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

Header Data

From: Jeremy Cooper <jeremy@crl.com>
To: Arsen Ray Arachelian <rarachel@prism.poly.edu>
Message Hash: 7d85499e2c0dd3f7e12cc72ec149da3902c377aacea40f4a7f3d739dbc2511fa
Message ID: <Pine.3.87.9402282257.A8890-0100000@crl.crl.com>
Reply To: <9402282245.AA05746@prism.poly.edu>
UTC Datetime: 1994-03-01 06:29:40 UTC
Raw Date: Mon, 28 Feb 94 22:29:40 PST

Raw message

From: Jeremy Cooper <jeremy@crl.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 94 22:29:40 PST
To: Arsen Ray Arachelian <rarachel@prism.poly.edu>
Subject: Re: standard for stegonography?????!!!!??
In-Reply-To: <9402282245.AA05746@prism.poly.edu>
Message-ID: <Pine.3.87.9402282257.A8890-0100000@crl.crl.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

On Mon, 28 Feb 1994, Arsen Ray Arachelian wrote:

> 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...

I agree that standardization is not something you want for stego, but on 
the otherhand, if you can send a PGP message, why bother using stego?
                   _  .  _ ___ _  .  _
===-|)/\\/|V|/\/\ (_)/_\|_|\_/(_)/_\|_| Stop by for an excursion into the-===
===-|)||| | |\/\/  mud.crl.com 8888 (_) Virtual Bay Area!                -===