1996-03-08 - Re: Steganography idea: CU-SeeMe

Header Data

From: anon-remailer@utopia.hacktic.nl (Anonymous)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: 14c32515264aa465e306b5f574fb2749ed5d9b90dab903691b4299427d4d9d6b
Message ID: <199603061134.MAA17301@utopia.hacktic.nl>
Reply To: <199603060734.AAA00178@nelson.santafe.edu>
UTC Datetime: 1996-03-08 20:29:27 UTC
Raw Date: Sat, 9 Mar 1996 04:29:27 +0800

Raw message

From: anon-remailer@utopia.hacktic.nl (Anonymous)
Date: Sat, 9 Mar 1996 04:29:27 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Steganography idea: CU-SeeMe
In-Reply-To: <199603060734.AAA00178@nelson.santafe.edu>
Message-ID: <199603061134.MAA17301@utopia.hacktic.nl>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

On Wed, 6 Mar 1996, Nelson Minar wrote:

[Re: data steams to put steno in]
> So here's one idea I've had as a place to hide a channel: network
> video, in particular CU-SeeMe video streams. CU-SeeMe is a lowtech

That's an excellent idea.

The only problem with using CU-SeeMe is that, due to the nature of the 
data being transferred, it is more important to keep up to date than to 
not lose data.  I believe it uses UDP to do this.  There would have to be 
some protection mechanism in the stego patches to tolerate high amounts 
of data loss - the obvious solution would be to loop the data, but that 
is easily detectable, and is not a guarantee that the data arrived 
safely.  Setting up a connection outside of Cu-SeeMe attracts attention, 
especially if there was a correlation between what occurred on that 
connection and what occurred in the LOBs of the Cu-SeeMe connection.

-- Abraham d'Anonymous
   (No relation to Alice)