Re: standard for stegonography?

[tcmay@netcom.com (Timothy C. May)]

Jeff Poskanzer caught the typo in my post:

> I'm sure this is the "standard" being talked about. (BTW, I agree that
> including trivially-readable messages like "***Begin Stego Block
> Now*** is a dumb idea....with reasonable standards for block size,
> e.g., the signal bits are the LSBs of the largest sub-block that's an
> even power of 1, no such headers are needed.)
               ^^^

Obviously I meant even power of 2. 

While I'm at it, I'll elaborate for a bit.

If an image file or audio sample file of, say, 12319 bytes is
received, one might "standardize" (voluntarily, of course) on the
first 8192 bytes as representing the place to look for the LSB
message.

Alternatively, *all* of the LSB bits could be looked at, with messages
just padded-out with random bits to fill out the full amount. 

Lots of options for standards. As others have noted, you just don't
want to have to flag what standard you're using in the message itself
(in plaintext, else why bother?) as that means the stego use is not
longer plausibly deniable.

--Tim May

-- 
..........................................................................
Timothy C. May         | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,  
tcmay@netcom.com       | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
408-688-5409           | knowledge, reputations, information markets, 
W.A.S.T.E.: Aptos, CA  | black markets, collapse of governments.
Higher Power: 2^859433 | Public Key: PGP and MailSafe available.
"National borders are just speed bumps on the information superhighway."