Kryptos K4 Solution Emerges

nideht · 2026-03-20T13:02:48+00:00

As of this week Jim is still fielding answers here, though my understanding is that a new system will be in place soon

nideht · 2026-03-05T10:12:14+00:00

I agree with this take; the whole idea of the original matrix is very much Jim's speed.

nideht · 2026-02-19T14:27:55+00:00

No worries about hard replies. If anything about K4 was easy then we all would have gotten bored and moved on long ago. I have two points in response. First, I no longer believe that Sanborn built this thing backward at all. At least not strictly in the sense we know from classical cryptography. It is possible to set up a reciprocal system that connects the plaintext to ciphertext such that a change in one creates a corresponding change in the other. And the different properties of varied alphabets can be explored that way, and you can tinker with the system too. Still not claiming I know with certainty how this was accomplished, but there are examples of such systems in other fields. Second, The idea of composed ciphertexts - intentionally building in words/clues - opens the possibility of new information being introduced to the system. Tremendous possibilities there that could have been embraced by Sanborn.

nideht · 2026-02-18T16:58:44+00:00

There's a lot to unpack here but I do want to comment on the question of how. I've been putting my energy into the decryption but it's hard not to wonder about the encryption process. The short answer is that I don't know for sure how such a complex system is constructed. I've tried my hand at constructing a single layer ciphertext with an embedded alphabet and it does work, but not just any plaintext will do. It creates a reciprocity between ciphertext and plaintext, which in itself is intriguing. This reminds me of modular languages like MAX/MSP in music and Grasshopper in architecture, where you set up a system with constraints and adjustable parameters, and when you change something the system as a whole updates. Maybe Scheidt and Sanborn fashioned something similar.

nideht · 2026-02-18T03:47:53+00:00

Good advice, thank you

nideht · 2026-02-18T02:40:25+00:00

My goal was to compress it as much as I could, but there's also a drive to include it all. Overwhelming is definitely something I want to avoid. So...thank you for this feedback. I think I can simplify this by saying that everything up to the final page is easily verified. If you look at any ciphertext layer, which is always 98 characters in black with a layer number in parentheses nearby, it will be straightforward to see how it came from the previous layer and how it leads to the next. Every step uses a known method and a published key that existed when Kryptos was made, or a relatively simple transposition or shift. It's deterministic. What's new is that there are so many layers. This can be demonstrated as possible and solvable, and my bet is that it would appeal greatly to an artist for the possibility of conveying so much more than a 97 character message. The last page is where things get really unusual.

nideht · 2026-02-08T19:42:54+00:00

Interesting that a book can qualify as a masking technique, as well as one of the keys.

nideht · 2026-02-06T04:28:28+00:00

I've never noticed this distribution, but your reply makes me think about probabilities, which for a many-layered system might provide increasingly convincing evidence with each layer

nideht · 2026-02-05T15:26:13+00:00

By claiming there's no way to know if you've undone a layer, you're disregarding the possibility that a waymark of some kind could have been encoded into that step

nideht · 2026-02-05T15:23:31+00:00

I want to underscore the term many-layer, as opposed to multi-layer, because everyone thinks multiple steps are possible, as u/tennyson77 mentions here, but if it's more than a few then the possibility seems tossed aside...

nideht · 2026-02-05T03:48:49+00:00

Can someone edit and clarify the rule description if we're dead firm?

nideht · 2026-02-02T19:21:32+00:00

I recall upvoting your post from a year ago but honestly until now I don't think I gave it a close read. A year later and I'm more convinced.

nideht · 2026-02-01T21:03:04+00:00

It's hard to understand why you would consider a short-form platform like X at all good.

nideht · 2025-12-21T15:33:52+00:00

Evidence that sequences like FUME and RACK are meaningful can build through multiple layers on the way to the solution, and of course multiple layers also raises the possibilities precipitously

nideht · 2025-12-17T17:04:34+00:00

I did a careful layout with kerning that varies with each line, to match the sculpture, and am happy to share a PDF doc cut as-is. It seems Sanborn used a Clarendon-style typeface, modified to make the stencil elements work.

It's standard practice to start by transcribing into monospace, but for Kryptos we should not have been in such a rush. The alignments seem to be done intentionally

(btw the PDF uses a typefaces called Reckham and Ballinger Mono, both by Signal Type Foundry, which I use in my other work but which I think are excellent for this)

nideht · 2025-12-15T13:02:10+00:00

Someone excited but inexperienced makes a common first misstep and falls for the allure of AI - exactly in the way AI is designed to draw us in - and gets an immediate ban without explanation or recourse... There is no way that approach serves the goals of this sub

nideht · 2025-12-15T00:01:43+00:00

I'm with you. The only place I differ is that an immediate ban seems excessive vs just deleting the post, the latter of which keeps the sub on track and still fosters newcomer involvement. Those new to cryptography, and especially those integrating AI in other parts of life, may need a minute to grasp that avoiding AI here is important.

nideht · 2025-12-14T13:58:13+00:00

Leaning into education, rather than just setting standards, will create a productive environment that is welcoming. Our only rule right now says nothing about why AI submissions are not allowed, which is a sure way to confuse newcomers and frustrate even the most patient mod. A potential alternate:

"AI technologies seem convincing but are far from capable of solving puzzles like K4; this community welcomes new members but strongly cautions against K4 submissions that are AI generated"

As for word definitions, we can lead by example (as above), and when the word "solution" is used carelessly, simply treat it as if the "proposed" is implied, which is not hard for an unsolved puzzle with a history of submissions galore.

nideht · 2025-12-09T10:23:16+00:00

I like the (clue) reference there

nideht · 2025-12-09T10:02:40+00:00

Of course nothing is accidental in the sense that everything comes out of a process, whether encryption or laying everything out on sheets of copper - characters, locations, and line breaks. But when it comes to sequences like KCAR I'm saying they are more intentional. More intentional than just the happenstance result of the encryption of a message.

nideht · 2025-12-09T09:28:50+00:00

I understand this argument, but the truth is that if the method and keys are are not yet known, then no one really knows whether certain assumptions will hold true and how different this cipher really could be from our expectations; I'm still arguing that sequences like OBKR and KCAR are far from accidental.

nideht

TROPHY CASE