Talk:Enigma machine/Archive 2

Vumba says that 'the "Bomba" was a Polish decrypt machine later enhanced by the British.' I don't agree that this is a good reflection of the reality. Budiansky (2000), and others point out that Alan Turing developed the idea of a machine that the Bomba represented, but worked on an entirely different premise. To quote Budiansky:^[1]

The Bomba had very limited applicability. It depended on there being three doubly enciphered indicators in which the same letter was repeated in all three; it also would work only if that repeated letter happened to be unsteckered, so its true identity was known. But with a text crib Turing at once saw that a series of Enigmas could be linked together in a different architecture to perform an automated search. And it would be an incredibly powerful method.

We do indeed "need to stay with the facts here".--TedColes (talk) 16:51, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

It is, perhaps, worth quoting Peter Calvocoressi, who became head of the Luftwaffe section in Hut 3, who wrote in commenting on the Polish contribution:

The one moot point is - how valuable? According to the best qualified judges it accelerated the breaking of Enigma by perhaps a year. The British did not adopt Polish techniques but they were enlightened by them.^[2]

--TedColes (talk) 09:55, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Not true. Without using Różycki, Rejewski, Zygalski techniques breaking cyphertext would not be possible, as those are mathemathical methodology. It can't be different. If it would be this would not be Enigma code. Just like for addition you must make operation of additing, and nothing else work for addition, no meter "how enlightened you would be". This is thanks to polish mathematical school (meaning group of intellectuals from Lvov (pol. Lwów) Lwów School of Mathematics and their works far forward then others that time eg. Banach, Hugo Steinhaus, Stanisław Mazur, Stanislaw Ulam. For this reason Turing was needed to understand this staff, common military personnel was not educated enough (or at all) in high mathematics. People don't like to admit they don't understand how it works - try yourself do you understand mathematical foundations of breaking Enigma codes? Quite well documented in Wikipedia even? It was easier to omit Polish contribution then to admit "we didn't understand what they were talking about", so Turing was a very good person as a genius to point him as inventor, but it is not true. British intelligence to admit that the most secret code of WWII was broken from 1932 by "wild Poles from somewhere wild place far far away"? And they didn't stop Hitler much sooner? How they would look? It was easier to omit Polish, and more beneficial. Second: for political reasons British wanted to avoid as only possible to show Poles for not to annoying Soviet Union, which were occupied Poland after Yalta pact.

(Previous Comment Unsigned)

As someone completely impartial to the article (this is my first time even reading it), I must say that the second introductory paragraph as of July 20th, 2013 is excessively redundant regarding the Polish contribution, and looks as though there may be some bias at work in editing by 83.27.208.66 (which is, incidentally, a Polish IP address). It is also very long and too detailed for an introductory paragraph.

Comparing the two most recent major versions, it seems the older version (by Arthena) was more concise/appropriate for an encyclopedia. The edit by 83.27.208.66 seems to add little of value. However, I'll leave reversion up to consensus.

108.222.214.13 (talk) 18:55, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

The Enigma Machine is used as a plot point in the latter half of Season 5 of the Popular Late '80s Early '90s British Sitcom 'Allo 'Allo. While the Actual Machine is not shown, it is mentioned in name between episodes #5.23 - #5.26 (and is Referenced in this Wikipedia Article) Thought it'd be a good addition to the section --220.253.152.227 (talk) 16:16, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

R.e. this good faith edit Can we be certain that non-'Axis' powers weren't a source of Ultra? I ask because (1) PC Bruno appears to have had dedicated Spanish and Russian sections, suggesting Spain and the U.S.S.R. may have been a source of Ultra and (2) 'Axis' has quite a specific definition of just Germany and Italy (the "Rome-Berlin Axis" ) until the Tripartite Pact of 1940 when Japan joined. I'd be surprised if there was no Japanese-sourced Ultra prior to Japan joining the Axis. (3) Are we sure there was no U.S.-derived Ultra 1939-1941? Thanks in advance, -Chumchum7 (talk) 18:55, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment

I changed enemy to Axis to improve the point of view. The original enemy has the same problem -- Spain and Russia were not enemies. (I equate codeword Ultra to German codes/decrypts and codeword Magic to Japanese codes, but Ultra often refers to all codebreaking efforts.)

There was US derived Ultra before the US entered the war. OP-20-G was reading Japanese Blue Code (used until November 1938) in the 1930s. Information included the postmodernization characteristics of the Mitsu-class battleships. (Prados, Combined Fleet Decoded, page 79.) I would expect that to have been shared with the UK because they had interests in the Far East. OP-20-G had apparently made significant progress on the new code by October 1940. In late 1940, the Japanese introduced JN-25. (Prado, p 80.) OP-20-G could read many codes, and "thousands of these messages would be decoded before December 7, 1941, with Purple decrypts beginning to flow in September 1940." (Prados, p 165.)

The thrust of the paragraph, however, is about Ultra helping to win the war -- and that would emphasize the time when the war was actually being fought. Without German Naval decrypts, the Battle of the Atlantic could have been a much different story. The tag line on Kahn's Seizing the Enigma is "the race to break the german U-boat codes, 1939-1943". US involvement with Enigma began in 1940; a contingent arrived in Britain in late 1942. (Kahn, p 235.)

