Talk:KW-26
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. |
traffic flow security
[edit]I don't understand the newly added claim that "The benefit of traffic-flow security was lost each time new cards were inserted." An adversary would know that the circuit was down for a brief period while the circuit was resynchronized, but I don't see how that would materially aid in traffic analysis.--agr 18:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
When the circuit was resynchronized the operators communicated using teleprinters in plain text in 'local mode' to coordinate the placement of the cards at each end. The sending unit would send out a set pattern that allowed the receiving unit to synchronize. Once synchronized the operators 'tested' the 'set' by typing over circuit in local mode. The messages sent to test the 'set' of the circuit were very predictable, and the use of manual text meant there was a relatively long period when the teleprinter was idle -- sending out a constant 'mark'. When coupled with the known start time of the cypher stream, this gave a code cracker a unique 'hook' that vastly reduced the number of combinations to check to crack the early code stream. A reset often resulted in both send-receive pairs being reset one after the other, although this was usually unnecessary, and merely weakened the security of the circuit becasue it exposed both legs to analysis at roughly the same time. Once the TX-RX pairs were reset, they were switched to 'online' mode and on busy circuits this meant that an almost immediate live traffic flow would commence. The 'reset to live traffic' transition would be relatively short (usually only a few minutes), and so gave a code cracker a relatively short block of traffic to analyze to break the code for that set. It is suspected that efforts were made to deliberately compromise KW-26 circuits by having rogue operators 'break' and reset circuits at times when the circuits were being monitored and analyzed.Borisbeyond 16:40, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
The Pueblo Affair
[edit]My understanding from my senior NCO's of the time was that it was KW-7's that were on board the Pueblo, which would make sense in terms of the physical room constraints on a vessel of that size. I was also given a general brief on the modifications that were undertaken on the KW-7 as a consequence of the device being compromised. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.252.32.63 (talk) 05:14, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
During my years as a cryptotech in the Air Force, 1983-1987, the single reason we were still using these antiquated P>O>S>(they used reverse electron theory for petes sake) were that they had NEVER been compromised.It was the KW-7 and the KG-13 on board the Pueblo. also here is a very informative pdf file from the N.S.A. http://www.jproc.ca/crypto/kw26.pdf 165.130.136.206 (talk) 21:54, 24 August 2011 (UTC)Sgt John Wyrick USAF165.130.136.206 (talk) 21:54, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Crypto Equipment Aboard the USS Pueblo Did Not Include KW-26's or KG-13'S
[edit]According to NSA report "Report on the Assessment of Cryptographic Damage Resulting From the Loss of USS PUEBLO (AGER-2)" dated 28 July 1969, the following cryptographic machines were on board: one KL-7, two KW-7's, three KWR-37's (receivers), and 4 KG-14's. In addition were key lists(used and future), repair kits, etc. In other words, there were no KW-26's.[1] 98.109.213.65 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:08, 10 February 2014 (UTC)