[14211] in cryptography@c2.net mail archive
Re: Simple inner transposition steganography
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (David Honig)
Fri Sep 19 09:59:00 2003
X-Original-To: cryptography@metzdowd.com
X-Original-To: cryptography@metzdowd.com
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2003 15:53:58 -0700
To: edo <nobody@cryptorebels.net>, cryptography@metzdowd.com
From: David Honig <dahonig@cox.net>
In-Reply-To: <11d2ea55236a31c97e20a85a5977baff@cryptorebels.net>
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 want to do for steganography.
Are you forgetting:
1. the stego'ed bits are already noise (ie, encrypted),
possibly shaped noise?
2. you don't have to make a mistake on every word?
Ie, you model what human mispellers do and you can still have
deniable bandwidth.
...
Speaking of which, but aside: An alexic (due to MS disconnecting a certain
visual-to-linguistic path) "hunt-and-peck" friend makes lettershape-based
errors when typing, vs. the spatial qwerty-finger-position-fumble errors
that I (an inaccurate touch typist) make, or the spelling errors ("I"
before "E" yadda yadda) that visually-literate, careful authors make.
[Some text-to-speech software is helping him regain functionality. As does
Google's _did you mean?_, spellchecking, and his diary's (Excel, actually)
search ability. GPS might help with his navigation problems.]
Anyway, there's a human-error-distribution which can be used to
shape the stego'd misspellings. Just like one's digital camera noise can be
characterized before using images from it to broadcast stego'd messages.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Cryptography Mailing List
Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to majordomo@metzdowd.com
