Unpaginated: <a href="http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/12/codes/?pid=1708&viewall=true" rel="nofollow">http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/12/codes/?pid=1708&...</a><p><i>Added in edit: Interesting that someone downvoted this comment. Did someone fat-finger it, or do some people really think it's wrong to give a link to the unpaginated version? I'd like to know. If you feel unable to reply here, then feel free to email - address is in my profile. Thanks.</i>
Stupid title.<p>Just because Kryptos Part IV hasn't been broken so far doesn't mean that it won't be. It was designed to be broken.<p>Oh, wait, the actual title is "7 Codes You’ll Never Ever Break" instead of "Codes Hackers Will Never Ever Break". The actual title is more likely to be true, especially given the complete crackpots that appear in groups like Kryptos with outlandish 'breaks' to the codes that are complete crap.<p>Breaking codes is hard, takes a long time and requires method. Most people won't break these codes.
Bruce Schneier broke these codes before breakfast, and now he's gonna break you! <a href="http://www.schneierfacts.com/" rel="nofollow">http://www.schneierfacts.com/</a>
On decoding the Voynich manuscript, <a href="http://www.edithsherwood.com/voynich_decoded/" rel="nofollow">http://www.edithsherwood.com/voynich_decoded/</a>
semi-offtopic: how could one crack a cyphered text if it was written in a 100% invented/artificial language, with no relation to any natural language, not even good word-to-word mapping (imagine a pictografic language like the assian ones, but unrelated)? where would one start without word-frequency analysis or something similar to begin with?<p>Maybe the Voynich manuscript has such a completely imagined language, and that's why nothing worked (if it's not a "hoax:, of course).