Talk:Cicada 3301

Species of the cicada in the Logo
Not sure if it matters, but the species of the cicada in the 3301 logo appears to be Distantalna splendida  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:84:C606:2360:C062:2577:5819:DBF9 (talk) 03:38, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Move the information somewhere else
If this page is deleted, I would like to read this information somewhere else. I find it very interesting and it is receiving new visibility. Consider putting it in the Cicada article, where the pronunciation is given. The pronunciation is not given here as it should be. — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 23:56, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Consider, ,  A few current references.  (Still just a few, but expect more.) — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 00:46, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I dont know how sources should be properly archived and published here. So I will just post few recent ones. Although information in all this articles is not always correct. Some sources that Wikipedia doesnt consider Reliable sources might be better.

The Province heise.de Washington Times The Daily Banter --SyncMaster192 (talk) 23:02, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Nobody has nominated the article for deletion since the two new November 2013 sources determined notability. The old deletion discussion happened before new sources determined notability. If this is contested and someone believes the article should again be deleted a new discussion must take place regarding the new sources. Until that time, It doesn't seem like discussing what to do with information in the case of deletion is warranted. Cliff (talk) 09:05, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I've removed the 'delete' tag that was at the top here of TALK. — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 05:57, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Can this section be removed since this page isn't slated for deletion, and hasn't been given all the news coverage?209.188.5.242 (talk) 07:46, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Who is Cicada 3301
There don't appear to be any sources providing reliable information on the source of the clues. The speculation that it is a recruitment tool of a national defense organization is likely hogwash, as national defense organizations would not have an incentive to recruit outside their respective countries. There is reasonably close correspondence between all locations of physical clues and office locations where Google is staffing jobs, both inside and outside the United States, with the exceptions of Hawaii and Louisiana. It's possible this is true of other multinational organizations as well, though. thecorbaman (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:17, 14 January 2014 (UTC)


 * That sounds like original research. Especially given the numerous reliable sources claiming it could being national defense recruitment (CBS News, Washington Times, Telegraph, The Independent, NPR, etc).27.122.12.75 (talk) 08:59, 29 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Google is known for having attempted alternate reality games in the past in order to recruit or draw interest, in addition to running an alternate reality game called Ingress

Drwdal (talk) 02:55, 6 October 2015 (UTC)


 * When reliable sources post wild speculation, they tend to be less than reliable. For what its worth, the word "CICADA" appears to be an anagram of a TRIE mapping of the word "GOOGLE", and 3301 could interpreted as a representation of googul. In fact, if I was a betting man, which I am, I would say the person behind the puzzle is specifically Neils Provos, a Google security engineer who wrote two of the tools used in the puzzle and who has a long history of work in steganography.

7 g 111  1    1  a 17 o 1111 11   3  c 14 l 1100 100  4  d 5  e 101  1001 11 i GOOGLE -> ACCADI -> CICADA

Further, the number 3301 can also be derived as GOOGLE GOOGUL 10^100 10100 10 10 00 XOR 01 11 11 01 3 3 01 Thecorbaman (talk) 23:33, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

There is no reason to believe Cicada 3301 is anything more than small group of crypto enthusiasts. Every part of puzzle can be reproduced by small group of individuals. Story mentioned in Warning Pastebin can be just lore, part of story to make game seem more real. This things are very common at indy Alternate_reality_games. And part of playerbase always think that some government agency is behind it. Media like this kind of sensationalism, and pick up those questions as reasonable theories (like RT did). There were many much more elaborate ARGs made by individuals just for fun. ARG PuppetMasters enjoy this kind of speculations, after all one of their main motivations is to convince players and media that "this is not a game 1, 2 ". SyncMaster192 (talk) 10:48, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Good Duck Firma (talk) 11:46, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Using Tim Dailey from the Family Research Council is not a trustworthy reference. This whole section reads like a bad conspiracy theory from the Satanic Panic era. Why not include the opinion of Jeff Rense too? Maybe throw a couple of quotes in from David Icke? 67.246.136.115 (talk) 22:55, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with IP user on this. This whole section stinks of conspiracy theorist nut stuff (like they looked at the reference list and came up with a story out of their arse using the reference list). — al-Shimoni  (talk) 17:56, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Clarify: By "This whole section" I mean the "Claims of being a cult" section in the article. — al-Shimoni  (talk) 17:57, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

