In case people are trying to locate new coded messages, bear in mind that ‘Craigslist’ and ‘Mein Fraulein’ might be two keys that change on a daily/weekly/monthly basis.

I recently saw this ad in the Baltimore Craigslist, Who can crack this code? What is this all about anyway?

baltimore craigslist > missed connections > Mein(e) Fraulein

http://baltimore.craigslist.org/mis/217192532.html

Mein(e) Fraulein

besucht mir jetzt http meinfraulein.blogspot.com

thank you for our wonderful voip conversations this summer but now my phone is broken

QHYSI KMKUH GMLOG KBXKO FWHUK
FESGR LAMYG GYXCO JXJUF XNXAF
WFIYG SZIYH ZTXCW DEFKS EUIJR
WWMTX HXKYT GKQTC OHRNH LIACK
VTXKB KVLAH RSITH JNQJS KXPHG
LWEZS FLGNI LSMTH WKRKH KMIMO
FHKXO HAMKX HAWNH E

Liebe,

Klaus

this is in or around Not Specifically Attributable

here you find many examples of such broadcasts:

http://www.mypage.bluewin.ch/radiomann/audio/audio.htm

and here you find a site from one of the leading experts:

http://www.simonmason.karoo.net/page30.html

Mein Fraulein,

Do not become disillusioned; you are more popular than you imagine. Call me.

501 //// 588 //// 1015

Group 205
00107 90200 79001 00900 90800
03027 01406 90790 03083 01102
40220 12085 00106 50170 25006
01907 90210 67082 08600 30270
15000 02408 30670 10010 02900
60770 08004 00902 30160 00078
06506 50290 04078 01302 90190
24014 00000 00240 95010 08208
70880 31000 02207 90130 01020
06601 80040 03006 07602 00000
07014 08402 60170 81

read about the experiment here
http://www.projectevil.org/?p=2

The nulls would be irrelevant and added only to further encode the message for the 5-digit format of transmission. After removing the nulls we would have to figure out the resultant cypher box. The three exceptions could be the line starters or enders or something of the like.

Represent, B-dog.

I have to agree with this – the patterns in the messages seem to get more obvious with time (eg 021 079 021 079 in the third message), almost as if the author is trying to keep us interested… or trying to give us easier clues to how the cipher works…

On the other hand, to address one of the points Bunsen made — keyed codes *can* be cracked without initially having the key, IF the code is weak or designed to be crackable. Still, assuming my hypothesis is correct and the purpose of these codes is just “to see how people react to lack of information”, it’s not unlikely that they’re just nonsensical blocks of numbers that don’t decode to anything, but may in fact be crafted to have some statistical abnormalities that make them *look* crackable.

I haven’t actually tried to crack any of the “real” codes because there’s no context and no explicit motivation (I value my time over my curiosity). If they are crackable, my hypothesis is likely out the window, but I’m sure that, if I’m right, things will come to light once this person’s funding runs out or the research is complete. Publish or perish, yo.

-manus

Q: What’s the most commonly cited method by hackers for breaking codes and acquiring passwords for systems?

A: Digging through the trash for paperwork/secretary’s notes/shredded confidential documents.

Same thing.

“Johan Louwers” stated that it is difficult to alter the form of communication if it is compromised – this isn’t true – most spy networks throughout history are known to have more than one drop or network set up in case a communique was intercepted.

“CodeAc” Sheppard Fairey theory is interesting, too (though his history is a little warped – OBEY Giant came out before the Posse wheatpastes, and Fairey didn’t do it for a class, but rather because of what he learned in the class – also, the phrase never picked up, but the “style” got picked up in the NYSub movement, which is *kinda* the same, but not really.) My best guess goes along with CodeAc – somebody is seeing how much attention they can get. I will list my reasons why I believe this code is not genuine, and why I believe this code cannot be broken at this point in either case:

1.) “Tony” thinks that there are mistakes in the coding, apparently. You might be a stupid spy and have a job in a cell, but if you are working crypto&cyphers, you don’t make mistakes – you have the education and know-how to get the job done right.

2.) There have been too many messages – the first time an account over-clocked its charges, if this were a legitimate code somebody would have bailed completely. Also, with the attention recieved we have to assume there are copycats – possibly even within this very forum. So now we have to assume that any messages other than the first are tainted/false/intentionally inaccurate cyphers.

3.) The message is in English in the classified. The address (Mein Fruelien = ~My dear, my love, my sweet) is not – this makes it seem clear to me that this is a joke/mental exercise – a spy would not actively draw attention to a message like this, but would rather do his absolute best to conceal the conveyance by making it better match other entries in the classifieds.

4.) As I said a couple of times, but must reiterate – THE MESSAGE IS COMPROMISED – it would not be broadcasting anymore. However, since it is broadcasting, we can assume that in all likelihood the originator KNOWS that the message has been comprimised. A spy would not continue to broadcast (except counter-intelligence) on a line of communication he knows to be blown.

5.) Nobody uses straight key-less encryption in the real world or the non-software world. Even in the 13th century spies were beyond such a level of tech. Keyless encryption is the stuff of Hopscotch Magazine for Girls. It’s a puzzle in the newspaper funnies. No spy organization is making codes that you can crack without reference code, a reference text, such as the bible code, or a pad or key. The reason why the government can crack codes you can’t? – they have acquired materials from government stings, arrests, intercepted communiques, and in-the-field covert operatives. The reason the government can crack codes you can’t when they don’t have keys? Two words, baby – Cray Supercomputers. You don’t have one.

In closing, scholastic cryptography is fun. But it doesn’t get anything done. This has been an interesting pursuit, but without more info, this thing isn’t getting cracked no matter what we think up. That’s just my vote. In review -

+ There’s no chance that ALL the messages we are cross-referencing are genuine.
+ There’s no chance that we can decode the messages without an appropriate key.
+ We don’t have an appropriate key.
+ By my count, we have discussed over 700 encryption methods here. I’m pretty sure we even came up with a couple nobody has ever thought of before. None of them have worked. That’s not saying a method isn’t still out there, but… ah, F@ck it – a method ISN’T still out there.