Hubbry Logo
BanburismusBanburismusMain
Open search
Banburismus
Community hub
Banburismus
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Banburismus
Banburismus
Banburismus
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

The Enigma cipher machine
Enigma machine
Breaking Enigma
Related

Banburismus was a cryptanalytic process developed by Alan Turing at Bletchley Park in Britain during the Second World War.[1] It was used by Bletchley Park's Hut 8 to help break German Kriegsmarine (naval) messages enciphered on Enigma machines. The process used sequential conditional probability to infer information about the likely settings of the Enigma machine.[2] It gave rise to Turing's invention of the ban as a measure of the weight of evidence in favour of a hypothesis.[3][4] This concept was later applied in Turingery and all the other methods used for breaking the Lorenz cipher.[5]

Overview

[edit]

The aim of Banburismus was to reduce the time required of the electromechanical Bombe machines by identifying the most likely right-hand and middle wheels of the Enigma.[6][7] Hut 8 performed the procedure continuously for two years, stopping only in 1943 when sufficient bombe time became readily available.[8][9] Banburismus was a development of the "clock method" invented by the Polish cryptanalyst Jerzy Różycki.[10]

Hugh Alexander was regarded as the best of the Banburists. He and I. J. Good considered the process more an intellectual game than a job. It was "not easy enough to be trivial, but not difficult enough to cause a nervous breakdown".[11]

History

[edit]

In the first few months after arriving at Bletchley Park in September 1939, Alan Turing correctly deduced that the message-settings of Kriegsmarine Enigma signals were enciphered on a common Grundstellung (starting position of the rotors), and were then super-enciphered with a bigram and a trigram lookup table. These trigram tables were in a book called the Kenngruppenbuch (K book). However, without the bigram tables, Hut 8 were unable to start attacking the traffic.[12] A breakthrough was achieved after the Narvik pinch in which the disguised armed trawler Polares, which was on its way to Narvik in Norway, was seized by HMS Griffin in the North Sea on 26 April 1940.[13] The Germans did not have time to destroy all their cryptographic documents, and the captured material revealed the precise form of the indicating system, supplied the plugboard connections and Grundstellung for 23 and 24 April and the operators' log, which gave a long stretch of paired plaintext and enciphered message for the 25th and 26th.[14]

The bigram tables themselves were not part of the capture, but Hut 8 were able to use the settings-lists to read, retrospectively, all the Kriegsmarine traffic that had been intercepted from 22 to 27 April. This allowed them do a partial reconstruction of the bigram tables and start the first attempt to use Banburismus to attack Kriegsmarine traffic, from 30 April onwards. Eligible days were those where at least 200 messages were received, and for which the partial bigram-tables deciphered the indicators. The first day to be broken was 8 May 1940, thereafter celebrated as "Foss's Day" in honour of Hugh Foss, the cryptanalyst who achieved the feat.

This task took until November that year, by which time the intelligence was very out of date, but it did show that Banburismus could work. It also allowed much more of the bigram tables to be reconstructed, which in turn allowed 14 April and 26 June to be broken. However, the Kriegsmarine had changed the bigram tables on 1 July.[15] By the end of 1940, much of the theory of the Banburismus scoring system had been worked out.

The First Lofoten pinch from the trawler Krebs on 3 March 1941 provided the complete keys for February – but no bigram tables or K book. The consequent decrypts allowed the statistical scoring system to be refined so that Banburismus could become the standard procedure against Kriegsmarine Enigma until mid-1943.[15]

Principles

[edit]

Banburismus utilised a weakness in the indicator procedure (the encrypted message settings) of Kriegsmarine Enigma traffic. Unlike the German Army and Airforce Enigma procedures, the Kriegsmarine used a Grundstellung provided by key lists, and so it was the same for all messages on a particular day (or pair of days). This meant that the three-letter indicators were all enciphered with the same rotor settings so that they were all in depth with each other.[16] Normally, the indicators for two messages were never the same, but it could happen that, part-way through a message, the rotor positions became the same as the starting position of the rotors for another message, the parts of the two messages that overlapped in this way were in depth.

The left hand end of a "Banbury Sheet" from World War II found in 2014 in the roof space of Hut 6 at Bletchley Park.

The principle behind Banburismus is relatively simple (and seems to be rather similar to the Index of Coincidence). If two sentences in English or German are written down one above the other, and a count is made of how often a letter in one message is the same as the corresponding letter in the other message; there will be more matches than would occur if the sentences were random strings of letters. For a random sequence, the repeat rate for single letters is expected to be 1 in 26 (around 3.8%), and for the German Navy messages it was shown to be 1 in 17 (5.9%).[17] If the two messages were in depth, then the matches occur just as they did in the plaintexts. However, if the messages were not in depth, then the two ciphertexts will compare as if they were random, giving a repeat rate of about 1 in 26. This allows an attacker to take two messages whose indicators differ only in the third character, and slide them against each other looking for the giveaway repeat pattern that shows where they align in depth.

