Timeline for autokey script gone wrong!
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
22 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 3, 2018 at 15:06 | history | rollback | e-sushi |
Rollback to Revision 6
|
|
| Sep 3, 2018 at 15:05 | comment | added | e-sushi | @fgrieu rolling back my edit | |
| Sep 2, 2018 at 15:31 | comment | added | ahmid algdafe | the script is no longer autokey has nothing to do with the chipher so keep the original title | |
| Sep 2, 2018 at 14:47 | comment | added | fgrieu♦ | @e-sushi: I'm OK to leave "autokey" in, but then the "gone wrong" of the original title is critical: it tells the idea is not to decipher autokey, but a wrong variant. Perhaps: How can I decipher the output of that autokey cipher gone wrong, with the original key? | |
| Sep 2, 2018 at 14:12 | comment | added | e-sushi | @fgrieu The title before my edit was "autokey script gone wrong" so I'm not so sure about the rethorical interpretation. See, I merely stripped the "script gone wrong" part and added part of the body description to the title to make the title more specific. So, I did not interpret anything. I copy-and-pasted the body Q to become part of the title. Therefore, I'm reluctant to strip "autokey" from the Q as both title and body, mention it. Or are you trying to point me to something completely different and I'm misunderstanding your comment? (Could be, just woke up 5 mins ago.) | |
| Sep 2, 2018 at 14:07 | history | edited | e-sushi | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
edited title
|
| Sep 1, 2018 at 18:01 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/StackCrypto/status/1035950888861487104 | ||
| Sep 1, 2018 at 10:56 | comment | added | fgrieu♦ | @e-sushi: the question, or at least my answer, is not about the autokey cipher, but rather is about a broken gizmo that can't be automatically decoded without plaintext redundancy. That's no longer apparent in the modified title, which no longer matches the question. Something tells me that "I tried to make a script to encode a txt with the autokey cipher" is rhetorical only.. | |
| Sep 1, 2018 at 10:03 | history | edited | e-sushi | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 1 character in body; edited tags; edited title
|
| Aug 31, 2018 at 22:50 | comment | added | ahmid algdafe | yes for the + part ... and whats known is final result and key | |
| Aug 31, 2018 at 22:28 | answer | added | fgrieu♦ | timeline score: 3 | |
| Aug 31, 2018 at 17:07 | comment | added | fgrieu♦ | There seems to be typos in "vegenere chiper". Problem is, there are various forms of Vigenère cipher, some with relation to autokey. Is your $+$ such that $\mathtt R+\mathtt M\to\mathtt D$ per such table ? And exactly what is known beside $\text{key}$? | |
| Aug 31, 2018 at 16:45 | history | edited | ahmid algdafe | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 44 characters in body
|
| Aug 31, 2018 at 16:38 | comment | added | ahmid algdafe | its stands for vegenere chiper which uses to encode | |
| Aug 31, 2018 at 8:35 | comment | added | fgrieu♦ |
Please clarify 1) What's known. Obviously you can't "get the original txt from the original key" alone. 2) If $\text{etxt}$ and/or $\text{final result}$ is known, exactly what the notation $+$ stands for. Is that bitwise XOR (usually noted $\oplus$, written as \oplus when within $\LaTeX$), addition, modular addition, concatenation, or some other combination?
|
|
| Aug 31, 2018 at 7:21 | history | edited | fgrieu♦ | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Managed to make sense out of it
|
| Aug 31, 2018 at 7:15 | history | edited | fgrieu♦ | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Managed to make sense out of it
|
| Aug 31, 2018 at 7:03 | history | edited | fgrieu♦ | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Fix typography
|
| Aug 31, 2018 at 6:05 | review | Close votes | |||
| Aug 31, 2018 at 7:20 | |||||
| Aug 31, 2018 at 4:49 | history | edited | ahmid algdafe | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 40 characters in body
|
| Aug 31, 2018 at 4:45 | review | First posts | |||
| Aug 31, 2018 at 14:22 | |||||
| Aug 31, 2018 at 4:42 | history | asked | ahmid algdafe | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
