3 ms·
Or, you do the equivalent of adding a hash, and apply mosaic to it twice, with two slightly different size regions. Or apply both mosaic and swirl in random or
by jedberg 10mo ago
Or, you do the equivalent of adding a hash, and apply mosaic to it twice, with two slightly different size regions. Or apply both mosaic and swirl in random order. Or put a piece of random text over it before you mosaic it.
The main point here stands -- using something with a fixed algorithm for hashing and a knowable starting text is not secure. But there are a ton of easy fixes to add randomness to make it secure.
- dheera 10mo agoSurprised to see my article float up again so many years later. I wouldn't consider a mosaic + swirl to be fully secure either though, especially considering both of these operations may preserve the sum of all pixels, which may still be enough entropy to dictionary attack a small number of digits.
- jedberg 10mo agoIt's probably the least secure of the ones I mentioned, yes. But even so, it massively increases the search space for a dictionary attack because the attacker doesn't know which algorithm was applied first. But yes, at the end of the day, the best bet is to just take a mosaic of a random text and place it over the text you're trying to obscure. The reason people use mosaic is because it is more aesthetic than a black box, but there is no reason it has to be a mosaic of the actual text.