Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!husc6!seismo!mimsy!umd5!brl-adm!brl-smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@brl-smoke.UUCP
Newsgroups: sci.crypt
Subject: Re: Languages
Message-ID: <5869@brl-smoke.ARPA>
Date: Sat, 16-May-87 23:53:12 EDT
Article-I.D.: brl-smok.5869
Posted: Sat May 16 23:53:12 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 17-May-87 09:01:37 EDT
References: <18919@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>
Reply-To: gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) <gwyn>)
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab (BRL), APG, MD.
Lines: 18

In article <18919@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> jmm@miro.Berkeley.EDU (James Moore) writes:
>Is knowing the original language of an encrypted message ever necessary
>for attempting to decipher it?

There are some systems for which one is likely to produce the correct
plaintext without necessarily understanding it, but this is not a
universal property of cryptosystems.

Often one can reduce the message to a simple substitution without
knowing what the language is.  Going from there to plaintext generally
requires some information about general characteristics of a language,
although the analyst need not be highly proficient in it.

I recall decrypting some messages in a simulation (part of a cryppy
training exercise) that were in English but kept mentioning the
"BANDITHUTH".  Took me a while to realize that this was the bandit,
Huth.  (Spaces are often omitted in field systems.)  Nonetheless I
had correctly decrypted it without understanding what it meant.