Re: Printers betray document secrets
Ian Grigg wrote: It's actually quite an amusing problem. When put in those terms, it might be cheaper and more secure to go find some druggie down back of central station, and pay them a tenner to write out the ransom demand. Or buy a newspaper and start cutting and pasting the letters... or slightly more professional - lettraset rub-down lettering. available in a wide range of fonts, requires no special equipment to use, and (although not of any value in this application) sufficiently acid resistant to be used on etch boards.
Re: Printers betray document secrets
Simple way to test. Get two printers of the same make and model. Print identical documents on both printers, scan them, diff the scans. Some will be noise, repeat several times, see which noise repeats and you get closer and closer to the serial #'s. --Kaos-Keraunos-Kybernetos--- + ^ + :Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. /|\ \|/ :They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country /\|/\ --*--:and our people, and neither do we. -G. W. Bush, 2004.08.05 \/|\/ /|\ : \|/ + v + :War is Peace, freedom is slavery, Bush is President. - On Wed, 20 Oct 2004, Steve Thompson wrote: I seem to recall hearing a rumour that suggested that for years now, photocopiers have been leaving their serial number on the copies they produce. If true, and I am inclined to believe it, it follows naturally that something similar might happen with laser-printers and ink-jet printers. Ian Grigg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: R.A. Hettinga wrote: US scientists have discovered that every desktop printer has a signature style that it invisibly leaves on all the documents it produces. I don't think this is new - I'm pretty sure it was published about 6 or 7 years back as a technique. iang - Post your free ad now! Yahoo! Canada Personals
Re: Printers betray document secrets
At 05:23 PM 10/18/2004, R.A. Hettinga wrote: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/technology/3753886.stm It turns out that their techniques aren't all that useful. Changing laser printer cartridges changes the results. You might find that two documents were printed by the same printer, but it doesn't give you the options for tracking it down that manual typewriters did. And the differences don't identify a specific printer in a way that can be tracked, e.g. identifying a serial number that could be looked up from warranty records. It's not clear that they work at all with inkjet printers, and changing ink cartridges is even more common than changing laser printer cartridges. If you're sloppy, you've probably got a bunch of partly-used cartridges around, so even if you want to print out a bunch of ransom notes or whatever, you don't even have to go to Kinko's to get them to be different. If printer makers want to build in watermarking to make everything they print traceable, the way many of them check for documents that look like money and don't print them, they could hide patterns that survive cartridge changes (would you notice a few inverted pixels on a 600x600dpi printout?) But even then, inkjet printers are dirt cheap; when they're on sale, they're essentially a free enclosure in a box of overpriced printer cartridges, so even of the printer wants to rat out the user and it's not easy to change the serial number PROM, you can just replace the printer. Bill Stewart [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Printers betray document secrets
| It turns out that their techniques aren't all that useful. | Changing laser printer cartridges changes the results. | You might find that two documents were printed | by the same printer, but it doesn't give you the | options for tracking it down that manual typewriters did. Actually, they say they can identify the make and model - which is about all you could do with a typewriter. Going further, in either case, means tying a particular piece of text to a particular writing instrument to which you have gained access. Changing printer cartridges will certainly work, but then again simply replac- ing the typewriter will, too. Any identification of physical objects can only work as long as the physical object isn't replaced. In practice, there's a great deal of inertia in replacing physical objects, for cost, convenience, and other reasons. So such identifications may still be useful. | And the differences don't identify a specific printer | in a way that can be tracked, e.g. identifying a serial number | that could be looked up from warranty records. A bullet can't be tied to a gun's serial number, but that doesn't make it useless to examine bullets. | It's not clear that they work at all with inkjet printers, | and changing ink cartridges is even more common than | changing laser printer cartridges. The technique is based on variations in dot pattern that ultimately come down to small variations in mechanical parts, usually the gears that drive the paper. Laser printer cartridges are deliberately designed so that (just about) all moving/wearing parts are part of the cartridge. So most variations in the results are necessarily tied to the cartridge. That's not true for ink jets. While the paper describing all this isn't yet available, from what is published I don't think they are making any claims about inkjets, just laser printers. However, they seem to believe the same general approach - look for variations due to variations in manufacture that don't produce artifacts that are visible to the naked eye, so don't need to be and hence are not controlled - would work. Whether the source of the variation would be in the ink cartridge or in the fixed mechanicals, who can say at this point. | If you're sloppy, | you've probably got a bunch of partly-used cartridges around, | so even if you want to print out a bunch of ransom notes | or whatever, you don't even have to go to Kinko's | to get them to be different. | | If printer makers want to build in watermarking to | make everything they print traceable, the way many of them | check for documents that look like money and don't print them, | they could hide patterns that survive cartridge changes | (would you notice a few inverted pixels on a 600x600dpi printout?) Actually, this would probably be noticable in certain pictures. But slight variations in pixel spacing - which is what these guys look for - is not visible. (In fact, the origin of this work seems to have been work in the opposite direction: Early laser printers had a problem with banding, due to periodic variations in paper movement causing variations in pixel spacing. The trick was to find out how much variation you could allow without visible artifacts and then get to that level cheaply. But there is still plenty of variation left for appropriate software to find.) You could probably play games with pixel sizes, too. | But even then, inkjet printers are dirt cheap; | when they're on sale, they're essentially a free enclosure | in a box of overpriced printer cartridges, | so even of the printer wants to rat out the user and | it's not easy to change the serial number PROM, | you can just replace the printer. One could say the same about most physical objects that end up being used for identification. You would think that fibers would be useless for identification, for example - you can always throw out the clothing you were wearing and buy a new tee shirt. Still ... the real world has a great deal of inertia. -- Jerry
Re: Printers betray document secrets
I seem to recall hearing a rumour that suggested that for years now, photocopiers have been leaving their serial number on the copies they produce. If true, and I am inclined to believe it, it follows naturally that something similar might happen with laser-printers and ink-jet printers.Ian Grigg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: R.A. Hettinga wrote: US scientists have discovered that every desktop printer has a signature style that it invisibly leaves on all the documents it produces.I don't think this is new - I'm pretty sure it waspublished about 6 or 7 years back as a technique.iangPost your free ad now! Yahoo! Canada Personals
Re: Printers betray document secrets
On Tue, 2004-10-19 at 16:14, Ian Grigg wrote: R.A. Hettinga wrote: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/technology/3753886.stm US scientists have discovered that every desktop printer has a signature style that it invisibly leaves on all the documents it produces. I don't think this is new - I'm pretty sure it was published about 6 or 7 years back as a technique. I think you're thinking of color copiers.
