This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
ROT13 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 |
ROT13 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 November 21, 2004. | ||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Former featured article |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Is ROT13 'symmetric key' ? I mean there is no 'key' as such, but the procdure is same ai'nt it? -- MuthuKutty 07:08, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
if we encode in rot(x) then decodeing is the same process as encoding in rot(26-x) hence to decode rot13 is the same as encoding in rot13 Plugwash 03:32, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Should we be linking to Bubble sort because it is another 'bad algorithm'? Sure, BS is a bad algorithm but ROT13 is pretty good at acheiving its aim of obfuscating text and not 'bad' at all. EddEdmondson 22:01, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Bubble sort is a fine algorithm and one that I am proud to have implemented many times. For short lists, it is ideal because it is simple, straightforward, and not prone to implementation error due to its simplicity. It is also fairly effective for lists that are already mostly sorted, such as those that have one or a few new elements added. Compared to qsort, it is faster on an already-sorted list and about the same on an almost-sorted list. ROT13, in the same way, is a fine algorithm, although I cannot say that I've ever written it into any commercial software. ROT13 serves its purpose -- which is obfuscation, not encryption -- and is simple, straightforward, and not prone to implementation error due to its simplicity. This is the similarity, not that either algorithm is necessarily "bad."
UninvitedCompany 03:54, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Matt, The DMCA prohibits the act of investigating as well as talking publicly about. Kind of like burglar tool possession, no matter what you intend, is illegal in certain places. In this case, after is temporally correct (that was when he was arrested), but so is for (as the reason he was arrested was what he did). ww 16:32, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Matt, In the first instance you reverted, the intent was to note what DMCA regards as an offence (in the context of the point the note was attempting to make), something which was not quite evident in my judgement. In the seond instance, it was to correct the grammar. As it was orginally, and is now, the grammar (verb tense) was incorrect. I'd suggest both be restored. ww 15:14, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
The DMCA introduced a broad ban on the , circumvention (defined to include study and discussion thereof) of copy protection systems, which have too often employ insecure methods of cryptography.
The DMCA introduced a broad ban on the circumvention of copy protection systems, which often employ insecure methods of cryptography.
This article contains some material originally from the Free On-line Dictionary of Computing and is used under the GFDL.
Interesting, well written. Image? -- Fredrik | talk 16:49, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I really dont think the memfrob operation is a variant of ROT13 and isnt related. MEMFROB is based on XOR with a magic number (which is always reciprocal for any number and is a very common way to obscure data) and ROT13 is based on pretty much modulo arithmetic. Completely different operations... at best memfrob should be just a *see also* link 19:58, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I changed the external link to point to the official GNU documentation page as opposed to the popup-spamming page which was previously used.-- 130.127.121.232 05:25, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
I don't suppose anyone knows of a source for this statement? — Matt 21:34, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
As I said in reply to David (q.v.), who beat your question to me by 11 seconds, I should have said "centuries", and I could have said "millennia", not "decades". Robin Patterson 23:56, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I removed the Pan screenshot. Am I the only one who thinks this is picturitis, and the screenshot adds nothing to the article? All it basically says is that newsreaders often have support for it, which is mentioned in the article; showing a menu with the option in it is overdoing it. JRM 12:51, 2004 Nov 23 (UTC)
There is a dispute which online converter should be linked:
1. http://netzreport.googlepages.com/online_converter_for_rot_5_13_18_47.html:
2. http://rot13page.googlepages.com/:
3. http://tech.pookey.co.uk/non-wp/encoder-decoder.php:
My opinion: I would opt for the first converter (seems better in every regard). Ads are displayed, but not in an obtrusive way. For me, the ads are not a big problem because the author of the page/converter has released the converter under the GPL free to use for everyone. This reveals his/her "goodwill". -- Shaka Kaan 19:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps we should just include both (but no others). — Matt Crypto 07:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
I've added another options, I hope this isn't seen as self promotion. I see that this site (pookey.co.uk) is linked from wikipedia.pl so thought it might be of use here. I have just de-designed it to be mobile friendly and give my commitment that no adverts will be added. Pookey gb ( talk) 14:17, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Just in case, Dosshell actually used ROT13 to "encrypt" passwords for customized (and password-protected) user entries (like in the menu that appears in the [screenshot | http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:MS-DOS_Shell.png]). Not sure if it's worth noting in the article (either: Dosshell or ROT13), though. RNSanchez 01:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Why do we need that image? WP has nothing to do with the subject matter. We already have examples, incidentally showing both cleartext and cyphertext. So while it may have been an interesting exercise for whoever made that picture, I see it as utterly irrelevant and ostentatious. 83.67.217.254 ( talk) 07:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I noticed that the article does not list recent usage of ROT13 such as geocaching for use on cache pages encoded hints.
