This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Enigma machine article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3 |
![]() | Enigma machine is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed. | ||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 13, 2004. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Former featured article |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Priority 2
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
|
|||
I added two additional external links: Cipher Machines & Cryptology and Frode's Crypto Cellar I also want to add two other links that are generally recognized as valuable reference information Tony Sale's Code and Ciphers and The Bletchley Park Trust I suggest to change the link to ellsbury's rotor wirings into the main page: Ellsbury's Enigma and the Bombe which brings a view onto much more information that the few rotor details, already added to wiki in the rotor details spin-off. Any comments pro/contra on all links, mentioned above, welcome... Dirk ( talk) 17:36, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
The following sentence, "During World War II codebooks were used only to set up the rotors and ring settings.", in the paragraph starting with "During World War II" in the Indicators section is unclear to me. I think the intention is to say, "During World War II codebooks were only used to set up the initial rotor settings each day." I may have misunderstood what is meant here, but if so then I am probably not the only one. So I ask whoever is knowledgeable on this topic to clarify it. Soler97 ( talk) 10:56, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Part of code-breaking of text is to search for clichés that give 'free' letters. Many Nazi messages sent by non-professionals started or ended with "Heil Hitler!" or "Sieg heil!" in code, either of which offered critical letters for decoding, was about as much cliché as was possible. Such demonstrated loyalty to the Nazi cause -- but also breached the quality of coding. Letters e, i, l, r, s, and t are all very common in German and give away much of the structure of words in the message. Pbrower2a ( talk) 10:17, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
I have reverted the edit that ascribes the invention of Enigma to Hugo Koch as this is contentious. See for example [2] which says "Many historians have erred in giving credit for the Enigma cipher machine of World War II famed to Hugo Koch and not to the rightful inventor, Arthur Scherbius." and goes on to give substantial evidence in support. TedColes ( talk) 05:46, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Scherbius (German), Koch(Dutch) and Damm(Swedish) are second, third and fourth. In 1924 the company of Scherbius buys the Koch patent. So, please check the info and correct your record. Vebar ( talk) 01:02, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Should this movie go in the references? I remember it was part of the movie, recovering a machine, but I havn't seen it in years and can't remember if it really is a major part of the movie. Cs302b ( talk) 01:20, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Admittedly the dividing line between fact and fiction is increasingly being blurred these days, but it is relevant to read one review of this film which says:
If you believe U-571, Jonathan Mostow's submarine action romp set in the murky depths of World War II, the Americans were instrumental in the capture of the Enigma coding devices, used by the Germans to encrypt top secret messages.
The British barely feature in the war effort - it was the good ole Yankee boys leading the way, teaching Hitler a lesson or two with some well-placed torpedoes (the end credits reveal that it was in fact the Brits who captured the Enigma machines and ultimately deciphered the code. Fancy that!).
Such glaring lapses in historical accuracy litter Mostow's film, which throws all character and plot development overboard within the first five minutes and goes full steam ahead for sustained action.
I still think it appropriate to avoid the possibility of giving offence in this way.-- TedColes ( talk) 07:57, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
A new image that may be of some interest: commons:Image:Bundesarchiv Bild 183-2007-0705-502, Chiffriermaschine "Enigma".jpg - a 1943 German photograph of a machine. Shimgray | talk | 19:06, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm not Dutch, but the changes you guys made - deleting Koch - are based on poor historic research and taking for granted just any source. Karl de Leeuw, a Dutch historian already in 2003 proved that the Enigma was invented by two Dutch navy officers, Spengler and van Hengel. Koch, who was working together with Scherbius. There is no doubt about the solid research and sources of this work of historian de Leeuw, which was published in Cryptologia. His work is acknowledged and confirmed by other historians. I understand that some people are a bit bitten in the **** that their version is fiction, and I understand their err. In those days, the patenting of such machines was a very obscure thing, played in the world of intellingence secrets. More here. Do whatever you want with it, but base your actions (deleting/adding stories) on the work and sources of historians, and don't base them on an opinion. Karl de Leeuw on the invention of the Enigma Dirk ( talk) 15:37, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
I just wondered about the various contry/language specific articles on Enigma, in particular the editing-policy thereof. being myself a german engineer I found that the german page is somewhat quick to remove edits, while the same edits are easily accepted in the other languages for their significance. So do not miss the version checks on wikipedia !
Every unclassified source I am familiar with has indicated that the steckerboard added very little additional cryptographic strength. 143.232.210.46 ( talk) 23:59, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
The plug board added a huge amount of cryptographic strength. There are a total of 150,738,274,937,250 ways to arrange it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.98.214.216 ( talk) 14:32, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Where is missing information about that Poles first broke the Enigma? -- DumnyPolak ( talk) 01:04, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Americans? What had to do Americans with Enigma? Probably a Hollywood science fiction films about this machine like britisch film ENIGMA with Kate Winslet :-)) - Markus —Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.25.200.133 ( talk) 14:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
but the bombes were a British invention ( Fdsdh1 ( talk) 12:55, 9 December 2012 (UTC))
Please see also my comment under "Polish Contribution" in this talk page. 108.222.214.13 ( talk) 19:05, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
It presently reads as follows:
WHAT source??? The second sentence practically contridicts the first sentence because the way it's presently written, no mention has yet been made of the fact that Enigma eventually did fall into Allied hands. It's true that it's mentioned later in the body of the article, but that doesn't alleviate the fact that these sentences don't make sense in their present form. The words this source (emphasis added by me) do not reference what the source is/was. I suggest that between the 1st and 2nd sentences, another on should be added, one that would read, "That changed, however, when Allied forces captured an Enigma machine from the Germans, providing a valuable source of previously secret/classified information to Allied leaders . . . " or words to that effect. Please forgive me if I've added this new topic of discussion incorrectly; I still haven't figured out the procedure, and no one has ever responded to my repeated requests for assistance. Magnet For Knowledge ( talk) 03:41, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Please see also my comment under "Polish Contribution" in this talk page. 108.222.214.13 ( talk) 19:05, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
There is no secret in the following procedure, so an attacker only needs a machine. Somehow there must be a daily code incorporated into the procedure.
Tuntable ( talk) 00:31, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Computerramjet ( talk) 20:19, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
The setting used by hobbists from 1970-1985 to receive feeds from reuters, etc, was REDRUM. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.134.243.171 ( talk) 06:02, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
So how were the messages decoded (assuming one had the codebooks or equivalent)? There should be a bit more on the subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.254.147.68 ( talk) 15:27, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Not an inventor. Just a patent owner. Vlsergey ( talk) 01:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Editor Vumba is right in saying that American cryptographers were more focused on the Japanese codes than Enigma. By the time that the US joined WWII, the British at Bletchley park had worked out how to break most of the enigma ciphers. It is wrong, however, to say that US cryptos did not get involved. They had liaised with Bletchley Park before and soon had a contingent there. They ran one of the Bombe outstations and their naval bombes were of immense use to the whole Enigma-breaking activity.-- TedColes ( talk) 17:55, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
One cannot re-write history. The US certainly made great use of the information as did other (limited) allied commanders. But to say that the US had a major role is strictly nationalistic. Lets stay with the facts. If TedColes has specific references to add please do so.-- Vumba ( talk) 20:09, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Before attempting to assess the value of the contribution of Op-20-G, which was immense, and also the difficulties which arose, which were fairly numerous, it is essential to understand that they were very different from ourselves in their fundamental organization. They were second in the field and agreed, and kept to the agreement, to play second fiddle and so naturally the people they put into their German machine cryptography were not the best cryptographers they had, but rather efficient and intelligent organizers with cryptographic knowledge.
