Talk:Playfair cipher
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Playfair cryptanalysis
The Playfair is thus significantly harder to break since straight frequency analysis doesn't work with it.
Well, that's simply not the case. Analysis of single letters doesn't work with Playfair, but if you do frequency analysis of digraphs it works ... well, not "fine" exactly, but it's the way to get results. True, there are roughly 600 of them (in English) as opposed to 26, and the distribution is flatter, but as written the article suggests that cryptanalysts faced with Playfair sit around scratching their heads, which I imagine they generally don't. --Calieber 15:31, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)
[edit] 600* possible digraphs
There is currently an asterisk after the 600 in the number of possible digraphs. In <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Playfair_cipher&diff=prev&oldid=53704799">this edit</url> the "footnote" of *600 = was removed. It is not clear to me why a non-standard footnote was used in the first place, nor exactly what this notation was supposed to mean (the combinations of 25 letters?), nor why 25 is used instead of 26, nor why 25^2=625 does not equal 600.
Can anyone clear this up? Wrs1864 (talk) 16:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- The asterisk doesn't make sense. The number 600 however can be explained as follows. Because one uses I=J there are only 25 distinct letters. Because one replaces one of the letters with an X when the same letter appears twice in a digraph, it is not possible that a double letter occurs in the ciphertext (at least if one also assumes that XX does not occur in the plaintext). This implies that only 25*24 = 600 digraphs in the ciphertext are possible. 85.2.23.131 (talk) 20:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)