More Military Cryptanalytics, Part III
Late last year, the NSA declassified and released a redacted version of Lambros D. Callimahos’s Military Cryptanalytics, Part III. We just got most of the index. It’s hard to believe that there are any real secrets left in this 44-year-old volume.
echo • August 31, 2021 8:56 AM
Some things which don’t appear to be much of a secret probably aren’t in the strict technical sense but can give people ideas which opens the door to more creativity than you may wish for. Sometimes even low grade information when there is enough of it can clue people in on things.
You will note there is a tension between freedom of information for the public good and keeping things secret to avoid bad people getting smart. Sometimes in practice there is too much secrecy on the side of one and too much blabbermouth on the side of the other. Two other mistakes are assuming the “enemy” doesn’t read your stuff and assuming the “enemy” doesn’t change and adapt. Sometimes the people who should pay attention don’t pay attention nor join the dots. Sometimes the “enemy” is operating in distraction and cover-up mode in real time.
Things change and so does emphasis. Emphasis and sometimes lack of emphasis is very often overlooked.
I can tell you now a lot of very important work across a range of fields happened in the post WWII period and you might be amazed how many “experts” including those with job titles and a salary to go with it have failed to read it. This also tells you something about management and organisational structures and processes and quality of implementation.
Even this says something.
https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2021/08/more-military-cryptanalytics-part-iii.html
Kinda what I said but without the sexism. I also imagine anything containing Enigma messages may have to be cleared with GCHQ. Also from what I understand from public information most GCHQ analysts are women.
WWII was an interesting time. Both Julia Childs and Audry Hepburn were involved with the war effort. Julia Childs worked for SOE and was offered a position as an operative but declined. I’m not surprised given how reckless SOE could be. Audry Hepburn worked as a fund raiser for the resistance at secret meetings. She is noted to have remarked the best performances were met with silence at the end. And as we all know the original “computers” were largely women.
Pre-WWII some of the mathematical and theoretical physics work was really quite brilliant. I wouldn’t be surprised if the odd nugget was still secret and as we know GCHQ don’t tell the NSA everything. Why? See first paragraph. The UK is after all the land of the “D” notice and assorted chummery. See paragraph two. Also pretty elitist and sexist at times. See paragraph three.
UK military doctrine is based around systems. Highly integrated. Multilayered. Focused within a time/effort/money envelope. If GCHQ follows a simialr doctrine it gets more done for a lot less than the NSA, and the NSA has publicly stated GCHQ is worth at least a third of the capability of the NSA. I suspect GHCQ capability may be higher because you cannot make a like for like comparison.
Women can also spot things men don’t and can be quite persistent. Men can and do steal the credit but nonetheless women’s contribution is significant and during WWII and I suspect even today organsiations with flatter management stuctures the which is typical in the US, which tends to supersize everything, and places like the Middle-East, which tend to exclude women, may be missing out on things. The question is what? Well, they wouldn’t know because they can’t know because that’s not how they were/are organised.
And that’s what I derived from three samples extracted this document. Others may disagree.