1993-03-11 - HIDE: embedding msgs into snd & graphics

Header Data

From: The Phantom <phantom@u.washington.edu>
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: 4454854e7490e0d06fe661adb83a8ead30659cf5158fee95315847c16530feea
Message ID: <Pine.3.05.9303111113.B29695-b100000@stein2.u.washington.edu>
Reply To: N/A
UTC Datetime: 1993-03-11 19:57:02 UTC
Raw Date: Thu, 11 Mar 93 11:57:02 PST

Raw message

From: The Phantom <phantom@u.washington.edu>
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 93 11:57:02 PST
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: HIDE: embedding msgs into snd & graphics
Message-ID: <Pine.3.05.9303111113.B29695-b100000@stein2.u.washington.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

writes uri@watson.ibm.com:
Yes, a very valid point.  But it seems to me, that Random Data
claim is the best, with the highest chances to keep one out of
trouble (if anything can :-).

The algorithm? Oh, sorry, but it's a HARDWARE random data generator!
And if it's truly good random gen, there are no patterns to track...
One can use it to create huge one-time pads, BTW...   "Salt" some of
the encrypted (or plaintext :-) messages with those...

Yes? Hardware? Well, then, where is the piece of hardware you used, then?
It seems this falls to the Big Brother 'where is the algorithm' test even
harder, as it is a physical piece of equipment.

It seems to me that if I were an agent and I were looking for
transmissions from an individual and I saw him sending out 10 copies of
the `Rocky & Bullwinkle Show' intro per week, I'd look into those, even
though they seem normal enough. When I checksummed them and they didn't
match, I'd be more than suspicious: I'd start stripping the lower bits
off. If I knew that the suspect used PGP and RIPEM, I'd most certainly try
and push the output through them, if they weren't plainly recognizable.

Seems to me that the best thing to hide pgp in would be a low-quality
host-medium (lots of noise!) that changes frequently, so the checksumming
cannot occur against the same message. The low quality could also be
attained by pushing more of your message into the host; maybe alternating
between the 8th bit and another bit. In any case, I don't think that the
host should be a stable one (frequently used) or one that can be easily
compared to the original.


Matt Thomlinson
University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.
Internet: phantom@u.washington.edu      	    phone: (206) 528-5732
PGP 2.2  key available via email or finger phantom@hardy.u.washington.edu