Glrx (talk) 20:10, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Great answer. How about resting on "Winston Churchill said that Ultra, the product of the decryption of Enigma and other ciphers, was instrumental to the Allied victory in World War II" The reader still understands, and there's no risk of imprecision... -Chumchum7 (talk) 22:32, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Or rather: "Winston Churchill said that Ultra, the decryption product of Enigma and other ciphers, was instrumental to the Allied victory in World War II" -Chumchum7 (talk) 22:37, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Either sentence is OK. I'd lean toward saying, Winston Churchill said that Ultra, the decryption of Enigma and other ciphers and codes, was .... The term product, however, suggests that Ultra was the digested result of the decryption rather than the decryption itself; hence product may be more accurate. Glrx (talk) 00:29, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Agreed and done.-Chumchum7 (talk) 07:25, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone know of a primary source for the statement that: "Winston Churchill told Britain's King George VI after World War II: 'It was thanks to Ultra that we won the war.'"? The reference at is only a secondary source. --TedColes (talk) 17:30, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Very good question. Now I see why you used "reported" that triggered my WP:W2W concern (nothing to do with W2W - my snafu). That said, WP:V and WP:PSTS guidance indicates we should trust secondary sources. -Chumchum7 (talk) 17:42, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

The issue is not primary/secondary source but rather whether the source is WP:V and WP:RS. So the issue for the given reference is its reliability. Glrx (talk) 20:52, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the source does not even merit the title of "secondary source", maybe it is, in effect, tertiary by WP's criteria. I would be a lot happier if we had a better source. The best that I have seen relates it to an exhibit in 2003 on "Secret War" at the Imperial War Museum. I have e-mailed them asking if they have a source, but I'm not holding my breath. --TedColes (talk) 22:47, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Good call. If you are UK taxpayer, they have to answer you. That museum is funded by you. -Chumchum7 (talk) 09:10, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

That said, personally I'm satisfied that the ref is a reliable secondary source per WP:RS.-Chumchum7 (talk) 09:13, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

There's an episode of the BBC television series The Secret War (based on the book Most Secret War by R.V. Jones) about the Enigma and Bletchley Park including interviews with some of the people involved, on YouTube here: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.68.219 (talk) 16:18, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Much of that episode is not entirely accurate. This is not a critisism of the programme makers because when the episode was made, the secret of Bletchley Park had only recently been revealed and much detail about how Enigma (and much less about Lorenz) was broken was still largely unknown. It was this particular secret that was the reason for the series being made. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 10:28, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Aren't the recent edits of this section at variance with the guidelines about paragraph length in Wikipedia:Writing better articles#paragraphs? It has all become somewhat staccato. --TedColes (talk) 07:39, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I think the section gains in clarity from the treatment of individual parts of the topic (the practices in individual branches of the German armed services) in separate paragraphs. The contrasts among their several approaches to similar problems become better-defined.

For me, clarity and ease of orientation trumps arbitrarily determined paragraph length. Nihil novi (talk) 08:42, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Yesterday the Queen of England unveiled a monument to the men who broke the Enigma Code. According to the material read out it was a group of British scientists who broke the code and the secret place they worked in the midlands was also shown. They also showed the machine they developed to continuously break codes, calling it "the first computer". It appears that this contradicts the article on Wikipedia about Enigma which states that the Poles broke Enigma after the 1st WW. Which of these is correct?Chrismort1 (talk) 06:48, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Some press reports of this visit were inaccurate. The machines that contributed to decrypting Enigma messages were the Bombes. The reference to the first computer is to the Colossus computers that contributed to the decryption of the Lorenz SZ42. The Poles were indeed the first to 'break' the Enigma cipher in 1932/33, but breaking systems such as these is not a one-off activity, it requires repeated efforts to keep up with improvements. By the time Bletchley Park was opened, just before the start of WWII, the Poles were achieving very little success, but they gave their secrets to the British and French, which enabled full-scale decryption to resume after a few months. See: Dedication of Bletchley Park Memorial by HM the Queen, 15 July 2011 --TedColes (talk) 08:30, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Queen is just following in good faith the official version convenient for "royal duties and glory". That was mistake and caused protests but they were not hear there. "Achieving very little success" by Polish intelligence mean that from 1932 till break of WWII they were reading all trade cyphertexts and most of military cyphertexts. Limitation was by the number of people employed for this - as the more people then the worse for keep the things in secret. Finally they were not decrypting all cyphertexts they have, but trying to select the most important. Remember those works required manual work and computers were not aviable that time. But that was enough of knowledge to make them to decide to make a gift of broken Enigma code, cryptological bomb, devices and all the theoretical stuff to both British and French intelligence before WWII and to destroy everything located in Poland what could show secret, whole complex including buildings, basemants etc. was blown up after evacuation, before Germans have entered. The secret was kept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.26.234.112 (talk) 11:31, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

The contribution made by the Poles should never be underestimated. Although the British cryptanalysts did have their own operation in attempting to break Enigma, it was for a long time, way behind the Polish efforts. When the Poles decided to hand over everything they had, the British found that surprise was not adequate to express what the the Poles had achieved. They were forced to resort to astonishment. Although the Poles had fallen behind by the time of the hand over (largely because time was against them), their contribution to the future of Enigma intercepts was crucial. It is perhaps nothing short of a great shame that the Polish crytanalysts were frozen out of future code breaking activity. Who knows what might have been achieved if they had been permitted to participate? There is no doubt that in other areas where the Poles supported allied efforts in the war that were very effective indeed (e.g. in the Polish squadrons of the RAF where the British commanders could scarcely believe the rate at which the Poles were shooting down German aircraft - until they went and had a look for themselves and were also forced to resort to astonishment!). 86.186.10.125 (talk) 18:03, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Do we know why the British were so reluctant to allow the Polish codebreakers to continue their efforts? I have seen TV documentaries where major players in the British codebreaking activities have expressed their dismay that the Poles were not permitted to contribute, but no actual reason was given. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 11:19, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm traveling and don't have sources at hand, but I recall reading that the Polish Cipher Bureau's chief, Col. Gwido Langer, visited England and was asked by the British to send his key personnel to Britain; and that he declined because he felt they should remain with the Polish Armed Forces in exile, then centered in France. Langer's unit in France collaborated closely with Britain's Bletchley Park until Germany's invasion of France; the Poles continued breaking Enigma ciphers during the ensuing Battle of France, then worked in southern France's Free Zone and in French Algeria. Of the three Polish mathematician-cryptologists, Jerzy Różycki died in the 1942 sinking of a passenger ship in the Mediterranean Sea, and Marian Rejewski and Henryk Zygalski only reached England in 1943, by which time a number of Britons who had met them in July 1939 were no longer involved with Bletchley Park, and the decryption technology had made advances which the British were probably disinclined to share with the first, Polish breakers of German Enigma ciphers, who might after the war (as Rejewski did) leave Britain. For over 6 1/2 years before the war, for security reasons, the Poles had not shared their Enigma successes with the French, let alone the British; during the war, after the Battle of France, the British returned the compliment. Nihil novi (talk) 21:50, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't have any sources either, but I agree with Nihil novi's statements. The Poles joining with the French makes further sense considering the French supplied the Hans Thilo Schmidt information. I don't see the Poles being shut out but rather swept aside by the events. Rejewski may believe that Poland would have shared Enigma secrets even without a national emergency, but Rejewski was probably not involved in that decision process. Some of the great decisions of the Polish Cipher Bureau were to keep information from the mathematicians, so the the mathematicians were not in all the loops. Britain made even greater decisions in its willingness to invest in breaking the codes. The Poles provided significant information, but the Poles were stymied by the naval Enigma -- and it was a problem in which they probably had little interest. Glrx (talk) 04:23, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for that. It makes a lot more sense than the Poles simply being shut out. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 15:15, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

