4 ms·
It's not easy to deny. Normal compilers flat out don't produce binaries that look like this, so if a binary looks like this then you definitely know something f
by CydeWeys 6y ago
It's not easy to deny. Normal compilers flat out don't produce binaries that look like this, so if a binary looks like this then you definitely know something fishy is going on even if you can't decrypt it.
Contrast with steganography in least significant image bits; you genuinely cannot determine at all if an image is carrying hidden encrypted data. That's what easy to deny looks like.
- woodruffw 6y ago> It's not easy to deny. Normal compilers flat out don't produce binaries that look like this, so if a binary looks like this then you definitely know something fishy is going on even if you can't decrypt it. Yes, you're right. I've updated the post to include a note at the bottom saying that this technique is difficult to provide deniability with. > Contrast with steganography in least significant image bits; you genuinely cannot determine at all if an image is carrying hidden encrypted data. That's what easy to deny looks like. This might be a misunderstanding on my part, but I thought that LSB-style steganography had been broken by both statistical analyses and ML models for a while now[1]. But it's possible that these methods only work on plaintext messages; I haven't looked deeply into it. [1]: https://github.com/b3dk7/StegExpose https://github.com/b3dk7/StegExpose
- royjacobs 6y agoYou are right, in the sense that there are companies out there (I used to work for one of them) that do image, video and audio watermarking. In the simplest terms that's also adding imperceptible "noise" that statistically builds up to a few bits of data.