The acceptance by Op-20-G of the principle of pooled bombe resources was a fairly slow one. … By the time the Second Front opened very close and efficient cooperation existed. Priorities of keys were decided at weekly meetings at which the U.S.N. representative was present and Op-20-G stuck most loyally to the priorities as laid down, running a vast number of Hut 6 jobs and enabling them to break keys which would have otherwise have remained unbroken. I think it is a considerable tribute to the good sense of all parties concerned, and most especially to Op-20-G who were in a somewhat irksome position, that relations were at all times extremely cordial and that it was possible to get so much work so efficiently done when the machinery had to be shared by 3 groups of people, each feeling at heart that their own particular problem was the one which really mattered.
Vumba says that 'the "Bomba" was a Polish decrypt machine later enhanced by the British.' I don't agree that this is a good reflection of the reality. Budiansky (2000), and others point out that Alan Turing developed the idea of a machine that the Bomba represented, but worked on an entirely different premise. To quote Budiansky: [1]
The Bomba had very limited applicability. It depended on there being three doubly enciphered indicators in which the same letter was repeated in all three; it also would work only if that repeated letter happened to be unsteckered, so its true identity was known. But with a text crib Turing at once saw that a series of Enigmas could be linked together in a different architecture to perform an automated search. And it would be an incredibly powerful method.
We do indeed "need to stay with the facts here".-- TedColes ( talk) 16:51, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
It is, perhaps, worth quoting Peter Calvocoressi, who became head of the Luftwaffe section in Hut 3, who wrote in commenting on the Polish contribution:
The one moot point is - how valuable? According to the best qualified judges it accelerated the breaking of Enigma by perhaps a year. The British did not adopt Polish techniques but they were enlightened by them. [2]
References
{{
citation}}
: |page=
has extra text (
help)
-- TedColes ( talk) 09:55, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
(Previous Comment Unsigned)
As someone completely impartial to the article (this is my first time even reading it), I must say that the second introductory paragraph as of July 20th, 2013 is excessively redundant regarding the Polish contribution, and looks as though there may be some bias at work in editing by 83.27.208.66 (which is, incidentally, a Polish IP address). It is also very long and too detailed for an introductory paragraph.
Comparing the two most recent major versions, it seems the older version (by Arthena) was more concise/appropriate for an encyclopedia. The edit by 83.27.208.66 seems to add little of value. However, I'll leave reversion up to consensus.
108.222.214.13 ( talk) 18:55, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
The Enigma Machine is used as a plot point in the latter half of Season 5 of the Popular Late '80s Early '90s British Sitcom 'Allo 'Allo. While the Actual Machine is not shown, it is mentioned in name between episodes #5.23 - #5.26 (and is Referenced in this Wikipedia Article) Thought it'd be a good addition to the section -- 220.253.152.227 ( talk) 16:16, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
R.e. this good faith edit [5] Can we be certain that non-' Axis' powers weren't a source of Ultra? I ask because (1) PC Bruno appears to have had dedicated Spanish and Russian sections, suggesting Spain and the U.S.S.R. may have been a source of Ultra and (2) 'Axis' has quite a specific definition of just Germany and Italy (the "Rome-Berlin Axis" ) until the Tripartite Pact of 1940 when Japan joined. I'd be surprised if there was no Japanese-sourced Ultra prior to Japan joining the Axis. (3) Are we sure there was no U.S.-derived Ultra 1939-1941? Thanks in advance, - Chumchum7 ( talk) 18:55, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Does anyone know of a primary source for the statement that: " Winston Churchill told Britain's King George VI after World War II: 'It was thanks to Ultra that we won the war.'"? The reference at [6] is only a secondary source. -- TedColes ( talk) 17:30, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
There's an episode of the BBC television series The Secret War (based on the book Most Secret War by R.V. Jones) about the Enigma and Bletchley Park including interviews with some of the people involved, on YouTube here: [7] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.68.219 ( talk) 16:18, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Aren't the recent edits of this section at variance with the guidelines about paragraph length in Wikipedia:Writing better articles#paragraphs? It has all become somewhat staccato. -- TedColes ( talk) 07:39, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Yesterday the Queen of England unveiled a monument to the men who broke the Enigma Code. According to the material read out it was a group of British scientists who broke the code and the secret place they worked in the midlands was also shown. They also showed the machine they developed to continuously break codes, calling it "the first computer". It appears that this contradicts the article on Wikipedia about Enigma which states that the Poles broke Enigma after the 1st WW. Which of these is correct? Chrismort1 ( talk) 06:48, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for that. It makes a lot more sense than the Poles simply being shut out. DieSwartzPunkt ( talk) 15:15, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Glrx claims "addition is not permutation". He may have a PHD in philosophy, however I think he's misunderstanding this simplification. It has nothing to do with permutations, a permutation is equivalent to shuffling a deck of cards. Would he argue that this is also too much of a simplification?
When explaining the Enigma, many people get bogged down in the details of the electrical wiring. However the essence of the enigma's operation is that each wheel position applies a specific shift to the input character. So each electrical path can be defined equivalently as some addition. The randomness of the machine, can then be explained by the random listing of numbers on the wheels. This sells the point that A. it's deterministic, and B, the rotors are pseudorandom.
I simply think this is the best way to introduce the topic, it abstracts the mechanics and focuses on the mathematics
Reference (i used this example as a TA in): http://crypto.cs.mcgill.ca/~dumais/cs647/cs647.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.249.232 ( talk) 21:32, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
NOTE:
Regarding Glrx, I totally respect and read his contributions. However, I'd love for him/someone else to come up with an analogy that can be understood at first glance, by abstracting mechanical movements into mathematical operations. What enigma/lorenz and all the machine share is message + Psuedorandomness
So what's the best way to demonstrate psuedorandomness numerically. I've read Knuth's SemiNumerical Algorithms and we could use some middle square method. Or, why not just take a strip of pseudorandom digits, and mount them on wheels. From there we could come up with all sorts of options for then using those digits to define a shift:
ie. If wheels A B C are showing, should we take Shift = A*B*C MOD 26 ? Shift = A + B + C MOD 26 ?
How about, A^B * B^c * B^A MOD 26 ?
How we choose the operations simply change the topological mixing.
And reason why we can't use addition? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.98.214.216 ( talk) 02:30, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. However, that's because of the wiring. The middle rotor doesn't randomly turn, it still clicks along as a odometer would. In this case the random digits on the rotor are performing the same job as the wiring. If we didn't have the numbers scrambled on the rotor, then yes, every press the rotors would all have to turn to some new place (which is the same as an electrical signal jumping around). The biggest problem I see is the fact that you can have A=A. However, I still think it's a useful road to explore. Especially if you want to show kids how this works and get them interested in the details of wiring. Right now, this article is not user friendly in my mind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.249.232 ( talk) 15:04, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
If you read the description of the the video it explains that this animation ignores the plug-boards and the reflector - focusing on the core function which is psuedorandom shifts. Remember the addition is abstracting the entire electrical pathway, so the reflector has nothing to do with it. The reflector is simply an extra mix operation.
To me the core of Enigma is:
A -> (permutation) -> Shifted letter
So the permutation can be explained in detail with the electrical pathways. However, there has to be an analogy to explain how this is basically a fancy odometer which outputs random shifts values. Perhaps someone could come up with a better way. Why not make it easier for everyone to understand aside from tech geeks?
What would Richard Feynman do?
We would agree that there is a simplification to be made here, to merely introduce the concept. THEN explain how it works.
