1994-03-01 - Re: standard for stegonography?

Header Data

From: plaz@netcom.com (Plaz)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: 383502e536b3d5e50cd2a4eb8ee02d1ffd851e099ea89f75a397e64a08fc4ef3
Message ID: <199403011941.LAA06727@mail.netcom.com>
Reply To: N/A
UTC Datetime: 1994-03-01 19:41:08 UTC
Raw Date: Tue, 1 Mar 94 11:41:08 PST

Raw message

From: plaz@netcom.com (Plaz)
Date: Tue, 1 Mar 94 11:41:08 PST
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: standard for stegonography?
Message-ID: <199403011941.LAA06727@mail.netcom.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Jef Poskanzer <jef@ee.lbl.gov> writes:
>>Well, try using Stego on an 8 bit PICT, and see for yourself!
>>It looks like a >slight< random noise filter was applied to
>>the image - plausibly the sort of trouble one would have with
>>a slightly imperfect scanner.
>
>Maybe colormaps on the Mac are always sorted?  That would minimize
>the visible effect of +-1 changes in index value.

Colormaps on the Mac are not "always" anything, since creating custom
pallettes is trivial, but yes, they usually are.

For best stegonagraphy in 8-bit, I would recomend using the system
greyscale pallette. (Greyscale images *almost always* sorted on the mac.)

_______________________________________________________________________
Geoff Dale         -- Cypherpunk/Extropian --         Plastic Beethoven
AnarchyPPL - Anarch (Adjudicator)      ExI-Freegate Virtual Branch Head
plaz@netcom.com                                        66 Pyramid Plaza
plaz@io.com                             Freegate, Metaverse@io.com 7777
                "Subvert the domination paradigm!"







Thread