4 ms·

[x] is just [y] with more steps Stenography is just security by more obscurity. Specifically, shuffling compression, bit-rate, encryption, and barely human-pe

[x] is just [y] with more steps Stenography is just security by more obscurity. Specifically, shuffling compression, bit-rate, encryption, and barely human-perceivable signal around mediums (x-M) to obscure the entrophic/random state of any medium as to not break the generally-available plausible-deniability from a human-perception. Can't break Shannon's law, but hides who intent of who is behind the knocks on the all doors. Obscures which house Shannon lives in, and whom who knocks wishes to communicate.

saithound 2y ago
> Stenography is just security by more obscurity Security-by-obscurity is when security hinges on keeping your algorithm itself (as opposed to some key) hidden from the adversary. I don't see how it has any connnection with what you're alluding to here.
- Jerrrrrrry 2y ago
  the point here is to dissipate it across enough mediums as to be indiscernible from noisy background fluctuations regardless of existence, giving general-deniability to all mediums eventually, thru signal to noise ratio. all security is just obscurity, eventually, where you are obscuring your private key's semi-prime's factors.
  - kortilla 2y ago
    > all security is just obscurity, eventually, where you are obscuring your private key's semi-prime's factors. This is a lazy take that obscures the definition to uselessness. It’s perpetuated by people who make insecure systems that break when the algorithm is known. There is a vast gulf between: - security depends on secret algorithm - security depends on keeping a personal asymmetric key secret The latter is trivial to change, it doesn’t compromise the security of others using the scheme, and if it has perfect forward secrecy it doesn’t even compromise past messages. Please don’t repeat that mantra. You’re doing a disservice to anyone who reads it and ultimately yourself.
    - vasco 2y ago
      All security is obscurity. I think it's laughable that you believe you know what someone does just because they say this. Consider there's many levels of knowledge about a topic and sometimes when you get to a deeper level your conclusion or the labels you use for stuff "flip". Understanding the differences that you outlined is so basic that a good commenter wouldn't assume they don't know the difference, they are making a deeper point.
      - saithound 2y ago
        When a commenter doesn't know how to even spell the word "steganography", it's quite safe to assume that they don't possess deeper level knowledge and are not making any deeper point about it.
        Jerrrrrrry 2y ago
        trivial grammar/spelling mistakes are worse than running analogies into the ground without hitting the "context" button, or even the reductio ad absurdium train HN has been on lately. yes my latin half-Freudian trans-alliterations can be tempting to pick out, i had another tab with stylometry obfuscation described, incident, and mitigated. also giigles spellcheck sucks ass, and im tired of being gaslit of my word choice/spelling by giigles, who should know every word by now, in all languages >don't possess deeper level knowledge umm besides error-correcting codes reducing the bitrate, compression, and random byte padding to fend off correlation/timing attacks, there is no where to hide data, outside of the shannon limit for information thru a medium. but its easy to hide data you cannot perceive; and everyone being conscious of this feat/fingerprinting, even if barely, does more towards efficacy to deter leaking via second-order "chilling effect" than the aftermath; I.P theft is hard to un-approximate also stenography, ironically still being the only "real" signature, is still security thru obscurity with more steps; your literal stenographic signature is unique, but not preventable from duplicity, so it is un-obscurable. also i know rsa != ECC plz dont
        47282847 2y ago
Hugsun 2y ago
Note that stenography is very different from steganography. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stenography https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stenography https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steganography https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steganography
- Jerrrrrrry 2y ago
  ga!

saithound 2y ago

> Stenography is just security by more obscurity Security-by-obscurity is when security hinges on keeping your algorithm itself (as opposed to some key) hidden from the adversary. I don't see how it has any connnection with what you're alluding to here.

Jerrrrrrry 2y ago
the point here is to dissipate it across enough mediums as to be indiscernible from noisy background fluctuations regardless of existence, giving general-deniability to all mediums eventually, thru signal to noise ratio. all security is just obscurity, eventually, where you are obscuring your private key's semi-prime's factors.
- kortilla 2y ago
  > all security is just obscurity, eventually, where you are obscuring your private key's semi-prime's factors. This is a lazy take that obscures the definition to uselessness. It’s perpetuated by people who make insecure systems that break when the algorithm is known. There is a vast gulf between: - security depends on secret algorithm - security depends on keeping a personal asymmetric key secret The latter is trivial to change, it doesn’t compromise the security of others using the scheme, and if it has perfect forward secrecy it doesn’t even compromise past messages. Please don’t repeat that mantra. You’re doing a disservice to anyone who reads it and ultimately yourself.
  - vasco 2y ago
    All security is obscurity. I think it's laughable that you believe you know what someone does just because they say this. Consider there's many levels of knowledge about a topic and sometimes when you get to a deeper level your conclusion or the labels you use for stuff "flip". Understanding the differences that you outlined is so basic that a good commenter wouldn't assume they don't know the difference, they are making a deeper point.
    - saithound 2y ago
      When a commenter doesn't know how to even spell the word "steganography", it's quite safe to assume that they don't possess deeper level knowledge and are not making any deeper point about it.
      - Jerrrrrrry 2y ago
        trivial grammar/spelling mistakes are worse than running analogies into the ground without hitting the "context" button, or even the reductio ad absurdium train HN has been on lately. yes my latin half-Freudian trans-alliterations can be tempting to pick out, i had another tab with stylometry obfuscation described, incident, and mitigated. also giigles spellcheck sucks ass, and im tired of being gaslit of my word choice/spelling by giigles, who should know every word by now, in all languages >don't possess deeper level knowledge umm besides error-correcting codes reducing the bitrate, compression, and random byte padding to fend off correlation/timing attacks, there is no where to hide data, outside of the shannon limit for information thru a medium. but its easy to hide data you cannot perceive; and everyone being conscious of this feat/fingerprinting, even if barely, does more towards efficacy to deter leaking via second-order "chilling effect" than the aftermath; I.P theft is hard to un-approximate also stenography, ironically still being the only "real" signature, is still security thru obscurity with more steps; your literal stenographic signature is unique, but not preventable from duplicity, so it is un-obscurable. also i know rsa != ECC plz dont
        47282847 2y ago

Hugsun 2y ago

Note that stenography is very different from steganography. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stenography https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stenography https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steganography https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steganography

Jerrrrrrry 2y ago
ga!