Wednesday, 7 May 2025

The Story Of Cracking The Enigma Code In 2 Hours / Today’s AI can crack second world war Enigma code ‘in short order’, experts say


 


Today’s AI can crack second world war Enigma code ‘in short order’, experts say

 

Crowning achievement of Alan Turing’s codebreakers is now ‘straightforward’, according to computer scientists

 

Nicola Davis Science correspondent

Wed 7 May 2025 05.00 BST

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2025/may/07/todays-ai-can-crack-second-world-war-enigma-code-in-short-order-experts-say

 

The Enigma code was a fiendish cipher that took Alan Turing and his fellow codebreakers a herculean effort to crack. Yet experts say it would have crumbled in the face of modern computing.

 

While Polish experts broke early versions of the Enigma code in the 1930s and built anti-Enigma machines, subsequent security upgrades by the Germans meant Turing had to develop new machines, or “Bombes”, to help his team of codebreakers decipher enemy messages. By 1943, the machines could decipher two messages every minute.

 

Yet while the race to break the Enigma code has become famous, credited with shortening the second world war by up to two years, and spawning various Hollywood films, experts say cracking it would be a trivial matter today.

 

“Enigma wouldn’t stand up to modern computing and statistics,” said Michael Wooldridge, a professor of computer science and an expert in artificial intelligence (AI) at the University of Oxford.

 

The Enigma device used by the Axis powers was an electro-mechanical machine that resembled a typewriter, with three rotors that each had 26 possible positions, a reflector that sent the signal back through the rotors and a plugboard that swapped pairs of letters.

 

Its set-up meant that even if the same key was pressed twice, a different letter would be produced each time. What’s more, the initial settings were changed every 24 hours.

 

“Essentially the enigma devices got their power because the number of possible ways in which a message could be encrypted was astronomically large. Far, far too large for a human to exhaustively check,” Wooldridge said, adding that the “bombes” were crude hardwired mechanical computers, searching through enormous numbers of possible alternatives to decrypt Nazi messages.

 

Dr Mustafa A Mustafa, a senior lecturer in software security at the University of Manchester, added that the key to the success of Turing and his colleagues was that Enigma had a number of weaknesses, including that no letter would be represented as itself once enciphered.

 

“It was [a] brute force attack, trying all different combinations out. But with these weaknesses of the Enigma, they managed to do that. They managed to automate this to do it fast enough to be able to crack the code,” he said.

 

Today, however, the process would be far less arduous, not least because of a technology Turing himself pioneered: AI.

 

“It would be straightforward to recreate the logic of bombes in a conventional program,” Wooldridge said, noting the AI model ChatGPT was able to do so. “Then with the speed of modern computers, the laborious work of the bombes would be done in very short order.”

 

Wooldridge added that a range of modern statistical and computational techniques could also be deployed. “And the power of modern datacentres is hard to imagine,” he said, noting modern computing power would have astounded Turing. “Enigma would not remotely be a match for these,” he said.

 

Using a slightly different approach – that Wooldridge suggested might be slower – researchers have previously used an AI system trained to recognise German using Grimm’s fairytales, together with 2,000 virtual servers, to crack a coded message in 13 minutes.

 

But while modern computing would have rapidly defanged Enigma, techniques such as the Rivest-Shamir-Adleman (RSA) cipher – a system initially developed in 1977 and based on large prime numbers – remain robust.

 

“In the case of RSA, it’s the problem of factoring very large numbers. Brute force techniques – looking through all the alternatives – just won’t work on these problems,” said Wooldridge, although he noted such techniques might not hold up against future developments. “If quantum computers ever deliver their theoretical promise, then we may need completely new techniques to keep our data safe,” he said.

 

But while the Enigma code would not stand up long to modern technology, Mustafa said cracking it during the war was a huge achievement, not least as it was considered unbreakable.

 

“To be able to crack it – it took them months, more than a year – but to be able actually to do this within the lifetime of the war, it was a huge thing,” he said. “God knows what would have happened if we hadn’t cracked Enigma in time.”


Sunday, 4 May 2025

Inside the First Fitting of a True Bespoke Masterpiece | Canons Bespoke ...


https://canons.com/ask-us-why-bespoke/

https://canons.com/

 

With a continuous history spanning over 180 years, our workshop is London’s oldest bespoke shoe and bootmaker.

We proudly design and make the highest quality bespoke shoes; boots, bags, belts and luggage along with small leather goods. Every one of our items is truly bespoke, meaning our clients get to own a wholly unique piece.

