# Break my code challenge



## Andrew Fergus (Dec 31, 2007)

For those of you interested in cryptography, I have put together a challenge.  I have developed, what I think, is an unbreakable cipher and I have decided to put my money where my mouth is and host a challenge.

Details about the challenge can be found here:
http://www.accessdata.co.nz/

If you are new to the subject of cryptology, I recommend a book by Simon Singh called 'The Code Book', and he also has some interesting information on his website here : http://www.simonsingh.net/

Wikipedia also has some handy information on the subject (e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptography)

Andrew


----------



## Patience (Jan 2, 2008)

That looks hard - and I have no IDEA how to do it!!!


----------



## rconverse (Jan 2, 2008)

I will NOT be participating.  Good luck to the rest though.  

It would have been awesome if the first reply was someone who had already cracked the code.  LOL


----------



## Domski (Jan 2, 2008)

Looks a bit tricky that. Beyond most people's skills I reckon.

I don't suppose holding my monitor up to a mirror will magically reveal the answer?

Dom


----------



## Andrew Fergus (Jan 2, 2008)

No a mirror won't help you! (no pun intended) :D

I genuinely think it is unbreakable, that's why the challenge is open for a year.  I will release a sample of the cipher software at some point but I need to sort out a couple of legal issues first.

Cheers
Andrew


----------



## QuietRiot (Jan 3, 2008)

Theres no such thing has "unbreakable". 

I for one won't be breaking it though. No clue where to even begin. They're bars


----------



## Domski (Jan 3, 2008)

QuietRiot said:


> Theres no such thing has "unbreakable".


 
Not according to the Wikipedia article. Quite interesting but more in the same way I found reading about the Enigma code machines interesting not in a way that it enlightened me into how to break any codes.


----------



## Andrew Fergus (Jan 3, 2008)

QuietRiot said:


> Theres no such thing has "unbreakable".



That remains to be seen.  Often unbreakable claims refer to one part of a system - I have tried to cover all of the bases.  Nothing is unbreakable when confronted by a brute force attack, but some brute force attacks would take eons and result in every possible permutation in almost every language - in which case, how would you know when you had the right answer?  Quantum computing on the other hand would be a different beast and probably spell the end of public key encryption - I'm trying to get ahead of that.  Consider also that rarely does a burglar try every key in the front door - they would most likely find another way in - the same analogy applies to cryptology.

I have had requests on another forum to disclose the encryption process but I have a couple of legal issues I need to resolve before I do that.  At some point I will also release a working version of the cipher - again once I have resolved another legal issue.

Andrew


----------



## Oorang (Jan 4, 2008)

Hi Andrew, 
I am going offer a mild criticism of the testing method (nothing personal ) As you mentioned others have brought up, to be a true test it should be able to survive peer review. Which is to say that the cipher text should remain undecipherable without the key even if all parts of the system are known. Otherwise you fall into the trap of "Obscurity Security". That relies on no one reverse engineering your system (and they will). Take for example mifare Classic. That was reverse engineered off of a chip. They busted out a microscope and went to work. 
When you go with bmp code. All you are doing is converting all the text to numeric representations and then scrambling it. Despite leaving your numbers in a format that could interpreted as bmp (or misinterpreted) it is for all that still a big number block and as such still vulnerable to standard attacks. The real question to consider is how well did you scramble it? And that is quite easily revealed in algorithim analysis. (Which BTW will be the most likely first point of attack anyway.) So to skip step 1 and go 
ahead with the test isn't really much of a test or, with respect, a test at all. As it is only going to take one dedicated reverse engineer and you are as they say... hosed.

Other question... Is this intended to be symmetrical or asymmetrical?


----------



## Oorang (Jan 4, 2008)

Are all messages in this system 101 X 10 ?
Is it capable of Handling Unicode or is it ASCII only? UTF 8?
How Monetary is this prize?


----------



## Marbles (Jan 4, 2008)

Andrew

I opened your message in paint, and tried to look at it as one of those 3d magic pictures, just in case you were winding us up, now that I'm cross-eyed, I can rule that one out.


