of the encrypted message on Kryptos. The clue was: BERLIN. But the puzzle resisted all all decryption efforts and is still unsolved. To honor the 25th anniversary of the Wall's demise and the artist's 69th birthday this year, Sanborn has decided to reveal a new clue to help solve his iconic and enigmatic artwork. It's only the second hint he's released since the sculpture was unveiled in 1990 and may finally help unlock the fourth and final section of the encrypted sculpture, which frustrated sleuths have been struggling to crack for more than two decades. The next word in the sequence is: "clock."

50 comments

  1. Clock -- Time is running out! by SeaFox · · Score: 1

    The artist is 69...
    I hope he wrote the solution in his will because at this rate the encryption will outlive him.

    Actually maybe I don't. It would be also amusing to have a cypher-sculpture in front of CIA headquarters that never gets solved.

    1. Re:Clock -- Time is running out! by GarethIwanFairclough · · Score: 1

      The artist is 69... I hope he wrote the solution in his will because at this rate the encryption will outlive him.

      Actually maybe I don't. It would be also amusing to have a cypher-sculpture in front of CIA headquarters that never gets solved.

      Perhaps they have solved it, but want to keep that info to themselves?

    2. Re:Clock -- Time is running out! by Dan+East · · Score: 2

      "Sanborn also confirmed that should he die before the entire sculpture becomes deciphered, there will be someone able to confirm the solution."

      --
      Better known as 318230.
    3. Re:Clock -- Time is running out! by jd · · Score: 1

      Damn. I was hoping he was going to say that the solution was written down but the piece of acid-free archival paper had been cut into segments, placed in acid-free envelopes, in turn placed in argon-filled boxes, which in turn were buried at secret locations, with the GPS coordinates for each segment written in encrypted format in the will.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    4. Re:Clock -- Time is running out! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd guess that there's also a copy with his will at his solicitors office or something.

    5. Re:Clock -- Time is running out! by r1348 · · Score: 1

      Even better, the coordinates should be encrypted on Kryptos. Now THAT would be meta.

    6. Re:Clock -- Time is running out! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps they have solved it, but want to keep that info to themselves?

      That would be paranoia without any real cause or consecuence, eh?

      For a puzzle that amounts to an "inside joke" anyway, is it really of any use to withhold that someone did finally understand said metaphorical joke and... had a laugh for their efforts?

      Someone can't singlehandedly reserve one of the biggest cypher mysteries ever to an inside joke when it might have become a standard all on its own (and we know that lone wolf encryption is bound to have weaknesses because of lack of cryptanalitic tests). And it's not like the revealed cypher's crack would replace all world encryption, or break all old foreign and inhouse cyphers. Right?

      CAPTCHA: secures ;)

  2. Did you say cock? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think I'm getting a raging clue! And my clue is pointing that way!

    1. Re: Did you say cock? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nah, you just have homosexual thoughts. That's okay, Jesus still loves you.

    2. Re: Did you say cock? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I doubt it. God really hates homosexuals, I don't think he'd put up with his other form/son/whateverthefuck being cool with it.

    3. Re: Did you say cock? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      God doesn't even exist, you brainless fucktard.

    4. Re: Did you say cock? by ls671 · · Score: 2

      I am a girl, you insensitive clod.

      --
      Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
    5. Re: Did you say cock? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am a girl, you insensitive clod.

      Your clitoris is homologous to the male penis and is made of erectile tissue as well.

    6. Re: Did you say cock? by Cito · · Score: 1

      Girls don't exist online either!

      G.I.R.L. = Guy In Real Life

  3. Why bother? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is there any reason to suppose that the message concealed is of any interest to anyone except the sculptor? Are there no important, practical, even pressing problems in cryptography? No cryptographic puzzles of more import or with some relevance beyond themselves?

    1. Re:Why bother? by l0ungeb0y · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Because cracking the code is a rewarding achievement unto itself? You sound like a highly unimaginative workaholic who can't comprehend why someone would do something purely for the novelty, entertainment or pure enjoyment of the act itself. To you, everything must have some sort of tangible reward such as a paycheck or prize. I feel sad for you. I mean, why do you bother to live? For what purpose? Clearly you find no satisfaction here, aside from working for a paycheck.

