Talk:Enigma machine

message: I added two additional external links:
Cipher Machines & Cryptology and Frode's Crypto Cellar
I also want to add two other links that are generally recognized as valuable reference information
Tony Sale's Code and Ciphers and The Bletchley Park Trust
I suggest to change the link to ellsbury's rotor wirings into the main page:
Ellsbury's Enigma and the Bombe
which brings a view onto much more information that the few rotor details, already added to wiki in the rotor details spin-off.
Any comments pro/contra on all links, mentioned above, welcome...
Dirk (talk) 17:36, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As I have understood it is decided that no simulator links shall be found on this page (as on may other cipher/crypto pages). Would it be ok to mention in the Reference list that Cipher Machines & Cryptology has a good simulator? I guess that quite alot of the people reading about Enigmas would like to try one out.Skarek (talk) 10:58, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: The following sentence, "During World War II codebooks were used only to set up the rotors and ring settings.", in the paragraph starting with "During World War II" in the Indicators section is unclear to me. I think the intention is to say, "During World War II codebooks were only used to set up the initial rotor settings each day." 
I may have misunderstood what is meant here, but if so then I am probably not the only one. So I ask whoever is knowledgeable on this topic to clarify it. Soler97 (talk) 10:56, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: During WW2 the Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe no longer used an initial setting. Each day, a new rotor combination, ring setting of those rotors and plugboard setting was given in the key sheet. There was no longer an initial setting (message key or ) since the operator selected a random message key, which was enciphered with a random start position. Naval procedures do had a startposition, the Grundstellung, but had a totally different use for them. More here: . I will change that sentence into: "During World War II codebooks were only used each day to set up the rotors, their ring settings and the plugboard.". Does it make it clearer?Dirk (talk) 15:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Much better. Thanks. However, I am still a bit unclear on one point. My understanding is that the codebooks gave the initial settings of the Enigma, which were then changed for each message sent that day. If this is correct then please change the sentence to spell this out for people like me, who like things to be laid totally bare. Soler97 (talk) 03:03, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not quiet. The internal settings and the plugboard are not the 'initial settings'. The internal settings (choice of rotors, rings and plugboard) were the same all day long, and of course set according to the key sheet. For each message anothe 'intitial' startposition for the rotors was selected.Dirk (talk) 17:57, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Could you spell out what exactly the codesheets specified? Are the ring settings and start position of the rotors the same thing? Was the plugboard rewired each day? Soler97 (talk) 02:28, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

text:  The Wehrmacht code sheets contained the selected rotors, the ring setting of the rotors and the plugboard. The ring setting (ringstellung) was NOT the startposition, but the relative position between the internal wiring of the rotor and the alphabet ring with its notch. More details about the rotors on this page The 'start position' or initial start position you are refering to is the actual message key, that is at which letter the rotor was turned at the beginning of the message, and was different to each message. This rotorposition was set manually on the exterior of the machine (and changed the letter in the little window). Wehrmacht, Luftwaffe and Kriegsmarine changed the plugboard each day. The internal settings (rotor selection and ring setting) were changed each day at Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe and changed every two days at the Kriegsmarine. On this page you can view some examples of key sheets. So: Internal settings: the selected rotors and their ring setting - in some cases also the reflector - changed every one or two days. External settings: The plugboard wiring (changed every day) and the rotor position (changed every message).Dirk (talk) 12:04, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification request 

message: I have reverted the edit that ascribes the invention of Enigma to Hugo Koch as this is contentious. See for example  which says "Many historians have erred in giving credit for the Enigma cipher machine of World War II famed to Hugo Koch and not to the rightful inventor, Arthur Scherbius." and goes on to give substantial evidence in support. TedColes (talk) 05:46, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good catch (and I don't even think it's contentious, in that much earlier writing on Enigma just got a lot of facts wrong, and they've since been corrected.) — Matt Crypto 16:59, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

text: The idea to use clear text for ciphering belongs to Edward Hebern - US Pat. 1,086,823 filed June 3, 1912 granted Feb. 10, 1914. By 1915 Hebern creates a number of non-rotor ciphering machines (5 patents). In 1915 he connected two electric typewriters by 26 wires (the number of letters in the alphabet). Modifying the typewriter in 1917 he created the first drawings to change the connection mechanically using a rotor. The Hebern single rotor ciphering machine can be seen in the NSA museum. This information is given in relation to the U.S. Patent Office Interference 77716 and can be found in the books Bauer F. L., - "Decrypted Secrets: Methods and Maxims of Cryptography", Springer, 1997 and de Leeuw K. and Bergstra J., - "The History of Information Security: A Comprehensive Handbook", Elsevier, 2007
Scherbius (German), Koch(Dutch) and Damm(Swedish) are second, third and fourth. In 1924 the company of Scherbius buys the Koch patent. So, please check the info and correct your record. Vebar (talk) 01:02, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Inventor