----------



## ExcelChampion (Jan 14, 2008)

Hmm, I'm not going to attempt to figure it out, because I don't have time.  

But, my initial thought process flows in the direction that each coloered pixel has a numeric value or a pantone number or something of the sort.  Then, hmm, perhaps there is an identifiable pattern to the number combinations (the colors that are next to each other.)  That pattern could then ultimately lead to a cross ref to the alphabet.  But, I'm sure there is some high level mathematics in there as well that you need to plug these numbers into.

That's about where the flow stops.  If I think of anything else I'll post, but doubt I will.


----------



## Andrew Fergus (Jan 14, 2008)

Hi Aaron

Yes all messages are 101x10 pixels, it uses standard ASCII characters (including the upper 128 characters), the same key key is used for encryption and decryption, and yes it is worth cracking (but I don't expect to pay out!). Understood regarding your points - the bmp format is as you say, a big block of numbers, but given the key is at least as long as the message, I'm picking there are too many combinations to actually crack open the message. As mentioned, sample software will be released for analysis etc once I have resolved a couple of legal issues.

Andrew



ExcelChampion said:


> perhaps there is an identifiable pattern to the number combinations (the colors that are next to each other)


Hi Todd

There shouldn't be any pattern to the colours but if you find one I'd like to know about it!

Cheers
Andrew



Marbles said:


> I opened your message in paint, and tried to look at it as one of those 3d magic pictures, just in case you were winding us up, now that I'm cross-eyed, I can rule that one out.


Hi Marbles

This isn't one of those images where you have to blur the image by looking behind it (and widening your gaze) so don't give yourself a headache trying! 

Andrew


----------



## rconverse (Jan 14, 2008)

I'm halfway through a sixer of Busch beer.  Bet I have this* done by the time I crack open number six.

*this = sixer of beer, not encryption challenge


----------



## RichardS (Jan 15, 2008)

My kind of code cracking


----------



## hatman (Jan 16, 2008)

Cryptology is not one of my hobbies, exactly, however, I still find cryptology to be rather fascinating, in general.  Just wondering, Andrew, if you have stumbled across Cryptonomicon by Neal Stephenson.  I read and enjoyed it immensly, as the story it's intended to be.  If you read it, just wondering what you thought...


----------



## Andrew Fergus (Jan 16, 2008)

No I haven't but I will see if I can find it!  Thanks for that.


----------



## rconverse (Jan 16, 2008)

Is the answer "Roger Coolpants"?


----------



## hatman (Jan 16, 2008)

Here's the website.  Complete with like the first 50 pages of the book as an excerpt.

But I just realized there isn't a plot summary... how about:



> Cryptonomicon zooms all over the world, careening conspiratorially back and forth between two time periods--World War II and the present. Our 1940s heroes are the brilliant mathematician Lawrence Waterhouse, cryptanalyst extraordinaire, and gung ho, morphine-addicted marine Bobby Shaftoe. They're part of Detachment 2702, an Allied group trying to break Axis communication codes while simultaneously preventing the enemy from figuring out that their codes have been broken. Their job boils down to layer upon layer of deception. Dr. Alan Turing is also a member of 2702, and he explains the unit's strange workings to Waterhouse. "When we want to sink a convoy, we send out an observation plane first.... Of course, to observe is not its real duty--we already know exactly where the convoy is. Its real duty is to be observed.... Then, when we come round and sink them, the Germans will not find it suspicious."
> 
> All of this secrecy resonates in the present-day story line, in which the grandchildren of the WWII heroes--inimitable programming geek Randy Waterhouse and the lovely and powerful Amy Shaftoe--team up to help create an offshore data haven in Southeast Asia and maybe uncover some gold once destined for Nazi coffers. To top off the paranoiac tone of the book, the mysterious Enoch Root, key member of Detachment 2702 and the Societas Eruditorum, pops up with an unbreakable encryption scheme left over from WWII to befuddle the 1990s protagonists with conspiratorial ties.


----------

