Category Archives: Security

Deciphering England’s Royal “Lost Letters” from Late 1500s

This old cipher story never really seems to get old. A team deciphering letters in a French library has just announced their discovery of the “lost letters” of England’s monarchy.

In “Under the Molehill – an Elizabethan Spy Story”, John Bossy writes that a secret correspondence with [a Queen’s] associates and allies, prior to its compromise in mid-1583, was “kept so secure that none of it has survived, and we don’t know what was in it.” We have found over 55 letters fully in cipher in the Bibliothèque nationale de France, which, after we broke the code and deciphered the letters, unexpectedly turned out to be letters from Mary Stuart, addressed mostly to Michel de Castelnau Mauvissière, the French ambassador to England. Written between 1578 and 1584, those newly deciphered letters are most likely part of the aforementioned secret correspondence considered to have been lost, and they constitute a voluminous body of new primary material on Mary Stuart – about 50,000 words in total, shedding new light on some of her years of captivity in England.

I put “lost letters” in quotes because to be fair they weren’t supposed to be found and deciphered. Semantics, I know.

The fun new part to the old story of solving antique substitution ciphers is how researchers put a graphical user interface tool into the mix to speed things up.

Due to a large amount of material (more than 150,000 symbols in total), and since automated transcription such as off-the-shelf OCR software was not applicable,Footnote44 we utilized a special GUI (graphical user interface) tool developed by the CrypTool 2 project. After transcribing some documents, we performed an initial computer analysis and decipherment, applying the GUI tool codebreaking function described in Appendix A, identifying the original plaintext language, which turned out to be French, and recovering fragments of plaintexts. We then recovered the homophones – the symbols representing single letters of the alphabet, also identifying special symbols (e.g., a symbol to duplicate the last symbol), and the structure of the cipher. After that, we could identify the symbols for common prefixes, suffixes, prepositions, and words. Based on the partial decipherment of several documents, we were able to attribute the letters to Mary, Queen of Scots, addressed to Castelnau, the French ambassador. By reviewing the text of previously-known letters between Mary and Castelnau, we found several documents matching our decipherments, enabling us to determine or validate the meaning of other symbols. Finally, we identified symbols representing names, places, and the twelve months of the year and completed the transcription and decipherment of all the documents.

It’s a great read that focuses a lot on integrity controls and attacks relative to confidentially.

Putin’s Dropped Trousers Expose His Hitler Pants

Historian after historian knows and tries to relate the same basic story.

Putin’s job in East Germany for the KGB was to recreate Nazi cells in West Germany during the Cold War. He literally served Russia by surreptitiously growing far-right violent “sports clubs” after WWII, as if he saw breathing new life into Nazism as his preferred path to power.

If you derive Putin was a big fan of Nazism the evidence certainly agrees, even despite the fact West Germany continually blocked his fantasy.

Keep this in mind every time Putin tries to tell his worn out and false story that a target country is full of Nazis and needs liberation. He pulls this same tired thread so often everyone by now should be comfortable admitting the emperor’s trousers are gone.

What he really stands for, his ugly pants increasingly flapping in the cold breeze, is to breed Nazism and corruption in foreign nations as a step towards weakening and exploiting/annexing them.

When Putin says “I see Nazis” you can confidently reply “yeah, yours, now get out of here and take them with you”.

Here’s yet another damning example written about how Putin still gooses his steps onto the wrong side of history:

…Adolf Hitler, in his first move of conquest, annexed Austria in March 1938, claiming it as a historical part of the German Reich, and then held a plebiscite in which 99.75 percent of Austrians officially voted to join Germany. Putin’s first move in this war was to annex Crimea in March 2014, claiming it as a historical part of the Russian Empire, and then hold a plebiscite in which 97 percent of Crimeans officially voted to join Russia.

That writer goes on to suggest, absolutely on target, that Germany sending tanks to Ukraine today is an opportunity to correct its past. German tanks will be used in defense against agression, ridding a country of Putin’s Nazi dreams.

Think about it like how General Ludwig Beck, head of the German Army, wanted to forcibly remove Hitler from power by 1938. He resigned his post and instead became the center of German military resistance to Hitler.

Imagine if Beck’s vision for German armor had done back then to Nazism what it can do today.

To drive this point home Ukraine could rename its German tanks the Beck, like how Churchill named the influx of American tanks after Grant and Sherman. Even better perhaps would be to name the tanks after the Widerstand.

…‘moral capital refers to individual conduct’, and hence, the Widerstand has rightly been called a ‘rebellion of the conscience’.

Source: GDW Memorial

An American advocating for anti-corruption and moral capital perhaps put it best:

Take nothing less than the supreme best
Do not obey for most people say
’cause you can pass the test
So what we have to do is
move on up and keep on wishing
Remember your dream is your only scheme
so keep on pushing

Putin won’t invoke the Widerstand when he speaks, and that should tell you everything. The Germans now are rising to roll out an ignored chapter in their own military history, to restore honor to Germans who served against Nazism.