message: Should this movie go in the references?  I remember it was part of the movie, recovering a machine, but I havn't seen it in years and can't remember if it really is a major part of the movie. Cs302b (talk) 01:20, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't watched it for a while either, but I reckon a brief mention would be OK. — Matt Crypto 16:56, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If this movie is mentioned, it would please people on the eastern side of the Atlantic if there was mention that Hollywood distorted a real event by setting it in 1942 with US Navy personnel. As the Wikpedia article says (U-571 (film)) "The film's plot, though a work of fiction, is partly based on real events. It attracted criticism for two reasons: first, it was British personnel from HMS Bulldog who first captured a naval Enigma machine, from U-110 in the North Atlantic May 1941, before the United States entered the war. Second, German U-boat crews were portrayed in a negative light." TedColes (talk) 18:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless the movie claims to portray reality, is the disclaimer necessary? 69.135.185.154 (talk) 01:00, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

text: Maybe, though I'd be more inclined just to mention that the film exists and is based on capturing an Enigma...if a reader wants to find out more, then they can read the full article on U-571, and find out about the inaccuracies there. — Matt Crypto 08:18, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: U571

message: A new image that may be of some interest: :commons:Image:Bundesarchiv Bild 183-2007-0705-502, Chiffriermaschine "Enigma".jpg - a 1943 German photograph of a machine. Shimgray | talk | 19:06, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: there is a new High resolution image of the Enigma machine which I think is better than image currently in use. Slavomir.Freso (talk) 09:06, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It may be of a higher resolution, but it doesn't show the plugboard as well as the existing one. --TedColes (talk) 11:23, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

text: Ugh. The low res gives a better view of plugboard and has better composition, but the high res allows one to read the instructions. I'd give them equal rank. The article already has a pix of the plugboard. I'm torn. Use both? Glrx (talk) 15:33, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: My preference would be for the existing one. Those who can read German and wish to, can find the hi-res picture in Wikimedia Commons. --TedColes (talk) 15:43, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image 

message: I'm not Dutch, but the changes you guys made - deleting Koch - are based on poor historic research and taking for granted just any source. Karl de Leeuw, a Dutch historian already in 2003 proved that the Enigma was invented by two Dutch navy officers, Spengler and van Hengel. Koch, who was working together with Scherbius. There is no doubt about the solid research and sources of this work of historian de Leeuw, which was published in Cryptologia. His work is acknowledged and confirmed by other historians. I understand that some people are a bit bitten in the **** that their version is fiction, and I understand their err. In those days, the patenting of such machines was a very obscure thing, played in the world of intellingence secrets. More here. Do whatever you want with it, but base your actions (deleting/adding stories) on the work and sources of historians, and don't base them on an opinion.
Karl de Leeuw on the invention of the Enigma
Dirk (talk) 15:37, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, Spengler and van Hengel are now known to have come up with the first rotor machines (as far as we know), but that doesn't mean they invented Enigma, which was a specific family of rotor machines. A corrective article on the history of Koch, Scherbius and Enigma was published in Cryptologia also, see . — Matt Crypto 21:19, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Matt, the article you mention is from 1999, the cryptologia article that explains the invention of that machine is from 2003! That later article is a correction of the 1999 article, not the other way around! They did invent the machine. Of course, it was scherbius that named it Enigma, but who named it how is not the discussion. The simple fact is that the machine that was later called Enigma is invented by the two Dutch naval officers. No more no less. Saying that Scherbius made the Enigma is the same as commercialising a DW (Disk with Music) but actually produce a CD. It's not becaus you gave it a name that you invented it.84.197.193.79 (talk) 12:14, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  De Leeuw's paper does not at all, as I read it, claim that Spengler and van Hengel invented Enigma, but rather that they were the first known inventors of a rotor machine. In that sense, they no more invented Enigma than they invented (say) Fialka, SIGABA and KL-7. All these machines are far from being merely rebranded carbon copies of the earliest rotor machines; nor was Enigma, which had a number of patents filed about its specifics. — Matt Crypto 17:46, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scherbius and Koch discussion 

