Decipher Textmessage Full Version 28
Morris Betoch
In cryptography, a Caesar cipher, also known as Caesar's cipher, the shift cipher, Caesar's code, or Caesar shift, is one of the simplest and most widely known encryption techniques. It is a type of substitution cipher in which each letter in the plaintext is replaced by a letter some fixed number of positions down the alphabet. For example, with a left shift of 3, D would be replaced by A, E would become B, and so on. The method is named after Julius Caesar, who used it in his private correspondence.[1]
The encryption step performed by a Caesar cipher is often incorporated as part of more complex schemes, such as the Vigenre cipher, and still has modern application in the ROT13 system. As with all single-alphabet substitution ciphers, the Caesar cipher is easily broken and in modern practice offers essentially no communications security.
The transformation can be represented by aligning two alphabets; the cipher alphabet is the plain alphabet rotated left or right by some number of positions. For instance, here is a Caesar cipher using a left rotation of three places, equivalent to a right shift of 23 (the shift parameter is used as the key):
The Caesar cipher is named after Julius Caesar, who, according to Suetonius, used it with a shift of three (A becoming D when encrypting, and D becoming A when decrypting) to protect messages of military significance. While Caesar's was the first recorded use of this scheme, other substitution ciphers are known to have been used earlier.[4][5]
"If he had anything confidential to say, he wrote it in cipher, that is, by so changing the order of the letters of the alphabet, that not a word could be made out. If anyone wishes to decipher these, and get at their meaning, he must substitute the fourth letter of the alphabet, namely D, for A, and so with the others."
It is unknown how effective the Caesar cipher was at the time; there is no record at that time of any techniques for the solution of simple substitution ciphers. The earliest surviving records date to the 9th-century works of Al-Kindi in the Arab world with the discovery of frequency analysis.[7]
A piece of text encrypted in a Hebrew version of the Caesar cipher is sometimes found on the back of Jewish mezuzah scrolls. When each letter is replaced with the letter before it in the Hebrew alphabet the text translates as "YHWH, our God, YHWH", a quotation from the main part of the scroll.[8][9]
In the 19th century, the personal advertisements section in newspapers would sometimes be used to exchange messages encrypted using simple cipher schemes. David Kahn (1967) describes instances of lovers engaging in secret communications enciphered using the Caesar cipher in The Times.[10] Even as late as 1915, the Caesar cipher was in use: the Russian army employed it as a replacement for more complicated ciphers which had proved to be too difficult for their troops to master; German and Austrian cryptanalysts had little difficulty in decrypting their messages.[11]
Caesar ciphers can be found today in children's toys such as secret decoder rings. A Caesar shift of thirteen is also performed in the ROT13 algorithm, a simple method of obfuscating text widely found on Usenet and used to obscure text (such as joke punchlines and story spoilers), but not seriously used as a method of encryption.[12]
The Vigenre cipher uses a Caesar cipher with a different shift at each position in the text; the value of the shift is defined using a repeating keyword.[13] If the keyword is as long as the message, is chosen at random, never becomes known to anyone else, and is never reused, this is the one-time pad cipher, proven unbreakable. However the problems involved in using a random key as long as the message make the one-time pad difficult to use in practice. Keywords shorter than the message (e.g., "Complete Victory" used by the Confederacy during the American Civil War), introduce a cyclic pattern that might be detected with a statistically advanced version of frequency analysis.[14]
In April 2006, fugitive Mafia boss Bernardo Provenzano was captured in Sicily partly because some of his messages, clumsily written in a variation of the Caesar cipher, were broken. Provenzano's cipher used numbers, so that "A" would be written as "4", "B" as "5", and so on.[15]
In 2011, Rajib Karim was convicted in the United Kingdom of "terrorism offences" after using the Caesar cipher to communicate with Bangladeshi Islamic activists discussing plots to blow up British Airways planes or disrupt their IT networks. Although the parties had access to far better encryption techniques (Karim himself used PGP for data storage on computer disks), they chose to use their own scheme (implemented in Microsoft Excel), rejecting a more sophisticated code program called Mujahedeen Secrets "because 'kaffirs', or non-believers, know about it, so it must be less secure".[16]
