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
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
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
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 that necessarily
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
5 matches
Mail list logo
