I realize that this is *slightly* simplistic, but comparing 2
(preferably 3 or more) copies of the data with different
watermark contents should quickly reveal where and what
constitutes the watermarking.
Of course, there are methods to make this more onerous -
MACing the watermarked data
I think a watermark is more likely to be keyed. Without the key
it's a bit harder to be sure to remove the watermark without affecting
the quality of the image. With the key you can tell which parts of
the message to remove.
In addition watermarking has to mean a mark tied to the identity
of
On Fri, 9 Feb 2001, Steve Schear wrote:
I know this has been mentioned before, but it seems to me that we should
make use of all the great CRM watermarking technologies being
developed. One of the primary goals of such technology is to hide the
watermark in such a way that it cannot be isolated
At 06:37 PM 2/10/01 +0200, Sampo Syreeni wrote:
On Fri, 9 Feb 2001, Steve Schear wrote:
I know this has been mentioned before, but it seems to me that we should
make use of all the great CRM watermarking technologies being
developed. One of the primary goals of such technology is to hide the
On Wed, Feb 07, 2001 at 08:18:31PM -0400, Adam Back wrote:
I wonder if they're using PGP stealth 2 that I contributed to
based on Henry Hastur's 1. It's kind of interesting to see
these things used in the field.
However one suspects unless they had some hired security
consultants it may
On Fri, 9 Feb 2001, Declan McCullagh wrote:
Right. Prominent articles in USA Today and eslewhere, followed by front-page
LA Times article, followed by the Fidel Castro cyberterror hearing on Wed.
There's a pattern.
Yah. A pretty blatant one. I'm wondering though why they're
concentrating
On Fri, 9 Feb 2001, Declan McCullagh wrote:
Also you've got to wonder if the whole thing is some
spook public opnion manipulation attempt. And then
Right. Prominent articles in USA Today and eslewhere, followed by front-page
LA Times article, followed by the Fidel Castro cyberterror
At 09:05 AM 2/7/01 -0800, Tim May wrote:
At 10:25 AM +0100 2/7/01, Tom wrote:
damn, it seems someone already did what I proposed a while ago under
the thread "stego for the censored".
if anyone in here has contacts to these terrorists, can you ask them for
the software, please? maybe they want to
At 10:25 AM +0100 2/7/01, Tom wrote:
damn, it seems someone already did what I proposed a while ago under
the thread "stego for the censored".
if anyone in here has contacts to these terrorists, can you ask them for
the software, please? maybe they want to GPL it so we can use it for other
