Re: really (?) undetectable crypto

[jim@suite.suite.com (Jim Miller)]

> What about Walter making insignificant changes to the
> cleartext and replacing the hash with the new hash?  

> Because you are using an unkeyed hash (and not a sig) he can
> do that and foul up the stegomessage
>
> Walter can still play silly spooks with your stego if he breaks the 

> 40-bit encryption.


True.  The examples was just illustrative.  Given unkeyed hashes or 40 bit  
encryption, Walter could also frame you by replacing your bits with ones  
that combine into a very incriminating encrypted message and then leaking  
the key.


> The cyphertext/plaintext ratio looks like getting
> really huge too.  Your messages must all arrive, and
> retain the right order.   

> 


Hey, I never claimed it was efficient.  :-)

Actually, the messages don't have to arrive in order.  The correct order  
can be discovered by trial and error (e.g.  does this combination decrypt  
into something readable?  No. How about this one?).

Depending on the cryptographic protocol, there may be other, more  
efficient means for sending hidden encrypted messages.  If, for example, a  
protocol requires a cryptographically random confounder to be appended to  
the front of the plaintext before encryption, you could use chunks of you  
secret encrypted message for the entire confounder.

Jim_Miller@suite.com