4 ms·
I argued against the latter point: if you hide the encrypted message in something which is normally compressed such as JPEG or DivX, the encrypted message blend
by andreasvc 15y ago
I argued against the latter point: if you hide the encrypted message in something which is normally compressed such as JPEG or DivX, the encrypted message blends in with the rest of the data because compressed data has high entropy (the better the compression, the higher the entropy). I don't get your point about security by obscurity, that's pretty much the whole point of steganography I would suppose. Security by obscurity is mostly a slogan to criticize not publishing algorithms etc.
- blake8086 15y agoYou need to quantify "blends in". If I [an attacker] plot a distribution of the entropy in all your files, and some of them are outliers, even by a small amount, I can focus all my analysis on those files.
- waitwhat 15y agooutliers, even by a small amount Looks like you're getting the hang of it: good steganography relies on having better statistical models than the opposition. Things are weighted in favour of the concealer, however, as (unlike the attacker) he doesn't have to worry about false positives/negatives