Rot13 was picked because of the ease of decoding in the field with a pen and paper.-- JBadger169 ( talk) 12:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
I was doing searches on Vista's registry and happened to found ROT13 encrypted strings, but as I don't have any other reference, I decided not to put that info on article. But if someone does find a good reference, or if it is not needed, please add that to article. Vazde ( talk) 19:45, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Doesn't notepad have a menu option for encoding ROT13, or am I thinking of some other program? Perhaps it had this feature in the past but it has been removed in more recent versions? 2fort5r ( talk) 20:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
It's well known to programmers that rot13 is in widespread use, it's reach is so far that it is pointless listing these individual uses of rot13 in specific software. I suggest that this section be removed and a statement summarising the usage be incorporated in a more general sense. 124.171.54.180 ( talk) 11:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Is it "Are-Oh-Tee-thirteen?" "Rote-thirteen?" "Rot-thirteen?" -- Shay Guy ( talk) 09:24, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
You wrote:
"...I always assumed 'Rote-thirteen' (the first sounds of the word 'rotate')."
By that reasoning, the name of the mumified egyptian boy-king should be pronounced, "King Toot!"
So, sorry, but I think it should be (and, generally is) pronounced "rot"+"thirteen." " The Grand Rascal ( talk) 23:41, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
Huh. "Rot," as a pejorative (and a quite mild one, BTW) seems an especially appropriate adjective for a method of obfuscation that doesn't REALLY obfuscate. 😉 The Grand Rascal ( talk) 08:57, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
I've found the following pairs using the gcide, shall we add them to the article? (abba noon) (abjurer nowhere) (becuna orphan) (creel perry) (ent rag) (erne rear) (evat ring) (frag sent) (ful shy) (guna than) (gurl they) (jub who) (jung what) (jura when) -- 07:44, 17 September 2009 134.2.187.21
``See also: EBG13`` redirects to the same page. Is this intentional? Galanom ( talk) 20:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Currently this article is listed in the Category: Stream ciphers. I don't think this category is applicable though, because ROT13 generates no keystream; however, stream ciphers are defined as generating a keystream from the key. -- intgr [talk] 15:04, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Question, in the implementation section you list the commands needed to use rot13 in VIM. Why? In particular why is the VIM command sequence more notable than implementations in other editors like the emacs-sequence ( http://www.gnu.org/s/libtool/manual/emacs/Rmail-Rot13.html) M-x rot13-other-window? Or in sed ( http://en.literateprograms.org/Rot13_(Sed))
y/anbocpdqerfsgthuivjwkxlymz/naobpcqdresftguhviwjxkylzm/ y/NAOBPCQDRESFTGUHVIWJXKYLZM/ANBOCPDQERFSGTHUIVJWKXLYMZ/
To be honest I like the Tr and sed versions because with them it's obvious what is happening, but the emacs and VIM ones say nothing to me about how they work. I would edit and put the extra bits in myself, but the article has FA protection. -- 77.23.85.168 ( talk) 07:18, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
The reference listed "Best of VIM Tips" doesn't mention g? as a command for transforming visual text. When I tried highlighting text in VIM and executing this command, it didn't work either. 177.162.222.148 ( talk) 19:47, 23 March 2013 (UTC)Nate
Including the additional "at NSA" to the "joke" doesn't really seem necessary nor will it persist as a timeless piece of information. I suggest removal of those two words but feel free to dispute.
-- 217.41.30.124 ( talk) 09:32, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
The case mismatches in the examples seems a bit odd. In most implementations of ROT13, I believe, the uppercase letters are rotated to uppercase, and lowercase likewise. So PNG <-> cat (an example from the article) is actually not really right: it would come out as CAT for PNG. That is, the case would be preserved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.184.51.152 ( talk) 12:48, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
There is one for ROT47.
Shouldn't there be one for ROT5 too? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.93.113.201 ( talk) 02:58, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Even at a cursory glance, the article has a wealth of issues, such as:
I will nominate the article for Featured Article review shortly unless anyone announces that they are able to work on these issues. — Bilorv (c) (talk) 12:30, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
ROT13 has been described as the "Usenet equivalent of a magazine printing the answer to a quiz upside down". AnonMoos ( talk) 03:50, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
How would ROT13 be used to hide email adresses? The source says that the the original email is displayed on the webpage, while the mailto link, links to an email address which "encrypted" by ROT13. However, there are problems with this:
NegativeZ ( talk) 22:57, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
Currently this article has three minor sections about implementing the ROT13 algorithm in Python, Ruby and Go.
Are these implementation necessary? Should a Wikipedia article have implementations about programming a very simple algorithm, if so, why these three languages?
Why not Rust, or Javascript, or C? These sections don't even talk about a function in the standard library of the respective languages, they are a "tutorial" on how to make a specific function to encode with ROT13.