What about some explanations of the puzzles?
I realise this game is very complex and difficult, but I nonetheless think the article could include a few sample explanations of the puzzles and clues, to give a suggestion of how it works. To a newcomer, it's not entirely clear what it's all about. Robofish (talk) 01:08, 11 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Yeah, for example what's actually hidden in the announcement picture. &mdash; Dsimic (talk) 01:13, 11 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, support. I've just now cited a Guardian piece http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/internet/10555088/Cicada-3301-update-the-baffling-internet-mystery-is-back.html about this year's round, which gives some info about this year's clues so far if anyone cares to expand on it. I don't have the time myself, and it's not really in my pay-grade anyway :). Coat of Many Colours (talk) 07:01, 11 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I've added many different types of puzzles under the Types of Clues section. Maybe someone can try to expand on them? I will too when I have more time.27.122.12.75 (talk) 09:00, 29 January 2014 (UTC)


 * For explanations of puzzles and ciphers I think best sources are this links
 * 2012:
 * http://www.clevcode.org/cicada-3301/
 * http://bernsteinbear.com/blog/cicada/
 * http://uncovering-cicada.wikia.com/wiki/What_Happened_Part_1_%282012%29
 * 2013:
 * http://uncovering-cicada.wikia.com/wiki/What_Happened_Part_1_%282013%29
 * 2014
 * http://uncovering-cicada.wikia.com/wiki/MAIN_MENU_OF_PAGES_FOR_CICADA_2014
 * http://the-cicada-puzzles.wikia.com/wiki/2014_Recruitment_Puzzle
 * http://uncovering-cicada.wikia.com/wiki/Progress_overview

SyncMaster192 (talk) 10:59, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Cicada 2015
http://4048.co.nf/4048.html Is this the 2015 Cicada? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A03F:1623:5700:B4E6:43FB:F000:E508 (talk) 19:27, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

No, it's not. Even if it was, it doesn't matter as this would be original research. No citations.5.9.97.152 (talk) 21:26, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Ridiculously biased article
The whole page reads as if to say "Look at us! We're so smart and enigmatic!" I really don't think I need to explain further, just read the first two paragraphs. Also stop putting this stuff in the article about the actual insects, there's nothing actually related. 176.249.49.181 (talk) 02:01, 1 December 2015 (UTC)


 * What do you want it to say? — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 11:08, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I've removed the tag per WP:DRIVEBYTAGGING. All these so-called biased statements are transcribed as found in the sources (inside quotation marks). We have to go along with what the sources say as original research is not accepted. If you can improve the article feel free to do so. -- Chamith   (talk)  11:53, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * There's a funny stuff comin from all this game... Everyone usually try to solve encoded info to get other stuff to decode but if use what learned from, just putting more then "1234" prime numbers to form another one as "3301" googlin it .info/.txt/.pdf and so will find not just puzzle's clues but even 'confidential' papers... Funny not?--79.45.76.50 (talk) 02:50, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Literary references: Antifragile
I can't find any references or sources for the comment that 'Antifragile: Things That Gain from Disorder by Nassim Nicholas Taleb' was a reference by Cicada 3301 at any point, and none of the citations seem to support this either.

So I'm not sure why it's in that section.

After searching, the only relevant hits seem to be tangentially related message board posts, which I don't consider reputable considering there is a well-documented wiki about the subject and numerous articles.

-- 72.214.181.99 (talk) 09:32, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

I dont remember this source being mentioned in any PGP signed cicada 3301 message or webpage. SyncMaster192 (talk) 17:07, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

There was no puzzle in 2017
Page states "The latest puzzle was posted on January 5th 2017 on a 4chan paranormal board." This is not true.

In 2017 there was "Mojave Phone booth" puzzle, that many thought it was legit Cicada 3301 puzzle, but it probably wasn't. Looks like another one in series of many fake puzzles made by Puppet Masters impersonating Cicada 3301.

This one never contained PGP signed message with Cicadas 3301 PGP key 0x7A35090F, or never posted anything from Cicada 3301 twitter account.