The comparison of two messages to look for repeats was made easier by punching the messages onto thin cards about 250 millimetres (9.8 in) high by several metres (yards) wide, depending on the length of message.[citation needed] A hole at the top of a column on the card represented an 'A' at that position, a hole at the bottom represented a 'Z'. The two message-cards were laid on top of each other on a light-box and where the light shone through, there was a repeat. This made it much simpler to detect and count the repeats. The cards were printed in Banbury in Oxfordshire. They became known as 'banburies' at Bletchley Park, and hence the procedure using them: Banburismus.[18]

The application of the scritchmus procedure (see below) gives a clue as to the possible right-hand rotor.

Example

[edit]

Message with indicator "VFG": XCYBGDSLVWBDJLKWIPEHVYGQZWDTHRQXIKEESQSSPZXARIXEABQIRUCKHGWUEBPF

Message with indicator "VFX": YNSCFCCPVIPEMSGIZWFLHESCIYSPVRXMCFQAXVXDVUQILBJUABNLKMKDJMENUNQ

Hut 8 would punch these onto banburies and count the repeats for all valid offsets −25 letters to +25 letters. There are two promising positions: 

XCYBGDSLVWBDJLKWIPEHVYGQZWDTHRQXIKEESQSSPZXARIXEABQIRUCKHGWUEBPF
        YNSCFCCPVIPEMSGIZWFLHESCIYSPVRXMCFQAXVXDVUQILBJUABNLKMKDJMENUNQ
                      - --  -   -          -  -   --

This offset of eight letters shows nine repeats, including two bigrams, in an overlap of 56 letters (16%).

The other promising position looks like this: 

XCYBGDSLVWBDJLKWIPEHVYGQZWDTHRQXIKEESQSSPZXARIXEABQIRUCKHGWUEBPF
       YNSCFCCPVIPEMSGIZWFLHESCIYSPVRXMCFQAXVXDVUQILBJUABNLKMKDJMENUNQ
                ---

This offset of seven shows just a single trigram in an overlap of 57 letters.

Turing's method of accumulating a score of a number of decibans allows the calculation of which of these situations is most likely to represent messages in depth. As might be expected, the former is the winner with odds of 5:1 on, the latter is only 2:1 on.[19]

Turing calculated the scores for the number of single repeats in overlaps of so many letters, and the number of bigrams and trigrams. Tetragrams often represented German words in the plaintext[clarification needed] and their scores were calculated according to the type of message (from traffic analysis), and even their position within the message.[20] These were tabulated and the relevant values summed by Banburists in assessing pairs of messages to see which were likely to be in depth.

Bletchley Park used the convention that the indicator plaintext of "VFX", being eight characters ahead of "VFG", or (in terms of just the third, differing, letter) that "X = G+8".

Scritchmus

[edit]

Scritchmus was the part of the Banburismus procedure that could lead to the identification of the right-hand (fast) wheel. The Banburist might have evidence from various message-pairs (with only the third indicator letter differing) showing that "X = Q−2", "H = X−4" and "B = G+3". He or she[21] would search the deciban sheets for all distances with odds of better than 1:1 (i.e. with scores ≥ +34). An attempt was then made to construct the 'end wheel alphabet' by forming 'chains' of end-wheel letters out of these repeats.[22]

They could then construct a "chain" as follows: 

G--B-H---X-Q

If this is then compared at progressive offsets with the known letter-sequence of an Enigma rotor, quite a few possibilities are discounted due to violating either the "reciprocal" property or the "no-self-ciphering" property of the Enigma machine: 

G--B-H---X-Q
ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ  ......... is possible

 G--B-H---X-Q
ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ  ......... is impossible (G enciphers to B, yet B enciphers to E)

  G--B-H---X-Q
ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ  ......... is impossible (H apparently enciphers to H)

   G--B-H---X-Q
ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ  ......... is impossible (G enciphers to D, yet B enciphers to G)

    G--B-H---X-Q
ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ  ......... is impossible (B enciphers to H, yet H enciphers to J)

     G--B-H---X-Q
ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ  ......... is impossible (Q apparently enciphers to Q)

      G--B-H---X-Q
ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ  ......... is impossible (G apparently enciphers to G)

       G--B-H---X-Q
ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ  ......... is impossible (G enciphers to H, yet H enciphers to M)

        G--B-H---X-Q
ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ  ......... is possible

         G--B-H---X-Q
ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ  ......... is possible

          G--B-H---X-Q
ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ  ......... is possible

           G--B-H---X-Q
ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ  ......... is impossible (H enciphers to Q, yet Q enciphers to W)

            G--B-H---X-Q
ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ  ......... is impossible (X enciphers to V, yet Q enciphers to X)

