4 ms·

Fascinating. I might have missed it, but I don't think the author mentioned the possibility of steganography. Just code the encrypted text such that it resemb

by rhelz 2y ago

Fascinating. I might have missed it, but I don't think the author mentioned the possibility of steganography. Just code the encrypted text such that it resembles a normal conversation.

waynecochran 2y ago
Would you use an image for this? Is there a clever way to do this with text?
- rhelz 2y ago
  You could use an image. But you could use text as well. E.g. you could agree on a code phrase to be said when some "dirty deed done dirt cheap" has been completed. Or you could encode a binary string by alternating British English spellings with American English Spellings: e.g. "color" means 0, "colour" means 1; "gray" means 0, "grey" means 1, etc etc. and then just use those alternate spellings in a normal conversation.
  - maqp 2y ago
    The problem with codes is you have to remember them. And then you'll need a massive lookup-table. People don't want to have chats based on limited vocabulary. This is why we have modern encryption. It converts the most beautiful poem in the world to complete noise and back with no loss of meaning. It allows sending images, books, videos -- culture, without spycraft that requires hours of learning. It's also more secure, given that humans aren't nearly as good at coming up with randomness and a computer's hardware RNG.
    - waynecochran 2y ago
      But then it is obvious you are using encryption. A lot can be learned just from the timing of the message and noting it is encrypted. I always thought it best to send an encrypted message every hour of every day .. most messages would be just nonsense. The one eavesdropping could not only not read the message, but they would gain no knowledge about when the "real" messages are being sent.
      - maqp 2y ago
        Yeah that hourly packet rate is called traffic masking or traffic flow confidentiality. It's offered in some instances of IPSec, but given that it's not exactly a common protocol in end-user products you don't really see it. I did implement it for my messaging system however https://github.com/maqp/tfc/wiki/Commands#14-traffic-masking https://github.com/maqp/tfc/wiki/Commands#14-traffic-masking
        waynecochran 2y ago
        Cool -- now I have a name for it. This seems critical to keep things truly secret.
maqp 2y ago
Steganography is pointless given that encrypted and metadata protected communication is ubiquitously available to those who need it. Steganography is a niche you read about in your first year of studying the world of privacy and what you completely forget because nobody has time for spycraft when there's life to be lived. The novelty wears out faster than you can imagine.

by rhelz 2y ago

Fascinating. I might have missed it, but I don't think the author mentioned the possibility of steganography. Just code the encrypted text such that it resembles a normal conversation.

waynecochran 2y ago

Would you use an image for this? Is there a clever way to do this with text?

rhelz 2y ago
You could use an image. But you could use text as well. E.g. you could agree on a code phrase to be said when some "dirty deed done dirt cheap" has been completed. Or you could encode a binary string by alternating British English spellings with American English Spellings: e.g. "color" means 0, "colour" means 1; "gray" means 0, "grey" means 1, etc etc. and then just use those alternate spellings in a normal conversation.
- maqp 2y ago
  The problem with codes is you have to remember them. And then you'll need a massive lookup-table. People don't want to have chats based on limited vocabulary. This is why we have modern encryption. It converts the most beautiful poem in the world to complete noise and back with no loss of meaning. It allows sending images, books, videos -- culture, without spycraft that requires hours of learning. It's also more secure, given that humans aren't nearly as good at coming up with randomness and a computer's hardware RNG.
  - waynecochran 2y ago
    But then it is obvious you are using encryption. A lot can be learned just from the timing of the message and noting it is encrypted. I always thought it best to send an encrypted message every hour of every day .. most messages would be just nonsense. The one eavesdropping could not only not read the message, but they would gain no knowledge about when the "real" messages are being sent.
    - maqp 2y ago
      Yeah that hourly packet rate is called traffic masking or traffic flow confidentiality. It's offered in some instances of IPSec, but given that it's not exactly a common protocol in end-user products you don't really see it. I did implement it for my messaging system however https://github.com/maqp/tfc/wiki/Commands#14-traffic-masking https://github.com/maqp/tfc/wiki/Commands#14-traffic-masking
      - waynecochran 2y ago
        Cool -- now I have a name for it. This seems critical to keep things truly secret.

maqp 2y ago

Steganography is pointless given that encrypted and metadata protected communication is ubiquitously available to those who need it. Steganography is a niche you read about in your first year of studying the world of privacy and what you completely forget because nobody has time for spycraft when there's life to be lived. The novelty wears out faster than you can imagine.