This is one of first 4chan/x/ threads: https://archive.4plebs.org/x/thread/18491379/

Here are three youtube videos about it:
 * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oNHVb0j2Aho
 * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mm_xFQ4EiWA
 * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WyRzyogiX4I

Dont forget that last Cicada 3301 PGP signed message from 2016 said: Beware false paths. Verify OpenPGP 7A35090F. SyncMaster192 (talk) 17:07, 13 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree, even though there are many sources covering this, there was never any sort of verification for a 2017 puzzle while previous puzzles all came with a PGP signature we could verify against the old key, while it's clear they still have recently used the key still. -- Crash demons (talk) 20:18, 13 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I guess there was not a puzzle in 2017 because the 2014 puzzle wasn't even been solved. The last message from the organisation in 2016 is encouraging solvers to continue working on the Liber Primus, not yet deciphered. Ref: wikia:uncovering-cicada:What_Happened_Liber_Primus_(Post_2014). As far as I know, nobody has claimed to solve this puzzle yet. Remember: if the message is not signed with the public PGP key of Cicada, then is false. --Zerabat (talk) 22:55, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

There is a new message in 2017
https://pastebin.com/yEiTHhvF

http://uncovering-cicada.wikia.com/wiki/PGP_Signed_Message_April_2017

Really not sure how to add info about that to the article since I have to use "reliable source"

3ncrypt0r (talk) 20:00, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Wikia is a user generated source. Like I've said multiple times, you need a professionally-published' mainstream academic or journalistic source.  That means something like a news source or a site like Ars Technica.  If the message is relevant, it's not like the message is going to disappear while we wait for professional coverage.  Ian.thomson (talk) 23:41, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Damn, I understand that you need someone who check PGP signature for you. But which "professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic source" will write about that message? It's not puzzle. It's just message. 3ncrypt0r (talk) 04:57, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It's really weird for me that you can link to twitter (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cicada_3301#cite_ref-21; lol, also tweet just links to pastebin), but you can't link to digitally signed message. 3ncrypt0r (talk) 05:07, 12 May 2017 (UTC)