             G--B-H---X-Q
ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ  ......... is impossible (B enciphers to Q, yet Q enciphers to Y)

              G--B-H---X-Q
ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ  ......... is impossible (X enciphers to X)

Q              G--B-H---X->
ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ  ......... is possible

-Q              G--B-H---X->
ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ  ......... is impossible (Q enciphers to B, yet B enciphers to T)

X-Q              G--B-H--->
ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ  ......... is possible

-X-Q              G--B-H-->
ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ  ......... is impossible (X enciphers to B, yet B enciphers to V)

--X-Q              G--B-H->
ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ  ......... is possible

---X-Q              G--B-H->
ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ  ......... is impossible (X enciphers to D, yet B enciphers to X)

H---X-Q              G--B->
ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ  ......... is impossible (Q enciphers to G, yet G enciphers to V)

-H---X-Q              G--B->
ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ  ......... is impossible (H enciphers to B, yet Q enciphers to H)

B-H---X-Q              G-->
ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ  ......... is possible (note the G enciphers to X, X enciphers to G property)

-B-H---X-Q              G->
ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ  ......... is impossible (B enciphers to B)

--B-H---X-Q              G->
ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ  ......... is possible

The so-called "end-wheel alphabet" is already limited to just nine possibilities, merely by establishing a letter-chain of five letters derived from a mere four message-pairs. Hut 8 would now try fitting other letter-chains — ones with no letters in common with the first chain — into these nine candidate end-wheel alphabets.

Eventually they will hope to be left with just one candidate, maybe looking like this: 

         NUP
F----A--D---O
--X-Q              G--B-H->
ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ

Not only this, but such an end-wheel alphabet forces the conclusion that the end wheel is in fact "Rotor I". This is because "Rotor II" would have caused a mid-wheel turnover as it stepped from "E" to "F", yet that's in the middle of the span of the letter-chain "F----A--D---O". Likewise, all the other possible mid-wheel turnovers are precluded. Rotor I does its turnover between "Q" and "R", and that's the only part of the alphabet not spanned by a chain.

That the different Enigma wheels had different turnover points was, presumably, a measure by the designers of the machine to improve its security. However, this very complication allowed Bletchley Park to deduce the identity of the end wheel.

Middle wheel

[edit]

Once the end wheel is identified, these same principles can be extended to handle the middle rotor, though with the added complexity that the search is for overlaps in message-pairs sharing just the first indicator letter, and that the overlaps could therefore occur at up to 650 characters apart.[23]

The workload of doing this is beyond manual labour, so BP punched the messages onto 80-column cards and used Hollerith machines to scan for tetragram repeats or better. That told them which banburies to set up on the light boxes (and with what overlap) to evaluate the whole repeat pattern.

Armed with a set of probable mid-wheel overlaps, Hut 8 could compose letter-chains for the middle wheel much in the same way as was illustrated above for the end wheel. That in turn (after Scritchmus) would give at least a partial middle wheel alphabet, and hopefully at least some of the possible choices of rotor for the middle wheel could be eliminated from turnover knowledge (as was done in identifying the end wheel).

Taken together, the probable right hand and middle wheels would give a set of bombe runs for the day, that would be significantly reduced from the 336 possible.

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]

Bibliography

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Banburismus

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Banburismus is a cryptanalytic technique developed by at during to decrypt German naval messages encrypted with the , employing statistical analysis of message indicators to determine the starting position of the right-hand rotor and thereby reduce the computational workload for subsequent decryption efforts. The method exploited predictable patterns in Enigma operator procedures, particularly the use of repeated or sequential indicators in message keys, which often differed only in the third character. Turing's involved creating "Banbury sheets"—grids of thin cards punched with letters from paired messages—allowing analysts to slide them against each other and count overlaps at various offsets to score probable alignments based on sequential . This process, implemented in , narrowed down rotor starting positions from thousands of possibilities to a manageable few, often revealing chains of letter relationships that violated Enigma's self-reciprocal properties if misaligned. Banburismus significantly accelerated the breaking of naval Enigma traffic starting in 1941, enabling Allied forces to read intercepts and reroute convoys away from wolf packs during the , though its effectiveness waned temporarily in 1942 due to German procedural changes. Key figures beyond Turing included , one of the few women trained in its application alongside elite male cryptanalysts. The technique introduced the "ban" as a unit for measuring evidential weight in , influencing later methods like Turingery for Lorenz ciphers and contributing to the Allies' intelligence advantage in .