Ideally, it would be a slot machine type operation which occurs each shift. Which is what the video is trying to do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.249.232 ( talk) 17:03, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
"Thanks to this,[6] during the war, Allied codebreakers were able to decrypt a vast number of messages that had been enciphered using the Enigma"... This statement does not appear to be neutral. 117.213.221.167 ( talk) 02:39, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Is there a source for the translation of "Funkschlüssel" to "remote key" in the historical crypto sense?
The translation of "Funkschlüssel" was changed from "radio cipher" to "remote key". My sense is Funk is radio/wireless and Schlüssel is key (and possibly cipher). When used in our context, it is a radio key or radio cipher or even radio cipher machine. When referring to the device used to open modern cars, it is a remote key or a wireless key. (Yes, I know that car remote keys use encryption.)
To me, the original "radio cipher" is better. The German WP article uses Rotor-Schlüsselmaschinen (literally "rotor-key machine") to denote rotor cipher machine, but my guess is that "Schlüssel" can also be used in the English sense of cipher. Google translate takes cipher machine to Chiffriermaschine, Verschlüsselungsmaschine, and Kryptogeräte. Also from DE WP, a book apparently describing Enigma cipher procedures is called "Der Schlüssel M".
Should the change be reverted?
Glrx ( talk) 17:31, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Simon Singh was just on the radio speaking about Alan Turing and Enigmas, and they attempted a real-time interpretation of the cover maintenance German (they gave up as it was taking too much time). It was OK that it was moved from the page as a part of the caption, but raises enough questions to keep around. 198.123.56.183 ( talk) 20:06, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
The first German WW2 Naval ENIGMA M4 TURINGBOMBE break since 1945. Visit: http://www.enigma.hoerenberg.com/ and read the original U534 messages for the first time since nearly 70 years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.209.190.247 ( talk) 01:47, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Some work has been done on replica machines. Is it worth discussing?
Rich
Farmbrough,
00:14, 18 September 2012 (UTC).
The article claims that Harris does not acknowledge Polish work on the bombe, but on p64 it claims Puck "arrived in the first week of the war to brief them on the Polish bombe". It also claims criticisms of how things were at Bletchley without support.
I wasn't there but the general treatment seems convincing - the mixture of informality and extreme security. Harris maybe assumes too much knowledge - Turing is very much in the background (as he was by 1943) and is hardly mentioned in the film. The major plot element - the total suppression of decryptions of the Katyn massacre - mainly hits at the secretiveness of the British, though the anti-Polish angle is bad. Rejewski wasn't even allowed near Bletchley and was certainly no traitor. Chris55 ( talk) 18:44, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Does anyone know the origin of the name? Certainly the meaning makes sense, but I was recently struck by the similarity in concept to Elgar's Enigma Variations, a series of 14 pieces for orchestra based on a hidden, unplayed theme, written in 1899. The mystery of what this theme is was unsolved in Elgar's lifetime. Could the name have been given in reference to Elgar's pieces? Conscientia ( talk) 11:29, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
User:Jcolman1 has added a questionable paragraph about the Enigma D model to the " Commercial Enigma" section. I have edited his paragraph for its many lesser errors and stylistic infelicities, but the whole text is very dubious, and I have marked it as "citation needed". I cite the paragraph, below:
The Enigma D version was intercepted by the Poles on a Friday in late December 1927 at the Polish railroad customs house in Warsaw. A heavy package had arrived there, addressed to the German Embassy in Warsaw. A German representative of the "radio" company that had shipped the package, repeatedly called the customs officials, stating that the package had been shipped by mistake, must not go through customs inspection, and must be returned to Berlin immediately. His calls became increasingly frantic, until the custom officials became suspicious and notified the Polish Cipher Bureau, which was then responsible for radio-related matters. Stefan Mayer, chief of Polish intelligence, was then informed and had his agents secretly remove the package to a location that was known not to be under Gestapo surveillance. The package was carefully opened to reveal a cipher machine virtually identical with commercial Enigma machines in use at the time. The agents correctly guessed that the Germans had modified the internal wiring; they carefully disassembled it and noted the changes. The machine was quickly reassembled and, the following Monday, shipped back to the radio company in Berlin. When Major Gwido Langer took over the newly organized Cipher Bureau in 1929, he possessed the modified Enigma machine, but he did not reveal this to the newly recruited mathematics students, Marian Rejewski, Henryk Zygalski and Jerzy Róźycki. Langer correctly assumed that the Germans would make further modifications to the Enigma machine, and he only provided Rejewski with a legally purchased commercial Enigma machine. His reasoning was that he wanted his cryptologists to understand the machine's internal wiring from a purely mathematical point of view. citation needed
The three mathematicians were only recruited by the Cipher Bureau in 1932, not 1929, and by then they were no longer "students". But there are more serious errors in this paragraph, as is made clear by reading Marian Rejewski's Appendix D to Władysław Kozaczuk, Enigma: How the German Machine Cipher Was Broken, and How It Was Read by the Allies in World War Two,1984 (p. 246):
It may readily be surmised that the cipher machine [that had arrived at the Warsaw Customs Office on a "Saturday afternoon" in "late 1927 or perhaps early 1928"] was an Enigma, of the commercial model of course, since, at that time, the military model had not yet been put into use. Hence, this trivial episode was of no practical importance, though it does fix the date at which the Cipher Bureau's interest in the Enigma machine began — manifested, initially, in the acquisition by entirely legal means of one copy of the commercial model machine.
The Cipher Bureau clearly would have had no purpose in keeping the model D's wiring a secret from Rejewski. User:Jcolman1's paragraph needs, at a minimum, to be thoroughly revised for relevance and accuracy; probably, to be dropped altogether.
Nihil novi ( talk) 23:32, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
I recently visited the U-Boat U534 on display at Birkenhead ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_submarine_U-534). Included in the display are bits of two enigma machines recovered from the hull. The narrative next to the display said that there were two machines which allowed messages to be doubly encrypted for added security. This makes no sense to me as my understanding that multiple encryption does nothing to improve the security because it only aggregates the encryption functions to create a new function which is no harder to break than any other single encryption function.
Can anyone clarify if double encryption was used with the enigma or if this idea is nonsense please? 194.176.105.141 ( talk) 11:57, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
I believe double coding was used for messages that could be read only by officers. When the outer decryption using the standard enigma key for the day was decrypted by a seaman/petty officer, he was left with a message encrypted with another key, again using Enigna. Then a new key was set up by an officer from a sepatate key list. Some marine engima machines had a detacheable lamp assembly, so that the seaman/NCO pressed the keys for the second decryption (with the officer key) but only the officer could see the light bublbs. SV1XV ( talk) 19:59, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
A double-scramble would be harder to crack. Amazing it was ever solved. -- Narnia.Gate7 ( talk) 22:11, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
If the encryption algorithm is of a type call a “cryptographic group” and double encryption is used then there will be a third key which produces the same results as the two keys used in turn. In this case double encryption takes twice the work and provides no more security than a single encryption step!
Even if the cipher is not a cryptographic group, there is something called a “meet in the middle” attack that makes the sequence of encryption operations no more secure against a brute-force attack than just encrypting it once.
Chaining multiple encryption steps is not a great way to improve on security. 194.176.105.136 ( talk) 12:17, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
It might be worth looking at the TICOM archives to accurately reflect the facts. TICOM were the American group that scoured Europe post WW2 for military assets, particularly cryptologic assets. The following documents are worth a read. TICOM was there, and interviewed all the principle people, those who built it, used it, and noticed it's weaknesses. Most post WW2 books are partially based on these archives. One interesting fact, was that it was considered out of date at the commencement of the war. Here are the two links.
scope_creep talk 20:0 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Needs explanation in table of what Uhr stands for. -- palmiped | Talk 15:02, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
The methods of the code breaking are very similar, he says.