 

The process of bespoke making is highly skilled and our team is both professional and discreet. Our workshop is honoured to produce bespoke shoes and leather goods for high profile clients globally and has done so for over 180 years.

 

Canons has a worldwide travel roster and our Lastmaker visits clients both old and new several times a year in countries such as the United States and Japan. You can find details of our upcoming trunk shows here.


Saturday, 3 May 2025

Prince Harry says king ‘won’t speak to him’

 


Prince Harry says king ‘won’t speak to him’ and he would ‘love’ to be reconciled

 

After losing personal security challenge, Duke of Sussex says he wants to make peace as he does not know how long Charles has to live

 

Caroline Davies

Fri 2 May 2025 18.04 BST

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/may/02/prince-harry-wants-reconciliation-royal-family

 

The Duke of Sussex has said it is “impossible” for him to bring his wife and children back to the UK after losing his legal challenge over personal security, and revealed he would “love” a reconciliation with his family.

 

In an emotional interview with the BBC, Prince Harry said his father, King Charles, will not speak to him “because of the security stuff”, but said he wanted reconciliation as life was “precious” and he did not know how long his father, who has been diagnosed with cancer, had left to live.

 

Speaking in California, where he now lives, Harry, 40, said: “For the time being, it’s impossible for me to take my family back to the UK safely.”

 

He added: “I can’t see a world in which I would be bringing my wife and children back to the UK at this point, and the things that they’re going to miss, is, well, everything. I love my country. I always have done, despite what some people in that country have done.

 

“I miss the UK. I miss parts of the UK, of course I do. And it’s really quite sad I won’t be able to show my children my homeland.”

 

Harry had sought to overturn changes to his security provision while in the UK, which were made after he and the Duchess of Sussex stepped away from royal duties in 2020.

 

He was offered “bespoke” security, which he felt was “inferior” and claimed the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures (known as Ravec), which authorises security measures, had breached its own terms of reference by not conducting a risk management board (RMB) before making the decision.

He insisted his father could help solve the issue, though he had not asked him to intervene. “I can only come to the UK safely if I am invited, and there is a lot of control and ability in my father’s hands.

 

“Ultimately, this whole thing could be resolved through him, not by intervening, but by stepping aside and allowing the experts to do what is necessary and to carry out an RMB,” he said.

 

It is understood it would have been constitutionally improper for the king to intervene while the matter was being considered by the government and reviewed by the courts.

 

Although the royal household provides representation and input into the Ravec decision, Friday’s judgment laid out that the chair of the Ravec committee was the decision maker on the provision of security. Royal private offices and private secretaries should be consulted as to the practicalities of the protection measures agreed, the ruling said.

 

Harry also appealed to the prime minister, Keir Starmer, saying: “This all was initiated under a previous government. There is now a new government. I have had it described to me by people who know about the facts that this is a good old-fashioned establishment stitch-up. And that’s what it feels like.”

 

Asked whether the prime minister should “step in”, he replied: “Yes, I would ask the prime minister to step in.

 

“I would ask Yvette Cooper, the home secretary, to look at this very, very carefully and I would ask her to review Ravec and its members, because if it is an expert body, then what is the royal household’s role there, if it is not to influence and decide what they want for the members of their household?”

 

On his family rift, he said: “There have been so many disagreements, differences between me and some of my family. This current situation, that has been ongoing now for five years with regard to human life and safety as the sticking point. It is the only thing that’s left.

 

“Of course some members of my family will never forgive me for writing a book, of course they will never forgive me for lots of things, but … I would love reconciliation with my family.

 

“There’s no point in continuing to fight any more. Life is precious. I don’t know how much longer my father has. He won’t speak to me because of this security stuff. But it would be nice to reconcile.”

 

He added: “If they want that, it’s entirely up to them.”

 

Harry said he could never leave the royal family, though he had left the “institution” because “I had to”.

 

He continued: “Whether I have an official role or not is irrelevant to the threats, risk and impact on the reputation of the UK if something was to happen.

 

“What really worries me more than anything else about today’s decision, depending on what happens next, [is that] it set a new precedent that security can be used to control members of the family, and effectively, what it does is imprison other members of the family from being able to choose a different life.”

 

He claimed that, through the court disclosure process, he had “discovered that some people want history to repeat itself, which is pretty dark”. Asked who he meant, Harry declined to answer.

 

He said he was “devastated” by the court’s decision, adding: “Not so much devastated with the loss [as] about the people behind the decision feeling as though this is OK. Is it a win for them? I’m sure there are some people out there, probably most likely the people that wish me harm, [who] consider this a huge win.”