Background

Enigma Machine Context

The was an electromechanical rotor cipher device employed by the German armed forces during for secure communications. It featured three rotating wheels—designated the right-hand, middle, and left-hand rotors—selected from a set of five to eight available rotors, each containing 26 electrical contacts wired internally to permute letters in a fixed but irregular manner. The signal path also included a plugboard for additional letter substitutions and a fixed reflector that redirected the current back through the rotors in reverse order, ensuring that no letter encrypted to itself under any configuration. Daily key settings for the Enigma were established through a combination of configurations changed at to prevent long-term predictability. These included the order of the three s (chosen from the available set), ring settings on each (adjusting the alignment of internal wiring relative to the external letter ring, with 26 possibilities per ), plugboard connections (typically 10 pairs of letters swapped out of 26, yielding 150,738,274,937,250 possible arrangements), and initial positions (26 options each). A single reflector type was usually fixed for military use, though some variants allowed selection. The , or , employed a specialized variant of the Enigma, initially the M3 model with three s (including naval-specific types VI-VIII) and later the M4 with an additional thin non-stepping (β or γ) inserted between the reflector and the left-hand starting in 1942. Message keys were handled through a complex indicator procedure to obscure the starting positions for each transmission. Operators selected two trigrams from the daily Kenngruppenbuch (key group book)—the Schlüsselkenngruppe (procedure indicator) and Verfahrenkenngruppe (random indicator)—set the machine to the daily Grundstellung (ground setting), and enciphered the Verfahrenkenngruppe to derive the actual three-letter message starting position. This six-letter indicator was then processed using Doppelbuchstabentauschtafeln ( substitution tables, one of nine variants A-J) by arranging the letters into three s and substituting them to produce two four-letter groups, which were transmitted at the message's start and repeated at the end. Overall, the military Enigma's configuration space encompassed approximately 10^{23} possible daily keys when combining rotor selections, positions, ring settings, and plugboard wirings, rendering brute-force attacks computationally infeasible with mid-20th-century technology. , established at in early 1939 under the leadership of , was tasked with the cryptanalysis of German naval Enigma traffic, including communications from U-boats and surface vessels that posed a severe threat to Allied shipping in the . The unit's primary focus was on decrypting messages enciphered with the naval variant of the , which differed from the army and air force versions in its rotor sets and operational procedures, demanding specialized techniques from the outset. One of the foremost challenges was the German navy's practice of changing Enigma keys daily, encompassing selections from eight available wheels, ring settings, plugboard connections, and initial positions, which reset the cryptographic possibilities each and required rapid recovery to maintain intelligence flow. Complicating this were short signal formats, such as weather reports, which utilized the Wetterkurzschlüssel (Short Weather Cipher)—a that pre-enciphered meteorological data before re-encrypting it via Enigma—yielding brief, non-repetitive messages that offered few exploitable patterns for codebreakers. Unlike and traffic, naval messages lacked predictable "cribs"—known segments derived from routine formats—due to the terse, operational nature of dispatches, severely limiting the effectiveness of early cryptanalytic tools like the machine. The situation intensified in February 1942 with the introduction of the four-rotor Enigma M4 for Atlantic traffic (codenamed by the Allies), which added a thin fourth (Greek beta or gamma) to the standard three-rotor setup, increasing the number of rotor orders from 336 to 672 (by adding 2 choices for the thin rotor) and introducing an additional 26 starting positions for the thin rotor, significantly complicating and rendering prior methods obsolete until captures provided recovery aids later that year. Prior to optimizations, relied on British Bombes that could test only one wheel order at a time, necessitating up to 336 runs per day for three-rotor naval keys; each full sequence demanded approximately 20 minutes per order on a single machine, totaling over 100 hours of machine time without parallel processing or , far exceeding the operational tempo needed for timely . Early efforts in and were marked by significant setbacks, as unknown indicator procedures—such as the naval method of repeating the message key in the encrypted indicator—prevented message alignment, while material shortages, including limited availability and incomplete knowledge of rotors VI, VII, and VIII until captures from and , stalled progress despite initial Polish insights into Enigma. These obstacles resulted in prolonged periods without breaks, allowing packs to operate undetected and contributing to heavy Allied convoy losses during the war's opening phases.

Development

Origins and Invention

The origins of Banburismus trace back to the Polish cryptanalytic efforts against the in , particularly Jerzy Różycki's "clock method," which exploited repeats in Enigma indicators to detect rotor positions by analyzing letter coincidences in superimposed messages. Różycki's technique, developed between 1933 and 1935, relied on the Enigma's mechanical properties, such as the distinct turnover points of its rotors, to identify the right-hand wheel through manual permutation checks. Alan Turing invented Banburismus in 1940 at Bletchley Park, extending Różycki's clock method into a more advanced statistical approach tailored to the German Navy's Enigma variant. Inspired by patterns observed in captured German materials, Turing focused on probabilistic analysis of message indicators to narrow down rotor settings, addressing the increased complexity of naval traffic with its three-rotor setup and doubled indicators. A pivotal breakthrough occurred following the Narvik pinch on 26 April 1940, when British forces seized the disguised German trawler Polares en route to , yielding a naval (three-rotor), rotor settings, tables, and manuals that provided sample keys and confirmed the doubled indicator procedure used in naval messages. This capture enabled the first successful application of Banburismus in early , allowing cryptanalysts to decrypt traffic from 22–27 April. Banburismus dramatically improved efficiency by reducing the daily wheel order candidates from 336 possible permutations to approximately 10–20, thereby accelerating subsequent Bombe machine runs and enabling routine breaking of naval Enigma keys.

