16-06-2017, 03:16 PM
(16-06-2017, 06:00 AM)davidjackson wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.A polyalphabetic cipher encodes one to many. So plaintext A could be encoded as b,j,l or m. For example.
Hence, frequency distribution is pseudorandom in the cover text, and no, frequency distribution would not apply.
The VM almost -but not really- acts as if it were a simple Caeser cipher, because at first glance you could almost assume there was a glyph to glyph correspondence. Because glyphs are positionally aware. But when you examine the text, it doesn't yield to any known language. And with the corpus that we have, someone would have spotted something by now.
Have a quick search for Visconti, The subject has been mentioned a few times. Or start a new thread if you have a new angle.
Not willing to discount, for sure. But then you wouldn't need a wheel. ; )
Alberti ciphers are actually overly simplistic as described today. Letter for letter. But if someone had already created a more complex method of code, you can be sure that certain powers would provide the simplistic set to the world, if at all.
The glyphs are scrambled (most agree) into code/cipher (most agree) and it is not likely 1 to 1 (nobody knows). But if there is a code/cipher, it could be more complex or related to and better technology than an Alberti cipher. Yes?