Cryptography

The History and Mathematics of Codes and Code Breaking

Tag: Babington

Bloody Ciphers

There is good merit in regards to reminding one’s self to the fact that they are never safe in comfort. Mary Queen of Scots and Anthony Babington communicated with this “comfort,” while a double agent, Gilbert Gifford, was secretly taking their encrypted messages to one of England’s leading cryptanalyst and cipher secretary, Thomas Phelippes. To the eyes of maybe her jailor, or another untrained person, the cipher may have been unbreakable, probably impossible, but it was dismantled by Phelippes.

The nomenclature used by Queen Mary and Babington had abstract alphabetic, null, and word symbols used to masquerade the details of every message between the Queen and her henchmen. The false security given by this weak encryption let Queen Mary and Babington fall into a complacency that made them feel that they can write openly and freely about a murderous plot to kill Mary’s cousin, Queen Elizabeth I. The henchmen to Mary and Mary herself were all executed for the crimes of plotting Queen Elizabeth’s death.

Queen Mary’s complacency to write at her pleasure because of her weak encryption lead to her execution, but having little-to-no encryption keeps pressure on a message’s sender and receiver. This pressure does not allow either person to feel comfortable giving too much detail in a encrypted message, out of fear of the message being deciphered. If a message written by someone who is very cautious is also intercepted, one can assume that this message will not shed light onto any major situation that would sabotage a planned action. This implies that people that attempt to use cryptography for secret communication would use it in a way that should hide every possible detail of a message. They use hiding techniques such as steganography to keep messages hidden, and they use almost unbreakable encryptions on their ciphers.

These people know that they can be caught, and their secrets can be released. These are the prices they pay. With all the possible negative outcomes with this form of communication, especially when used in the fashion of Queen Mary and Babington, there should be no room for comfort.

None>Something

[Response to question #1] When Singh says that “a weak encryption can be worse than no encryption at all,” it makes me want to equate it to a devastating mistake of leaving an unmistakable trace because with that, all of the evidence of enciphering a message to plot to kill Queen Elizabeth falls completely onto Queen Mary of Scots because of the cipher that was used on both sides. Whereas if there was no encryption, there could be more room (just a little) for the argument that the letters between Mary and Babington could just be in the wrong place at the wrong time (though it looks very unlikely to win over in this Mary-Elizabeth case). For example, if Mary and Babington were not too ignorant or overconfident with the security of their enciphered messages, they could agree on the word “She” with a capital S in place of saying the “Queen” (or any word/phrase that makes the plot to assassinate Elizabeth obvious) because then, the plot to kill can be against anyone. However, when both Mary and Babington use the exact same cipher and have the exact same content of their intentions, it becomes very difficult to convince people of her innocence. My interpretation of having no encryption as opposed to a weak encryption is that with an encryption, albeit furtive, can do more damage than good when it falls into the wrong hands especially with high stakes because it implies that there is information that is so valuable that it has to be hidden from others’ eyes. This heightens the curiosity and thus makes people, whether for good intention or bad, feel the need to pry into the message and know its meaning. Also in Mary’s case, it presented itself as undeniable evidence that she was taking part in the Babington conspiracy and ultimately her cause of death.

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén