4 ms·
Ha! I've been thinking of this exact thing, and was curious how natural-looking the end result would be / how much you could compress the tokens by choosing les
by Groxx 7mo ago
Ha! I've been thinking of this exact thing, and was curious how natural-looking the end result would be / how much you could compress the tokens by choosing less and less likely ones until it became obvious gibberish. I'm kinda surprised that it just sounds like normal slop at that density. Seems viable to use with "just" two bots chattering away at each other, and also occasionally sending meaningful packets.
- canjobear 7mo agoIn principle the output is arbitrarily natural-looking. The arithmetic coding procedure effectively turns your secret message into a stream of bits that is statistically indistinguishable from random, the same as you pull out of your PRNG in normal generation.
- vintermann 7mo agoYes, with a few gotchas, especially related to end handling. If the government extracts the hidden bits from possibly stego-streams, and half of the ones theyv encounter give an "unexpected end of input" error, but yours never give that error, they will know that your hidden bit streams likely contain some message. You can avoid it by using a bijective arithmetic encoder, which by definition never encounters an "unexpected end of stream error", and any bit string decodes to a different message. That's the cool way. The boring practical way is to just encrypt your bits.
- functional_dev 7mo agoyeah, encrypting the bits before embedding seems like a valid first step... even if someone suspects steganography, they still can't read it