I'm reading 'Navajo Weapon' by Sally McClain. It contains charts of English words, their Navajo pronunciations and their meanings.
The word used for battleship meant whale, colonel was silver eagle, dive-bomber was chicken hawk, are some examples.
This seems like an example of a one-time pad encryption but without a secret key.
Since one-time pads are designed to be used only once, why weren't the Japanese able to break this code after repeated use?
It was interesting that the book says that the army had a group of Comanche code-talkers in the ETO and that the army and marines each kept their program secret from the other
On Nov 3, 12:13 pm, "Dave" <cut_spam_dkenne...@charter.net> wrote:
(stuff deleted)
> This seems like an example of a one-time pad encryption but without a secret > key. > Since one-time pads are designed to be used only once, why weren't the > Japanese able to break this code after repeated use?
(rest of post deleted)
Possible reasons:
- The Navajo spoke too quickly for them to parse the words. IIRC, they were used where quick communication was necessary.
- The Japanese were expecting codes or a cypher, or some machine- distorting affect. Consequently, they were trying to fit a Navajo sentence structure word for word into an English construct, and that simply was not going to work.
- The Navajo language probably has subtle connotations and sounds that a foreign ear cannot casually pick up, thus, different words may sound the same to foreign ears. example: I'm below beginner level in my familarity with spoken Japanese, and one of their sounds is 'shi', only it isn't. The Japanese instructor was only satisfied if I pronounced it something like 'si.' If I tried to sound it like I heard it, they would think I was trying to make a 'chi' sound.
> I'm reading 'Navajo Weapon' by Sally McClain. It contains charts of > English words, their Navajo pronunciations and their meanings.
> The word used for battleship meant whale, colonel was silver eagle, > dive-bomber was chicken hawk, are some examples.
> This seems like an example of a one-time pad encryption but without a secret > key.
> Since one-time pads are designed to be used only once, why weren't the > Japanese able to break this code after repeated use?
The "code talkers" were used for short range tactical communications. Japanese front line tactical units didn't possess many linguists or cyrptologists. And, after Guadacanal, few enough Japanese front line troops survived combat with the Marines to pass on any information they might have learned. Japanese garrisons tended to be wiped out to the last man - ignoring a few assorted PoWs who were equally incapable of forwarding any information they might have.
> I'm reading 'Navajo Weapon' by Sally McClain. It contains charts of > English words, their Navajo pronunciations and their meanings.
> The word used for battleship meant whale, colonel was silver eagle, > dive-bomber was chicken hawk, are some examples.
> This seems like an example of a one-time pad encryption but without a secret > key.
> Since one-time pads are designed to be used only once, why weren't the > Japanese able to break this code after repeated use?
> It was interesting that the book says that the army had a group of > Comanche code-talkers in the ETO and that the army and marines each kept > their program secret from the other
I'm anything but a linguist or Navaho expert, but ISTR a fact (?) to the effect that there were only four or five people in the world (outside the USA itself) who could speak the language with any fluency. Given that, and the observations made by the OP's, it doesn't seem surprising to me that they were effectively 'unbreakable.'
narrled...@hotmail.com wrote: > On Nov 3, 10:13 am, "Dave" <cut_spam_dkenne...@charter.net> wrote: >> Hello all,
>> I'm reading 'Navajo Weapon' by Sally McClain. It contains charts of >> English words, their Navajo pronunciations and their meanings.
>> The word used for battleship meant whale, colonel was silver eagle, >> dive-bomber was chicken hawk, are some examples.
>> This seems like an example of a one-time pad encryption but without a secret >> key.
>> Since one-time pads are designed to be used only once, why weren't the >> Japanese able to break this code after repeated use?
>> It was interesting that the book says that the army had a group of >> Comanche code-talkers in the ETO and that the army and marines each kept >> their program secret from the other
> I'm anything but a linguist or Navaho expert, but ISTR a fact (?) to > the effect that there were only four or five people in the world > (outside the USA itself) who could speak the language with any > fluency. Given that, and the observations made by the OP's, it > doesn't seem surprising to me that they were effectively > 'unbreakable.'
I believe it was also tried by the USAAF in Europe,
But...
My understanding is that one of the people who did speak the languages, and who was an expert on Amerindian languages, was an elderly professor at a distinguished German university, and that's why the idea didn't work terribly well in Europe.
-- William Black
"Any number under six"
The answer given by Englishman Richard Peeke when asked by the Duke of Medina Sidonia how many Spanish sword and buckler men he could beat single handed with a quarterstaff.
> I'm reading 'Navajo Weapon' by Sally McClain. It contains charts of > English words, their Navajo pronunciations and their meanings.
