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. Oh, I wouldn't be too sure about that. as the order of the letters can be itself a binary channel, you could probably obtain 3-4 bits of channel space per word for an *additional* message that can be decoded by comparing the correct letter order to the "encoded" letter order. obviously , this means going though the entire letter as a machine-assisted "spellcheck" as the odds of getting an accurate machine decode are low (the spellchecker is going to miss most of the contextual cues humans would use to decode the text)
> The whole point of steganography is to make the cover message look > normal. Nothing would make your message more conspicuous than being > filled with random letter rearrangements. In fact, this is such an > obvious and > forced alteration that it hardly counts as steganography at all. it has two functions. it makes mechanical recognition of the content much, much more difficult it provides a covert channel for the real message. --------------------------------------------------------------------- The Cryptography Mailing List Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