Headline: End of common cold could be in sight
QUOTE: "Scientists say 'Enigma machine' has unlocked clues to the way the virus of the common cold assembles - making it possible to stop disease in its tracks" -- Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 03:23, 5 February 2015 (UTC) -- PS: FYI for future editing: He says, “It is like finding a secret message within an ordinary news report and then being able to crack the whole coding system behind it."
The following was inappropriately put on the article page by an anonymous editor;
-- TedColes ( talk) 08:20, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
The article has a picture of a four rotor enigma with the caption, "A four–rotor Kriegsmarine (German Navy, 1935 to 1945) Enigma machine on display at the US National Cryptologic Museum". Surely, the four rotor enigmas was introduced 1942, as the body of the article says? There seems to be some confusion between the total number of rotors available to an operator and the number actually inserted in the machine at any one time? Sandpiper ( talk) 23:57, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
http://www.deathcamps.org/reinhard/allies.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.102.58.221 ( talk) 18:51, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Enigma machine. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 22:24, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Apparently, for the Kreigsmarine Enigma, words like Minensuchboot (minesweeper) could be written as MINENSUCHBOOT, MINBOOT, MMMBOOT or MMM354. This makes excellent cryptological sense, except that I am not sure how you type 354 into an Enigma machine. You could try FUNFHUNDERTVIERUNDFUNFZIG, but that seems bit laborious.... Moletrouser ( talk) 18:05, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
This edit introduced a picture of a purported 1918 Enigma. The machine has a plugboard -- a feature that was added to German machine in the 1930s. "[The plugboard] was a unique feature for the German Armed Forces." [9] Compare with this Enigma in a wooden box. Glrx ( talk) 18:23, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
The claimed date “1918” is certainly wrong. In the year 1918, the year of its invention by Arthur Scherbius, there existed no Enigma machines at all. And the plugboard (Steckerbrett) was introduced in 1928 by the German Army (Reichswehr). The presented Enigma machine of the museum in Milano is a typical 3-wheel-plugboard model “Enigma I” as used by the German Armed Forces (Wehrmacht) during the late 1930s and during the war. So the date should read “ca. 1940”. Best wishes -- OS ( talk) 05:45, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/ockhamsrazor/learning-from-britain's-secret-decryption-centre,-bletchley-park/5136522 has lots of important info missing from this article. -- Espoo ( talk) 22:40, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Is anyone here concerned about the relative lack of citations for such a long, in-depth article? I'm considering adding a refimprov template but wanted to run it by anyone more heavily involved in the drafting this article. Dvlsnthedtls ( talk) 15:53, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
There's no link to this page from the WWII section of the Poland article, as if the work of the Polish Cipher Bureau made a less notable contribution than the Polish navy. Anyone with a view either way about that, please chime in on the Talk page there. - Chumchum7 ( talk) 04:39, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi Fellow Wikipedians! I intend to update the details section, at some point in the next couple of weeks. At the moment, it is hazy, incorrect in some places, and doesn't differentiate between Naval Enigma and Heer/Luftwaffe message encipherment/decipherment procedures, in any detail. I have several images, which I think are now in public domain, and can help detail the procedures. Thanks. scope_creep ( talk) 22:04, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Enigma machine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:29, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Enigma machine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:30, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
I've removed the toclimit on the article, to enable linking from the Otto Buggisch article to Enigma Uhr. He led the group which did the work to invent the uhr. The toclimit may make the article nice and clean, but is lously for correct linking. scope_creep ( talk)
Hi, I'm trying to determine the consensus for removal or keeping of the section titled: Typex. I think it should be removed. What is the consensus on it? scope_creep ( talk) 21:37, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Strange lede looks like the result of an edit war between those wanting to downplay the Polish role in defeating Enigma, and those wanting to promote it: in a nutshell, it says a Pole got some of the way, but then only with French help the Pole finished the job, and then the job couldn't be done by the Pole by the time it really mattered (the outbreak of WWII) because the Pole couldn't afford it, presumably because Poles are poor as well as inept, just in case some nationalist Pole was trying to say otherwise. In the first place, this article is about a German machine, not Polish success in defeating it. So let's cut down the Polish content from the lede, as well as what appears to be a reaction against it in the content. Simply put, the British by their own account said they never would have achieved what they did against Enigma without having been given the insight by their Polish allies "in the nick of time" at the start of the War - not much more needs to be said about it than that. Happy to see and discuss proposed alternatives here. - Chumchum7 ( talk) 18:21, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
We're still not quite there yet. If the Polish contribution was a sideshow, then Britain would't have sent Colin Gubbins and Vera Atkins in 'Military Mission 4' to Poland in 1939 to evacuate the Polish codebreakers into Romania under a hail of German ordinance, per Spymistress: The True Story of the Greatest Female Secret Agent of World War II by William Stevenson. This needs a mention in the article (and reflection in the lede), as does Glrx's point about the many years of past experience the Poles had in decryption (in fact 1932 - 1939) which as stated lower down included their own replica Enigmas, their Bombe and their Zygalski sheets. To say "As used in practice, the Enigma encryption proved vulnerable to cryptanalytic attacks by Germany's adversaries, at first Polish and French intelligence and, later, a massive effort mounted by the United Kingdom at Bletchley Park as part of the Ultra program." is a misrepresentation of the relative French and Polish achievements prior to the war. - Chumchum7 ( talk) 07:07, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
The cipher machine invented by Scherbius in 1918, a glowlamp-machine, built and tested in 1918, has been later named "Enigma A", the writing machines (1919-1927) "Enigma B", the improved glowlamp-Enigma (Enigma A + reflector and Steckerbrett) "Enigma C".-- Le Huic ( talk) 09:06, 6 October 2020 (UTC) My error: "Enigma B" is a glowlamp-Enigma too.-- Le Huic ( talk) 06:58, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
I can't believe that this is a serious suggestion. The cited source does not suppot the idea. The Oxford English Dictionary gives the etymology of the word enigma as "mid 16th century: via Latin from Greek ainigma". So, the word and its meaning would be known to educated Europeans. -- TedColes ( talk) 09:35, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
How were numerals encoded? Were they spelt out as words ? In R.V. Jones’s ‘Secret War’ he cites an Ultra decrypt re the detection of a Knickebein beam which is mostly compass bearings, times, heights, and frequencies. So how ? 2001:8003:3020:1C00:7013:2CC2:B26C:A9CF ( talk) 09:51, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Really? I feel like he at least deserves a mention. Rhosnes ( talk) 07:01, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
I removed this sentence from the history: *This [the invention of Enigma by Scherbius] was unknown until 2003 when a paper by Karl de Leeuw was found that described in detail Scherbius' changes. [1] This is not what that reference says at all; moreover de Leeuw's paper was not found in 2003. The source instead describes an earlier 1915 rotor encryption device invented by two Dutch engineers. — BillC talk 23:59, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
References
Citation [8] has a broken link New link is https://cryptocellar.org/enigma/files/rew80.pdf
Sorry I cannot figure out how to edit it 49.196.83.111 ( talk) 07:38, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
In the section about Design> Reflector: "With the exception of models A and B, the last rotor came before a 'reflector' "
That's inconsistent with the section about Models > Die Glühlampenmaschine, Enigma A (1924):
"The reflector, suggested by Scherbius' colleague Willi Korn, was introduced with the glow lamp version."
And just after that in the description for Enigma B:
"... both models A and B were quite unlike later versions: They differed in physical size and shape, but also cryptographically, in that they lacked the reflector.