The Caesar cipher can be easily broken even in a ciphertext-only scenario. Since there are only a limited number of possible shifts (25 in English), an attacker can mount a brute force attack by deciphering the message, or part of it, using each possible shift. The correct description will be the one which makes sense as English text.[17] An example is shown on the right for the ciphertext "exxegoexsrgi"; the candidate plaintext for shift four "attackatonce" is the only one which makes sense as English text. Another type of brute force attack is to write out the alphabet beneath each letter of the ciphertext, starting at that letter. Again the correct decryption is the one which makes sense as English text. This technique is sometimes known as "completing the plain component".[18][19]
Another approach is to match up the frequency distribution of the letters. By graphing the frequencies of letters in the ciphertext, and by knowing the expected distribution of those letters in the original language of the plaintext, a human can easily spot the value of the shift by looking at the displacement of particular features of the graph. This is known as frequency analysis. For example, in the English language the plaintext frequencies of the letters E, T, (usually most frequent), and Q, Z (typically least frequent) are particularly distinctive.[20] Computers can automate this process by assessing the similarity between the observed frequency distribution and the expected distribution. This can be achieved, for instance, through the utilization of the chi-squared statistic[21] or by minimizing the sum of squared errors between the observed and known language distributions.[22]
The unicity distance for the Caesar cipher is about 2, meaning that on average at least two characters of ciphertext are required to determine the key.[23] In rare cases more text may be needed. For example, the words "river" and "arena" can be converted to each other with a Caesar shift, which means they can produce the same ciphertext with different shifts. However, in practice the key can almost certainly be found with at least 6 characters of ciphertext.[24]
With the Caesar cipher, encrypting a text multiple times provides no additional security. This is because two encryptions of, say, shift A and shift B, will be equivalent to a single encryption with shift A + B. In mathematical terms, the set of encryption operations under each possible key forms a group under composition.[25]
For a simple substitution cipher, the set of all possible keys is the set of all possible permutations. Thus, for the English alphabet, the number of keys is 26! (factorial of 26), which is about . Because of this, if you want to decipher the text without knowing the key, the brute force approach is out of the question.
However, the simple substitution cipher is considered a weak cipher because it is vulnerable to cryptoanalysis. First of all, substitution does not change the letters' frequencies, so if you have a decent amount of enciphered text and you know the language it was written in, you can try frequency analysis. For example, the most common letter in the English language is E, so, most common letter in the encrypted text is probable the E substitution. The analyst also looks for bigrams and trigrams frequencies because some unigram frequencies are too close to each other to rely on them. Using frequencies, analysts can create trial keys and test them to see if they reveal some words and phrases in the encrypted text.
But this manual approach is time-consuming, so the goal of an automated solution is to exclude humans from the process of breaking the cipher. And it is possible due to another simple substitution cipher vulnerability, known as Utility of Partial Solution.
In other words, if there are many pairs of keys in the keyspace where the decryption of the ciphertext by the key more similar to the correct key more closely resembles the plaintext than the decryption of the ciphertext by the other key, the cipher has Utility of Partial Solutions... If there is a correlation between the degree to which a key resembles the correct key and the degree to which that key's decryption of the ciphertext resembles the plaintext, it should be possible to search the keyspace efficiently by quickly discarding keys that are "worse" than whatever key is the closest match at any moment, climbing ever closer to the optimal key without knowing it initially. These keyspaces can be searched via Stochastic Optimization Algorithms.2
The tricky part here is how you can measure if one key is "worse" than another. We need text fitness to address this, which gives us some score on how the given text looks like typical English text. There are different approaches, and I've tried this and that, but one which worked for me is outlined here: Text fitness (version 3). In short, it uses the sum of log probabilities of quadgrams and compares the sum with the sum for the "normal" English text (created as the sum of log probabilities of the most often English quadgrams). Here I'd like to thank Jens Guballa (site), author of another substitution solver, who kindly gives me a hint that text fitness function should be "normalized."
b1e95dc632