message: It presently reads as follows:
*The machine has become well-known because Allied codebreakers were able to decrypt a vast number of messages which had been enciphered using the Enigma. The intelligence gleaned from this source, codenamed ULTRA by the British, was a substantial aid to the Allied war effort. The exact influence of ULTRA is debated, but an oft-repeated assessment is that decryption of German ciphers hastened the end of the European war by two years.
WHAT source???  The second sentence practically contridicts the first sentence because the way it's presently written, no mention has yet been made of the fact that Enigma eventually did fall into Allied hands.  It's true that it's mentioned later in the body of the article, but that doesn't alleviate the fact that these sentences don't make sense in their present form.  The words this source (emphasis added by me) do not reference what the source is/was.  I suggest that between the 1st and 2nd sentences, another on should be added, one that would read, "That changed, however, when Allied forces captured an Enigma machine from the Germans, providing a valuable source of previously secret/classified information to Allied leaders . . . " or words to that effect.
Please forgive me if I've added this new topic of discussion incorrectly; I still haven't figured out the procedure, and no one has ever responded to my repeated requests for assistance.
Magnet For Knowledge (talk) 03:41, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Allied reading did not begin "when Allied forces captured an Enigma machine from the Germans." It began seven years before the war, when the Poles first reconstructed the machine on the basis of mathematical analysis and French-supplied intelligence materials. See "Biuro Szyfrów" and "Cryptanalysis of the Enigma." Nihil novi (talk) 04:48, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

text: You started the discussion topic just fine. Feel free to drop me a message on my talk page if you've got any questions about editing procedure, or there's the Wikipedia:Help desk. As Nihil novi has pointed out, the decryption of Enigma was not initially a result of capturing a physical device, but of logical and mathematical analysis. (Seizing a physical Naval Enigma did help Bletchley Park in World War II, as the Navy variant had additional security features.) So I don't feel there's any problem with the word "source" as it stands.  — Matt Crypto 15:08, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The second paragraph is poorly written, and here's why: 

message: There is no secret in the following procedure, so an attacker only needs a machine.  Somehow there must be a daily code incorporated into the procedure.
:During World War II, codebooks were only used each day to set up the rotors, their ring settings and the plugboard. For each message, the operator selected a random start position, let's say WZA, and a random message key, perhaps SXT. He moved the rotors to the WZA start position and encoded the message key SXT. Assume the result was UHL. He then set up the message key, SXT, as the start position and encrypted the message. Next, he transmitted the start position, WZA, the encoded message key, UHL, and then the ciphertext.
Tuntable (talk) 00:31, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The secret was "the rotors, their ring settings and the plugboard". — Matt Crypto 07:20, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

text: I stumbled with this as well. I found this site http://www.matematiksider.dk/enigma_eng.html#turing_bombe helpful in understanding the indicator procedure.  At first, the idea of transmitting the random indicator setting in clear text seemed to be completely insecure, but as Tuntable states, the rotors, rings and plugboard are still secret so there is still a 'daily key' although with a shorter effective key length.  However, since the random indicator is only used to encode a short random message key, it would make it harder to decipher the 'daily key', so maybe the shorter effective key length wasn't viewed as a problem.  It would be nice if someone could clarify the indicator procedure and discuss the issues associated with transmitting the random indicator setting in clear text.  Also, how did this new procedure impact the bombe? From what I understand the bombe required longer cribs to create loops in the menu. That wouldn't work for short random message keys, so did the bombe determine the daily key (without a  global initial position) and the message key (initial setting), and then only the daily key would be used to decode other messages?
The setting used by hobbists from 1970-1985 to receive feeds from reuters, etc, was REDRUM.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.134.243.171 (talk) 06:02, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: The following must be wrong (under Indicators)

message: So how were the messages decoded (assuming one had the codebooks or equivalent)? There should be a bit more on the subject.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.254.147.68 (talk) 15:27, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Currently we have, "At the receiving end, the operation was reversed. The operator set the machine to the initial settings and typed in the first six letters of the message (XHTLOA). In this example, EINEIN emerged on the lamps. After moving his rotors to EIN, the receiving operator then typed in the rest of the ciphertext, deciphering the message." — Matt Crypto 16:18, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Also see the article Cryptanalysis of the Enigma.--TedColes (talk) 06:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Decoding

message: Not an inventor. Just a patent owner. Vlsergey (talk) 01:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: An Error in the History of Rotor Encryption Devices? — Matt Crypto 06:59, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: There was much activity in  and around the idea of mechanical cipher machines in the last year of WWI. Dutch officers, Koch, van Damm, Scherbius, and in the US Hebern. It seems to have been one of those ideas which were in the air. The light bulb was another, and so was the telephone. Clearly quite  few folks had similar ideas. Unless there's some reason to believe one of them was copying from another, perhaps they all qualify as inventors? ww (talk) 21:41, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