The Polish tale is a bit more involved and direct. Germany invaded and quickly overran Poland in 1939. The Cipher Bureau was attached to the General Staff, and it evacuated. Eventually, the Cipher Bureau crossed into Romania. The uniformed officers were separated from the civilian codebreakers (RRZ) at the border. The civilians were told to make their way to a specific loccation, but instead they jumped on a train and went south to Bucharest. They sought help at the Polish embassy, but it could do nothing. They then sought help at the British Embassy. The British Embassy stalled, so they tried the French Embassy (which knew who they were and that they were wanted). The French quickly got them to Paris and working at PC Bruno. If the British had been more on the ball, then Bletchley might have got them. Enignma: How the German Machine Cipher was Broken and How it was Read by the Allies in World War Two, Kozaczuk 1984, pp 71–73. Glrx (talk) 05:52, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

"Do we know why the British were so reluctant to allow the Polish codebreakers to continue their efforts?" - after the German invasion and subsequent German/Soviet division of Poland it became obvious that any Poles involved in Bletchley Park might well have relatives still living in Poland and that as a result pressure might be put on the Poles at Bletchley, via these relatives, to divulge information to the Nazis or Soviets.

After the war Poland was behind the Iron Curtain and so, yes, the British didn't want people possessing such sensitive information 'going home' and either willingly or unwillingly using this information against Britain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.100.255 (talk) 19:12, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Glrx claims "addition is not permutation". He may have a PHD in philosophy, however I think he's misunderstanding this simplification. It has nothing to do with permutations, a permutation is equivalent to shuffling a deck of cards. Would he argue that this is also too much of a simplification?

When explaining the Enigma, many people get bogged down in the details of the electrical wiring. However the essence of the enigma's operation is that each wheel position applies a specific shift to the input character. So each electrical path can be defined equivalently as some addition. The randomness of the machine, can then be explained by the random listing of numbers on the wheels. This sells the point that A. it's deterministic, and B, the rotors are pseudorandom.

I simply think this is the best way to introduce the topic, it abstracts the mechanics and focuses on the mathematics

Reference (i used this example as a TA in): http://crypto.cs.mcgill.ca/~dumais/cs647/cs647.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.249.232 (talk) 21:32, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

NOTE:

Regarding Glrx, I totally respect and read his contributions. However, I'd love for him/someone else to come up with an analogy that can be understood at first glance, by abstracting mechanical movements into mathematical operations. What enigma/lorenz and all the machine share is message + Psuedorandomness

So what's the best way to demonstrate psuedorandomness numerically. I've read Knuth's SemiNumerical Algorithms and we could use some middle square method. Or, why not just take a strip of pseudorandom digits, and mount them on wheels. From there we could come up with all sorts of options for then using those digits to define a shift:

ie. If wheels A B C are showing, should we take Shift = A*B*C MOD 26 ? Shift = A + B + C MOD 26 ?

How about, A^B * B^c * B^A MOD 26 ?

How we choose the operations simply change the topological mixing.

And reason why we can't use addition? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.98.214.216 (talk) 02:30, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

You, youtube, and I are not reliable sources. It is not our job to create explanations. Where is a reliable source that explains the Enigma as addition. Watch out for WP:SYNTHESIS.

If you look at an Enigma rotor, it does not have random letters written on it. The letters are in sequence. Consequently, the proposal adds confusion. Odometers do not have random numbers on them. The Enigma counts in sequence. BTW, my 1998 car does not have a mechanical odometer. And there isn't a clear explanation of what is going on. (The video also has some two digit labels.) There's a lot of explanation required to introduce this simplification.

What part of the Enigma performs addition? There's a very subtle issue of computational simplicity here. Enigma increments and permutes.

The Enigma performs encryption and decryption the same way. E() = D(). You cannot do that with ordinary addition. There's a problem with isomorphism. So how do you fix it? Use XOR? Change the simplification to substract when decoding?

What about the group theory issues that E(x) != x? Why is the number that needs to be added is never 0?

The video is poor (and has few views). The video is not clear about what it is doing.

IIRC, the IP that introduced the vide said he made it for a class. He has a COI. The video was challenged. A reintroduction in the article should have required a discussion on the talk page and a consensus. Instead of discussing it, it was brought into the text proper as a reference.

Are all these insertions being done by the same individual?