Blyxyas (
talk)
16:30, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
ROT13 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 |
ROT13 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 November 21, 2004. | ||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Former featured article |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Is ROT13 'symmetric key' ? I mean there is no 'key' as such, but the procdure is same ai'nt it? -- MuthuKutty 07:08, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
if we encode in rot(x) then decodeing is the same process as encoding in rot(26-x) hence to decode rot13 is the same as encoding in rot13 Plugwash 03:32, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Should we be linking to Bubble sort because it is another 'bad algorithm'? Sure, BS is a bad algorithm but ROT13 is pretty good at acheiving its aim of obfuscating text and not 'bad' at all. EddEdmondson 22:01, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Bubble sort is a fine algorithm and one that I am proud to have implemented many times. For short lists, it is ideal because it is simple, straightforward, and not prone to implementation error due to its simplicity. It is also fairly effective for lists that are already mostly sorted, such as those that have one or a few new elements added. Compared to qsort, it is faster on an already-sorted list and about the same on an almost-sorted list. ROT13, in the same way, is a fine algorithm, although I cannot say that I've ever written it into any commercial software. ROT13 serves its purpose -- which is obfuscation, not encryption -- and is simple, straightforward, and not prone to implementation error due to its simplicity. This is the similarity, not that either algorithm is necessarily "bad."
UninvitedCompany 03:54, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Matt, The DMCA prohibits the act of investigating as well as talking publicly about. Kind of like burglar tool possession, no matter what you intend, is illegal in certain places. In this case, after is temporally correct (that was when he was arrested), but so is for (as the reason he was arrested was what he did). ww 16:32, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Matt, In the first instance you reverted, the intent was to note what DMCA regards as an offence (in the context of the point the note was attempting to make), something which was not quite evident in my judgement. In the seond instance, it was to correct the grammar. As it was orginally, and is now, the grammar (verb tense) was incorrect. I'd suggest both be restored. ww 15:14, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
The DMCA introduced a broad ban on the , circumvention (defined to include study and discussion thereof) of copy protection systems, which have too often employ insecure methods of cryptography.
The DMCA introduced a broad ban on the circumvention of copy protection systems, which often employ insecure methods of cryptography.
This article contains some material originally from the Free On-line Dictionary of Computing and is used under the GFDL.
Interesting, well written. Image? -- Fredrik | talk 16:49, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I really dont think the memfrob operation is a variant of ROT13 and isnt related. MEMFROB is based on XOR with a magic number (which is always reciprocal for any number and is a very common way to obscure data) and ROT13 is based on pretty much modulo arithmetic. Completely different operations... at best memfrob should be just a *see also* link 19:58, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I changed the external link to point to the official GNU documentation page as opposed to the popup-spamming page which was previously used.-- 130.127.121.232 05:25, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
I don't suppose anyone knows of a source for this statement? — Matt 21:34, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
As I said in reply to David (q.v.), who beat your question to me by 11 seconds, I should have said "centuries", and I could have said "millennia", not "decades". Robin Patterson 23:56, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I removed the Pan screenshot. Am I the only one who thinks this is picturitis, and the screenshot adds nothing to the article? All it basically says is that newsreaders often have support for it, which is mentioned in the article; showing a menu with the option in it is overdoing it. JRM 12:51, 2004 Nov 23 (UTC)
There is a dispute which online converter should be linked:
1. http://netzreport.googlepages.com/online_converter_for_rot_5_13_18_47.html:
2. http://rot13page.googlepages.com/:
3. http://tech.pookey.co.uk/non-wp/encoder-decoder.php:
My opinion: I would opt for the first converter (seems better in every regard). Ads are displayed, but not in an obtrusive way. For me, the ads are not a big problem because the author of the page/converter has released the converter under the GPL free to use for everyone. This reveals his/her "goodwill". -- Shaka Kaan 19:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps we should just include both (but no others). — Matt Crypto 07:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
I've added another options, I hope this isn't seen as self promotion. I see that this site (pookey.co.uk) is linked from wikipedia.pl so thought it might be of use here. I have just de-designed it to be mobile friendly and give my commitment that no adverts will be added. Pookey gb ( talk) 14:17, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Just in case, Dosshell actually used ROT13 to "encrypt" passwords for customized (and password-protected) user entries (like in the menu that appears in the [screenshot | http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:MS-DOS_Shell.png]). Not sure if it's worth noting in the article (either: Dosshell or ROT13), though. RNSanchez 01:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Why do we need that image? WP has nothing to do with the subject matter. We already have examples, incidentally showing both cleartext and cyphertext. So while it may have been an interesting exercise for whoever made that picture, I see it as utterly irrelevant and ostentatious. 83.67.217.254 ( talk) 07:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I noticed that the article does not list recent usage of ROT13 such as geocaching for use on cache pages encoded hints.