 * There isnt any more reliable and original source than PGP signed message. And it doesnt matter if its posted on pastebin or in Washington Post. WikiPedia has some very unreasonable requirements about sources, that don't really work for all cases. The way to publish this message, would be to post entire message with PGP signature in wikipedia, but this would just make a mess in article. I will add pastebin link into article anyways. There is already one like this in sources. I guess readers that are interested has to google to find Wikia article with proof that PGP is valid or find link on this Talk page.
 * SyncMaster192 (talk) 23:39, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Wikia is not considered a reliable source either, it's user generated. Your definition of reliable appears to mean "I believe it" -- On Wikipedia, reliable means professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic source, and non-primary sources are preferred above all others.  The reason the tweet is allowed is that that twitter account is, per reliable sources, an official Cicada 3301 account (which, by the way, has said nothing about a new message).  Ian.thomson (talk) 00:38, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay, you have referred to some article that refers to Twitter account. Here is article that refers to PGP key: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/01/11/cicada_3301_2014/ (search "PGP" on the page). So now you can import this key and verify that the message belongs to Cicada. Isn't that enough proof? 3ncrypt0r (talk) 17:11, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * That article supports the existence of the 2014 puzzle. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:22, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * And? There is a link to PGP key. "a cryptographic signature generated by the PGP key used in the past by the Cicada 3301 team." 3ncrypt0r (talk) 10:08, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * What does that article say about 2017? Ian.thomson (talk) 14:15, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Ian.thomson I know Wikia is not reliable source. I linked to pastebin that contains PGP signed message signed with Cicadas PGP private key. This is even more legitimate than Twitter account, since PGP key is harder to bruteforce than twitter password. That pastebin is original source where message was found. And its not like this is only pastebin link in article. Do you suggest that we post message in its entirety in WikiPedia article? Some messages from Cicada 3301 were posted web pages that existed only for few days. Only PGP signatures prove that those messages indeed existed and were written by Cicada 3301.
 * There have been sentences in article, that I removed, claiming that fake puzzles made by impersonators were Cicada 2017 puzzle. No sources with PGP were given and nobody removed them. Yet when we try to post legit message from 3301 with PGP signed source, you remove posts.
 * With your current reversion in article, it looks like last PGP signed message from 3301 was from 2016. This is factually not true.
 * SyncMaster192 (talk) 23:15, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The mistakes other users have made regarding fake puzzles is of no relevance. Are you trying to imply some sort of hypocrisy on my part, as if I'm some sort of omniscient machine that "allowed" those but is trying to "hide" this?  If not (and see WP:AGF), I don't see how that's relevant.  Ian.thomson (talk) 23:22, 15 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Look, you guys just need to drop it with the PGP key already: you either need a professionally-published secondary or tertiary source or you need a source that's established as being an official Cicada 3301 outlet or account. Wikipedia does not use original research, which would include editor verification of the PGP key. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:22, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry for mentioning fake puzzle. It doesnt matter who removes it if its not correct. And I didnt mean to accuse you personally of anything. But understand that Wikipedias policy on source forces us, to pitch this to some professionally-looking web page. And only then we can post it. Its not a problem, we will do it if we need to do it. But if this is only criterion Wikipedia wants to confirm that things are factually correct, then this is very vulnerable system.SyncMaster192 (talk) 23:32, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not a matter of "professional-looking," it's a matter of professionally-published. If you put it on some website that doesn't already have editorial control, then it counts as user-generated and is unacceptable.  A website like Ars Technica or something like that has professional editorial control, they would be reliable.  Someone's wordpress blog (no matter how much they clean it up) is not reliable. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:39, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It probably wont be Ars Technica, but it will be more reliable secondary source than BuzzFeed. SyncMaster192 (talk) 00:13, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Some people are saying that according to this rule: WP:SELFSOURCE, pastebin in questions should be accepted as acceptable source. SyncMaster192 (talk) 04:53, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * That's why the Twitter link is fine -- it's been established that the Twitter account is a Cicada 3301 account. You need a source to verify that the pastebin doc is indeed from Cicada 3301. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:00, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I gave you a link to article with PGP key. You can import this key and verify that this message on Pastebin is indeed from Cicada 3301. It's the same proof as this Twitter account belongs to Cicada 3301. You can think about PGP key as Twitter account and tweet as PGP signed message. You said that it's "original research", but why you don't need an article for each tweet then? 3ncrypt0r (talk) 10:08, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * That would be synthesis, a type of original research. Like I said already, forget about using the PGP key, you need a professional source that explicitly identifies the 2017 message as coming from Cicada 3301.  What part of that is so hard to understand? Ian.thomson (talk) 14:15, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 3ncrypt0r Dont worry, we are gonna get message and explanation how to verify PGP published on some professionally-published website. Then we will be able to post the news. It just takes few days. And I know, it feels sort of cheap, that less reliable source is more valid than more reliable cryptographic proof of authorship. Ian and/or wikipedia just doesnt know/accept that PGP signed message, no matter the medium where it is posted, proves authorship more reliably than if same message is posted on any social media or it came from verified email.
 * Also we need to include this sentence: Cryptographically signed message from 3301 have explicitly denied the validity of any unsigned puzzle, as recently as April 2017
 * SyncMaster192 (talk) 18:18, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * When you say "we," please read WP:NOSHARE and WP:MEAT and keep them in mind. Also note that self-published sources (including user generated sources are not considered reliable.  When you say "professional," it needs to be something that a peer-reviewed academic source (not academia.edu) or a journalistic source that has its own editorial oversight and factchecking (not citizen journalism sites like Examiner.com).
 * The point of this kind of sourcing is so that almost anyone can verify it. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:22, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * By "we will get" I meant that community of solvers, that try to keep wikipedia article factual, has to pitch this to some professional author on some professional page. "We" is not cicada 3301. 3301 never posts anything, only this occasional messages, just to deny that they are involved in some things people accuse or suspect them of being involved in.
 * Here is the article: https://blog.threatstack.com/cicadas-security-part-2-when-a-verified-pgp-key-takes-you-on-a-trip-to-the-desert
 * Is this acceptable source? SyncMaster192 (talk) 18:40, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It's a commercial site with some news, not a news site, so it's a touch questionable... But the commercial activity is in a relevant field and the source features almost no advertising, so it should probably be fine. If I wanted to be a dick about it (I don't), I'd pass it through WP:RSN but I think the consensus there would be "fine until we find better." Ian.thomson (talk) 21:52, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you. SyncMaster192 (talk) 00:08, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Cicada 3301 and cryptocurrency?
> Others have claimed it is run by a bank working on cryptocurrency. (Ref: http://metro.co.uk/2013/12/16/cicada-3301-the-most-elaborate-and-mysterious-puzzle-of-the-internet-age-4229892/)

I've read the source and it looks so weird:

> ''But Richard Rigby, director of intelligence at Cadre Consultants, a London-based IT security company, imagines a different role for the Cicada recruits. ‘What cryptographic puzzles are out there right now that might be worth investing in?’ he asked. ‘Bitcoins. That’s what Cicada 3301 is all about, and I would say that it’s funded by a large bank or private equity.’''

