> On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 08:41:32AM -0500, Matthew Martin wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 07:38:28AM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 07:28:39AM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> > > > > I've known about ETAONRISHetc basically forever.  Where is this new
> > > > > order (ETSAORINDHLCPMUYFWGBVKXQZJ) coming from.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Citation please?
> > > > 
> > > > I'm just updating the man page to reflect the percentages in caesar.c
> > > > which claims to get it's numbers from "some unix(tm) documentation".
> > > 
> > > Is it possible you've got the fix backwards?  I think ETAONRISHetc is
> > > from some well-known research, but ETSAOR* is brand new and even google
> > > cannot find a reference to that ordering.  It seems there is a bug here,
> > > but is it perhaps the other frequency table?
> > 
> > I certainly don't claim to know which frequencies are more accurate.
> > Does anyone have a preferred source for which percentages to use?
> > 
> > - Matthew Martin
> 
> If no one has a better suggestion,
> https://www.math.cornell.edu/~mec/2003-2004/cryptography/subs/frequencies.html
> seems to be fairly middle of the road in it's frequencies.

I disagree.  I think this toy program should remain the same...

Reply via email to