I suspect there's a mistake in one or the other but I'm not sure which. EchelonForce ( talk) 13:32, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Enigma machine article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3 |
![]() | Enigma machine is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed. | ||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 13, 2004. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Former featured article |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Priority 2
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
|
|||
I added two additional external links: Cipher Machines & Cryptology and Frode's Crypto Cellar I also want to add two other links that are generally recognized as valuable reference information Tony Sale's Code and Ciphers and The Bletchley Park Trust I suggest to change the link to ellsbury's rotor wirings into the main page: Ellsbury's Enigma and the Bombe which brings a view onto much more information that the few rotor details, already added to wiki in the rotor details spin-off. Any comments pro/contra on all links, mentioned above, welcome... Dirk ( talk) 17:36, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
The following sentence, "During World War II codebooks were used only to set up the rotors and ring settings.", in the paragraph starting with "During World War II" in the Indicators section is unclear to me. I think the intention is to say, "During World War II codebooks were only used to set up the initial rotor settings each day." I may have misunderstood what is meant here, but if so then I am probably not the only one. So I ask whoever is knowledgeable on this topic to clarify it. Soler97 ( talk) 10:56, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Part of code-breaking of text is to search for clichés that give 'free' letters. Many Nazi messages sent by non-professionals started or ended with "Heil Hitler!" or "Sieg heil!" in code, either of which offered critical letters for decoding, was about as much cliché as was possible. Such demonstrated loyalty to the Nazi cause -- but also breached the quality of coding. Letters e, i, l, r, s, and t are all very common in German and give away much of the structure of words in the message. Pbrower2a ( talk) 10:17, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
I have reverted the edit that ascribes the invention of Enigma to Hugo Koch as this is contentious. See for example [2] which says "Many historians have erred in giving credit for the Enigma cipher machine of World War II famed to Hugo Koch and not to the rightful inventor, Arthur Scherbius." and goes on to give substantial evidence in support. TedColes ( talk) 05:46, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Scherbius (German), Koch(Dutch) and Damm(Swedish) are second, third and fourth. In 1924 the company of Scherbius buys the Koch patent. So, please check the info and correct your record. Vebar ( talk) 01:02, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Should this movie go in the references? I remember it was part of the movie, recovering a machine, but I havn't seen it in years and can't remember if it really is a major part of the movie. Cs302b ( talk) 01:20, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Admittedly the dividing line between fact and fiction is increasingly being blurred these days, but it is relevant to read one review of this film which says:
If you believe U-571, Jonathan Mostow's submarine action romp set in the murky depths of World War II, the Americans were instrumental in the capture of the Enigma coding devices, used by the Germans to encrypt top secret messages.
The British barely feature in the war effort - it was the good ole Yankee boys leading the way, teaching Hitler a lesson or two with some well-placed torpedoes (the end credits reveal that it was in fact the Brits who captured the Enigma machines and ultimately deciphered the code. Fancy that!).
Such glaring lapses in historical accuracy litter Mostow's film, which throws all character and plot development overboard within the first five minutes and goes full steam ahead for sustained action.
I still think it appropriate to avoid the possibility of giving offence in this way.-- TedColes ( talk) 07:57, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
A new image that may be of some interest: commons:Image:Bundesarchiv Bild 183-2007-0705-502, Chiffriermaschine "Enigma".jpg - a 1943 German photograph of a machine. Shimgray | talk | 19:06, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm not Dutch, but the changes you guys made - deleting Koch - are based on poor historic research and taking for granted just any source. Karl de Leeuw, a Dutch historian already in 2003 proved that the Enigma was invented by two Dutch navy officers, Spengler and van Hengel. Koch, who was working together with Scherbius. There is no doubt about the solid research and sources of this work of historian de Leeuw, which was published in Cryptologia. His work is acknowledged and confirmed by other historians. I understand that some people are a bit bitten in the **** that their version is fiction, and I understand their err. In those days, the patenting of such machines was a very obscure thing, played in the world of intellingence secrets. More here. Do whatever you want with it, but base your actions (deleting/adding stories) on the work and sources of historians, and don't base them on an opinion. Karl de Leeuw on the invention of the Enigma Dirk ( talk) 15:37, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
I just wondered about the various contry/language specific articles on Enigma, in particular the editing-policy thereof. being myself a german engineer I found that the german page is somewhat quick to remove edits, while the same edits are easily accepted in the other languages for their significance. So do not miss the version checks on wikipedia !
Every unclassified source I am familiar with has indicated that the steckerboard added very little additional cryptographic strength. 143.232.210.46 ( talk) 23:59, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
The plug board added a huge amount of cryptographic strength. There are a total of 150,738,274,937,250 ways to arrange it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.98.214.216 ( talk) 14:32, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Where is missing information about that Poles first broke the Enigma? -- DumnyPolak ( talk) 01:04, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Americans? What had to do Americans with Enigma? Probably a Hollywood science fiction films about this machine like britisch film ENIGMA with Kate Winslet :-)) - Markus —Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.25.200.133 ( talk) 14:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
but the bombes were a British invention ( Fdsdh1 ( talk) 12:55, 9 December 2012 (UTC))
Please see also my comment under "Polish Contribution" in this talk page. 108.222.214.13 ( talk) 19:05, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
It presently reads as follows:
WHAT source??? The second sentence practically contridicts the first sentence because the way it's presently written, no mention has yet been made of the fact that Enigma eventually did fall into Allied hands. It's true that it's mentioned later in the body of the article, but that doesn't alleviate the fact that these sentences don't make sense in their present form. The words this source (emphasis added by me) do not reference what the source is/was. I suggest that between the 1st and 2nd sentences, another on should be added, one that would read, "That changed, however, when Allied forces captured an Enigma machine from the Germans, providing a valuable source of previously secret/classified information to Allied leaders . . . " or words to that effect. Please forgive me if I've added this new topic of discussion incorrectly; I still haven't figured out the procedure, and no one has ever responded to my repeated requests for assistance. Magnet For Knowledge ( talk) 03:41, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Please see also my comment under "Polish Contribution" in this talk page. 108.222.214.13 ( talk) 19:05, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
There is no secret in the following procedure, so an attacker only needs a machine. Somehow there must be a daily code incorporated into the procedure.
Tuntable ( talk) 00:31, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Computerramjet ( talk) 20:19, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
The setting used by hobbists from 1970-1985 to receive feeds from reuters, etc, was REDRUM. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.134.243.171 ( talk) 06:02, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
So how were the messages decoded (assuming one had the codebooks or equivalent)? There should be a bit more on the subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.254.147.68 ( talk) 15:27, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Not an inventor. Just a patent owner. Vlsergey ( talk) 01:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Editor Vumba is right in saying that American cryptographers were more focused on the Japanese codes than Enigma. By the time that the US joined WWII, the British at Bletchley park had worked out how to break most of the enigma ciphers. It is wrong, however, to say that US cryptos did not get involved. They had liaised with Bletchley Park before and soon had a contingent there. They ran one of the Bombe outstations and their naval bombes were of immense use to the whole Enigma-breaking activity.-- TedColes ( talk) 17:55, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
One cannot re-write history. The US certainly made great use of the information as did other (limited) allied commanders. But to say that the US had a major role is strictly nationalistic. Lets stay with the facts. If TedColes has specific references to add please do so.-- Vumba ( talk) 20:09, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Before attempting to assess the value of the contribution of Op-20-G, which was immense, and also the difficulties which arose, which were fairly numerous, it is essential to understand that they were very different from ourselves in their fundamental organization. They were second in the field and agreed, and kept to the agreement, to play second fiddle and so naturally the people they put into their German machine cryptography were not the best cryptographers they had, but rather efficient and intelligent organizers with cryptographic knowledge.