Glrx (talk) 18:23, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

A deficiency of an ordinary odometer as an explanation of the advancement of Enigma rotors is that, starting from zero, an odometer does not turn over the second rotor until the first rotor completes a full revolution. The Enigma scrambler may turn over the middle rotor on any one of the first 26 key depressions, including the first one.--TedColes (talk) 21:48, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. However, that's because of the wiring. The middle rotor doesn't randomly turn, it still clicks along as a odometer would. In this case the random digits on the rotor are performing the same job as the wiring. If we didn't have the numbers scrambled on the rotor, then yes, every press the rotors would all have to turn to some new place (which is the same as an electrical signal jumping around). The biggest problem I see is the fact that you can have A=A. However, I still think it's a useful road to explore. Especially if you want to show kids how this works and get them interested in the details of wiring. Right now, this article is not user friendly in my mind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.249.232 (talk) 15:04, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

But your exploration is original research and not proper content for WP. If there is not a reliable source, it does not belong in WP.

Here's another problem with your shift/addition/Caesar substitution cipher simplification for permutation. The Enigma has a reflector. How does your analogy explain its function? The rotors are traversed right to left, reflected, and then traversed left to right. Under the addition idea, the traverse from right to left should add the numbers on the dial (shift), and the traverse from left to right should subtract them (unshift). That will make encryption and decryption work, but with shifts/addition, the rotors are now the identity operation and do nothing.

Glrx (talk) 15:28, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

If you read the description of the the video it explains that this animation ignores the plug-boards and the reflector - focusing on the core function which is psuedorandom shifts. Remember the addition is abstracting the entire electrical pathway, so the reflector has nothing to do with it. The reflector is simply an extra mix operation.

To me the core of Enigma is:

A -> (permutation) -> Shifted letter

So the permutation can be explained in detail with the electrical pathways. However, there has to be an analogy to explain how this is basically a fancy odometer which outputs random shifts values. Perhaps someone could come up with a better way. Why not make it easier for everyone to understand aside from tech geeks?

What would Richard Feynman do?

We would agree that there is a simplification to be made here, to merely introduce the concept. THEN explain how it works.

Ideally, it would be a slot machine type operation which occurs each shift. Which is what the video is trying to do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.249.232 (talk) 17:03, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

"Thanks to this,[6] during the war, Allied codebreakers were able to decrypt a vast number of messages that had been enciphered using the Enigma"... This statement does not appear to be neutral. 117.213.221.167 (talk) 02:39, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

'A vast number of messages' is a matter of fact, so in what way is this not neutral? If the objection is to the word 'vast', what alternative adjective would be appropriate, as an adjective is certainly needed here? --TedColes (talk) 10:05, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Is there a source for the translation of "Funkschlüssel" to "remote key" in the historical crypto sense?

The translation of "Funkschlüssel" was changed from "radio cipher" to "remote key". My sense is Funk is radio/wireless and Schlüssel is key (and possibly cipher). When used in our context, it is a radio key or radio cipher or even radio cipher machine. When referring to the device used to open modern cars, it is a remote key or a wireless key. (Yes, I know that car remote keys use encryption.)

To me, the original "radio cipher" is better. The German WP article uses Rotor-Schlüsselmaschinen (literally "rotor-key machine") to denote rotor cipher machine, but my guess is that "Schlüssel" can also be used in the English sense of cipher. Google translate takes cipher machine to Chiffriermaschine, Verschlüsselungsmaschine, and Kryptogeräte. Also from DE WP, a book apparently describing Enigma cipher procedures is called "Der Schlüssel M".

Should the change be reverted?

Glrx (talk) 17:31, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Back in those days, a "Schlüssel" would also denote a "code", which included ciphers. So a "Funkschlüssel" refers to a cipher and not a key. I have reverted the change. Nageh (talk) 17:50, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

PS: A "Funkschlüssel" refers to a code/cipher for transmission over radio. Nageh (talk) 17:51, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Simon Singh was just on the radio speaking about Alan Turing and Enigmas, and they attempted a real-time interpretation of the cover maintenance German (they gave up as it was taking too much time). It was OK that it was moved from the page as a part of the caption, but raises enough questions to keep around. 198.123.56.183 (talk) 20:06, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

The first German WW2 Naval ENIGMA M4 TURINGBOMBE break since 1945. Visit: http://www.enigma.hoerenberg.com/ and read the original U534 messages for the first time since nearly 70 years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.209.190.247 (talk) 01:47, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Some work has been done on replica machines. Is it worth discussing? Rich Farmbrough, 00:14, 18 September 2012 (UTC).

You've peaked my interest anyway. WP:Be bold would apply, I think. Skippydo (talk) 04:35, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

• piqued "pique(pēk) n. To provoke; arouse: The portrait piqued her curiosity." Un "peak" your interest!

The article claims that Harris does not acknowledge Polish work on the bombe, but on p64 it claims Puck "arrived in the first week of the war to brief them on the Polish bombe". It also claims criticisms of how things were at Bletchley without support.

I wasn't there but the general treatment seems convincing - the mixture of informality and extreme security. Harris maybe assumes too much knowledge - Turing is very much in the background (as he was by 1943) and is hardly mentioned in the film. The major plot element - the total suppression of decryptions of the Katyn massacre - mainly hits at the secretiveness of the British, though the anti-Polish angle is bad. Rejewski wasn't even allowed near Bletchley and was certainly no traitor. Chris55 (talk) 18:44, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Does anyone know the origin of the name? Certainly the meaning makes sense, but I was recently struck by the similarity in concept to Elgar's Enigma Variations, a series of 14 pieces for orchestra based on a hidden, unplayed theme, written in 1899. The mystery of what this theme is was unsolved in Elgar's lifetime. Could the name have been given in reference to Elgar's pieces? Conscientia (talk) 11:29, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

"Enigma:[something puzzling, mysterious or inexplicable] - so no surprise in the use of the word in the two contexts.--TedColes (talk) 16:16, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Jcolman1 has added a questionable paragraph about the Enigma D model to the "Commercial Enigma" section. I have edited his paragraph for its many lesser errors and stylistic infelicities, but the whole text is very dubious, and I have marked it as "citation needed". I cite the paragraph, below:

