You are outside, admiring the beautiful snowfall. Suddenly, You are pelted with a snowball, then another, and another. You see Klaus and Wilson standing next to a giant pyramid of snowballs, throwing them at You as fast as they can and laughing. You begin to laugh, too - then You look down and realize You have no clothes on. They’re going to freeze You to death! You scream…
…and awake drenched in a cold sweat, which makes You wonder for a moment whether the dream was real. Then, You wake up fully, and realize that although it was just a dream this time, if You don’t crack this code, all that and worse could soon become a reality.
Since there’s no getting back to sleep tonight, You put on a pot of coffee and begin to review all You know about the code. You think back to your presentation at the meeting with Brown and the CIA cryptographers a few nights ago. You were quite impressed with Brown; he shows great promise. You, however, are beginning to worry you’re all washed up. You cringe, remembering the bored expressions on every face but Brown’s as You offered your thoughts…
“As Brown astutely observed,” You began, “the lack of one-letter words could mean that they’re simply not using “I” and “a”, or it could be part of the code. For instance, the code might involve using pairs of letters to represent each letter, or adding a red herring letter to every word, or adding a letter only to the one-letter words. But I think none of these can be the case here. First, if there were pairs of letters involved, we would see even letter counts in every message, and we do not. Second, one-letter words are just not that commonly used in English. But two-letter words are the most common words in these messages by far. If there were a letter being added to every word, then we would have far too many one-letter words. Third, if only the one-letter words were being altered, then there would also have to be some way for the recipient to distinguish them from the true two-letter words. This is possible, but why go to the trouble of complicating the code in this way when they could easily just avoid one-letter words entirely? And indeed, why avoid one-letter words at all? They’ve used them in the past. I think Brown is correct that in this case, one-letter words would provide a clue to the code. Perhaps they would even appear unencoded! I’ve learned to trust Brown’s instincts, and I think we should do so again.”
You glanced at Brown then, and saw him turn red and look away. So humble, You thought. But now, You wonder whether he was embarrassed for himself, and for You.
“Then there are the taunts,” You continued. "I think they cannot just be red herrings. True, they would be easy enough for the spies to identify and disregard. But there are always four taunts, in four different fonts: color, italics, underlined, and bold. That’s a lot of work just to mock us. And they display some unusual grammar, punctuation, and word choices. If they had free rein to insert whatever taunts they saw fit, they why, for instance, would they vary between “HA HA HA HA”, “HA HA”, and “HO HO”? Why such a short taunt in the last message: “LOL”? And the nonsense underlined in that same message: “^$<?>@#>*+%<>#=>~#%”? Why include them at all? I suspect that they can’t write just anything. I think they are formulating the taunts from the letters of the message after it is encoded. That means each one of those letters, numbers, and symbols is part of the encoded message, somehow.
"As for the fonts, I don’t know. I’d like to think they’re a red herring, and can just be disregarded. But again, if that’s the case, why go to the trouble of using four different fonts in every message? It could be that’s exactly why: just to make us think there’s some significance there. But it’s also possible they serve as meta-data - they provide instruction on how to decode the message. If that is true, it could either be that all the special fonts mean the same thing, or each one means something different. I’m inclined to think that if they mean anything, they all mean the same thing; including four different rules in the code leaves a lot of room for confusion. But if so, then why use all four? And if it’s just that each font needs to be present, in order to create the appearance of a significant pattern, why go to the trouble of highlighting such a long nonsense phrase in the last message? Then there’s also the fact that only one font is used at a time. That is, a letter could be red and bold, or italicized and underlined. But that doesn’t happen. That would also imply that there are different rules for each font, which would conflict if they were applied together. As I said, I just don’t know…
"And then, there are the non-alphabetic characters. Those are a stumper. There are 56 characters used in all the messages, and 30 of them are non-alpha. And of the 11 most-used characters (1, 9, !, R, 8, =, A, 3, U, Q, *, and S), 7 are non-alpha. They’re far too common to just be disregarded, or even to be meta-data, in my opinion. I think the letters, numbers, and symbols are all part of the encoded message. Either each character stands for a single letter, or they work in combination.
"The big question for me is how the spies know how to use the non-alphanumeric symbols. If they’re part of the code, then they have to be used in some kind of order. And the order must be something the spies can either memorize or easily reference. I don’t think there’s a separate decryption key, or we would have found one on Weeks. It might have something to do with the symbols’ positions on the keyboard itself. But if it’s that, I find it odd that symbols like (, ), and _ aren’t being used, but *, 8, 9, 0, -, +, and = all are. Similarly, ’ has appeared, albeit infrequently, but " never has. Still, there could be a pattern I’m just not seeing yet. Another possibility is that there is a decryption key embedded in the code. Some other interesting points are that there are very few words repeated; the vast majority are unique, and only a handful are repeated two or three times, across all the messages. Only “Y!” appears seven times, and even then, it’s not in the first message at all. Also, all the letters, A to Z, are used in every message. And while there are 42 non-alphanumeric symbols available, only 30 are used at all, and 23 of those are used in every message. All of this indicates to me that there’s clearly not just a one-to-one (or two- or three-to-one) substitution happening here, where each character or group of characters always stands for the same letter. I think characters can stand for different things at different times, somehow.
“Anyway, if I could figure out the order or pattern for the characters, or even make a guess at one, then I could start trying to decode the message. But I’ll admit, I’ve really got nothing.”
With that, You shrugged and sat down. In retrospect, You wonder now if that last sentence was the only one anyone else really heard You say. And You wonder whether, at this point, it’s the only one that matters…