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
Celejar wrote:
On Mon, 24 Nov 2008 15:45:28 -0600
Mark Allums <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
detect [steganography] use and possibly even recover the hidden information, but
why is the concept inherently useless?
Not totally or inherently useless, but not very practical. You would
still need encry
On Mon, 24 Nov 2008 15:45:28 -0600
Mark Allums <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Celejar wrote:
> > Tzafrir Cohen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> There are even tools such as steghide for those who want to do things
> >> as useless as hiding information inside an image.
> >
> > I'm curious; why is tha
Celejar wrote:
Tzafrir Cohen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
There are even tools such as steghide for those who want to do things
as useless as hiding information inside an image.
I'm curious; why is that necessarily useless? I now that many
steganography methods are broken, in the sense that the
On Mon, 24 Nov 2008 17:17:07 +
Tzafrir Cohen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
...
> There are even tools such as steghide for those who want to do things
> as useless as hiding information inside an image.
I'm curious; why is that necessarily useless? I now that many
steganography methods are bro
5 matches
Mail list logo