The Enigma D version was intercepted by the Poles on a Friday in late December 1927 at the Polish railroad customs house in Warsaw. A heavy package had arrived there, addressed to the German Embassy in Warsaw. A German representative of the "radio" company that had shipped the package, repeatedly called the customs officials, stating that the package had been shipped by mistake, must not go through customs inspection, and must be returned to Berlin immediately. His calls became increasingly frantic, until the custom officials became suspicious and notified the Polish Cipher Bureau, which was then responsible for radio-related matters. Stefan Mayer, chief of Polish intelligence, was then informed and had his agents secretly remove the package to a location that was known not to be under Gestapo surveillance. The package was carefully opened to reveal a cipher machine virtually identical with commercial Enigma machines in use at the time. The agents correctly guessed that the Germans had modified the internal wiring; they carefully disassembled it and noted the changes. The machine was quickly reassembled and, the following Monday, shipped back to the radio company in Berlin. When Major Gwido Langer took over the newly organized Cipher Bureau in 1929, he possessed the modified Enigma machine, but he did not reveal this to the newly recruited mathematics students, Marian Rejewski, Henryk Zygalski and Jerzy Róźycki. Langer correctly assumed that the Germans would make further modifications to the Enigma machine, and he only provided Rejewski with a legally purchased commercial Enigma machine. His reasoning was that he wanted his cryptologists to understand the machine's internal wiring from a purely mathematical point of view.^{[citation needed]}

The three mathematicians were only recruited by the Cipher Bureau in 1932, not 1929, and by then they were no longer "students". But there are more serious errors in this paragraph, as is made clear by reading Marian Rejewski's Appendix D to Władysław Kozaczuk, Enigma: How the German Machine Cipher Was Broken, and How It Was Read by the Allies in World War Two,1984 (p. 246):

It may readily be surmised that the cipher machine [that had arrived at the Warsaw Customs Office on a "Saturday afternoon" in "late 1927 or perhaps early 1928"] was an Enigma, of the commercial model of course, since, at that time, the military model had not yet been put into use. Hence, this trivial episode was of no practical importance, though it does fix the date at which the Cipher Bureau's interest in the Enigma machine began — manifested, initially, in the acquisition by entirely legal means of one copy of the commercial model machine.

The Cipher Bureau clearly would have had no purpose in keeping the model D's wiring a secret from Rejewski. User:Jcolman1's paragraph needs, at a minimum, to be thoroughly revised for relevance and accuracy; probably, to be dropped altogether.

Nihil novi (talk) 23:32, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I recently visited the U-Boat U534 on display at Birkenhead (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_submarine_U-534). Included in the display are bits of two enigma machines recovered from the hull. The narrative next to the display said that there were two machines which allowed messages to be doubly encrypted for added security. This makes no sense to me as my understanding that multiple encryption does nothing to improve the security because it only aggregates the encryption functions to create a new function which is no harder to break than any other single encryption function.

Can anyone clarify if double encryption was used with the enigma or if this idea is nonsense please? 194.176.105.141 (talk) 11:57, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

It certainly is used in some instances - see multiple encryption. It was recommended for a period when the DES had been shown to have too short a key, before the move to AES. Use different keys for each layer, obviously (wheel settings in the case of enigma). See also this page. Chris55 (talk) 16:08, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't know why there would be two machines. Even if double encryption were used, it could be done with a single machine. There was an officer code (rarely used), so maybe there was a machine for ordinary communications and another one for the officers. Initially there was a 3 rotor machine; that was upgraded to 4 rotors. Maybe they never discarded the 3 rotor machine. The museum should have the answer; send them a letter and ask.

Double encryption would make breaking with cribs more difficult. Glrx (talk) 00:34, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Why would it make the use of cribs more difficult? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.5.82.115 (talk) 19:41, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Would double encryption make the enigma moving substitution encryption any harder to break? Here is a very simple example of the principle with just the plug board setting. Say a plug was first set to change A to B and then on a second encryption it was set to change B to C. The end result is a change of A to C which is no harder to solve than any of the original single substitutions. I suspect that the same logic applies to the moving substitutions of the rotors. Accordingly there is no advantage in double encryption? 194.176.105.141 (talk) 12:02, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Don't use the plugboard as an example of security because it added very little security to the machine. The plugboard is worse than a simple substitution cipher, and those ciphers have been insecure for a long time. Glrx (talk) 00:30, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

But, the article says (in the plugboard section) "The plugboard contributed a great deal to the strength of the machine's encryption: more than an extra rotor would have done". So did it contribute to security or not?194.176.105.145 (talk) 12:05, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Someone has written above "The plugboard is worse than a simple substitution cipher", but the plugboard is a substitution cypher. The original assertion that double encryption does not make encryption stronger for the enigma seems like a reasonable theory to me. This is an interesting point, is anyone else able to supply a mathmatical proof? 94.5.82.115 (talk) 19:15, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

A substitution cipher is an arbitrary permutation; the plugboard only exchanges (a small number of) character pairs. Glrx (talk) 01:04, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

So the plug board exchanges (substitutes) letter from a limited keyspace. I think I see where you are coming from but it still sounds like a substitution cipher to me.194.176.105.145 (talk) 12:09, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

A substitution cipher can replace any letter with any other letter. The plugboard is a very limited substitution cipher because it only swaps pairs (if A subs for Z, then Z must sub for A). Furthermore, the plugboard used fewer than 13 wires, so several letters were left unenciphered. Compare to a rotor that permuted all the letters. Glrx (talk) 19:29, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