    2. Re:Why bother? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Try pointing out the positive aspects. You also sound negative. You;d rather point out the negative aspects of another's comments than explain what gives you joy.

    3. Re:Why bother? by nedlohs · · Score: 2

      The first fucking sentence was the positive aspect.

    4. Re:Why bother? by djembe2k · · Score: 1

      Actually, the NSA cracked the first 3 of the 4 coded messages themselves, but didn't go public with it until a member of the public had found the solution. Or they claim they did, anyway . . .

    5. Re:Why bother? by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      It doesn't give me joy. Which would be why I'm not working on it. That doesn't mean someone else won't find it rewarding and hence positive.

    6. Re:Why bother? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you interested in slogging through the snow and cold, and possibly risking your life to reach the peak of K2 or Mt. Everest? No? Well, Jimmy, you're probably not alone.

      Is that metaphor not enough? Some people derive joy from niche activities, many for very unspecific, irrational, or unexplainable reasons. You're on a site which caters to nerds, many of whom enjoy hacking about with esoteric subject matters. If you can't relate to people who dick around with something, for whatever reason, you're probably in the minority here.

    7. Re:Why bother? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      That's it? Seriously that''s not enough for many people.

      That's why many people aren't working on it.

      But for people who do enjoy that kind of thing, it sure beats watching TV or hanging out at a bar.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    8. Re:Why bother? by jd · · Score: 2

      There are lots of pressing problems.

      Cyphers, as opposed to codes, have well-defined functions (be it an algorithm or a lookup table) which map the input to the output. The same functions are applied in the same way across the entire input. Unless the functions are such that the output is truly indistinguishable from a random oracle (or, indeed, any other Oracle product), information is exposed, both information about the message and information about the method for producing the cyphertext. Since randomness can tell you nothing, by definition, the amount of information exposed cannot exceed the the information limit proposed by Shannon for a channel whose bandwidth is equal to the non-randomness of the output.

      (A channel is a channel is a channel. The rules don't care.)

      So, obviously you want to know how to get at the greatest amount of the unencrypted data that's encoded in the non-randomness, and how do you actually then extract the contents?

      In other words, is there a general purpose function that can do basic, naive cryptanalysis? And what, exactly, can such a function achieve given a channel of N bits and a message of M bits?

      In other words, how much non-randomness can a cypher have before you definitely know there's enough information leakage in some arbitrary cypher for the most naive cryptanalysis possible (excluding brute-force, since that's not analytical and isn't naive since you have to know the cypher) to be able to break the cypher in finite time? (Even if that's longer than the universe is expected to last.)

      Is there some function which can take the information leakage rate and the type and complexity of the cypher to produce a half-life of that class of cyphers, where you can expect half of a random selection of cyphers (out of all cyphers with the same characteristics) to be broken at around that estimated half-life point?

      If you can do that, then you know how complex you can make your cypher for a competition page, and how simple you can afford it when building a TrueCrypt replacement.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    9. Re:Why bother? by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      "in berlin the doomsday clock is forgotten on this day"

      it's something like that.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    10. Re:Why bother? by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      For someone supposedly so imaginative, you sure jump to conclusions. You really can't see any other perspective than your own? That's so sad that you live in such a tiny world. I feel sad for you.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    11. Re:Why bother? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They can claim whatever they want, but there is no such thing as non-public evidence.

    12. Re:Why bother? by Kjella · · Score: 1

      If you can do that, then you know how complex you can make your cypher for a competition page, and how simple you can afford it when building a TrueCrypt replacement.

      Come on, there's an arbitrary number of formulas that could be used to encode the next bit. If you look at a sequence 1 3 5 7 and ask what's the next number most people would answer 9. Then the answer is "11, because it's the odd numbers excluding squares like 3*3 = 9" and people would go "How the f*ck should I know that?" and there's no analytic function that says how "weird" your formula is. You're just making a guess of how long it'd take before someone tries a formula like this, it could be in five minutes or fifty years.

