At 11:57 AM 9/7/04 -0400, Sunder wrote:
>The answer to that question depends on some leg work which involves
>converting the source code to stegetect into hardware and seeing how
fast
>that hardware runs, then multiplying by X where X is how many of the
chips
>you can afford to build.
A quick peru
The answer to that question depends on some leg work which involves
converting the source code to stegetect into hardware and seeing how fast
that hardware runs, then multiplying by X where X is how many of the chips
you can afford to build.
I'd image that it's a lot faster to have some hw tha
On Tue, 07 Sep 2004 11:22:28 -0400, Tyler Durden
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> How fast can dedicated hardware run if it were a dedicated Stegedetect
> processor?
..
> In other words, how easy would it be for NSA, et al to scan 'every' photo on
> the internet for Stego traces? (And then, every photo
So here's the 'obvious' question:
How fast can dedicated hardware run if it were a dedicated Stegedetect
processor?
In other words, how easy would it be for NSA, et al to scan 'every' photo on
the internet for Stego traces? (And then, every photo being emailed?)
And then, how fast can someone w
Joseph Holsten wrote...
who are ya tryin to fool?
Well, just in case it's not obvious, the clear issue here is whether the use
of Stego is actually merely a red flag, in which case it may actually be
worse than using nothing on some levels. If every message used it, though...
-TD
__
