Talk:ADFGVX cipher

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cryptography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Cryptography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CryptographyWikipedia:WikiProject CryptographyTemplate:WikiProject CryptographyCryptography articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computer science.

Spring Offensive

I think we need to rewrite the significance of Painvin's contribution to defeating the Spring Offensive, after carefully researching it. To claim, as here, that Painvin and the French were solely responsible for defeating it is quite false as the first major campaign of the offensive had already been defeated (largely by Commonwealth troops, not French) by 25th March 1918, before Painvin had even broken the cipher; the second campaign failed mainly for logistical reasons; and the third was actually quite successful up until its final battle. Painvin's solution was probably most effective at the Second Battle of the Marne (the final, closing battle of the Spring Offensive; see also Spring Offensive#Blucher-Yorck (Third Battle of the Aisne)), where the French repeatedly had excellent intelligence — usually represented as coming from prisoners! However I am merely speculating there and some research will be required.

It would also be useful if someone could find a date for the first occasion when Painvin produced a plain text, and when he produced them regularly. -- Securiger 23:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ADFGX

I can suggest to add an "ADFGX cypher" link, whose redirect here ? because a good part of the article is about the earlier (and conceptually identical) adfgx cypher, I think the addition of a adfgx cypher redirect there will be useful, if not, for the sake of completeness ;) dott.Piergiorgio 00:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. ADFGX cipher, and ADFGX created as redirects. (ADFGVX already existed.) -- Securiger 05:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. dott.Piergiorgio 16:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Columnar transposition

The article says "Next, the fractionated message is subject to a transposition similar to (but not quite the same as) the standard columnar." What is the difference? I'm not seeing it. --Doctorhook (talk) 23:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on ADFGVX cipher. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060428005221/http://www.intelligence-history.org:80/jih/reviews-2-2.html to http://www.intelligence-history.org/jih/reviews-2-2.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:12, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Was the algorithm itself known by the French cryptanalyst?

Was the algorithm known and the cryptanalysis only had to find the proper keys? If yes: Did the Germans know that the French knew the algorithm and the security relies only on the keys? --RokerHRO (talk) 11:00, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

“Usually much longer keys or even phrases were used”

That doesn't make much sense to me. The letters in the key are sorted alphabetically but this is a problem when a letter is used more than once. So the phrase couldn't be longer than 36 symbols and had not to have duplicate letters? 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 17:38, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]