text: Somewhat after the event I know: but in general the person credited as being the inventor of anything is the person whose name appears on the patent.  For Enigma, that is Arthur Scherbius.  Thomas Edison is often cited as America's greatest inventor because his name appears on numerous patents.  The reality is that Edison invented absolutely nothing himself as he employed armies of scientists and engineers to invent things for him.  Edison's name also appears on several US patents for inventions that were actually invented in Europe and were thus unknown in America when he took out the patent.  DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 10:21, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arthur Scherbius 

message: Vumba says that 'the "Bomba" was a Polish decrypt machine later enhanced by the British.' I don't agree that this is a good reflection of the reality. Budiansky (2000), and others point out that Alan Turing developed the idea of a machine that the Bomba represented, but worked on an entirely different premise. To quote Budiansky: 
 The Bomba had very limited applicability. It depended on there being three doubly enciphered indicators in which the same letter was repeated in all three; it also would work only if that repeated letter happened to be unsteckered, so its true identity was known. But with a text crib Turing at once saw that a series of Enigmas could be linked together in a different architecture to perform an automated search. And it would be an incredibly powerful method.
We do indeed "need to stay with the facts here".--TedColes (talk) 16:51, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not true. Without using Różycki, Rejewski, Zygalski techniques breaking cyphertext would not be possible, as those are mathemathical methodology. It can't be different. If it would be this would not be Enigma code. Just like for addition you must make operation of additing, and nothing else work for addition, no meter "how enlightened you would be". This is thanks to polish mathematical school (meaning group of intellectuals from Lvov (pol. Lwów) Lwów School of Mathematics and their works far forward then others that time eg. Banach, Hugo Steinhaus, Stanisław Mazur, Stanislaw Ulam. For this reason Turing was needed to understand this staff, common military personnel was not educated enough (or at all) in high mathematics. People don't like to admit they don't understand how it works - try yourself do you understand mathematical foundations of breaking Enigma codes? Quite well documented in Wikipedia even? It was easier to omit Polish contribution then to admit "we didn't understand what they were talking about", so Turing was a very good person as a genius to point him as inventor, but it is not true. British intelligence to admit that the most secret code of WWII was broken from 1932 by "wild Poles from somewhere wild place far far away"? And they didn't stop Hitler much sooner? How they would look? It was easier to omit Polish, and more beneficial. Second: for political reasons British wanted to avoid as only possible to show Poles for not to annoying Soviet Union, which were occupied Poland after Yalta pact.
(Previous Comment Unsigned)
As someone completely impartial to the article (this is my first time even reading it), I must say that the second introductory paragraph as of July 20th, 2013 is excessively redundant regarding the Polish contribution, and looks as though there may be some bias at work in editing by 83.27.208.66 (which is, incidentally, a Polish IP address). It is also very long and too detailed for an introductory paragraph.
Comparing the two most recent major versions, it seems the older version (by Arthena) was more concise/appropriate for an encyclopedia. The edit by 83.27.208.66 seems to add little of value. However, I'll leave reversion up to consensus.
108.222.214.13 (talk) 18:55, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Polish contribution

message: The Enigma Machine is used as a plot point in the latter half of Season 5 of the Popular Late '80s Early '90s British Sitcom 'Allo 'Allo. While the Actual Machine is not shown, it is mentioned in name between episodes #5.23 - #5.26 (and is Referenced in this Wikipedia Article) 
Thought it'd be a good addition to the section
--220.253.152.227 (talk) 16:16, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  For the Fiction Section - 'Allo 'Allo 

message: Does anyone know of a primary source for the statement that: "Winston Churchill told Britain's King George VI after World War II:  'It was thanks to Ultra that we won the war.'"?
The reference at  is only a secondary source. --TedColes (talk) 17:30, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Very good question. Now I see why you used "reported" that triggered my WP:W2W concern (nothing to do with W2W - my snafu). That said, WP:V and WP:PSTS guidance indicates we should trust secondary sources. -Chumchum7 (talk) 17:42, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  The issue is not primary/secondary source but rather whether the source is WP:V and WP:RS. So the issue for the given reference is its reliability. Glrx (talk) 20:52, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps the source does not even merit the title of "secondary source", maybe it is, in effect, tertiary by WP's criteria. I would be a lot happier if we had a better source. The best that I have seen relates it to an exhibit in 2003 on "Secret War" at the Imperial War Museum. I have e-mailed them asking if they have a source, but I'm not holding my breath. --TedColes (talk) 22:47, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Good call. If you are UK taxpayer, they have to answer you. That museum is funded by you. -Chumchum7 (talk) 09:10, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

text: That said, personally I'm satisfied that the ref is a reliable secondary source per WP:RS.-Chumchum7 (talk) 09:13, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Primary source 

