I'm trying to think of a reason why a recipient of
a image containing stego'd information would want
to keep it around after reading the contained info,
with the stego bits overwritten.
Why not just (securely) get rid of it?
There are tons of sources of unique ephemeral
images, such as webcams.
I'm trying to think of a reason why a recipient of
a image containing stego'd information would want
to keep it around after reading the contained info,
with the stego bits overwritten.
Why not just (securely) get rid of it?
There are tons of sources of unique ephemeral
images, such as webcams.
recently
-TD
From: Major Variola (ret) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Has this photo been de-stegoed? (and Anonymity)
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 10:26:16 -0800
At 06:22 PM 12/10/03 +0200, Anatoly Vorobey wrote:
On Tue, Dec 09, 2003 at 04:20:20PM -0600
At 06:22 PM 12/10/03 +0200, Anatoly Vorobey wrote:
On Tue, Dec 09, 2003 at 04:20:20PM -0600, Declan McCullagh wrote:
We have anonymity in Web browsing (more or less, thanks to Lance
co). It's not NSA-proof, but it's probably subpoena-proof.
We have anonymity in email thanks to remailers (to
At 02:35 PM 12/11/03 -0500, Tyler Durden wrote:
Variola wrote...
How do you know the signature of the unaltered carrier-medium?
E.g., have you measured the LSBit noise from my camera recently?
Under which lighting conditions?
Well, having done some optical signal processing (and getting a patent
If you spatially fft a random photo, you'll find that the image detail
energy largely occupies certain bands. These are not the bands that stego
uses (or so I assume...it really can't be otherwise). The stego-able
spectrum will indeed be noise, but this noise will have a certain spectrum.
At 07:12 PM 12/10/2003 -0500, Tyler Durden wrote:
If you spatially fft a random photo, you'll find that the image detail
energy largely occupies certain bands. These are not the bands that stego
uses (or so I assume...it really can't be otherwise). The stego-able
spectrum will indeed be noise,
not be able to
tell.
Any of you TLA lurkers wanna come in on a remailer and set me straight?
-TD
From: A.Melon [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Has this photo been de-stegoed?
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 13:28:31 -0800 (PST)
Tyler Durden ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote on 2003-12-08
At 06:22 PM 12/10/03 +0200, Anatoly Vorobey wrote:
On Tue, Dec 09, 2003 at 04:20:20PM -0600, Declan McCullagh wrote:
We have anonymity in Web browsing (more or less, thanks to Lance
co). It's not NSA-proof, but it's probably subpoena-proof.
We have anonymity in email thanks to remailers (to
recently
-TD
From: Major Variola (ret) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Has this photo been de-stegoed? (and Anonymity)
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 10:26:16 -0800
At 06:22 PM 12/10/03 +0200, Anatoly Vorobey wrote:
On Tue, Dec 09, 2003 at 04:20:20PM -0600
At 02:35 PM 12/11/03 -0500, Tyler Durden wrote:
Variola wrote...
How do you know the signature of the unaltered carrier-medium?
E.g., have you measured the LSBit noise from my camera recently?
Under which lighting conditions?
Well, having done some optical signal processing (and getting a patent
Tyler Durden ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote on 2003-12-08:
Is it possible to determine that the photo 'originally' (ie, when it was
sent to me) contained stegoed information, but that it was intercepted in
transit and the real message overwritten with noise or whatever?
Hardly, given the simple
not be able to
tell.
Any of you TLA lurkers wanna come in on a remailer and set me straight?
-TD
From: A.Melon [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Has this photo been de-stegoed?
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 13:28:31 -0800 (PST)
Tyler Durden ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote on 2003-12-08
If you spatially fft a random photo, you'll find that the image detail
energy largely occupies certain bands. These are not the bands that stego
uses (or so I assume...it really can't be otherwise). The stego-able
spectrum will indeed be noise, but this noise will have a certain spectrum.
Tyler Durden ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote on 2003-12-08:
Is it possible to determine that the photo 'originally' (ie, when it was
sent to me) contained stegoed information, but that it was intercepted in
transit and the real message overwritten with noise or whatever?
Hardly, given the simple
15 matches
Mail list logo