Key Personnel and Breakthroughs

is recognized as the primary inventor of Banburismus, a cryptanalytic technique he developed in 1940 while leading at , focusing on statistical methods to narrow down Enigma wheel settings for German naval messages. Turing's approach integrated logical analysis and probability to exploit message depths, laying the foundation for breaking daily keys more efficiently. Hugh Alexander emerged as the leading "Banburist" from early 1941, serving as Turing's deputy and overseeing the practical application and refinement of the method amid rising traffic volumes; he formally assumed leadership of in November 1942 after Turing shifted to other projects, ensuring continuity until Turing's brief return in March 1943. joined in May 1941 and provided key mathematical refinements, particularly advancing the Bayesian statistical framework that enhanced scoring accuracy in Banburismus procedures. , an early tester who arrived in January 1942, contributed to validating and implementing the technique through hands-on testing of wheel order hypotheses. A pivotal breakthrough occurred with the first Lofoten pinch on 3 March 1941, when British commandos captured the German trawler Krebs off the Islands, securing complete Enigma keys for February and enabling the recovery of tables through subsequent , which dramatically accelerated Banburismus applications. The introduction of the "Scritchmus" variant in 1940 further advanced the process by targeting partial settings for the right-hand wheel, allowing initial to be tested more rapidly. By mid-1941, these developments facilitated an expansion to handle increased traffic, with Banburismus processing up to 100 messages daily.

Core Principles

Indicator Exploitation and Message Depths

The indicator procedure in the Kriegsmarine's Enigma system required operators to select a random three-letter key, which served as the starting position for enciphering the message body. This key was enciphered twice at the daily ground setting—by entering the three letters twice consecutively into the —to generate the indicator transmitted at the message's start, with the resulting divided into groups where the first and third were sent to convey the key securely while permitting error detection. For instance, a message key of "VFG" entered as "VFG VFG" might yield a ciphertext beginning with "VFGX" under specific and plugboard configurations, highlighting potential repeats exploitable in analysis. A critical weakness emerged when multiple messages employed identical or closely related key settings, resulting in "depths"—overlapping encipherments that produced repeating patterns in the indicators at predictable intervals. Such depths occurred if operators reused message keys, either intentionally or due to procedural lapses, causing the first indicators to exhibit alignments like a 10-letter overlap, where portions of the mirrored each other under the shared daily settings of wheel order, plugboard, and ground position. This repetition violated the randomness expected in independent encipherments, providing cryptanalysts at Park's with a foothold to align and compare indicators from intercepted traffic. In depths, the frequency of letter repeats deviated markedly from random expectations: positions aligned under shared encipherment showed matches approximately 1 in 17 times, rather than the 1 in 26 rate for unrelated , owing to the consistent mapping imposed by the identical machine configuration on overlapping elements. This elevated repeat rate stemmed from the Enigma's substitution properties, where the fixed daily settings amplified correlations in the output when inputs aligned, enabling statistical discrimination between true depths and chance alignments. Banburismus exploited this anomaly through sequential , iteratively updating the likelihood of specific right-hand starting positions (and relative offsets) based on observed repeats across paired or grouped indicators. By assuming possible relative offsets in the right-hand positions between messages, analysts computed the probability that the resulting letter matches conformed to expected Enigma behavior under a given configuration, progressively narrowing candidates for the daily rotor settings. This Bayesian-inspired scoring prioritized configurations yielding repeat patterns consistent with the shared encipherment, transforming raw intercepts into actionable inferences about rotor settings without exhaustive trial encipherment.

