Talk:Kryptos

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Cryptography, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to cryptography in the Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

Contents 1 Layout 2 Rumours 3 Interesting... 4 Coordinates 5 Richard Gay's claim 6 Pending press release 7 Porn link? 8 Solution 4 9 Monet's observations 10 Original research

[edit] Layout

I'm still not too happy with the layout, but still feel, that the transcript should be included in the article in some way, maybe somebody volunteers to make it a picture so it doesn't spoil the text layout as much... --Palapala 10:36, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Why not just add a transcript section just before the solutions? --Trevor 21:42, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rumours

There is a rumor that Kryptos will be mentioned in best-selling author Dan Brown's next book.

I don't think this is sufficiently noteworthy to include in the article as an unattributed rumour. Certainly, it would be worth mentioning if Dan Brown published such a book mentioning Kryptos, but my vote would be to wait until then rather than including speculations at this point. — Matt 23:16, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It's already been mentioned in The Da Vinci Code. --GaidinBDJ 01:41, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Interesting...

From CIA site:

To produce the code for “Kryptos,” Mr. Sanborn worked for four months with a retired CIA cryptographer to devise the codes used in the sculpture. Mr. Sanborn wrote the text to be coded in collaboration with a prominent fiction writer.

Then again, I don't think Dan Brown was prominent at that time. Phoenix Song 02:32, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Sanborn has since said that the "prominent fiction writer" idea was just an initial concept that was never actually implemented. Elonka 03:15, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Coordinates

The Google Maps link was wrong - it wasn't focused on the CIA headquarters at Langley, but the NSA headquarters at Fort Meade!

[edit] Richard Gay's claim

I removed the new section about Gay's claim to be the first CIA solver, because it is not verified. I and another Kryptos researcher spent hours going through the NSA's crypto library reviewing the back issues that Gay cites are his verification. However, the only thing we found were occasional letters to the editor where he claimed that he was working on it, but without giving any proof of progress. It is our opinion that this is not sufficient verification, and I have other correspondence which casts further doubt on the claim. If others would like to review the newsletters for themselves, and believe that you saw something that we missed, I look forward to your analysis. --Elonka 22:39, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

If User:RGay is Richard Gay, then it's extremely inappropriate for him to be making these sorts of edits. I presume a single sentence repeating Gay's claim, but without endorsing it, is acceptable? — Matt Crypto 08:23, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

... So, why not include his claim? — Matt Crypto 17:12, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Here's my reasoning: I've researched Gay's claims extensively (I first heard of him in December 2004, and tracked him down in 2005), and not only are his claims not credible, but I have encountered multiple examples of him making aggressively false statements. This is not just my sole opinion, but that of other Kryptos researchers as well, such as when we made a visit to the NSA cryptographic library in November 2005 to check Gay's claim personally. I do not believe that it is appropriate to list Gay's own website as a "reference" for his claim, and even on his website I see nothing that is a solid verification. Indeed, the oppposite. He claims (in a 1999 newsletter) that he informed CIA of his progress in 1997, but that in 1999, the CIA announced that Stein was the first internal solver. This tells me that even if he did "report a solution" to the CIA, that not even they believed his claims (and I mean really, a name of "Dick Gay"?). Gay's website is also obviously an attempt to capitalize on the link between Kryptos and "The Da Vinci Code." He even superimposed a picture of the Mona Lisa on top of Kryptos, which is antagonistic to the sculptor. I should also mention that Gay told me in personal correspondence in mid-2005 that he was planning on making a "press release" about this to promote a book that he is publishing.

Gay's claims were discussed by the Kryptos Group several months ago, and dismissed. I have also personally been in contact with individuals from the NSA and CIA, and no one has corroborated Gay's claims of a solution, or even been able to verify that he really worked at either of the Agencies. He does show up as a member of one of the retirement associations, but it has been pointed out that this means nothing, as they require no proof of previous employment.

Anyone that is interested in seeing any of the Kryptos Group discussions, I'll be happy to give you access so that you can review our archives for yourself. As for other "early solver" claims, I was the one that added the information about the 2000 article which stated that an NSA team had solved parts 1-3 in 1992. That information comes from a single source (one Sun Journal article in 2000), but it's a credible source, so (in my opinion) it was appropriate to include. But I'm willing to discuss that as well, especially since it was published so many years after the fact. --Elonka 17:30, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the expert opinion and information. That's what we depend on! I was extremely skeptical of Richard Gay's claims because he made no attempt to keep the existing informatino on the page, just removed basically everything and put his claims in instead RGay's version. However, desiring to be generous in my opinion of others until proven otherwise, I figured he was a NOOB so I integrated his edits with a reverted version of the page. I did look at the info he cited and thought it was at least not blatant lies, but I'm pleased that the "peer-review" process has proven itself once again. Thanks for your vigilance, research and public contribution Elonka. Alan J Shea 18:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pending press release

FYI, a major (and radical) discovery about Kryptos K2 was just made today. I'm working on the press release now, and the public story will probably break tomorrow (Thursday April 20). There will be a couple radical changes to the Wikipedia article coming, so I just wanted to give other editors a heads-up that no, it's not vandalism.[1] I'll also do my best to follow WP:NOR and make sure everything gets published elsewhere first before it can show up on Wikipedia. Stay tuned . . . --Elonka 05:05, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't keep us waiting, whats the new discovery? I didn't see it while scanning your Kryptos page. Tnikkel 05:23, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I have to get signoff from other Group members before we send out the press release. If you'd like to join the group though... [2] :) --Elonka 08:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

There was a mistake in one of the parts, see [3] for details. Daniel (☎) 18:46, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Press release is up, my website is updated [4], and Wired has released the first story.[5] Since I'm personally involved with this one though, I'll leave it to other Wikipedia editors to update the Kryptos Wikipedia article. :) --Elonka 18:47, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Porn link?

I've just commented out the link to David Behar's site -- www.idbyrows.com -- because after displaying a picture of Kryptos for a few seconds, it redirected me to a porn site. IceKarmaॐ 15:45, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Concur. No encyclopedic value. The link can be deleted. --Elonka 00:53, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Solution 4

"Part 4 remains publicly unsolved." seems to imply original research or secret knowledge. Either way the "publicly" needs to go. The code is either solved or unsolved. Guinnog 06:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually it does just the opposite. Since we can only know about public solutions of Part 4, stating that it is unsolved both publicly and privately implies original research or secret knowledge.

You are correct that the code is either unsolved or solved. However we cannot know if it has been solved by someone in the NSA who has to keep it secret or something or that sort. So we can only know if it is publicly solved or publicly unsovled. Tnikkel 07:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I see what you mean. I still find it unsatisfactory; by this logic we could insert "publicly" in an awful lot of places. I'll leave it for now but it could do with clarification. Guinnog 07:06, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

With cryptography there are demonstrated examples of the people or organizations figuring something out long before the general public does. (The NSA made some modifications to the DES standard which public cryptographers didn't understand until years later when differential cryptanalysis was discovered publically, see Data Encryption Standard#NSA.27s involvement in the design.) And we can even look to Kryptos itself for another example (from this article):

After Gillogly's announcement, the CIA revealed that their analyst David Stein had also solved the same sections in 1998, using pencil and paper techniques, though at the time of his solution the information was only disseminated within the intelligence community, and no public announcement was made.

Tnikkel 07:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

After having given it some thought, I'd like to toss in my $0.02, and say that I too am uncomfortable with the word "publicly", and would like to see it removed. To say "publicly unsolved" seems to imply that we have some sort of knowledge that it's been solved privately, when in reality, to the best of my knowledge, no one, inside or outside of the intelligence agencies, has solved it. If it *were* privately solved, someone would have gotten word to me or the sculptor. So, can we remove "publicly", or perhaps reword the statement in some other way? For example: "No one, inside or outside of the intelligence agencies, has ever reported a solution for K4." --Elonka 23:13, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Monet's observations

I removed the following paragraph from the main article, which was added by an anonymous editor:

It turns out, however, that Monet Friedrich, an author and software design engineer[6], from Vancouver British Columbia, and a member of a Kryptos discussion group, had documented finding the LAYERTWO plaintext the previous October 11, 2005, making her, along with Gillogly and Stein, only the third person so far to reveal plaintext from the Kryptos sculpture.[7]

There is a grain of truth to the claim, but I don't feel that it should be included because it is a violation of the Wikipedia:No original research policy. In other words, though it's true that Friedrich did, as part of a brainstorming discussion in the subscription-only Kryptos Group, discover that the words PLAYERTWO could be derived from the end of K2, there was some controversy about the method, and Friedrich did not make the discovery alone -- many other group members were involved in the discussion who also deserve some credit. Also, no one has ever signed off on the claim that this makes Friedrich "only the third person so far to reveal plaintext from Kryptos." I have discussed the find with multiple reporters, but to date, none of them have felt it was notable enough to mention in an article anywhere, so, per Wikipedia guidelines, I feel that it is inappopriate to include the information in the Wikipedia article, unless such a claim is first referenced in a third-party publication, as per WP:NOR.

What do other Wikipedia editors think? Do you agree with my analysis? --Elonka 19:16, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Original research

I removed the following paragraph (another addition by an anonymous editor), per Wikipedia:No original research:

Sanborn has references to Kryptos in some of his other works as well, namely the Covert Operations Fragments. The 2 sections located at the Zola Spy Restaurant in Washington, D.C. decode to an almost identical account of the Howard Carter opening of King Tut's tomb, using the same type of modular-transpostition cipher as K3. They were solved by Keith Edkins. The large and small English Covert Ops Fragments use the same double Vigenere style of encryption as K1 & K2, using the words (KRYPTOS, DECEIT) and (KRYPTOS, SHADOW). They were solved by John Wilson. [8] [9] Since these pieces were created after Kryptos, but before any publically known solutions to Kryptos, one could assume that Sanborn was either attempting to give further hints for Kryptos', or was making the classic cryptographic mistake[10] of reusing the same PT (plaintext) and keywords.

If someone knows of a third-party publication verifying the above information and proving its notability, it can probably be re-added later. --Elonka 18:37, 16 May 2006 (UTC)