The acceptance by Op-20-G of the principle of pooled bombe resources was a fairly slow one. … By the time the Second Front opened very close and efficient cooperation existed. Priorities of keys were decided at weekly meetings at which the U.S.N. representative was present and Op-20-G stuck most loyally to the priorities as laid down, running a vast number of Hut 6 jobs and enabling them to break keys which would have otherwise have remained unbroken. I think it is a considerable tribute to the good sense of all parties concerned, and most especially to Op-20-G who were in a somewhat irksome position, that relations were at all times extremely cordial and that it was possible to get so much work so efficiently done when the machinery had to be shared by 3 groups of people, each feeling at heart that their own particular problem was the one which really mattered.
Vumba says that 'the "Bomba" was a Polish decrypt machine later enhanced by the British.' I don't agree that this is a good reflection of the reality. Budiansky (2000), and others point out that Alan Turing developed the idea of a machine that the Bomba represented, but worked on an entirely different premise. To quote Budiansky: [1]
The Bomba had very limited applicability. It depended on there being three doubly enciphered indicators in which the same letter was repeated in all three; it also would work only if that repeated letter happened to be unsteckered, so its true identity was known. But with a text crib Turing at once saw that a series of Enigmas could be linked together in a different architecture to perform an automated search. And it would be an incredibly powerful method.
We do indeed "need to stay with the facts here".-- TedColes ( talk) 16:51, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
It is, perhaps, worth quoting Peter Calvocoressi, who became head of the Luftwaffe section in Hut 3, who wrote in commenting on the Polish contribution:
The one moot point is - how valuable? According to the best qualified judges it accelerated the breaking of Enigma by perhaps a year. The British did not adopt Polish techniques but they were enlightened by them. [2]
References
{{
citation}}
: |page=
has extra text (
help)
-- TedColes ( talk) 09:55, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
(Previous Comment Unsigned)
As someone completely impartial to the article (this is my first time even reading it), I must say that the second introductory paragraph as of July 20th, 2013 is excessively redundant regarding the Polish contribution, and looks as though there may be some bias at work in editing by 83.27.208.66 (which is, incidentally, a Polish IP address). It is also very long and too detailed for an introductory paragraph.
Comparing the two most recent major versions, it seems the older version (by Arthena) was more concise/appropriate for an encyclopedia. The edit by 83.27.208.66 seems to add little of value. However, I'll leave reversion up to consensus.
108.222.214.13 ( talk) 18:55, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
The Enigma Machine is used as a plot point in the latter half of Season 5 of the Popular Late '80s Early '90s British Sitcom 'Allo 'Allo. While the Actual Machine is not shown, it is mentioned in name between episodes #5.23 - #5.26 (and is Referenced in this Wikipedia Article) Thought it'd be a good addition to the section -- 220.253.152.227 ( talk) 16:16, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
R.e. this good faith edit [5] Can we be certain that non-' Axis' powers weren't a source of Ultra? I ask because (1) PC Bruno appears to have had dedicated Spanish and Russian sections, suggesting Spain and the U.S.S.R. may have been a source of Ultra and (2) 'Axis' has quite a specific definition of just Germany and Italy (the "Rome-Berlin Axis" ) until the Tripartite Pact of 1940 when Japan joined. I'd be surprised if there was no Japanese-sourced Ultra prior to Japan joining the Axis. (3) Are we sure there was no U.S.-derived Ultra 1939-1941? Thanks in advance, - Chumchum7 ( talk) 18:55, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Does anyone know of a primary source for the statement that: " Winston Churchill told Britain's King George VI after World War II: 'It was thanks to Ultra that we won the war.'"? The reference at [6] is only a secondary source. -- TedColes ( talk) 17:30, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
There's an episode of the BBC television series The Secret War (based on the book Most Secret War by R.V. Jones) about the Enigma and Bletchley Park including interviews with some of the people involved, on YouTube here: [7] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.68.219 ( talk) 16:18, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Aren't the recent edits of this section at variance with the guidelines about paragraph length in Wikipedia:Writing better articles#paragraphs? It has all become somewhat staccato. -- TedColes ( talk) 07:39, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Yesterday the Queen of England unveiled a monument to the men who broke the Enigma Code. According to the material read out it was a group of British scientists who broke the code and the secret place they worked in the midlands was also shown. They also showed the machine they developed to continuously break codes, calling it "the first computer". It appears that this contradicts the article on Wikipedia about Enigma which states that the Poles broke Enigma after the 1st WW. Which of these is correct? Chrismort1 ( talk) 06:48, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for that. It makes a lot more sense than the Poles simply being shut out. DieSwartzPunkt ( talk) 15:15, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Glrx claims "addition is not permutation". He may have a PHD in philosophy, however I think he's misunderstanding this simplification. It has nothing to do with permutations, a permutation is equivalent to shuffling a deck of cards. Would he argue that this is also too much of a simplification?
When explaining the Enigma, many people get bogged down in the details of the electrical wiring. However the essence of the enigma's operation is that each wheel position applies a specific shift to the input character. So each electrical path can be defined equivalently as some addition. The randomness of the machine, can then be explained by the random listing of numbers on the wheels. This sells the point that A. it's deterministic, and B, the rotors are pseudorandom.
I simply think this is the best way to introduce the topic, it abstracts the mechanics and focuses on the mathematics
Reference (i used this example as a TA in): http://crypto.cs.mcgill.ca/~dumais/cs647/cs647.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.249.232 ( talk) 21:32, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
NOTE:
Regarding Glrx, I totally respect and read his contributions. However, I'd love for him/someone else to come up with an analogy that can be understood at first glance, by abstracting mechanical movements into mathematical operations. What enigma/lorenz and all the machine share is message + Psuedorandomness
So what's the best way to demonstrate psuedorandomness numerically. I've read Knuth's SemiNumerical Algorithms and we could use some middle square method. Or, why not just take a strip of pseudorandom digits, and mount them on wheels. From there we could come up with all sorts of options for then using those digits to define a shift:
ie. If wheels A B C are showing, should we take Shift = A*B*C MOD 26 ? Shift = A + B + C MOD 26 ?
How about, A^B * B^c * B^A MOD 26 ?
How we choose the operations simply change the topological mixing.
And reason why we can't use addition? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.98.214.216 ( talk) 02:30, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. However, that's because of the wiring. The middle rotor doesn't randomly turn, it still clicks along as a odometer would. In this case the random digits on the rotor are performing the same job as the wiring. If we didn't have the numbers scrambled on the rotor, then yes, every press the rotors would all have to turn to some new place (which is the same as an electrical signal jumping around). The biggest problem I see is the fact that you can have A=A. However, I still think it's a useful road to explore. Especially if you want to show kids how this works and get them interested in the details of wiring. Right now, this article is not user friendly in my mind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.249.232 ( talk) 15:04, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
If you read the description of the the video it explains that this animation ignores the plug-boards and the reflector - focusing on the core function which is psuedorandom shifts. Remember the addition is abstracting the entire electrical pathway, so the reflector has nothing to do with it. The reflector is simply an extra mix operation.
To me the core of Enigma is:
A -> (permutation) -> Shifted letter
So the permutation can be explained in detail with the electrical pathways. However, there has to be an analogy to explain how this is basically a fancy odometer which outputs random shifts values. Perhaps someone could come up with a better way. Why not make it easier for everyone to understand aside from tech geeks?
What would Richard Feynman do?
We would agree that there is a simplification to be made here, to merely introduce the concept. THEN explain how it works.