> Bitcoins are created through a series of complex computations that, according to Rigby, are very similar to Cicada puzzles.

> ‘Now, if the top puzzles breakers in the world are found, it’s my belief that they are then recruited under a non-disclosure agreement to become Bitcoin miners.’

lol, anyone can become a Bitcoin miner. Bitcoin computations are absolutely not similar to Cicada puzzles. This guy probably doesn't know what Cicada 3301 and Bitcoin are. I understand that it's just opinion, but it's so meaningless. Is it possible to delete it from the article?

3ncrypt0r (talk) 09:31, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Totally agree. Should be deleted. --Ita140188 (talk) 01:27, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Deleted 3ncrypt0r (talk) 19:02, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Also there is another problem in the article:

> According to statements made to winners of the 2012 puzzle

These winners don't have any cryptographic proofs like PGP signed message. So we have "reliable source", but should we trust it? 3ncrypt0r (talk) 19:02, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

its aliens — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:603:5100:C60:584:3DC7:AB7C:3F7F (talk) 01:57, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Anyone gonna try and solve this coming january
Id want to form a group or something to solve the upcoming one in 23 days. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IRunYew (talk • contribs) 17:45, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * That's not what this site is for. See WP:No original research and WP:NOTFORUM. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:15, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Wrong logo
I found multiple different images that are described as the Cicada 3301 logo. This one looks like a death's head moth, not a cicada. The Telegraph UK and The Washington Times both have a different image in their articles, which are cited as sources here. What is the real Cicada 3301 logo?--FeralOink (talk) 04:25, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

The answer is, we don't know. We may never know exactly. Emotioness Expression (talk) 11:39, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Is it possible that the description given by the group might be true or is it possible to answer the question about information?
According to one email, allegedly sent by Cicada 3301:

We are an international group. We have no name, we have no symbol, we have no membership rosters, we do not have a public website, and we do not advertise ourselves. We are a group of individuals who have proven ourselves much like you have by completing this recruitment contest and we are drawn together by common beliefs. A careful reading of the texts used in the contest would have revealed some of these beliefs and that tyranny and oppression of any kind must end and that censorship is wrong and that privacy is an inalienable right. We are not a *hacker* group nor are we a *warez* group. We do not engage in illegal activity nor do our members. We are much like a *think tank* and that our primary focus is on researching and developing techniques to aid the ideas. We advocate liberty, privacy, and security.

In the same email, one of the three questions sounds odd. It reads as follows:

Do you believe that information should be free?

I don't know about either of these. What do you think? Let me know.

Source of music in TechGeek365 article?
The music section of this page says that there's only two songs. The TechGeek365 article decodes music, but not either of the two songs. I'm not sure whether the Music section is just incomplete or TechGeek365 is simply wrong. They seem to be referring to the fake 2017 puzzle in the article. Not sure if there needs to be an addition for these music or that the TG365 sentences and citations should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:204:E780:D3B0:8D02:339E:5C8F:586D (talk) 06:27, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

First 3 paragraphs have no references for bold claims
The first few paragraphs of the article have no references and make absurd, unverified, bold claims about the nature of the organization and appear to be simply made up. There are no verifiable sources of this information. Update: this has been resolved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meltymortuary (talk • contribs) 21:08, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

On Cicadia being a "live-action role-playing game"
I couldn't help but raise an eyebrow at the following passage in the article, which cross-links to the page on Live Action Role-Playing (LARP):

"During the first months of QAnon's existence, there were rumors that Cicada 3301 had created QAnon, and that it had created the whole QAnon phenomenon as a form of live action role-playing game."

LARP stands for live-action role playing game, but on 4chan (which is where the source seems to have done research on how QAnon relates to Cicadia) the word "LARP" is commonly used as a slang term to describe something fake or made-up. So if a user were to say "QAnon is a LARP", that translates to "QAnon is just something some guy made up", it doesn't actually mean to imply that QAnon is a Live-Action Role Playing Game.

This suggestion wouldn't even make sense. It's possible whoever originally made this mistake confused LARP with the concept of an Alternate reality game. 24.68.92.221 (talk) 12:26, 24 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Update: I've removed the claim from the article. Once again, even though the claim is basically a paraphrased quote from the source article, the article clearly did independent research on 4chan, and the claim makes no sense. The article itself seems to be the origin of the claim (it can't be found anywhere else). 24.68.92.221 (talk) 04:29, 19 February 2024 (UTC)