Statistical Scoring with Decibans

In Banburismus, statistical scoring relied on decibans as a unit to quantify the evidential weight favoring specific rotor settings in the based on observed patterns in message overlaps. A deciban, introduced by and I.J. Good, represents one-tenth of a ban, where one ban equals the logarithm base 10 of an of 10:1; thus, 1 deciban ≈ 10 log₁₀ ( / 10), serving as the smallest perceptible unit of evidence in probabilistic inference. This allowed cryptanalysts to accumulate scores additively, transforming complex probability ratios into manageable numerical assessments for hypothesis testing between rotor configurations. The core formula for a deciban score in this context is derived from the log-odds ratio under Bayesian principles: Deciban score=10log⁡10(P(data∣H1)P(data∣H0))\text{Deciban score} = 10 \log_{10} \left( \frac{P(\text{data} \mid H_1)}{P(\text{data} \mid H_0)} \right) where H1H_1 is the hypothesis that two messages share aligned rotor positions (in depth), and H0H_0 is the alternative of independent encipherments. This was applied to pairwise letter matches in aligned indicator segments of ciphertext overlaps; for instance, under the null hypothesis, the probability of a random match is approximately 1/26 ≈ 0.038, while under the match hypothesis, it approaches approximately 1/17 ≈ 0.059 for German naval monograms. Each matching letter contributed positively (roughly +1.8 decibans per match), while non-matches subtracted slightly (about -0.09 decibans), with longer runs of matches (e.g., bigrams or trigrams) yielding higher scores due to compounded probabilities. The scoring process involved aligning multiple pairs of messages—leveraging depths where indicators suggested shared starting positions—and computing cumulative deciban totals across all observed overlaps to rank possible rotor settings. For example, nine matching letters in a 16-letter overlap typically scored 15-20 decibans in favor of a particular setting, as each match's evidential weight scaled with the overlap's length and the rarity of alignments under random settings. Scores were accumulated from dozens of message pairs; a total exceeding 100 decibans indicated high confidence in the correct rotor settings, often narrowing thousands of possible starting positions to a few testable candidates, sufficient to overcome the vast daily key space. This additive accumulation exploited the independence of evidence across pairs, enabling efficient manual computation on scoring sheets. Deciban scores were calibrated empirically using known keys recovered from U-boat captures (pinches), which provided ground-truth data to refine match probabilities and validate the logarithmic scale against actual breaks. Post-1941 pinches, such as those from and , allowed Turing's team to adjust parameters—like the exact per-match weight—from initial theoretical estimates, ensuring scores reflected real Enigma behaviors including wheel stepping irregularities. By late 1942, this calibration made Banburismus reliable for routine naval traffic, with false positives limited to rare cases of eight or fewer consecutive matches under the .

Implementation Techniques

Banbury Sheets and Overlap Detection

Banbury sheets, commonly referred to as Banburies, consisted of large paper cards measuring 250 mm in height and up to 3 meters in width, printed in , . Holes were punched through the sheets at positions corresponding to the letters of the from Enigma messages, facilitating the detection of overlaps when the sheets were overlaid on light-boxes; aligned holes allowed light to pass through, visually highlighting matching letters in the ciphertexts. The step-by-step process for overlap detection began with selecting pairs of messages likely in depth, often those whose indicators differed only in the third character, such as "VFG" and "VFX". Separate sheets were prepared for the first 26 letters of the of each message in the pair. These sheets were then aligned on the light-box at each possible relative shift (from 0 to 26 positions) to simulate potential overlaps. At each alignment, the number of positions where holes (and thus letters) matched was counted, providing data for deciban scores that evaluated the likelihood of specific orders. For instance, in the case of messages starting with "VFG" and "VFX", aligning the sheets at shifts where the third characters "G" and "X" could match—accounting for the eight-character plaintext difference—yielded specific repeat patterns, such as 6 matches in 52 positions, which contributed to higher deciban scores for rotor pairs like I-II. Sets of sheets were produced for all six possible wheel orders, corresponding to the permutations of three wheels taken two at a time, enabling the handling of ciphertext stretches up to 50 letters long in this manual procedure.

Scritchmus for Right-Hand Wheel

Scritchmus was a specialized manual technique within the Banburismus process, developed by in 1940, designed specifically to deduce the starting position of the fast-moving right-hand rotor using partial letter chains derived from indicator repeats in depth messages. This method relied on the known rotor orders for the left and middle wheels, obtained from earlier overlap detection steps, to constrain the analysis. Analysts constructed chains of ciphertext letters interspersed with gaps representing unknown encipherments, such as G--B-H---X-Q, where repeats in the indicators of multiple messages with the same settings provided the fixed points for alignment. The core of the scritchmus technique involved overlaying these partial chains onto a 26×26 grid representing possible starting positions of the right-hand rotor, then systematically "scritching" or scratching out impossible paths that violated known turnover behaviors or produced contradictions with the middle wheel's slower motion. By tracing feasible letter progressions across the grid—accounting for the right-hand rotor's rapid 26-step cycle per message—this elimination process isolated a small set of viable starting positions, typically reducing candidates from 26 to 1–3 possibilities. For instance, in a chain like G--B-H---X-Q, inconsistencies in letter mappings due to rotor wiring would eliminate most grid paths, leaving only those compatible with the observed repeats. This approach proved particularly effective for short signals where indicator depths were available, allowing the reduced candidates to be fed directly into machines for final key recovery, though its utility was limited by the right-hand wheel's quick cycling, which often required fresh depths for each daily key period. Turing's innovation in scritchmus significantly accelerated the overall Banburismus workflow by narrowing the search space before mechanical testing.

