At 08:21 PM 9/18/03 +0200, edo wrote: >Come on, this is a terrible idea for steganography. Unless this catches >on as some sort of fad, which (a) it won't and (b) even if it did it >would be short-lived, then sending a message with its letters scrambled >in this way would be the last thing you'd want to do for steganography.
Are you forgetting: 1. the stego'ed bits are already noise (ie, encrypted), possibly shaped noise? 2. you don't have to make a mistake on every word? Ie, you model what human mispellers do and you can still have deniable bandwidth. ... Speaking of which, but aside: An alexic (due to MS disconnecting a certain visual-to-linguistic path) "hunt-and-peck" friend makes lettershape-based errors when typing, vs. the spatial qwerty-finger-position-fumble errors that I (an inaccurate touch typist) make, or the spelling errors ("I" before "E" yadda yadda) that visually-literate, careful authors make. [Some text-to-speech software is helping him regain functionality. As does Google's _did you mean?_, spellchecking, and his diary's (Excel, actually) search ability. GPS might help with his navigation problems.] Anyway, there's a human-error-distribution which can be used to shape the stego'd misspellings. Just like one's digital camera noise can be characterized before using images from it to broadcast stego'd messages. --------------------------------------------------------------------- The Cryptography Mailing List Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]