So its agreed then, the plug board is a substitution cypher. The letters which are not scrambled because of the shortage of wires can be considered to have been substitued by themselves. This is because it may be considered a chance event as to whether a wire was avaiable for a particular letter. 194.176.105.138 (talk) 13:38, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I believe double coding was used for messages that could be read only by officers. When the outer decryption using the standard enigma key for the day was decrypted by a seaman/petty officer, he was left with a message encrypted with another key, again using Enigna. Then a new key was set up by an officer from a sepatate key list. Some marine engima machines had a detacheable lamp assembly, so that the seaman/NCO pressed the keys for the second decryption (with the officer key) but only the officer could see the light bublbs. SV1XV (talk) 19:59, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

A double-scramble would be harder to crack. Amazing it was ever solved. -- Narnia.Gate7 (talk) 22:11, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Can you please explain why you think it would be harder to crack? It has been well argued above that it would make no difference to the difficulty of decryption and so I would like to hear your argument. 194.176.105.138 (talk) 13:32, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Two things: It would not, actually, be 'harder to crack' but A) harder to know you cracked it: in the time period (1918 to 1950's or so) when the mathematics and the hardware were not yet fully formed and useful the only definitive method of knowing you had, actually, cracked it was to possess intelligible plaintext. Unintelligible plaintext might as well serve as 'not cracked.' or be viewed as 'chaff' In addition, B) deciphering was a time consuming activity not assisted by computation so anything that increased the time to crack to plaintext was viewed as helpful for keeping secrets. For instance, if I encrypt the plaintext phrase "hello there" once into the cyphertext "3tdrw234" and then, treating that as plaintext, encrypt it again, gaining the new cyphertext "bl0o32sdd e3a" (all examples made up for illustrative purposes only) anybody attempting to decypher "bl0o32sdd e3a" would, if done correctly get "3tdrw234". The cryptanalyst would have a decision: trust the math and assume double encryption and repeat the time consuming process or believe that a mistake was made and repeat the original cryptanalysis. Before computers the task of going from "bl0o32sdd e3a" directly to "hello there" in a double encryption was neither easy nor quick, if at all possible. TreebeardTheEnt (talk) 20:24, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

You seem to have ignored the argument that a double encryption only requires a single decryption. E.G. If I code a letter by moving to just the next letter (A to B) I have a single step encryption. I can then repeat this by encrypting again (B to C). In fact if I repeated it ten time I would have a chain of encryption changing A to J. To decrypt there is no need to reverse the process in ten stages when all one has to do is move the letter back ten places in one go. This easily mathematically proved for simple systems, but the question is, does this apply to Enigma?176.25.202.193 (talk) 17:40, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

If the encryption algorithm is of a type call a “cryptographic group” and double encryption is used then there will be a third key which produces the same results as the two keys used in turn. In this case double encryption takes twice the work and provides no more security than a single encryption step!

Even if the cipher is not a cryptographic group, there is something called a “meet in the middle” attack that makes the sequence of encryption operations no more secure against a brute-force attack than just encrypting it once.

Chaining multiple encryption steps is not a great way to improve on security. 194.176.105.136 (talk) 12:17, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

This is true only for definitions of 'brute force' that includes assistance from a combination of advanced mathematics and programmable computers, both of which were invented in response to a need well after the implementation and use of advanced encryption techniques like chaining multiple encryption steps. That's the world we live in today. That's not the world of 1940. It's all well and good, and true for today, to say chaining multiple encryptions isn't an improvement on security, but for instances of which 'brute force' constituted a bunch of smart people in a room with pencil and paper trying to tease plaintext out of gibberish it actually was very very hard. TreebeardTheEnt (talk) 20:24, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't find the above paragraph to be very convincing. The authors further above have provided good arguments which have not been refuted. If the system is a cryptographic group and it is double encrypted then the crypto-analysts may not even be aware that it was double encrypted because the solution is no harder than a single encryption. I think is would be good to back up a view with evidence where possible.176.25.202.193 (talk) 17:31, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

It might be worth looking at the TICOM archives to accurately reflect the facts. TICOM were the American group that scoured Europe post WW2 for military assets, particularly cryptologic assets. The following documents are worth a read. TICOM was there, and interviewed all the principle people, those who built it, used it, and noticed it's weaknesses. Most post WW2 books are partially based on these archives. One interesting fact, was that it was considered out of date at the commencement of the war. Here are the two links.

TICOM Archive

Notes Sec 5-14 for Enigma

scope_creep talk 20:0 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Needs explanation in table of what Uhr stands for. --palmiped |  Talk  15:02, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

The methods of the code breaking are very similar, he says.
Headline: End of common cold could be in sight

• http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/nhs/11390786/End-of-common-cold-could-be-in-sight.html

QUOTE: "Scientists say 'Enigma machine' has unlocked clues to the way the virus of the common cold assembles - making it possible to stop disease in its tracks" -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 03:23, 5 February 2015 (UTC) -- PS: FYI for future editing: He says, “It is like finding a secret message within an ordinary news report and then being able to crack the whole coding system behind it."

The following was inappropriately put on the article page by an anonymous editor;

The proper designation of the German U-Boat bearing the enigma machine captured by Roayal Navey Sublieutenant David Balm of the British destroyer Bulldog on May 9, 1941 was U-110, not U-505 as your article states. Gott Mit Whom?, essay; David Balm, as told to John McCormick. Published in No End Save Victory, Perspectives on World War II (essays) edited by Robert Crowley, G.P. Putnams Sons, Penguin Putnam Inc. c. 2001.

