1994-02-28 - Re: standard for stegonography?????!!!!??

Header Data

From: rarachel@prism.poly.edu (Arsen Ray Arachelian)
To: cypherpunks-errors@toad.com
Message Hash: 63ba06dc21687805e92321515f5ff3f3e3e955991937a6ae3ba0a5c3f421bd66
Message ID: <9402282245.AA05746@prism.poly.edu>
Reply To: <9402281021.AA23225@acacia.itd.uts.EDU.AU>
UTC Datetime: 1994-02-28 22:57:53 UTC
Raw Date: Mon, 28 Feb 94 14:57:53 PST

Raw message

From: rarachel@prism.poly.edu (Arsen Ray Arachelian)
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 94 14:57:53 PST
To: cypherpunks-errors@toad.com
Subject: Re: standard for stegonography?????!!!!??
In-Reply-To: <9402281021.AA23225@acacia.itd.uts.EDU.AU>
Message-ID: <9402282245.AA05746@prism.poly.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text

Guys, I thought the whole point of stego was to hide the fact that
you're hiding data in a file.  Having a "standard" for this is
a bad idea i the sense that if you have a standard, you make it
that much easier for the bad guys to intercept and find what
you are trying to hide!

Now I'd certainly like to see MANY stego programs out there, however
making any of them a standard is a bad move.

The less standard a stego program is, the safer.  Rolling your own
would probably be the best way to keep the bad guys out of the
way.   As far as sharing stego'ed stuff, you can 1st send your
program over with PGP, so the other side also has the same stego program
you're using...