US Army Information Warriors Struggle to Convey Their Message

Perhaps the title of the post is too on the nose? An interesting new survey of US Army information warfare history basically concludes that it’s hard to do new things while conveying them to people schooled in old things.

Information operations gained its strongest institutional acceptance when it presented itself as a set of technological capabilities designed to affect an adversary in a discrete conventional conflict. This understanding was in accordance with an American way of war that favors technological solutions over human ones and that favors conventional over unconventional conflicts. […] The history of Army information doctrine contains three additional insights that are worth discussing further. The first is that information itself is an extraordinarily complex concept whose application to war possesses infinite versatility and variation. […] A second insight concerns the tension between technical and psychological interpretations of information. This tension has been at the heart of Army information operations doctrine for the past 40 years and is one of the reasons why creating a single, unified doctrine has been so difficult. […] A final insight is perhaps the most obvious one: that Army information doctrine has experienced consistent, frequent, and often radically vacillating change since its inception. With the exception of the period from 1981 to 1991, when the doctrine was at its most primitive, the Army has never had an opportunity to build meaningful capacity around a single doctrinal construct.

What?

I might be biased, since I tend to focus more on the 1800s and 1900s birth of modern information wafare (with the exception of energy), but the survey of “changes” seems too short.

In completely unrelated news a Psychological Operations Specialist assigned to the I Marine Expeditionary Force Information Group has been charged with assault and battery. His case spread quickly after a video was shared showing him verbally attacking two minority women and then quickly losing a physical fight.

I’m going to go out on a limb here and say it was hard to teach that young white man how to give up his obvious schooling in plain old American racism. Did his recruiters even check if he follows Elon Musk before letting him into boot camp?

It all reminds me of WWII information warfare reports that advocated censorship as a democracy preserving effort and holding a very narrow focus on anti-racism. It’s no coincidence anti-democratic foreign assets push Twitter into extremist uncensored racism. It’s all not really that complex.

[There are] three elementary forms of domination: control of violence (sovereignty), control of information (bureaucracy), and personal charisma (manifested, for example, in electoral politics).

You think the Governor of Florida banning Black history and crushing dissent is new or different? Nope that’s someone using charismatic elections to control violence (Police) and then pushing hard to control information. Basically a regression to Andrew Jackson’s illegal annexation of Florida to crush Black emancipation and prosperity (things now made illegal to teach in school).

Dare I say this becomes so easy it’s even… black and white? I mean let’s talk more about huge changes that came after the WWI U.S. Propaganda Office and nationalized networks, while we’re at it here.

Are Tesla Sudden Unintended Acceleration Deaths a Repeat of 1980s Audi 5000 Defects?

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) in 1989 issued it’s bold final report on the Audi 5000 “sudden unintended acceleration problem.”

The NHTSA fully exonerated the German car maker by asserting pedals placed closer together than in other cars caused confusion. It was reasoned (especially models with “cruise control”) that the gas would be pressed mistakenly by Americans instead of the brake.

NHTSA appeared [repeatedly] to embrace Audi’s “driver error” theory

The craziest footnote to the NHTSA appearing to work for Audi was how they falsely alleged victims were midgets on drugs.

…Jeff Miller, deputy administrator for NHTSA, told the Chicago Tribune: “Our society is litigation happy. People tend to point the blame anywhere but at themselves. A person drives a car half stoned and gets in an accident, he still blames the car.”

Even with the NHTSA calling American drivers too short and stupid to drive an Audi it couldn’t overcome the 5000 model being seen as defective. Sales plummeted such that by 1991 a little over 10K were sold.

Fast forward to today, no pun intended, and someone wants you to believe even long-time Tesla drivers can’t figure out how their pedals work — they may as well be pressing a 1986 Audi 5000 gas pedal straight to their death.

According to Florida Highway Patrol troopers, the investigation determined the driver of the [2015] Telsa pressed the gas pedal instead of the brakes causing the vehicle to accelerate.

Tesla again could be found defective by design not least of all because its engineers were supposed to account for such well known risks. The flaccid NHTSA gave Audi the green light to blame its victims, so has that been the only lesson Tesla had learned… even ignoring the infamous Mark Saylor tragedy disproving driver fault? It seems so.

Worse, Tesla defends itself by flagrantly ignoring transparency. They say “we can examine exactly what happened” as if nobody else should; in other words they are not allowing anyone (not even the owner of the car, and thus the real data owner) to do real time independent analysis.

In an age when data is supposed to be more interoperable and standardized, more easily shared at high speed, this car company acts like it is writing encoded secrets to stone tablets that evaporate in sunlight. If they told you what the logs really said… they’d have to kill you too.

Tesla “reports” are about as convincing as Enron saying “we looked at our books and they’re functioning properly”. No wonder they relocated to Texas to avoid accountability.