      Also, a cypher would be all but useless for building a TrueCrypt replacement because the secret is in the algorithm, not the key. Everyone with the software would have the cypher, it only works if that's a shared secret between you and the one you want to communicate with. Modern cryptographic software is built on the assumption that the algorithm is so strong that it doesn't matter unless the attacker has the key. Why create anything less, unless you plan to do it by hand?

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    13. Re:Why bother? by Fnord666 · · Score: 1

      Come on, there's an arbitrary number of formulas that could be used to encode the next bit. If you look at a sequence 1 3 5 7 and ask what's the next number most people would answer 9. Then the answer is "11, because it's the odd numbers excluding squares like 3*3 = 9" and people would go "How the f*ck should I know that?" and there's no analytic function that says how "weird" your formula is. You're just making a guess of how long it'd take before someone tries a formula like this, it could be in five minutes or fifty years.

      No, people would then ask "Why is 1 in the list then since 1*1 = 1?"

      --
      'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables
    14. Re:Why bother? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > They can claim whatever they want, but there is no such thing as non-public evidence.

      But there is! If the NSA had cracked the Kryptos, but did not want to publish their achievement, they could have simply published the SHA-1 / MD-5 checksum/hash of the received plaintext, on any obscure webforum, under a pseudonym like "Norma Sarah Audrey". If the chosen webforum submits to archive.org, the evidence will be there as long as the Net exists and they can point it out as prior art, in case a 3rd party arrives at the solution later on. In short, some call this method hashwhoring and it was somewhat popular on the "full-disclosure" infosec mailing list a few years ago.

  4. "Don't forget... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...to drink your Ovaltine".

    1. Re:"Don't forget... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That's it? A crummy commercial?

    2. Re:"Don't forget... by woozlewuzzle · · Score: 1

      Be sure to drink your Ovaltine. FTFY

    3. Re:"Don't forget... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you implying Ovaltine isn't meant to be used as an enema?

    4. Re:"Don't forget... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you implying Ovaltine isn't meant to be used as an enema?

      Yes. That is the purpose of the encoded message. It's designed to tell people to drink Ovaltine rather than use it as an enema.
      Why is this so hard for you to understand?

    5. Re:"Don't forget... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... to take your Haliborange"

  5. The key is the lights..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    content.codersdojo.org/code-kata-catalogue

  6. Damn beta by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Link forces beta.

    Dicks.

  7. It is not a puzzle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is not a puzzle or encrypted anything.
    It is just rows of the alphabet.

  8. 1st Letter formula? by danknight48 · · Score: 1

    1st letter -= length * 2;

    Using the ASCII table as a reference http://www.ascii-code.com/:
    NYPVTT berlin
    N - (6 * 2) = B

    MZFPK clock
    M - (5 * 2) = C

    I'am probably miles off, but, gave me something to do for 10 minutes.

  9. Mu guess by WinstonWolfIT · · Score: 1

    Be sure to drink your Ovaltine

  10. $5 wrench by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    They are looking at this puzzle the wrong way - the $5 wrench attack would get them some fast results!

    1. Re:$5 wrench by Traxton1 · · Score: 1

      Obligatory link.

      http://xkcd.com/538/

      --
      Twitter.com/TrentonHyatt
  11. Using the wrong approach by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Has anyone just tried to waterboard the guy to give us the details?

  12. I doubt it's "Berlin Clock" in context by crepe-boy · · Score: 1

    My guess is that e.g. the "BER" is from numBER or novemBER or somesuch. I have no idea if the LINC computer was important enough to be immortalised here. However, no luck looking for quotations with e.g. octoBER LINC LOCK... etc.

  13. Excavatory cryptanalysis? by compro01 · · Score: 1

    Has anyone taken a shovel to the coordinates in part 2?

    --
    upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
  14. Then the answer is obvious by msobkow · · Score: 1

    Then clearly we're dealing with a "Berlin clock sucker". :P :P :P

    --
    I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
  15. Wild guess(?) by Demonoid-Penguin · · Score: 1

    "The clock on the wall..." Damn, I'm out of time.

  16. clock in berlin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The most famous clock in Berlin is the soviet style one on alexanderplatz

    1. Re:clock in berlin by UngodAus · · Score: 1

      Link to image for those unaware: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wi...