message: There's an episode of the BBC television series The Secret War (based on the book Most Secret War by R.V. Jones) about the Enigma and Bletchley Park including interviews with some of the people involved, on YouTube here:   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.68.219 (talk) 16:18, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Much of that episode is not entirely accurate.  This is not a critisism of the programme makers because when the episode was made, the secret of Bletchley Park had only recently been revealed and much detail about how Enigma (and much less about Lorenz) was broken was still largely unknown.  It was this particular secret that was the reason for the series being made.  DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 10:28, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Secret War - BBC 1977 TV programme 

message: "Thanks to this,[6] during the war, Allied codebreakers were able to decrypt a vast number of messages that had been enciphered using the Enigma"... This statement does not appear to be neutral. 117.213.221.167 (talk) 02:39, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: 'A vast number of messages' is a matter of fact, so in what way is this not neutral? If the objection is to the word 'vast', what alternative adjective would be appropriate, as an adjective is certainly needed here? --TedColes (talk) 10:05, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Vast number of messages

message: Is there a source for the translation of "Funkschlüssel" to "remote key" in the historical crypto sense?
The translation of "Funkschlüssel" was changed from "radio cipher" to "remote key". My sense is Funk is radio/wireless and Schlüssel is key (and possibly cipher). When used in our context, it is a radio key or radio cipher or even radio cipher machine. When referring to the device used to open modern cars, it is a remote key or a wireless key. (Yes, I know that car remote keys use encryption.)
To me, the original "radio cipher" is better. The German WP article uses Rotor-Schlüsselmaschinen (literally "rotor-key machine") to denote rotor cipher machine, but my guess is that "Schlüssel" can also be used in the English sense of cipher. Google translate takes cipher machine to Chiffriermaschine, Verschlüsselungsmaschine, and Kryptogeräte. Also from DE WP, a book apparently describing Enigma cipher procedures is called "Der Schlüssel M".
Should the change be reverted?
Glrx (talk) 17:31, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Back in those days, a "Schlüssel" would also denote a "code", which included ciphers. So a "Funkschlüssel" refers to a cipher and not a key. I have reverted the change. Nageh (talk) 17:50, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

text: PS: A "Funkschlüssel" refers to a code/cipher for transmission over radio. Nageh (talk) 17:51, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Funkschlüssel 

message: Simon Singh was just on the radio speaking about Alan Turing and Enigmas, and they attempted a real-time interpretation of the cover maintenance German (they gave up as it was taking too much time). It was OK that it was moved from the page as a part of the caption, but raises enough questions to keep around. 198.123.56.183 (talk) 20:06, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  What idiot removed the translated English text of the cover maintenance text? 

message: The first German WW2 Naval ENIGMA M4 TURINGBOMBE break since 1945. Visit: http://www.enigma.hoerenberg.com/ and read the original U534 messages for the first time since nearly 70 years.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.209.190.247 (talk) 01:47, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  The first German WW2 Naval ENIGMA M4 TURINGBOMBE break since 1945 

message: Some work has been done on replica machines. Is it worth discussing? Rich Farmbrough, 00:14, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You've peaked my interest anyway. WP:Be bold would apply, I think. Skippydo (talk) 04:35, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Replicas

message: The article claims that Harris does not acknowledge Polish work on the bombe, but on p64 it claims Puck "arrived in the first week of the war to brief them on the Polish bombe". It also claims criticisms of how things were at Bletchley without support.
I wasn't there but the general treatment seems convincing - the mixture of informality and extreme security. Harris maybe assumes too much knowledge - Turing is very much in the background (as he was by 1943) and is hardly mentioned in the film. The major plot element - the total  suppression  of decryptions of the Katyn massacre - mainly hits at the secretiveness of the British, though the anti-Polish angle is bad. Rejewski wasn't even allowed near Bletchley and was certainly no traitor. Chris55 (talk) 18:44, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism of Harris's book 

message: Does anyone know the origin of the name?  Certainly the meaning makes sense, but I was recently struck by the similarity in concept to Elgar's Enigma Variations, a series of 14 pieces for orchestra based on a hidden, unplayed theme, written in 1899.  The mystery of what this theme is was unsolved in Elgar's lifetime.  Could the name have been given in reference to Elgar's pieces? Conscientia (talk) 11:29, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: "Enigma:[something puzzling, mysterious or inexplicable] - so no surprise in the use of the word in the two contexts.--TedColes (talk) 16:16, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origin of name? 

