VMs: Re: Constellation of ciphers...

["Francois Almaleh" <francois.almaleh@xxxxxxx>]

We reason with our ideas of the XX century... !
The Vigenere's code was deciphered late (around the 19th century) and was
rather strong for most of people during centuries.
So why the author of VMs would encrypt strongly a text because, for example,
Vigenere's code is sufficient ?
Is there a reason the author use different and cumulative ciphers whereas
the result of the text wasn't  able a real thing. I explain me : if it is a
magical or a alchemical formula, it is not a real thing because it is only
an  idea for the people put back the effects of the Nature.
I don't think there are several ciphers. There is no truth to hide in the
VMs. The stars, plants/herbals, nymphs... haven't produced anything
*together*  in the daily life.
So why the author would use a complex code as any real result of his text
exists ? The code is simple or there is no code (so a hoax).
Second thing : it seems there are hand A and hand B, with different layout
of letters. If the code was the same, it wouldn't have two sorts of text.

Francois

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Nick Pelling" <incoming@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <vms-list@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, July 12, 2003 1:57 PM
Subject: VMs: Constellation of ciphers...


> Hi everyone,
>
> One quick thought on the whole constellation of different ciphers I'm
> thinking about.
>
> A long time ago, I posted that I suspected that there might well be 12
> different constituent ciphers within the VMS' coding system: and I still
> suspect that this may well turn out to be true.
>
> The point I was trying to make back then was that the system had resisted
> all assaults to date for a reason: and that the reason was probably that
it
> incorporated multiple types of code within an overall framework - so
unless
> you crack the framework, an assault on any one type of sub-code would
still
> not produce practical results.
>
> Here are a list of the sub-codes I think I can see now:-
> (a) an abbreviating shorthand/tachygraphic code (probably vowel reduction)
> (b) the space inversion transposition cipher (kill real spaces - insert
> fake spaces)
> (c) a pair cipher, to hide the actual alphabet inside a fake alphabet
> (d) a steganographic apothecary numbering shorthand (dain/daiin/daiiin)
> (e) hidden index keys (typically between top line gallows, but could be
> anywhere)
> (f) the <ch> generic shorthand completion token + disambiguation marks
>
> If there are in fact 12 sub-codes as I suspected, then perhaps I'm at the
> halfway mark now (though I think labels will probably prove to be coded
> differently again). Perhaps one important thing to notice is that all
these
> putative sub-codes appear (so far, anyway) to operate *in parallel*, not
> *in sequence*: that is, any given character is generally only coded with a
> single system.
>
> I think this may be related to the overall robustness of the code: my
> suspicion is that this parallel coding system was an excellent compromise
> between error correction and security.
>
> More as it happens... :-)
>
> Cheers, .....Nick Pelling.....
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> To unsubscribe, send mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxx with a body saying:
> unsubscribe vms-list
>

______________________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe, send mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxx with a body saying:
unsubscribe vms-list