[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Photoshop, Steganograhy, and cypherpunks?
On Sun, 8 Sep 1996 16:16:58 -0400 (EDT), Jason Vagner wrote:
>> > 1) If I hide some PGP encrypted data in a
>> > gif, jpg or wav file will there be any tell tale
>> > signs to the naked eye of an expert? If yes,
>> > what are they?
>> If you stego too many bits in a figure, it may become apparent.
>The new version of Photoshop coming out this fall includes the ability to
>embed "digital watermarking":
>(from http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,3188,00.html:
>
> Digital watermarking
> adds copyright information to
> a photograph that doesn't alter the photo's
> appearance. The watermark is detectable even
> after the photo is edited or printed and rescanned.
>
>Question: Will stegonagrphying (?) the picture with noise mar the
>watermark? Will a digital signature *and* something embedded into the
>graphic through steganography seriosly affect a 24-bit image?
Most certainly; the idea here is that watermarking should show that an image is
unedited.
>Furthermore: What about browsers? Could cookies or binary info be embedded
>into images on the fly so that a java applet could preserve information or
>states between pages, of different sites?
Of course. You could do a cookie type implementation with a Java applet easily.
- "'Anonymity is bad,' says a source who wishes to remain anonymous." - Nuff' said.
* Home: Chris Adams <[email protected]> | http://www.io-online.com/adamsc/adamsc.htp
* Autoresponder: send email w/subject of "send resume" or "send PGPKEY"
* Work: [email protected] | V.M. (619)515-4894 | (619)689-6579
* Member in good standing of the GNU whirled hors d'oeuvre