3 ms·
I would posit that a stream of non-sequitir tweets is not necessarily suspicious (depending on the person/account in question, of course). The classic steganog
by dpapathanasiou 13y ago
I would posit that a stream of non-sequitir tweets is not necessarily suspicious (depending on the person/account in question, of course).
The classic steganography methods you're describing may appear less obvious (for lack of a better term), but they're also easier to break once the pattern is discovered.
- brey 13y agojust as hard to break if you're doing it properly: one bit per tweet, encoded as 'message ends with period = 1, no period = 0', and that's your ciphertext stream. from then, AES or RSA or a OTP or whatever you want. Then what you're writing will be functionally indistinguishable from random. hmm ... but maybe too random, humans are bad at being truly random - the entropy in your period usage will be too high ... perhaps xor the RSA output with a OTP of something 'random' you scribbled yourself on a page ;-)
- dllthomas 13y ago"perhaps xor the RSA output with a OTP of something 'random' you scribbled yourself on a page ;-)" ... seemingly random bits, xored with anything not directly related to the bits in question produces seemingly random bits... There are other ways of transforming a sequence of bits to look less uniform, though.