Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
You are not logged in or you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:
You are not logged in. If you are already registered, fill in the form below to log in, or follow the "Sign Up" link to register a new account.
You may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.
The Register had a better headline with Crack GCHQ's code and become the next James Bond. I immediately thought "What would James Bond do here?", and the answer didn't involve working it out himself, but stealing the answer from a heavily guarded vault or coercing it out of someone (cue pretty lady and the chance to use his charm on her).
Lateral thinking.
Got to the 'You did it' page without cracking the code.
It's not very exciting.
I like that approach.
The Register had a better headline with Crack GCHQ's code and become the next James Bond. I immediately thought "What would James Bond do here?", and the answer didn't involve working it out himself, but stealing the answer from a heavily guarded vault or coercing it out of someone (cue pretty lady and the chance to use his charm on her).
The work does actually sound pretty interesting. Shame about the derisory salaries though.
Obviously these are starter jobs, and one has to hope the salary scales rise steeply, or else you'd need rich (and generous) parents or a high-earning partner to even contemplate working there.
They pay their code breaking staff 20k yet the outsourced guy who fixes the printers is on 50k just because he has DV.
True. There's more money in supplying them with paperclips (that are from a security approved supplier so need a 1000% markup ) than working for them or any other government department directly.
Especially now the government is cutting back on the staff, and will have to get contractors in to do the work.
If the geniuses that run GCHQ are struggling to solve the puzzle of why they can't attract people with brains it's no wonder they need help with codebreaking. I suspect this is less about recruitment and more about lulling the enemy into a false sense of security.
They pay their code breaking staff 20k yet the outsourced guy who fixes the printers is on 50k just because he has DV.
Apparently solving the code takes you to a GCHQ application form for ~£20K roles
If the geniuses that run GCHQ are struggling to solve the puzzle of why they can't attract people with brains it's no wonder they need help with codebreaking. I suspect this is less about recruitment and more about lulling the enemy into a false sense of security.
Looked at it for a bit last night, thought I could get somewhere then lost interest when I realised I would have to type it all out again as it was on an image.
Lazybones - Only took me about 5 minutes to type out.
There are several repeated sequences that occur in both blocks, such as "df 29 cf" (just over half way down, and of course the two lots of "41 41 41 41". Also, there seem far more 88s and 89s than one would expect by chance.
Counting the distances between the 89s and mapping these to A, B, C, ... I ended up with "FKBCLEAIM", which if you squint at it seems to contain a garbled version of "FACEBOOK"; but that might just be coincidence.
Leave a comment: