Jump to content


User Menu

Sign In

Sign In

Or sign in with one of these services

Sign Up

Forum Menu

More Staff Online

Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!

  • Archive User of The Month

    • At the moment no user of the month selected for this month

    • The Staff


  • Content Count

  • Divinium

  • Donations

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by oxin8

  1. I'll just throw it out there that the assumed typical way to solve it hasn't been proven to be incorrect. I've been working on it on/off for over a year and there's no reason to believe it needs solved a different way than all the prior attempts using the 48/24 transpositions. It doesn't hurt to try other ideas because at the end of the day, only one person is gonna be correct.
  2. I've been focused on the remaining known ciphers so I don't see myself going back to that in the near future. Too bad the Rev ones are ridiculous.
  3. Merry Christmas! All I wanted was a solved cipher.... Anyone still looking to make my dreams come true? :)
  4. Exactly. I'm sure time will tell(or not) but I don't think he's sitting around thinking "I trolled the shit out of them." It's probably more "I can't believe they gave up. I gave them everything and they're too stupid to look for it." While the ciphers might be too hard this time around, the estimated size of the plaintext from them is probably a small chapter of a book. We might be sitting on better answers than we could even imagine but it's just gonna take some time. As for the actual map, it's been clear to me that the community has just given up. Most people took one look at the subpar "ending" and trusted it to be just that. I don't really understand how anyone can look at the Rev ending compared to the other BO3 maps and think that we're done. Maybe we are and I just refuse to give up on the dream but I surely hope not. I will say this though: Game logic and trolling aside, Blundell is a man that works at a company that sells a product. You don't just piss on 8 years of buildup to troll a bunch of kids. He needs to sell another product in a few years and knowing you'd have a bunch of shit reviews with the Rev ending doesn't work. Additionally, you don't tell everyone that the product will keep users busy for 18 months and fail to deliver. You need to keep a job and make money to support you and your family. This may be just a game to us but it's this man's livelihood.
  5. 31 in a public match. Spent way too much time training on the upper bridge between spawn and the portal. The M1 with Eagle Eye is sooo OP(even if it's only for 50 shots at a time).
  6. Looks like we replied at the same time but I don't know. It didn't matter for my approach but it might be worth looking into.
  7. I just matched the symbols up with arbitrary letters and treated it like a substitution cipher. The letters look a lot like their symbols in some cases. Look at "FROM" for a good example. Edit: It might be real letters/symbols from somewhere but it wasn't necessary to know that to solve it. We'll see what else comes in the future but it might be worth it to investigate that further.
  8. Incase you wondered what the circle in the projector room says:
  9. Can I get the Liquid Divinium medal? I've been saving for so long and using just terrible gobblegums.... lol
  10. Created this after the first Revelations cipher solve (by @WaterKHreversed + simple substitution) after being told that they were gonna be really hard.
  11. oxin8


    Ok. If you remember what you used or something, we could go from there but in general, I'm busy with other ciphers and this one in particular isn't high on my list. If you're interested in learning more about ciphers in general, practicalcryptography.com is a decent place to get your feet wet.
  12. oxin8


    Caesar shifts work on a character by character basis so the input length will match the output length. If the input is "o yo" then the output needs to be 4 characters, not 2. Additionally, in a Caesar shift, each letter encrypts to the same letter each time it appears. This means that both "o"s would appear as the same letter so at the very least the start would have to be something like "be-b". Also, if you're using a Caesar shift, you don't get partial answers that are correct. It's an all or nothing thing. If you still feel that you're correct and just don't know the right name for what you did, show your work and we'll describe your approach in better terms.
  13. oxin8


    You said that you think they used different encryption methods but you failed to mention what any of those are and instead insisted that you know only the first word. Anyone could make a similar claim regarding any unsolved cipher and they only way to proof them right or wrong would be to compare it to the solution. You need to provide additional information as to how you came to that solution or it's frankly not worth anyone's time trying to figure out the answer using a mostly imcomplete and unverfied partial solution.
  14. I don't think it was there before the EE. Did you complete the EE before finding it?
  15. Some form of transposition. Got a good chunk figured out:
  16. Based on the newline (0d 0a), I'm fairly certain you're on the right track. We just need to take the translated from hex version and do the next step and I honestly don't know what that is.
  17. Well, those new ciphers are gonna keep us busy for a bit....

