On Sat, 19 Jul 2014 02:45:05 +0300 (EEST) Sampo Syreeni <de...@iki.fi> wrote:
> So what *is* it with you people? Can't you see that steganography really > starts and ends with information and coding theory, unlike cryptography? > Its bounds really necessarily and from the start have to do with noise > and uncertainty, whereas crypto protocols only deal with clean data and > computational complexity (eventually, preferably, proven-to-be-hard > one-way-functions). Steganography really is its own, separate field, > eventhough it shares most of the randomness, signal processing, > complexity and whatnot, framework, with current crypto proper. > (Especially the symmetrical and streaming kind, BTW, which might be a > problem aand a subject for further study.) The many crappy "steganography" toys have come to define the term, colloquially, even among those who should know better. Information theoretically secure steganography schemes exist, and have been described, along with proofs, in detail by scientists. In fact, such schemes are in use today, in modern radar systems, but they are called "low probability of intercept" not steganography. Shannon had even proposed that symbols be encoded as Gaussian noise (the principle of LPI), but his goal was maximizing transmission rate, not hiding the transmission. The latter is just a bonus. Unfortunately, the meme "steganography is LSB encoding" continues. _______________________________________________ cryptography mailing list cryptography@randombit.net http://lists.randombit.net/mailman/listinfo/cryptography
