1994-02-27 - Re: standard for stegonography?

Header Data

From: Jeremy Cooper <jeremy@crl.com>
To: Jef Poskanzer <jef@ee.lbl.gov>
Message Hash: 1a679143ac40110289eba138e71ed730e26efbdc980fb74b58d1730b7c293afc
Message ID: <Pine.3.87.9402271452.A14528-0100000@crl.crl.com>
Reply To: <9402271916.AA06127@hot.ee.lbl.gov>
UTC Datetime: 1994-02-27 21:58:21 UTC
Raw Date: Sun, 27 Feb 94 13:58:21 PST

Raw message

From: Jeremy Cooper <jeremy@crl.com>
Date: Sun, 27 Feb 94 13:58:21 PST
To: Jef Poskanzer <jef@ee.lbl.gov>
Subject: Re: standard for stegonography?
In-Reply-To: <9402271916.AA06127@hot.ee.lbl.gov>
Message-ID: <Pine.3.87.9402271452.A14528-0100000@crl.crl.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

> Is there a standard for stego yet?  I just added stego and de-stego
> filters to my pbmplus image toolkit, using a simple protocol I made
> up on the spot.  Now I'm wondering if I should make them compatible
> with existing stego tools.
> ---
> Jef

I think the whole idea behind stego is that it is non-standard.  The way 
in which you setgoize something must be constantly changing, otherwise 
the point of stego (hiding information inside other information) would be 
contradicted.  If there was a standard for hiding something, you would 
always know where to look.
                   _  .  _ ___ _  .  _
===-|)/\\/|V|/\/\ (_)/_\|_|\_/(_)/_\|_| Stop by for an excursion into the-===
===-|)||| | |\/\/  mud.crl.com 8888 (_) Virtual Bay Area!                -===