1995-07-14 - Re: def’n of “computer network”

Header Data

From: “Perry E. Metzger” <perry@imsi.com>
To: hoz@univel.telescan.com (rick hoselton)
Message Hash: 454a7d34d03ec9a00fd0ed412487cf273e347145fd0e4cafeefdc08a5e3ebfff
Message ID: <9507140229.AA13447@snark.imsi.com>
Reply To: <9507132338.AA07522@toad.com>
UTC Datetime: 1995-07-14 02:29:39 UTC
Raw Date: Thu, 13 Jul 95 19:29:39 PDT

Raw message

From: "Perry E. Metzger" <perry@imsi.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 95 19:29:39 PDT
To: hoz@univel.telescan.com (rick hoselton)
Subject: Re: def'n of "computer network"
In-Reply-To: <9507132338.AA07522@toad.com>
Message-ID: <9507140229.AA13447@snark.imsi.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



rick hoselton writes:
> Perry, I don't understand.  If the least significant bits in my gif file
> follow all the "known statistical distributions", how can anyone know 
> whether they are "just noise" or are an encrypted message,

Indeed -- how could the recipient even know to look, unless these
things arrived regularly and with a fully standardized form of
stegonography, in which case why bother, all you've done is come up
with a very odd form of transfer encoding.

If the recipient does know to look, that implies either that there is
a hint, in which case the stegonography is useless, or it implies that
you have prearrangement, in which case my comments on prearrangement
hold.

.pm





Thread