> The word used for battleship meant whale, colonel was silver eagle, > dive-bomber was chicken hawk, are some examples. > This seems like an example of a one-time pad encryption but without a secret > key.
Not so for two reasons. Mainly, original Navajo languages included no words for modern military objects like battleships and dive-bombers -- so the first class of Code Talkers developed their own jargon, using the most appropriate Navajo words for specific military meanings. This was normal throughout the military, cf. 12 o'clock for straight ahead, bogey = unidentified aircraft, angel = 1000 feet altitude and so on.
(One-time pads were designed to be destroyed after a single use so as to avoid repetition (and thus enough bulk of enciphered material to simplify the task for enemy code crackers.) Navajo voice radio enabled much faster communication, for immediate tactical use. It could be collected by the enemy hands only by audio recording equipment, which was not available in combat zones. Some Indian Army units used Hindustani in similar operational circumstances.) -- Don Phillipson Carlsbad Springs (Ottawa, Canada)
. Some Indian Army units used Hindustani in similar
> operational circumstances.)
And trying the same trick with Ghurkali in Korea got a lot of good men killed...
'Security by obscurity' is always a bad idea.
Someone always knows...
-- William Black
"Any number under six"
The answer given by Englishman Richard Peeke when asked by the Duke of Medina Sidonia how many Spanish sword and buckler men he could beat single handed with a quarterstaff.
> . Some Indian Army units used Hindustani in similar >> operational circumstances.)
> And trying the same trick with Ghurkali in Korea got a lot of good men > killed...
> 'Security by obscurity' is always a bad idea.
> Someone always knows...
In the case of Navajo, the Japanese did in fact have at least one Navajo speaker amongst the New Mexico National Guardsmen captured in the early stages of the war. However, that individual wasn't able to decipher intercepted messages in a meaningful way.
On Nov 3, 2:27 pm, Stephen Graham <grah...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
> In the case of Navajo, the Japanese did in fact have at least one Navajo > speaker amongst the New Mexico National Guardsmen captured in the early > stages of the war. However, that individual wasn't able to decipher > intercepted messages in a meaningful way.
Was this man really turned? Was he actively used to try and decipher messages? How did the Japanese command know of this ruse?
On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 11:13:41 -0500, Dave wrote: > Since one-time pads are designed to be used only once, why weren't the > Japanese able to break this code after repeated use?
For this discussion this wiki page seems quite useful as I think a few people here have made some blunders in their comments.
Stephen Graham wrote: > In the case of Navajo, the Japanese did in fact have at least one Navajo > speaker amongst the New Mexico National Guardsmen captured in the early > stages of the war. However, that individual wasn't able to decipher > intercepted messages in a meaningful way.
The Navajo code talk was also partially coded as has already been told here. Similar techniques are still used by organized crime and terrorists to avoid broadcasting their intentions in case the conversations are being tapped by law enforcement or intelligence. However, with careful observation such codes can usually be deciphered, but it is of course much more difficult, if you can't record every conversation and have only one person able to understand the language.
I loved the direct reference to Hitler, who seems to have shown absolutely no interest in communications security at any other point in his life.
And the link for the reference doesn't work either...
-- William Black
"Any number under six"
The answer given by Englishman Richard Peeke when asked by the Duke of Medina Sidonia how many Spanish sword and buckler men he could beat single handed with a quarterstaff.
Dave wrote: > On Nov 3, 2:27 pm, Stephen Graham <grah...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
>> In the case of Navajo, the Japanese did in fact have at least one Navajo >> speaker amongst the New Mexico National Guardsmen captured in the early >> stages of the war. However, that individual wasn't able to decipher >> intercepted messages in a meaningful way.
> Was this man really turned? Was he actively used to try and decipher > messages? How did the Japanese command know of this ruse?
Honestly I know little more than the Wikipedia article would tell you. So I'm uncertain how the Japanese figured out it was Navajo in the first place.
> I loved the direct reference to Hitler, who seems to have shown > absolutely no interest in communications security at any other point in > his life.
I am not sure exactly what Hitler's personal views were on his code security but overall during WW2, the all sides during the war thought their own codes were secure even though they were reading each other codes regularly.
> And the link for the reference doesn't work either...
The wiki often has this problem as links go out of date. I often clean them out. Still many of them do work.
On Nov 3, 11:13 am, "Dave" <cut_spam_dkenne...@charter.net> wrote:
> Since one-time pads are designed to be used only once, why weren't the > Japanese able to break this code after repeated use?