Ideally, it would be a slot machine type operation which occurs each shift. Which is what the video is trying to do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.249.232 ( talk) 17:03, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
"Thanks to this,[6] during the war, Allied codebreakers were able to decrypt a vast number of messages that had been enciphered using the Enigma"... This statement does not appear to be neutral. 117.213.221.167 ( talk) 02:39, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Is there a source for the translation of "Funkschlüssel" to "remote key" in the historical crypto sense?
The translation of "Funkschlüssel" was changed from "radio cipher" to "remote key". My sense is Funk is radio/wireless and Schlüssel is key (and possibly cipher). When used in our context, it is a radio key or radio cipher or even radio cipher machine. When referring to the device used to open modern cars, it is a remote key or a wireless key. (Yes, I know that car remote keys use encryption.)
To me, the original "radio cipher" is better. The German WP article uses Rotor-Schlüsselmaschinen (literally "rotor-key machine") to denote rotor cipher machine, but my guess is that "Schlüssel" can also be used in the English sense of cipher. Google translate takes cipher machine to Chiffriermaschine, Verschlüsselungsmaschine, and Kryptogeräte. Also from DE WP, a book apparently describing Enigma cipher procedures is called "Der Schlüssel M".
Should the change be reverted?
Glrx ( talk) 17:31, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Simon Singh was just on the radio speaking about Alan Turing and Enigmas, and they attempted a real-time interpretation of the cover maintenance German (they gave up as it was taking too much time). It was OK that it was moved from the page as a part of the caption, but raises enough questions to keep around. 198.123.56.183 ( talk) 20:06, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
The first German WW2 Naval ENIGMA M4 TURINGBOMBE break since 1945. Visit: http://www.enigma.hoerenberg.com/ and read the original U534 messages for the first time since nearly 70 years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.209.190.247 ( talk) 01:47, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Some work has been done on replica machines. Is it worth discussing?
Rich
Farmbrough,
00:14, 18 September 2012 (UTC).
The article claims that Harris does not acknowledge Polish work on the bombe, but on p64 it claims Puck "arrived in the first week of the war to brief them on the Polish bombe". It also claims criticisms of how things were at Bletchley without support.
I wasn't there but the general treatment seems convincing - the mixture of informality and extreme security. Harris maybe assumes too much knowledge - Turing is very much in the background (as he was by 1943) and is hardly mentioned in the film. The major plot element - the total suppression of decryptions of the Katyn massacre - mainly hits at the secretiveness of the British, though the anti-Polish angle is bad. Rejewski wasn't even allowed near Bletchley and was certainly no traitor. Chris55 ( talk) 18:44, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Does anyone know the origin of the name? Certainly the meaning makes sense, but I was recently struck by the similarity in concept to Elgar's Enigma Variations, a series of 14 pieces for orchestra based on a hidden, unplayed theme, written in 1899. The mystery of what this theme is was unsolved in Elgar's lifetime. Could the name have been given in reference to Elgar's pieces? Conscientia ( talk) 11:29, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
User:Jcolman1 has added a questionable paragraph about the Enigma D model to the " Commercial Enigma" section. I have edited his paragraph for its many lesser errors and stylistic infelicities, but the whole text is very dubious, and I have marked it as "citation needed". I cite the paragraph, below:
The Enigma D version was intercepted by the Poles on a Friday in late December 1927 at the Polish railroad customs house in Warsaw. A heavy package had arrived there, addressed to the German Embassy in Warsaw. A German representative of the "radio" company that had shipped the package, repeatedly called the customs officials, stating that the package had been shipped by mistake, must not go through customs inspection, and must be returned to Berlin immediately. His calls became increasingly frantic, until the custom officials became suspicious and notified the Polish Cipher Bureau, which was then responsible for radio-related matters. Stefan Mayer, chief of Polish intelligence, was then informed and had his agents secretly remove the package to a location that was known not to be under Gestapo surveillance. The package was carefully opened to reveal a cipher machine virtually identical with commercial Enigma machines in use at the time. The agents correctly guessed that the Germans had modified the internal wiring; they carefully disassembled it and noted the changes. The machine was quickly reassembled and, the following Monday, shipped back to the radio company in Berlin. When Major Gwido Langer took over the newly organized Cipher Bureau in 1929, he possessed the modified Enigma machine, but he did not reveal this to the newly recruited mathematics students, Marian Rejewski, Henryk Zygalski and Jerzy Róźycki. Langer correctly assumed that the Germans would make further modifications to the Enigma machine, and he only provided Rejewski with a legally purchased commercial Enigma machine. His reasoning was that he wanted his cryptologists to understand the machine's internal wiring from a purely mathematical point of view. citation needed
The three mathematicians were only recruited by the Cipher Bureau in 1932, not 1929, and by then they were no longer "students". But there are more serious errors in this paragraph, as is made clear by reading Marian Rejewski's Appendix D to Władysław Kozaczuk, Enigma: How the German Machine Cipher Was Broken, and How It Was Read by the Allies in World War Two,1984 (p. 246):
It may readily be surmised that the cipher machine [that had arrived at the Warsaw Customs Office on a "Saturday afternoon" in "late 1927 or perhaps early 1928"] was an Enigma, of the commercial model of course, since, at that time, the military model had not yet been put into use. Hence, this trivial episode was of no practical importance, though it does fix the date at which the Cipher Bureau's interest in the Enigma machine began — manifested, initially, in the acquisition by entirely legal means of one copy of the commercial model machine.
The Cipher Bureau clearly would have had no purpose in keeping the model D's wiring a secret from Rejewski. User:Jcolman1's paragraph needs, at a minimum, to be thoroughly revised for relevance and accuracy; probably, to be dropped altogether.
Nihil novi ( talk) 23:32, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
I recently visited the U-Boat U534 on display at Birkenhead ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_submarine_U-534). Included in the display are bits of two enigma machines recovered from the hull. The narrative next to the display said that there were two machines which allowed messages to be doubly encrypted for added security. This makes no sense to me as my understanding that multiple encryption does nothing to improve the security because it only aggregates the encryption functions to create a new function which is no harder to break than any other single encryption function.
Can anyone clarify if double encryption was used with the enigma or if this idea is nonsense please? 194.176.105.141 ( talk) 11:57, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
I believe double coding was used for messages that could be read only by officers. When the outer decryption using the standard enigma key for the day was decrypted by a seaman/petty officer, he was left with a message encrypted with another key, again using Enigna. Then a new key was set up by an officer from a sepatate key list. Some marine engima machines had a detacheable lamp assembly, so that the seaman/NCO pressed the keys for the second decryption (with the officer key) but only the officer could see the light bublbs. SV1XV ( talk) 19:59, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
A double-scramble would be harder to crack. Amazing it was ever solved. -- Narnia.Gate7 ( talk) 22:11, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
If the encryption algorithm is of a type call a “cryptographic group” and double encryption is used then there will be a third key which produces the same results as the two keys used in turn. In this case double encryption takes twice the work and provides no more security than a single encryption step!
Even if the cipher is not a cryptographic group, there is something called a “meet in the middle” attack that makes the sequence of encryption operations no more secure against a brute-force attack than just encrypting it once.
Chaining multiple encryption steps is not a great way to improve on security. 194.176.105.136 ( talk) 12:17, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
It might be worth looking at the TICOM archives to accurately reflect the facts. TICOM were the American group that scoured Europe post WW2 for military assets, particularly cryptologic assets. The following documents are worth a read. TICOM was there, and interviewed all the principle people, those who built it, used it, and noticed it's weaknesses. Most post WW2 books are partially based on these archives. One interesting fact, was that it was considered out of date at the commencement of the war. Here are the two links.
scope_creep talk 20:0 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Needs explanation in table of what Uhr stands for. -- palmiped | Talk 15:02, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
The methods of the code breaking are very similar, he says.