--TedColes (talk) 08:20, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

The reference to the Enigma machine in Chicago seems likely to be that from U-505 which was captured by the US Navy in June 1944, not that from the pivotal capture of U-110 by the Royal Navy in May 1941. --TedColes (talk) 10:54, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

The article has a picture of a four rotor enigma with the caption, "A four–rotor Kriegsmarine (German Navy, 1935 to 1945) Enigma machine on display at the US National Cryptologic Museum". Surely, the four rotor enigmas was introduced 1942, as the body of the article says? There seems to be some confusion between the total number of rotors available to an operator and the number actually inserted in the machine at any one time? Sandpiper (talk) 23:57, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

http://www.deathcamps.org/reinhard/allies.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.102.58.221 (talk) 18:51, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Apparently, for the Kreigsmarine Enigma, words like Minensuchboot (minesweeper) could be written as MINENSUCHBOOT, MINBOOT, MMMBOOT or MMM354. This makes excellent cryptological sense, except that I am not sure how you type 354 into an Enigma machine. You could try FUNFHUNDERTVIERUNDFUNFZIG, but that seems bit laborious.... Moletrouser (talk) 18:05, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

"DREI FUNF VIER" or "YEYTYR" (but I'm not sure this was used by the Kriegsmarine). The Kriegsmarine had short codes to compress information such as weather reports; that presumably would result in just letters. Some attacks made use of "EINS" being a very popular word; "Einsing". Glrx (talk) 00:09, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

This edit introduced a picture of a purported 1918 Enigma. The machine has a plugboard -- a feature that was added to German machine in the 1930s. "[The plugboard] was a unique feature for the German Armed Forces." Compare with this Enigma in a wooden box. Glrx (talk) 18:23, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

I have asked on the German page if it is from 1918. 46.15.58.92 (talk) 01:46, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Looking at the picture, it is a Heimsoethe und Rinke Engima. H und R started making Enigmas in 1941. See http://www.cryptomuseum.com/crypto/enigma/ §Enigma Manufacturers.

For a picture of the first machine (a 1923 Enigma A), see previous link § Enigma A and http://www.cryptomuseum.com/crypto/enigma/hist.htm § Invention of the Rotor Machine (1915) with a picture of a bulky typewriter-like machine.

Glrx (talk) 04:07, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

The claimed date “1918” is certainly wrong. In the year 1918, the year of its invention by Arthur Scherbius, there existed no Enigma machines at all. And the plugboard (Steckerbrett) was introduced in 1928 by the German Army (Reichswehr). The presented Enigma machine of the museum in Milano is a typical 3-wheel-plugboard model “Enigma I” as used by the German Armed Forces (Wehrmacht) during the late 1930s and during the war. So the date should read “ca. 1940”. Best wishes --OS (talk) 05:45, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/ockhamsrazor/learning-from-britain's-secret-decryption-centre,-bletchley-park/5136522 has lots of important info missing from this article. --Espoo (talk) 22:40, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Is anyone here concerned about the relative lack of citations for such a long, in-depth article? I'm considering adding a refimprov template but wanted to run it by anyone more heavily involved in the drafting this article. Dvlsnthedtls (talk) 15:53, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

There's no link to this page from the WWII section of the Poland article, as if the work of the Polish Cipher Bureau made a less notable contribution than the Polish navy. Anyone with a view either way about that, please chime in on the Talk page there. -Chumchum7 (talk) 04:39, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Fellow Wikipedians! I intend to update the details section, at some point in the next couple of weeks. At the moment, it is hazy, incorrect in some places, and doesn't differentiate between Naval Enigma and Heer/Luftwaffe message encipherment/decipherment procedures, in any detail. I have several images, which I think are now in public domain, and can help detail the procedures. Thanks. scope_creep (talk) 22:04, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

I've removed the toclimit on the article, to enable linking from the Otto Buggisch article to Enigma Uhr. He led the group which did the work to invent the uhr. The toclimit may make the article nice and clean, but is lously for correct linking. scope_creep (talk)

The {{toclimit}} template has nothing to do with linking to article sections. A link to Enigma machine#Uhr or any other section still works perfectly fine with the template in place. The template only restricts the length of the TOC as displayed to a reasonable length. Please leave the template alone. General Ization ^Talk 20:49, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi User:General Ization Cool. That has fixed the first problem, now then second problem, the typex entry. It is an incorrect and it is nonsense. Firstly it is an article about about a German product. The typex wasn't solely based on the Enigma, and it needs to be changed or go. It was based on a whole bunch of different areas of research including the designs of various Swiss Hagelin machines. So why is it in there?

Since this heading has nothing to do with that issue, start a new discussion below and attempt to find consensus for the removal. As it stands now, I disagree based on the content at Typex, which means there is no consensus for its removal. General Ization ^Talk 21:24, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Your right. scope_creep (talk) 21:37, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I'm trying to determine the consensus for removal or keeping of the section titled: Typex. I think it should be removed. What is the consensus on it? scope_creep (talk) 21:37, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

No consensus needs to be determined for its retention in the article, as it is already there. As mentioned above, I oppose its removal based on the content at Typex, which I believe shows that it is relevant to this article. General Ization ^Talk 21:42, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

If you're serious about trying to achieve consensus on this question, you might want to consider providing some reasoning for your position. As it stands now, your only argument here (in this section, and no editor should have to refer to another section of this Talk page) is that "you think" it should be removed. That's not going to lead to an agreement with other editors concerning the removal of the content. General Ization ^Talk 22:56, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

I know, User:General Ization. I plan to make a list of updates over the next couple of day and reasoning behind them. I've posted a message in this page, in the last year, where I gained consensus for updates to one section of the article. It is a old article, some of the stuff is out date, in light of new evidence, particularly the TICOM stuff, some of the stuff is superfluous, some of it is badly written, or rather more accurately needs clarification like the message procedures, in light of the new evidence, from Jstor and T&L. I also plan to link in, a new der fall wicher article which I plan to write, put in links and content for the people who actually did the work, like Buggisch, Hüttenhain, Stein, Fenner, Hasenjeager, Denffer and Doering. I also plan to add stuff about security studies, including stastical analysis done by Germans. I don't plan to change any of the actual technical detail, or the design information, accept add new info about why it was built that way, and reasoning behind it, which is missing. I plan to copyedit it, and npov if that exists. I plan to add also new stuff about devices which are missing, which were secret until quite recent, which I don't understand why they are not in there. I also plan to put in the proper German names for devices, which are missing in some parts. I'll make a list and see what folk think. I believe in enclosure, having a single subject in an article. To early in Wikipedia, we have ended up with articles which multiple subjects. I doesn't really server the reader. Thanks. scope_creep (talk) 11:19, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Good for you scope_creep. I would need a lot of persuading that the entry under Enigma K is appropriate. But are you proposing to remove the whole 'Derivatives' section?--TedColes (talk) 12:26, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

