Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!rutgers!ames!ptsfa!ihnp4!cuae2!ltuxa!ttrdc!levy
From: levy@ttrdc.UUCP (Daniel R. Levy)
Newsgroups: sci.crypt
Subject: Re: Languages
Message-ID: <1696@ttrdc.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 17-May-87 00:02:30 EDT
Article-I.D.: ttrdc.1696
Posted: Sun May 17 00:02:30 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 17-May-87 19:42:47 EDT
References: <18919@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> <18924@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>
Organization: AT&T, Skokie, IL
Lines: 19

In article <18924@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>, rotondo@ernie.Berkeley.EDU (Scott Rotondo) writes:
< 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?
< 
< It certainly is; for example, suppose you have a substitution cipher and
< you want to do a frequency analysis to find the most common letters. 
< Which plaintext letters are most common varies from language to language.

A code attack which had to guess the language would be harder (N cracking
attempts presuming N different languages, N large and finite) but definitely
not impossible.  Perhaps the N-attempt requirement would put a cracking
attempt beyond practical feasibility if the code was already tough, however.
(Does this make any sense or am I just talking through my hat?)
-- 
|------------dan levy------------|  Path: ..!{akgua,homxb,ihnp4,ltuxa,mvuxa,
|         an engihacker @        |		vax135}!ttrdc!ttrda!levy
| at&t computer systems division |  Disclaimer:  try datclaimer.
|--------skokie, illinois--------|