On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 06:10:34PM -0600, Mark Allums wrote: > Celejar wrote: > >On Mon, 24 Nov 2008 15:45:28 -0600 > >Mark Allums <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Feasibility-wise, it's really anybody's guess whether information can > remain hidden. I see no reason to use steganographic techniques, except > to hide something from an authority.[*] In theory, it should be > possible to detect hidden content in anything, due to the added > complexity of the hidden content. In practice, it has been becoming > easier to do so. Reading the information is a different matter. > However, once it has been realized you are hiding something, the point > is moot. You will be hounded until you give up the hidden information. > The authority in question will not give up, ever.
Unless you can convince everyone to, for example, run their systems encrypted. This way, spare disk space will always look suspicious (since it will be encrypted _something_, even if that something is straight zeros). Ideally, you'd have two pieces of plain text embedded in a single piece of ciphertext (which is hidden so that it hopefully won't be found in the first place). If you _do_ have to give up the password for it, all the authority gets is something that is mildly embarrasing (and hense plausible to be the plain-text) but not the plain text which you are really trying to protect. Doug. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