TedColes, Possibly for Derivatives, since there was has been OR notice on it for 5 years. It could be put in a See Also, or even it's own article. There is only 3 refs, which are downloads, and don't provide much for the average reader. Perhaps a new article if it could stand on its own feet. It is only of interest to a very tiny, tiny minority of folk, who are likely to download a simulator. Comp Sci, math grads and so on. The K version, was broken within about 20 mins from the start of the war (metaphorically speaking), so it is not hugely important, historically, unless I can find some docs. It may be important for the Case Wicher article. I have that single giant doc, I was sent, and it does mention various cipher machines. I think it needs more supporting evidence. scope_creep (talk) 15:32, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Strange lede looks like the result of an edit war between those wanting to downplay the Polish role in defeating Enigma, and those wanting to promote it: in a nutshell, it says a Pole got some of the way, but then only with French help the Pole finished the job, and then the job couldn't be done by the Pole by the time it really mattered (the outbreak of WWII) because the Pole couldn't afford it, presumably because Poles are poor as well as inept, just in case some nationalist Pole was trying to say otherwise. In the first place, this article is about a German machine, not Polish success in defeating it. So let's cut down the Polish content from the lede, as well as what appears to be a reaction against it in the content. Simply put, the British by their own account said they never would have achieved what they did against Enigma without having been given the insight by their Polish allies "in the nick of time" at the start of the War - not much more needs to be said about it than that. Happy to see and discuss proposed alternatives here. -Chumchum7 (talk) 18:21, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

There is a separate article on Cryptanalysis of the Enigma. I would suggest that a more appropriate approach here, in line with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, would be to compress the Polish contribution and expand, briefly, the significance of the allied successes in Enigma message decryption in shortening WWII. What do others think? --TedColes (talk) 11:01, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the article is about the Enigma, but it is also about the security of the Enigma. The Polish attack was a new direction in cryptanalysis and deserves significant coverage. The Poles were reading the Enigma traffic from 1933 to 1939. The British and French had not succeeded in their efforts.

Enigma decrypts shortening the war is an open debate. It was an advantage, but aircraft carriers, sonar, and radar were helping the convoys. The Soviets were attacking on the Eastern Front, and in August the US dropped the bomb. Glrx (talk) 22:59, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Don't know what "Lede" is/means, but this seems to be the place for my comment. Whatever the contribution of the relevant efforts to break the code, the current article cannot reflect reality if 10.5 detailed lines describe the Polish contribution and 1 line describes the entire British & Allied contribution!!! This is a major weakness of the current form of the article and extremely misleading. Surely the detail of the Polish section should be in Cryptanalysis of the Enigma and a more balanced summary given here? So completely in agreement with TedColes comment about compression, regardless of the shortening-WWII point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:184:F500:857F:563E:9CD5:FCA8 (talk) 09:36, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

"Lede" is another term for the opening paragraph of the article. Chaheel Riens (talk) 10:18, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

The 3rd paragraph that introduces the history of Enigma decryption seems exactly correct as I read it. There is (in the literature) a bit of a battle for recognition between the Poles and the British. During the decade leading up to WWII, the Poles were more successful than the British because they were attacking with mathematical methods, and they had some help such as "Asche" documents. The British learned about the mechanical means, the importance of the decrypts from the Enigma, and about the mathematical approach--all from the Poles. But Alan Turing and Gordon Welchman took this significantly further. The Polish methods were not adaptable--while, for example, the Turing-Welchman 'Bombe' machine could be reconfigured. Throughout the war, many basic ideas from the Poles continued to be used to cut down the amount of work, most notably the 'Zygalski sheets' in various forms.

But the British contribution, especially the Welchman "diagonal board" methods allowed for deductions from the mechanical means that were much more effective than the original Polish methods--when the volume of traffic to be decrypted reached that level of productivity. Having 100's of the original Polish 'Bomba' machines (without regard to cost) would not have solved Enigma traffic later when the German procedures changed. One major problem is that the Polish Cypher Bureau personnell were not allowed to work on their project after they arrived in GB, and were essentially shuttled to less important jobs.

Then there is a tenstion between the British and Americans over first computer developments (Colossus related and unrelated to Enigma decryption), but these tensions make for different books that declare contradictory stories of the importance of the contributions of the parties. As I see it, the facts are that without the Polish contribution, Bletchley Park would have been many months behind and might well never have made the progress they did. Then without the new insights of Turing and Welchman and others, and of course the later production of equipment ('Bombe's etc.) the ability to decrypt Enigma trafic would have faltered as well. By the later years, 4-rotor Naval enigma decryption was carried out in the US on 4-rotor based US Naval Boombe equipment (Dayton codebreakers), with job requests being transmitted over undersea cable to the US from Bletchley Park, because the British could not keep up with the production of their Bombe equipement needed for all the traffic.

Each of several groups thus made completely irreplaceable contributions.

I do agree that the section "Breaking Enigma" has an imbalance. The reason is that Enigma wasn't "broken" just once, but many times and in different ways--both for different variations of the machine, but also different code nets had different procedures that were exploited in different ways. One single "breaking" event (the initial Polish effort) is not a sufficient decription.

At the risk of making that section too long, I would expand the end to include further "breaking" exploits and explain it had to be done repeatedly. Then in essence shorten the Polish introductory section by using fewer words and shortening the exploits a bit. NOT by removing that or minimizing that. Indeed a separate article can expand on each portion of the issue. Csp-interest (talk) 21:12, 3 November 2019 (UTC)