edo wrote:
>
One could declare such a simple trick to be "not stego."
Or, even, worthless, and beneath the contempt of the
serious student of cryptography.
That would be too harsh. The elegance of the idea is
that it shows how little one needs to do to achieve some
security from observation.
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
> ste
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 w
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 stegan
At 4:01 PM -0400 9/18/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 18 Sep 2003, edo wrote:
Maybe it works as a very, very weak form of encryption, one which can
be decrypted at a glance by humans but would evade the most simplistic
computer recognition systems. But stego it ain't.
Steganography is in
On Thu, 18 Sep 2003, edo wrote:
> Maybe it works as a very, very weak form of encryption, one which can
> be decrypted at a glance by humans but would evade the most simplistic
> computer recognition systems. But stego it ain't.
>
Steganography is in the eye of the beholder.
--
Viktor.
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.
The whole po
I passed this on to another list - the Link mailing list:
http://mailman.anu.edu.au/pipermail/link/2003-September/thread.html#52701
A list member pointed out a Perl script by Jamie Zawinski to scramble
the internal letters of words:
http://www.jwz.org/hacks/marginal.html
- Robinhttp:
Changing around the order of a list of items is a pretty cool way to
hide information. You can hide about log_2(n!) bits of information in
a list of n items. In the case of words, you can move around the
inner letters as long as there are no duplicates.
If you want to experiment with the basic
Bill Stewart wrote:
>
> Ian Grigg wrote:
> > Ken Griffith adds:
> > Taht wulod be an execlenlt way to sned emial msesgaes in palin txet taht
> > cnnaot be dteetced by ehceoln. One culod tlak aoubt bmbos, trerroitss and
> > suftf lkie taht wiohtut trgigreing the fagls.
>
> Well, it's not really a
I'm not sure if this is novel, but it's new to me,
and a lot of fun to brighten up our otherwise dull
day.
Some guys over on dgcchat have stumbled on a simple
steganography method. What follows is their own
words, but in an edited single sequence:
===
Ragnar:
11 matches
Mail list logo