Advanced Analysis

Middle Wheel Determination

Determining the middle rotor's order and settings in Banburismus posed unique challenges because it influenced encipherments over longer distances corresponding to the rotor cycles—resulting in lower repeat rates than those observed for the right-hand rotor and frequent ambiguities between certain rotor orders due to symmetric wirings. These ambiguities arose from the 336 possible orders among the eight available rotors, where symmetric pairings could produce comparable statistical signatures without additional context. The irregular advancement of the middle rotor, triggered by notches on the right-hand rotor, further complicated analysis by introducing non-uniform stepping patterns that disrupted expected repeat alignments. To address these issues, cryptanalysts employed methods to score distant overlaps, including manual comparisons to tally multiletter repeats. Deciban scoring, refined for these longer distances, provided a probabilistic measure to rank candidates, with Bayesian priors adjusting for the middle rotor's stepping irregularities—such as double-step turnovers—to differentiate viable settings from noise. This extended analysis was particularly effective in 1941-1942 when message depths were sufficient. Typically, this process narrowed the possibilities to 2-3 candidate orders and partial alphabets, which were then passed to machines for final resolution via crib-based verification, as full disambiguation often exceeded manual feasibility. By focusing on these extended analyses, Banburismus efficiently pruned the search space, though the method's reliance on sufficient message depths limited its applicability during periods of sparse traffic.

Hollerith Machine Integration

Hollerith machines, originally developed by as electromechanical punched-card tabulators for data processing, were adapted at to automate key aspects of Banburismus, including the sorting of indicator pairs from Enigma messages and the mechanical computation of statistical scores. These devices enabled the efficient handling of large volumes of data that would have been impractical manually, by reading punched cards to identify overlaps and quantify alignments through electrical sorting and counting mechanisms. The integration process began with the punching of the six-letter encrypted indicators from intercepted naval Enigma traffic onto standard 80-column Hollerith cards, where each position encoded specific letter values or -related data. Cards were then fed into sorters to group pairs by potential overlaps, followed by tabulation units that used weighted wiring and counters to accumulate deciban scores for probable alignments, converting raw overlaps into probabilistic evidence via pre-calibrated electrical circuits. This mechanized streamlined the identification of depths, where shared settings produced detectable repeats in the indicators. Introduced in 1941 by mathematician upon his arrival at , the Hollerith setup marked a pivotal advancement in scaling Banburismus amid rising U-boat traffic, reducing the manual labor previously required for days-long overlap analysis to mere hours of machine operation. Good's refinements, including the adoption of half-decibans for scoring, optimized the system's efficiency, allowing a single configuration to process hundreds of indicator pairs rapidly while maintaining accuracy in . A key feature of the adapted machines was their ability to distinguish "even" versus "odd" wheel pairs through specialized card punching and sorting runs, which isolated parity-based discrepancies in the right-hand and middle wheels to aid disambiguation of the middle wheel order—a critical step in narrowing bombe search spaces. This automation not only accelerated overlap detection but also minimized human error in high-stakes cryptanalytic operations, supporting sustained breaks into Naval Enigma traffic.

Impact and Limitations

Role in Allied Victory

Banburismus played a pivotal role in the Allied victory during by enabling the decryption of a significant portion of German naval Enigma traffic, which provided critical Ultra intelligence on positions and convoy routes. From 1941 to 1943, this method allowed Bletchley Park's to achieve timely decryption of messages, transforming the intelligence landscape in the . This breakthrough countered the devastating effectiveness of German wolfpack tactics, enabling Allied convoys to evade ambushes and reducing merchant shipping losses that threatened Britain's survival. The capture of in May 1941 yielded vital Enigma materials and codebooks that further accelerated naval codebreaking efforts, including validation of techniques like Banburismus. By early 1943, the intelligence derived from these decrypts facilitated the Allies' decisive turning point in May, when enhanced air superiority over Atlantic convoys led to the near-collapse of U-boat operations and a reversal in the . These successes not only preserved millions of tons of vital supplies but also saved countless lives by minimizing convoy vulnerabilities. Beyond immediate naval gains, Banburismus freed up substantial Bombe machine resources previously tied to exhaustive rotor testing, allowing reallocation toward decrypting other Enigma traffic essential for operations like the D-Day invasions. Historians credit Ultra intelligence, bolstered by innovations like Banburismus, with significantly shortening the war.