 

He indicated that he would not be seeking a further legal challenge, saying Friday’s ruling had “proven that there was no way to win this through the courts”.

 

A spokesperson for Buckingham Palace said: “All of these issues have been examined repeatedly and meticulously by the courts, with the same conclusion reached on each occasion.”

Friday, 2 May 2025

Prince Andrew should never be allowed to return to public life



Prince Andrew should never be allowed to return to public life

Polly Hudson

The death of Virginia Giuffre - who accused the Duke of York of sexual assault - surely makes his desire to resume royal duties out of the question

 

Thu 1 May 2025 11.00 BST

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/may/01/prince-andrew-should-never-be-allowed-to-return-to-public-life

 

Everyone talks about Prince Andrew’s “fall from grace” but that raises an awkward question. When exactly was his grace period? Admittedly, even the most cynical among us aren’t immune to royal wedding fever, and when he married Fergie the nation was still high on the fumes from Charles and Diana’s nuptials, so perhaps he was briefly popular in 1986. But other than that? Pretty confident recollections wouldn’t vary here. Nada.

 

So technically we can’t call the events that have transpired since that brief moment in the sun a fall from grace. It’s more accurate to classify them as many falls from “meh”.

 

With that in mind, it is genuinely baffling that there are still any conversations at all about Andrew returning to royal life, especially when many think Harry should be locked in a tower just for daring to pursue an alternative future. Yet the discussion has somehow rumbled on. Now, with the death of Virginia Giuffre, it must stop for good.

 

When Giuffre alleged that she had been sexually assaulted by Andrew on three occasions when she was 17, he promised to fight to clear his name in court. His lawyer described her accusation as “baseless” and claimed she was seeking a “payday”.

 

Andrew went on to settle out of court in the US civil case for an estimated $12m, while making no admission of guilt. His lawyer declined to comment. David Boies, representing Giuffre, said of the settlement: “I believe the event speaks for itself.”

 

The teenager had been recruited to Jeffrey Epstein’s sex trafficking ring by Ghislaine Maxwell in 2000 while working as a locker-room attendant at President Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort in Palm Beach. Giuffre told the Miami Herald: “Before you know it, I’m being lent out to politicians and academics and royalty.” In a later interview with the BBC, she chillingly described being “passed around like a platter of fruit”.

 

Last weekend, her family announced that she had “lost her life to suicide, after being a lifelong victim of sexual abuse and sex trafficking. In the end, the toll of the abuse is so heavy that it became unbearable for Virginia to handle its weight.”

 

With a few jaw-dropping exceptions, when it comes to royal scandals we don’t usually hear from the royal at the centre of the storm: never complain, never explain, and all that. But, unfortunately, thanks to his infamous Newsnight interview, we’re under no illusions about the precise level of remorse Andrew feels for his involvement with Jeffrey Epstein, which continued after Epstein was convicted and sentenced to eighteen months in prison in 2008, for procuring a minor for prostitution. Remember, as Andrew said in that interview, the only thing he’s guilty of is a “tendency to be too honourable”.

 

The mea non culpa also showcased Andrew’s superpowers: a staggering degree of tone-deafness and complete illiteracy when it comes to reading rooms. As producer Sam McAlister revealed in the aftermath: “As the interview ended, and I looked at the floor, unable to comprehend what we’d just witnessed, it became clear that Prince Andrew actually thought it had gone well. Very well … Those historic photos of him and Emily [Maitlis] walking in the palace corridors that you saw? Taken after that terrible interview took place … You can see how well he thought it had gone.”

 

It’s the same story every time he pops back up, cold sore-style and just as welcome. From when he bowled down the aisle with the late Queen, unselfconsciously centre stage, at Prince Philip’s memorial in 2022, to most recently at a public appearance at an Easter church service in Windsor. (His first since the furore over his links with businessman Yang Tengbo, accused of being a Chinese spy.)

 

Whenever we see Andrew, his expression is that of a dog who’s not bothering to beg for a treat because he’s so certain it’s coming his way. “Ugh, haven’t I waited long enough?” drips from every pore. Sorry, would drip from every pore, if only that were medically possible.

 

Never being allowed back to royal duties, into the spotlight he so clearly relishes, means he will spend the rest of his days languishing in the lap of luxury. As punishments go, it’s hardly harsh. But there is a sting in the tail. It’s highly likely Andrew will be for ever denied the public approval he still seems to feel he is entitled to and deserves. It’s not a life sentence as most of us understand it, and it’s certainly nowhere close to the one Virginia Giuffre endured, but at least it’s not nothing.

 

 Polly Hudson is a freelance writer