message: User:Jcolman1 has added a questionable paragraph about the Enigma D model to the "Commercial Enigma" section.  I have edited his paragraph for its many lesser errors and stylistic infelicities, but the whole text is very dubious, and I have marked it as "citation needed".  I cite the paragraph, below:
The three mathematicians were only recruited by the Cipher Bureau in 1932, not 1929, and by then they were no longer "students".  But there are more serious errors in this paragraph, as is made clear by reading Marian Rejewski's Appendix D to Władysław Kozaczuk, Enigma:  How the German Machine Cipher Was Broken, and How It Was Read by the Allies in World War Two,1984 (p. 246):
The Cipher Bureau clearly would have had no purpose in keeping the model D's wiring a secret from Rejewski.  User:Jcolman1's paragraph needs, at a minimum, to be thoroughly revised for relevance and accuracy; probably, to be dropped altogether. 
Nihil novi (talk) 23:32, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: "[[Enigma machine#Commercial Enigma|Commercial Enigma]]"

message: Needs explanation in table of what Uhr stands for. --palmiped |  Talk   15:02, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Simulators

message: The methods of the code breaking are very similar, he says.
Headline: End of common cold could be in sight
* http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/nhs/11390786/End-of-common-cold-could-be-in-sight.html 
QUOTE: "Scientists say 'Enigma machine' has unlocked clues to the way the virus of the common cold assembles - making it possible to stop disease in its tracks" -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 03:23, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  British scientist likens his DNA code message breaking to the Enigma machine 

message: The following was inappropriately put on the article page by an anonymous editor;
:The proper designation of the German U-Boat bearing the enigma machine captured by Roayal Navey Sublieutenant David Balm of the British destroyer Bulldog on May 9, 1941 was U-110, not U-505 as your article states.  Gott Mit Whom?, essay; David Balm, as told to John McCormick.  Published in No End Save Victory, Perspectives on World War II (essays) edited by Robert Crowley, G.P. Putnams Sons, Penguin Putnam Inc. c. 2001.
--TedColes (talk) 08:20, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The reference to the Enigma machine in Chicago seems likely to be that from U-505 which was captured by the US Navy in June 1944, not that from the pivotal capture of U-110 by the Royal Navy in May 1941. --TedColes (talk) 10:54, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  U-110 not U-505? 

message: The article has a picture of a four rotor enigma with the caption, "A four–rotor Kriegsmarine (German Navy, 1935 to 1945) Enigma machine on display at the US National Cryptologic Museum". Surely, the four rotor enigmas was introduced 1942, as the body of the article says? There seems to be some confusion between the total number of rotors available to an operator and the number actually inserted in the machine at any one time? Sandpiper (talk) 23:57, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  confusing picture caption? 

message: http://www.deathcamps.org/reinhard/allies.html  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.102.58.221 (talk) 18:51, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Enigma and Shoah

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Enigma machine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111104151545/http://www.eclipse.net/~dhamer/location.htm to http://www.eclipse.net/~dhamer/location.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110927033657/http://www.eclipse.net/~dhamer/enigma_p.htm to http://www.eclipse.net/~dhamer/enigma_p.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:24, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Apparently, for the Kreigsmarine Enigma, words like Minensuchboot (minesweeper) could be written as MINENSUCHBOOT, MINBOOT, MMMBOOT or MMM354. This makes excellent cryptological sense, except that I am not sure how you type 354 into an Enigma machine. You could try FUNFHUNDERTVIERUNDFUNFZIG, but that seems bit laborious.... Moletrouser (talk) 18:05, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: "DREI FUNF VIER" or "YEYTYR" (but I'm not sure this was used by the Kriegsmarine). The Kriegsmarine had short codes to compress information such as weather reports; that presumably would result in just letters. Some attacks made use of "EINS" being a very popular word; "Einsing". Glrx (talk) 00:09, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section 2.4: Operation; Additonal details - final paragraph 

message: http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/ockhamsrazor/learning-from-britain's-secret-decryption-centre,-bletchley-park/5136522 has lots of important info missing from this article. --Espoo (talk) 22:40, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  good source 

message: Is anyone here concerned about the relative lack of citations for such a long, in-depth article? I'm considering adding a refimprov template but wanted to run it by anyone more heavily involved in the drafting this article. Dvlsnthedtls (talk) 15:53, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional citations template? 

message: There's no link to this page from the WWII section of the Poland article, as if the work of the Polish Cipher Bureau made a less notable contribution than the Polish navy. Anyone with a view either way about that, please chime in on the Talk page there. -Chumchum7 (talk) 04:39, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Poland]] article 

message: Hi Fellow Wikipedians! I intend to update the details section, at some point in the next couple of weeks. At the moment, it is hazy, incorrect in some places, and doesn't differentiate between Naval Enigma and Heer/Luftwaffe message encipherment/decipherment procedures, in any detail. I have several images, which I think are now in public domain, and can help detail the procedures. Thanks. scope_creep (talk) 22:04, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Details Section