Decline and Successors

The introduction of the four-rotor Enigma M4 machine for traffic on February 1, 1942, dramatically increased the cryptographic complexity, as Banburismus had been developed primarily for the three-rotor Enigma variants and could not directly determine wheel orders in the expanded configuration. This change, combined with the rising volume of encrypted traffic that overwhelmed the manual processes of sorting and scoring message depths, contributed to a period of cryptanalytic blackout lasting nearly ten months. Additionally, German procedural improvements reduced the frequency of exploitable depths—overlapping message beginnings essential for Banburismus—further limiting its applicability after 1942. Banburismus was phased out by mid-1943, specifically by , as advancements in automated methods rendered its labor-intensive statistical procedures unnecessary. The proliferation of Bombe machines, which reached approximately 50 by late 1942 and over 200 (including contributions) by late 1943, allowed for more efficient menu-based attacks on full wheel orders without prior manual reduction. Captured materials, including short signal keys from U-559 in October 1942, enabled direct crib-based assaults on the four-rotor system, bypassing the need for depth exploitation. Successor techniques centered on enhanced Bombe operations, with the Turing-Welchman design evolving into larger-scale deployments that handled the increased computational demands of M4 traffic. The , through , independently developed statistical cryptanalytic methods akin to Banburismus for wheel order determination and constructed high-speed four-rotor like those in the "Rochester" series by 1943, contributing to joint Anglo-American breaks. Post-war, the probabilistic and sequential analysis principles underlying Banburismus influenced Turing's designs for early computers, such as the Automatic Computing Engine (), bridging wartime codebreaking to foundational computing concepts. A key limitation of Banburismus was its reliance on depths involving at least three messages sharing initial settings, making it ineffective against isolated single messages or traffic patterns altered by post-1942 German changes like the M4. This dependency on multiple aligned encipherments highlighted its scalability issues, particularly as manual overlap detection became untenable with growing message volumes.

References

  1. https://turing.academicwebsite.com/projects/13-banburismus-cryptanalytic-process
  2. https://www.iwm.org.uk/history/how-alan-turing-cracked-the-enigma-code
  3. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/notes-alan-turings-code-breaking-days-found-roof-insulation-180954158/
  4. https://kodu.ut.ee/~lipmaa/teaching/MTAT.07.006/2005/slides/S10.Hendla.enigma.pdf
  5. https://csenigma.pl/en/the-cipher-girls/joan/
  6. https://www.nsa.gov/portals/75/documents/about/cryptologic-heritage/historical-figures-publications/publications/wwii/german_cipher.pdf
  7. https://www.nsa.gov/portals/75/documents/about/cryptologic-heritage/historical-figures-publications/publications/wwii/CryptoMathEnigma_Miller.pdf
  8. https://www.cs.purdue.edu/homes/ninghui/courses/Fall05/lectures/355_Fall05_lect05.pdf
  9. https://www.cryptomuseum.com/crypto/enigma/m4/
  10. https://www.ciphermachinesandcryptology.com/en/enigmaproc.htm
  11. https://www.ciphermachinesandcryptology.com/archive/Breaking-Naval-Enigma.pdf
  12. https://www.nsa.gov/portals/75/documents/about/cryptologic-heritage/historical-figures-publications/publications/wwii/solving_enigma.pdf
  13. https://projecteuclid.org/journals/statistical-science/advance-publication/The-Secret-Life-of-I-J-Good/10.1214/22-STS870.pdf
  14. https://people-ece.vse.gmu.edu/~kgaj/publications/conferences/GMU_IFPAN_EUROCRYPT_2003.pdf
  15. https://www.archives.gov/files/publications/prologue/1997/fall/turing.pdf
  16. https://www.codesandciphers.org.uk/virtualbp/navenigma/navenig6.htm
  17. https://www.turing.org.uk/scrapbook/ww2.html
  18. https://yetanothermathblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/hilton_codebreaker.pdf
  19. https://www.historyofinformation.com/detail.php?id=628
  20. https://www.codesandciphers.org.uk/lectures/naval2.htm
  21. http://www.ellsbury.com/gne/gne-000.htm
  22. https://www.codesandciphers.org.uk/virtualbp/navenigma/navenig5.htm
  23. https://math.oxford.emory.edu/site/math117/bayesTheorem/enigma_and_bayes_theorem.pdf
  24. https://www.cs.tufts.edu/~nr/cs257/archive/jack-good/weight-of-evidence.pdf
  25. https://www.inference.org.uk/mackay/itprnn/ps/265.280.pdf
  26. https://www.codesandciphers.org.uk/lectures/naval1.htm
  27. https://digitalcommons.dartmouth.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1272&context=masters_theses
  28. https://bilder.buecher.de/zusatz/12/12349/12349846_lese_1.pdf
  29. https://www.archives.gov/files/press/press-releases/2015/images/turing-enigma-treatise.pdf
  30. https://jhanley.biostat.mcgill.ca/bios601/CandH-ch0102/TuringProbability.pdf
  31. https://uboat.net/boats/u110.htm
  32. https://www.matematiksider.dk/enigma_eng.html
  33. https://www.tnmoc.org/bh-1-bombe-historical-background
  34. https://uboat.net/technical/enigma_breaking.htm
  35. https://www.usni.org/magazines/naval-history-magazine/2016/august/navys-imitation-game
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.