Headline: End of common cold could be in sight
QUOTE: "Scientists say 'Enigma machine' has unlocked clues to the way the virus of the common cold assembles - making it possible to stop disease in its tracks" -- Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 03:23, 5 February 2015 (UTC) -- PS: FYI for future editing: He says, “It is like finding a secret message within an ordinary news report and then being able to crack the whole coding system behind it."
The following was inappropriately put on the article page by an anonymous editor;
-- TedColes ( talk) 08:20, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
The article has a picture of a four rotor enigma with the caption, "A four–rotor Kriegsmarine (German Navy, 1935 to 1945) Enigma machine on display at the US National Cryptologic Museum". Surely, the four rotor enigmas was introduced 1942, as the body of the article says? There seems to be some confusion between the total number of rotors available to an operator and the number actually inserted in the machine at any one time? Sandpiper ( talk) 23:57, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
http://www.deathcamps.org/reinhard/allies.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.102.58.221 ( talk) 18:51, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Enigma machine. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 22:24, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Apparently, for the Kreigsmarine Enigma, words like Minensuchboot (minesweeper) could be written as MINENSUCHBOOT, MINBOOT, MMMBOOT or MMM354. This makes excellent cryptological sense, except that I am not sure how you type 354 into an Enigma machine. You could try FUNFHUNDERTVIERUNDFUNFZIG, but that seems bit laborious.... Moletrouser ( talk) 18:05, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
This edit introduced a picture of a purported 1918 Enigma. The machine has a plugboard -- a feature that was added to German machine in the 1930s. "[The plugboard] was a unique feature for the German Armed Forces." [9] Compare with this Enigma in a wooden box. Glrx ( talk) 18:23, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
The claimed date “1918” is certainly wrong. In the year 1918, the year of its invention by Arthur Scherbius, there existed no Enigma machines at all. And the plugboard (Steckerbrett) was introduced in 1928 by the German Army (Reichswehr). The presented Enigma machine of the museum in Milano is a typical 3-wheel-plugboard model “Enigma I” as used by the German Armed Forces (Wehrmacht) during the late 1930s and during the war. So the date should read “ca. 1940”. Best wishes -- OS ( talk) 05:45, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/ockhamsrazor/learning-from-britain's-secret-decryption-centre,-bletchley-park/5136522 has lots of important info missing from this article. -- Espoo ( talk) 22:40, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Is anyone here concerned about the relative lack of citations for such a long, in-depth article? I'm considering adding a refimprov template but wanted to run it by anyone more heavily involved in the drafting this article. Dvlsnthedtls ( talk) 15:53, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
There's no link to this page from the WWII section of the Poland article, as if the work of the Polish Cipher Bureau made a less notable contribution than the Polish navy. Anyone with a view either way about that, please chime in on the Talk page there. - Chumchum7 ( talk) 04:39, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi Fellow Wikipedians! I intend to update the details section, at some point in the next couple of weeks. At the moment, it is hazy, incorrect in some places, and doesn't differentiate between Naval Enigma and Heer/Luftwaffe message encipherment/decipherment procedures, in any detail. I have several images, which I think are now in public domain, and can help detail the procedures. Thanks. scope_creep ( talk) 22:04, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Enigma machine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:29, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Enigma machine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:30, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
I've removed the toclimit on the article, to enable linking from the Otto Buggisch article to Enigma Uhr. He led the group which did the work to invent the uhr. The toclimit may make the article nice and clean, but is lously for correct linking. scope_creep ( talk)
Hi, I'm trying to determine the consensus for removal or keeping of the section titled: Typex. I think it should be removed. What is the consensus on it? scope_creep ( talk) 21:37, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Strange lede looks like the result of an edit war between those wanting to downplay the Polish role in defeating Enigma, and those wanting to promote it: in a nutshell, it says a Pole got some of the way, but then only with French help the Pole finished the job, and then the job couldn't be done by the Pole by the time it really mattered (the outbreak of WWII) because the Pole couldn't afford it, presumably because Poles are poor as well as inept, just in case some nationalist Pole was trying to say otherwise. In the first place, this article is about a German machine, not Polish success in defeating it. So let's cut down the Polish content from the lede, as well as what appears to be a reaction against it in the content. Simply put, the British by their own account said they never would have achieved what they did against Enigma without having been given the insight by their Polish allies "in the nick of time" at the start of the War - not much more needs to be said about it than that. Happy to see and discuss proposed alternatives here. - Chumchum7 ( talk) 18:21, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
We're still not quite there yet. If the Polish contribution was a sideshow, then Britain would't have sent Colin Gubbins and Vera Atkins in 'Military Mission 4' to Poland in 1939 to evacuate the Polish codebreakers into Romania under a hail of German ordinance, per Spymistress: The True Story of the Greatest Female Secret Agent of World War II by William Stevenson. This needs a mention in the article (and reflection in the lede), as does Glrx's point about the many years of past experience the Poles had in decryption (in fact 1932 - 1939) which as stated lower down included their own replica Enigmas, their Bombe and their Zygalski sheets. To say "As used in practice, the Enigma encryption proved vulnerable to cryptanalytic attacks by Germany's adversaries, at first Polish and French intelligence and, later, a massive effort mounted by the United Kingdom at Bletchley Park as part of the Ultra program." is a misrepresentation of the relative French and Polish achievements prior to the war. - Chumchum7 ( talk) 07:07, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
The cipher machine invented by Scherbius in 1918, a glowlamp-machine, built and tested in 1918, has been later named "Enigma A", the writing machines (1919-1927) "Enigma B", the improved glowlamp-Enigma (Enigma A + reflector and Steckerbrett) "Enigma C".-- Le Huic ( talk) 09:06, 6 October 2020 (UTC) My error: "Enigma B" is a glowlamp-Enigma too.-- Le Huic ( talk) 06:58, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
I can't believe that this is a serious suggestion. The cited source does not suppot the idea. The Oxford English Dictionary gives the etymology of the word enigma as "mid 16th century: via Latin from Greek ainigma". So, the word and its meaning would be known to educated Europeans. -- TedColes ( talk) 09:35, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
How were numerals encoded? Were they spelt out as words ? In R.V. Jones’s ‘Secret War’ he cites an Ultra decrypt re the detection of a Knickebein beam which is mostly compass bearings, times, heights, and frequencies. So how ? 2001:8003:3020:1C00:7013:2CC2:B26C:A9CF ( talk) 09:51, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Really? I feel like he at least deserves a mention. Rhosnes ( talk) 07:01, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
I removed this sentence from the history: *This [the invention of Enigma by Scherbius] was unknown until 2003 when a paper by Karl de Leeuw was found that described in detail Scherbius' changes. [1] This is not what that reference says at all; moreover de Leeuw's paper was not found in 2003. The source instead describes an earlier 1915 rotor encryption device invented by two Dutch engineers. — BillC talk 23:59, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
References
Citation [8] has a broken link New link is https://cryptocellar.org/enigma/files/rew80.pdf
Sorry I cannot figure out how to edit it 49.196.83.111 ( talk) 07:38, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
In the section about Design> Reflector: "With the exception of models A and B, the last rotor came before a 'reflector' "
That's inconsistent with the section about Models > Die Glühlampenmaschine, Enigma A (1924):
"The reflector, suggested by Scherbius' colleague Willi Korn, was introduced with the glow lamp version."
And just after that in the description for Enigma B:
"... both models A and B were quite unlike later versions: They differed in physical size and shape, but also cryptographically, in that they lacked the reflector.
I suspect there's a mistake in one or the other but I'm not sure which. EchelonForce ( talk) 13:32, 22 April 2023 (UTC)