Rot13 was picked because of the ease of decoding in the field with a pen and paper.-- JBadger169 ( talk) 12:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
I was doing searches on Vista's registry and happened to found ROT13 encrypted strings, but as I don't have any other reference, I decided not to put that info on article. But if someone does find a good reference, or if it is not needed, please add that to article. Vazde ( talk) 19:45, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Doesn't notepad have a menu option for encoding ROT13, or am I thinking of some other program? Perhaps it had this feature in the past but it has been removed in more recent versions? 2fort5r ( talk) 20:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
It's well known to programmers that rot13 is in widespread use, it's reach is so far that it is pointless listing these individual uses of rot13 in specific software. I suggest that this section be removed and a statement summarising the usage be incorporated in a more general sense. 124.171.54.180 ( talk) 11:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Is it "Are-Oh-Tee-thirteen?" "Rote-thirteen?" "Rot-thirteen?" -- Shay Guy ( talk) 09:24, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
You wrote:
"...I always assumed 'Rote-thirteen' (the first sounds of the word 'rotate')."
By that reasoning, the name of the mumified egyptian boy-king should be pronounced, "King Toot!"
So, sorry, but I think it should be (and, generally is) pronounced "rot"+"thirteen." " The Grand Rascal ( talk) 23:41, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
Huh. "Rot," as a pejorative (and a quite mild one, BTW) seems an especially appropriate adjective for a method of obfuscation that doesn't REALLY obfuscate. 😉 The Grand Rascal ( talk) 08:57, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
I've found the following pairs using the gcide, shall we add them to the article? (abba noon) (abjurer nowhere) (becuna orphan) (creel perry) (ent rag) (erne rear) (evat ring) (frag sent) (ful shy) (guna than) (gurl they) (jub who) (jung what) (jura when) -- 07:44, 17 September 2009 134.2.187.21
``See also: EBG13`` redirects to the same page. Is this intentional? Galanom ( talk) 20:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Currently this article is listed in the Category: Stream ciphers. I don't think this category is applicable though, because ROT13 generates no keystream; however, stream ciphers are defined as generating a keystream from the key. -- intgr [talk] 15:04, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Question, in the implementation section you list the commands needed to use rot13 in VIM. Why? In particular why is the VIM command sequence more notable than implementations in other editors like the emacs-sequence ( http://www.gnu.org/s/libtool/manual/emacs/Rmail-Rot13.html) M-x rot13-other-window? Or in sed ( http://en.literateprograms.org/Rot13_(Sed))
y/anbocpdqerfsgthuivjwkxlymz/naobpcqdresftguhviwjxkylzm/ y/NAOBPCQDRESFTGUHVIWJXKYLZM/ANBOCPDQERFSGTHUIVJWKXLYMZ/
To be honest I like the Tr and sed versions because with them it's obvious what is happening, but the emacs and VIM ones say nothing to me about how they work. I would edit and put the extra bits in myself, but the article has FA protection. -- 77.23.85.168 ( talk) 07:18, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
The reference listed "Best of VIM Tips" doesn't mention g? as a command for transforming visual text. When I tried highlighting text in VIM and executing this command, it didn't work either. 177.162.222.148 ( talk) 19:47, 23 March 2013 (UTC)Nate
Including the additional "at NSA" to the "joke" doesn't really seem necessary nor will it persist as a timeless piece of information. I suggest removal of those two words but feel free to dispute.
-- 217.41.30.124 ( talk) 09:32, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
The case mismatches in the examples seems a bit odd. In most implementations of ROT13, I believe, the uppercase letters are rotated to uppercase, and lowercase likewise. So PNG <-> cat (an example from the article) is actually not really right: it would come out as CAT for PNG. That is, the case would be preserved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.184.51.152 ( talk) 12:48, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
There is one for ROT47.
Shouldn't there be one for ROT5 too? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.93.113.201 ( talk) 02:58, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Even at a cursory glance, the article has a wealth of issues, such as:
I will nominate the article for Featured Article review shortly unless anyone announces that they are able to work on these issues. — Bilorv (c) (talk) 12:30, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
ROT13 has been described as the "Usenet equivalent of a magazine printing the answer to a quiz upside down". AnonMoos ( talk) 03:50, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
How would ROT13 be used to hide email adresses? The source says that the the original email is displayed on the webpage, while the mailto link, links to an email address which "encrypted" by ROT13. However, there are problems with this:
NegativeZ ( talk) 22:57, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
Currently this article has three minor sections about implementing the ROT13 algorithm in Python, Ruby and Go.
Are these implementation necessary? Should a Wikipedia article have implementations about programming a very simple algorithm, if so, why these three languages?
Why not Rust, or Javascript, or C? These sections don't even talk about a function in the standard library of the respective languages, they are a "tutorial" on how to make a specific function to encode with ROT13.
Blyxyas (
talk)
16:30, 30 November 2022 (UTC)