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. - Matthew Martin