A key concept in encryption is value-to-break. If the message traffic that you are passing will be useless to the enemy in five minutes (when the fire support you are calling for will hit, remember that it's hard to keep that a secret from the guys being shelled) then it probably isn't worth putting a lot of cryptographic effort into breaking it, unless you can do it *super-fast*.[1]
Now, if the Marines were passing strategic information about what island they were going to strike next (and when) in Navajo, this lack of security would have been a serious problem. As it was, it doesn't seem to have been a big deal. Probably the Navajo was of greater value as an authentication measure than as an encryption measure: you could be sure that the Japanese weren't inserting any false traffic into the (WW2 version of the) JTAC net because constructing the (WW2 equivalent of a) Nine Line Brief in Navajo would be such a tricky thing.
> It was interesting that the book says that the army had a group of > Comanche code-talkers in the ETO and that the army and marines each kept > their program secret from the other
The then-head of the National Cryptologic Museum (near Ft. Meade, MD) told me once (with his tongue firmly in his cheek) that the US Army in World War Two rounded up every Indian tribe that started with C they could: Chippewa, Creek, Comanche, Choctaw, etc. for use as code talkers. He said that the difference was that the Navajo had much better PR after the war, so that was why the Army's use of many tribes wasn't as famous as the Marine's use of Navajo. He also mentioned that the US Army had used Native Americans for a similar purpose in World War One, though on a much more limited scale (not as much use for voice radio).
[1]: Over Korea and Vietnam, the US claims to have been able to 'read' in real-time the ground controller intercept commands from ground based radars to Soviet/Vietnamese fighters, using a means as yet classified. (The NSA history people won't even discuss what kind of encryption techniques the Soviet Bloc used for GCI, though this cannot be a secret to *them*.) This was of great help over Korea, and of limited value (because of unrelated USAF screw-ups in personnel management) over Vietnam. A reminder that intelligence is not a magic bullet- you still have to have a military effective enough to take advantage of that intel.
On Nov 5, 12:18 pm, Chris <cmant...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 3, 11:13 am, "Dave" <cut_spam_dkenne...@charter.net> wrote:
> > Since one-time pads are designed to be used only once, why weren't the > > Japanese able to break this code after repeated use?
> A key concept in encryption is value-to-break. If the message traffic > that you are passing will be useless to the enemy in five minutes > (when the fire support you are calling for will hit, remember that > it's hard to keep that a secret from the guys being shelled) then it > probably isn't worth putting a lot of cryptographic effort into > breaking it, unless you can do it *super-fast*.[1]
That's pretty much what I was trying to get at when I called the Navajo-language code "effectively unbreakable" upthread. There were not enough Navajo-speaking Axis citizens/subjects/service-men or women to be useful in the context, learned German professors notwithstanding.
> Now, if the Marines were passing strategic information about what > island they were going to strike next (and when) in Navajo, this lack > of security would have been a serious problem. As it was, it doesn't > seem to have been a big deal. Probably the Navajo was of greater value > as an authentication measure than as an encryption measure: you could > be sure that the Japanese weren't inserting any false traffic into the > (WW2 version of the) JTAC net because constructing the (WW2 equivalent > of a) Nine Line Brief in Navajo would be such a tricky thing.
> > It was interesting that the book says that the army had a group of > > Comanche code-talkers in the ETO and that the army and marines each kept > > their program secret from the other
> The then-head of the National Cryptologic Museum (near Ft. Meade, MD) > told me once (with his tongue firmly in his cheek) that the US Army in > World War Two rounded up every Indian tribe that started with C they > could: Chippewa, Creek, Comanche, Choctaw, etc. for use as code > talkers. He said that the difference was that the Navajo had much > better PR after the war, so that was why the Army's use of many tribes > wasn't as famous as the Marine's use of Navajo. He also mentioned that > the US Army had used Native Americans for a similar purpose in World > War One, though on a much more limited scale (not as much use for > voice radio).
> [1]: Over Korea and Vietnam, the US claims to have been able to 'read' > in real-time the ground controller intercept commands from ground > based radars to Soviet/Vietnamese fighters, using a means as yet > classified. (The NSA history people won't even discuss what kind of > encryption techniques the Soviet Bloc used for GCI, though this cannot > be a secret to *them*.)
OTOH, sometimes you can't tell people what you know, because it might help them figure out -how- you know. You know?
This was of great help over Korea, and of
> limited value (because of unrelated USAF screw-ups in personnel > management) over Vietnam. A reminder that intelligence is not a magic > bullet- you still have to have a military effective enough to take > advantage of that intel.
I watched the Chiefs-Raiders game today and they had a segment on two Navajo Code Talkers that were doing play-by-play on the game in their code over a local radio station as part of the Raider's tribute to the Code Talkers at the game. Sounded pretty damn cryptic to me.
|