  18. HA! I guess I sorta did. Again, falling asleep over here.... The picture thing is a common use of base64 on the internet. You can base64 encode a picture file and then take the resulting text and nest it in an HTML file or a CSS file to be used on a webpage. People mostly do this so the web browser doesn't have to make another call to the server to get a small icon image. If instead of text hidden in the ciphers, Blundell wanted to hide a picture, he could do it and represent it as base64 but the same is true for any file. It could be an exe, a gif, a webpage, a txt file, whatever. There's smart ways to go about figuring it out but assuming it's not text adds tons of possibilities to the chaos we already have. I had the thought that they might be images and I think I've looked at one of the ciphers and it wasn't anything. If you wanted to try for yourself, it looks like you could use http://www.motobit.com/util/base64-decoder-encoder.asp and choose "decode" and "export to a file", then try opening the file in an image editor(might need to try different extensions).
  19. I keep semi-yelling at @WaterKH about this: They probably aren't hashes due to what a hash is. A hash, by definition, is a one-way encryption method. The only way to 'decrypt' a hash is to correctly guess the original text and get the hash for that and then confirm that both hashes match. A hash would be a difficult 'cipher' for us but it's really not a cipher. It is possible that Blundell put a hash in as a super hard 'cipher' but it kinda breaks the unwritten agreement that we can actual solve the ciphers.
  20. Hopefully I can explain this decently enough... here goes... (I'm also oversimplifying some things but you might not notice, lol) So in the past, most(some?) of the time we see base64 for a cipher, we decode it from base64 into ASCII and that would yield a message right there. Using: https://www.base64decode.org/ From: U3VwZXJTZWNyZXRDaXBoZXJNZXNzYWdl To: SuperSecretCipherMessage While that does work, it's not what base64 is most commonly used for. When you base64 encode something, it only uses a character set of visible characters: a-zA-Z0-9, and a few others. When you're dealing with computer data, data is stored as bytes. A single byte is a value between 0 and 255. In ASCII(see http://www.asciitable.com/), some of the corresponding characters for those values are known as control characters. Control characters are things like "tab", "carriage return", or "line feed". If you're in notepad and you hit "tab", the tab you inserted is stored in the data as a control character(value 9 in the ascii table linked). The point I'm getting at is that some characters are not visible in the 0 to 255 range. So, if you're storing data as bytes, it doesn't really matter if the character is visible or not but if you wanted to make it human readable, you wouldn't use ASCII. Instead, you'd want to use something that limits the character set to visible characters like base2(binary) or base10(decimal) or base16(hex) or base64. If you're wondering why a control character would be in the solved cipher message: it wouldn't. But if you used some form of encryption, the encrypted data may end up in the control character range. For example: Original text: SecretMessage In base10(comma seperated): 83,101,99,114,101,116,77,101,115,115,97,103,101 If you wanted to take the base 10 values of the message and subtract 77(arbitrary number) to encrypt it, the base10 values would be: 6,24,22,37,24,39,0,24,38,38,20,26,24 Now that's actually readable but if you were to display it as ASCII values, you would get(still comma separated): ,,,%,,',,,&,&,,, Or without the commas: %'&& If Treyarch just did that, we'd never solve it because we're missing the data. Best we could get from that would be: rtss But if you took the same encrypted data and displayed it as the following, you could get the correct data from it(commas added): Base2: 00000110,00011000,00010110,00100101,00011000,00100111,00000000,00011000,00100110,00100110,00010100,00011010,00011000 Base10: 6,24,22,37,24,39,0,24,38,38,20,26,24 Base16: 06,18,16,25,18,27,00,18,26,26,14,1A,18 Base64: BhgWJRgnABgmJhQaGA== So what's the point of all this? Well, the recent ciphers are showing up as either hex(base16) or base64. Instead of thinking that base16 or base64 is part of the encryption, think of them as the container for the actual data. I believe we're getting into modern computing era encryption and the encrypted data wouldn't be properly visible if it was written as ASCII. tl;dr: The new ciphers look like base64 and hex because that's how the data is being represented. We need to decode them from those formats into something else to get the actual cipher data that we'll be decrypting. While I'm pretty sure this is correct, Treyarch could have used this assumption to their advantage to throw us off. There's also the possibility of a transposition throw in the mix before the base64 encode to mess with us. (P.S. Nodded off a few times typing this. Just because I know it, doesn't make it less boring, lol)
  21. Solved by @WaterKH Reversed and basic substitution. Probably not the 'hard' ciphers we were told about...
  22. I looked at the people I initially thought of but post count/significance was lacking in August so I'm gonna hop on the @AetherialVoices bandwagon. I don't get super in-depth with the story but I appreciate those who do. Especially when they're well thought out with evidence. When I read his posts, I may not agree but I'm never mad. Instead, I get that lingering satisfaction of an engaging mature discussion.

    Whenever someone new tries to casually solve the ADFGX cipher...


    1. oxin8


      FYI: This is about people who spend only 15 minutes taking a stab out without prior cipher knowledge. Not meant to insult people just starting out. Everyone starts somewhere.

  24. Waiting for DLC3 on PC. BRUTAL!

    1. AetherialVoices


      Is it still not out yet?

    2. oxin8


      Download didn't start until 1:02 and it looks like I'll be playing in 8 minutes. 7.1GB total

About Us

Call of Duty Zombies is a fan-managed gaming community centered around the popular Call of Duty franchise with central focus on the Zombies mode. Created in 2009, CoDZ is the ultimate platform for discussing Zombies theories, strategies, and connecting players.

Activision, Call of Duty, Call of Duty: Black Ops titles, Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare titles, Call of Duty: WWII are trademarks of Activision Publishing, Inc.

We are not affiliated with Activision nor its developers Treyarch, Sledgehammer, or Infinity Ward.

Partners & Affiliates

Interested in becoming an affiliate/partner or looking for business opportunities? Shoot us an email at [email protected] to join the CODZ family. While you're here, show our partners some love!

Social Links

Facebook Group Join
Twitter Follow
Youtube Subscribe
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use, Privacy Policy, Code of Conduct, We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. .