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Enigma machine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051021083422/http://www.armyradio.com/publish/Articles/The_Enigma_Code_Breach/Pictures/enigma_type_b.jpg to http://www.armyradio.com/publish/Articles/The_Enigma_Code_Breach/Pictures/enigma_type_b.jpg
*Replaced archive link http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:eer1yiuTrAUJ:artdaily.com/news/96771/Christie-s-sets-world-auction-record-for-an-Enigma-Machine-sold-to-online-bidder+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us with https://web.archive.org/web/20170617050627/http://artdaily.com/news/96771/Christie-s-sets-world-auction-record-for-an-Enigma-Machine-sold-to-online-bidder on http://artdaily.com/news/96771/Christie-s-sets-world-auction-record-for-an-Enigma-Machine-sold-to-online-bidder
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20030717071218/http://www.enigmahistory.org/text.html to http://www.enigmahistory.org/text.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:29, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Enigma machine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120213152736/http://cryptocellar.web.cern.ch/cryptocellar/pubs/ukwa.pdf to http://cryptocellar.web.cern.ch/cryptocellar/pubs/ukwa.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:30, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hi, I'm trying to determine the consensus for removal or keeping of the section titled: Typex. I think it should be removed. What is the consensus on it? scope_creep (talk) 21:37, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: No consensus needs to be determined for its retention in the article, as it is already there. As mentioned above, I oppose its removal based on the content at :Typex, which I believe shows that it is relevant to this article. General Ization Talk   21:42, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

text: If you're serious about trying to achieve consensus on this question, you might want to consider providing some reasoning for your position. As it stands now, your only argument here (in this section, and no editor should have to refer to another section of this Talk page) is that "you think" it should be removed. That's not going to lead to an agreement with other editors concerning the removal of the content. General Ization Talk   22:56, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I know, User:General Ization.  I plan to make a list of updates over the next couple of day and reasoning behind them. I've posted a message in this page, in the last year, where I gained consensus for updates to one section of the article. It is a old article, some of the stuff is out date, in light of new evidence, particularly the TICOM stuff, some of the stuff is superfluous, some of it is badly written, or rather more accurately needs clarification like the message procedures, in light of the new evidence, from Jstor and T&L. I also plan to link in, a new der fall wicher article which I plan to write, put in links and content for the people who actually did the work, like Buggisch, Hüttenhain, Stein, Fenner, Hasenjeager, Denffer and Doering.  I also plan to add stuff about security studies, including stastical analysis done by Germans. I don't plan to change any of the actual technical detail, or the design information, accept add new info about why it was built that way, and reasoning behind it, which is missing. I plan to copyedit it, and npov if that exists. I plan to add also new stuff about devices which are missing, which were secret until quite recent, which I don't understand why they are not in there. I also plan to put in the proper German names for devices, which are missing in some parts. I'll make a list and see what folk think. I believe in enclosure, having a single subject in an article. To early in Wikipedia, we have ended up with articles which multiple subjects. I doesn't really server the reader. Thanks. scope_creep (talk) 11:19, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Good for you scope_creep. I would need a lot of persuading that the entry under Enigma K is appropriate. But are you proposing to remove the whole 'Derivatives' section?--TedColes (talk) 12:26, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: TedColes, Possibly for Derivatives, since there was has been OR notice on it for 5 years. It could be put in a See Also, or even it's own article. There is only 3 refs, which are downloads, and don't provide much for the average reader. Perhaps a new article if it could stand on its own feet. It is only of interest to a very tiny, tiny minority of folk, who are likely to download a simulator. Comp Sci, math grads and so on. The K version, was broken within about 20 mins from the start of the war (metaphorically speaking), so it is not hugely important, historically, unless I can find some docs. It may be important for the Case Wicher article. I have that single giant doc, I was sent, and it does mention various cipher machines. I think it needs more supporting evidence.  scope_creep (talk) 15:32, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of Typex entry in article

message: We're still not quite there yet. If the Polish contribution was a sideshow, then Britain would't have sent Colin Gubbins and Vera Atkins in 'Military Mission 4' to Poland in 1939 to evacuate the Polish codebreakers into Romania under a hail of German ordinance, per Spymistress: The True Story of the Greatest Female Secret Agent of World War II
by William Stevenson. This needs a mention in the article (and reflection in the lede), as does Glrx's point about the many years of past experience the Poles had in decryption (in fact 1932 - 1939) which as stated lower down included their own replica Enigmas, their Bombe and their Zygalski sheets. To say "As used in practice, the Enigma encryption proved vulnerable to cryptanalytic attacks by Germany's adversaries, at first Polish and French intelligence and, later, a massive effort mounted by the United Kingdom at Bletchley Park as part of the Ultra program." is a misrepresentation of the relative French and Polish achievements prior to the war. -Chumchum7 (talk) 07:07, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Polish contribution revisited: Vera Atkins and Colin Gubbins 

message: The cipher machine invented by Scherbius in 1918, a glowlamp-machine, built and tested in 1918, has been later named "Enigma A", the writing machines (1919-1927) "Enigma B", the improved glowlamp-Enigma (Enigma A + reflector and Steckerbrett) "Enigma C".--Le Huic (talk) 09:06, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Enigma A, B, C 

message: I can't believe that this is a serious suggestion. The cited source does not suppot the idea. The Oxford English Dictionary gives the etymology of the word enigma as "mid 16th century: via Latin from Greek ainigma". So, the word and its meaning would be known to educated Europeans. --TedColes (talk) 09:35, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, this seems highly dubious.  A far better source than currently in use is needed.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 09:41, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name from Elgar's Enigma Variations? 

message: :This statement, from the "Enigma machine" article's lead, is misleading.
:The Lorenz cipher was Germany's World War II top cipher, though it came into use later in the war.
:Nihil novi (talk) 20:06, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "even the most top–secret messages were enciphered on [Enigma's] electrical circuits" 

message: How were numerals encoded? Were they spelt out as words ? In R.V. Jones’s ‘Secret War’ he cites an Ultra decrypt re the detection of a Knickebein beam which is mostly compass bearings, times, heights, and frequencies. So how ? 2001:8003:3020:1C00:7013:2CC2:B26C:A9CF (talk) 09:51, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Numerals? 

message: Really? I feel like he at least deserves a mention. Rhosnes (talk) 07:01, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I came to this talk page for the same reason. I know next to nothing about this topic, but I am editing a non-Wikipedia article about AI that mentions Turing and what he was famous for already by 1950, when he wrote "Computing Machinery and Intelligence." I thought he would've been famous at that point for something to do with the Enigma machine. A Ctrl+F of this article seems to indicate otherwise. Then again maybe I have been unduly influenced by Hollywood over the years—namely by U-571 and Imitation Game. But still was he famous for that or not? Wouldn't it be good to mention him at least once, even if it is to say he has nothing to do with it? A bored human (talk) 12:30, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  How goes it? This article is on the Enigma rotor cipher machine only. There is a article called Cryptanalysis of the Enigma that describes how Polish intelligence broke the Enigma encipherment and how that was used by the British to break further Engima encipherments during the war. Turing is mentioned in this article. He took a lead in break Enigma ciphers and built a machine to do it automatically. However, the Enigma rotor cipher machine, its design and use by the German military during the interwar period and world war II are nothing to do with Turing. Its not the correct context. The U-571 (film) article is historical fiction. It was a British unit that recovered the cipher book before the Americans even entered the war. Hope that helps. scope_creepTalk 13:06, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

text:  It wasn't just Turing that broken the Enigma cipher, there was many folk of equal importance who worked on, many thousands.  scope_creepTalk 13:07, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not a single mention of Turing? 

message: I removed this sentence from the history: *This [the invention of Enigma by Scherbius] was unknown until 2003 when a paper by Karl de Leeuw was found that described in detail Scherbius' changes. 
This is not what that reference says at all; moreover de Leeuw's paper was not found in 2003. The source instead describes an earlier 1915 rotor encryption device invented by two Dutch engineers. —BillC talk 23:59, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  2003 paper by de Leeuw 

message: Citation [8] has a broken link
New link is https://cryptocellar.org/enigma/files/rew80.pdf
Sorry I cannot figure out how to edit it 49.196.83.111 (talk) 07:38, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Done - the article used the (IMO) convoluted SFN reference format, and it's a nightmare to figure out.  Thanks for spotting.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 11:52, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broken link 

message: In the section about Design> Reflector: "With the exception of models A and B, the last rotor came before a 'reflector' " 
That's inconsistent with the section about Models > Die Glühlampenmaschine, Enigma A (1924):
"The reflector, suggested by Scherbius' colleague Willi Korn, was introduced with the glow lamp version."
And just after that in the description for Enigma B:
"... both models A and B were quite unlike later versions: They differed in physical size and shape, but also cryptographically, in that they lacked the reflector.
I suspect there's a mistake in one or the other but I'm not sure which. EchelonForce (talk) 13:32, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction of Reflector isn't consistent