[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

*To*: [email protected]*Subject*: Re: some technical steganography*From*: [email protected] (Jim Miller)*Date*: Sat, 5 Mar 94 19:33:04 -0600*Reply-To*: [email protected]*Sender*: [email protected]

Eric Hughes wrote: > > >What does "appears relatively random" really mean? How do you > >measure the randomness of a sequence of bits? > > Randomness is the wrong measure. Suppose I take 2^10 > random bits and prepend 16 zeros. How random is this? > Almost as random, and this can be made precise. How > compressible is it? Almost incompressible. Now, what > about 2^20 bit? 2^30? > > It is not randomness but recognizability which is at issue. > One of my assumptions was that the stuff you're trying to hide is not recognizable. In one of my posts I used the phrase "unremarkable encrypted message". I should have said "unrecognizable encrypted message". I assert that an "unrecognizable encrypted message" will be a random sequence of bits. Is my assertion correct? Should I be using the phrase "high entropy" instead of "random"? Assume for the moment that there is a way to produce an unrecognizable encrypted message using public-key encryption. (I leave it to the experts to figure out the best way do that.) I still believe that if the reverse stego process frequently produces high entropy bit sequences, even if there is no hidden message, then the steganography system is successful. If the reverse stego process *always* produces a high entropy bit sequence, then the steganography system is perfect. Of course, this assumes there is no other way to detect a hidden message besides reversing the stego process and testing the result. Obviously, if the forward stego process (inserting the bits) leaves telltale traces, then it doesn't matter what the reverse stego process produces. To summrise, I believe a successful steganography system will include the following steps and have the following properties: step 1) encrypt you plaintext. step 2) hide the encrypted message in a public message (duh) property 1) the result of the encryption step should be a random sequence of bits. property 2) the bit insertion process must not leave telltale traces. property 3) the reverse stego process should product frequent "false hits". In other words, the reverse stego process should frequently produce high entropy bit sequences, even if there is no hidden message. Am I correct? [email protected]

**Follow-Ups**:**some technical steganography***From:*[email protected] (Eric Hughes)

- Prev by Date:
**stego** - Next by Date:
**better way to generate a permutation?** - Prev by thread:
**Re: Stealth PGP** - Next by thread:
**some technical steganography** - Index(es):