1998-01-16 - Re: steganography and delayed release of keys (Re: Eternity Services)

Header Data

From: nobody@REPLAY.COM (Anonymous)
To: cypherpunks@cyberpass.net
Message Hash: 361f0cf5ffa5a547392a3e531d26ff89a7de05334a8c5418dcbe923d8d3c0fdb
Message ID: <199801161848.TAA29226@basement.replay.com>
Reply To: <v03102803b0e08ed02241@[207.167.93.63]>
UTC Datetime: 1998-01-16 18:54:15 UTC
Raw Date: Sat, 17 Jan 1998 02:54:15 +0800

Raw message

From: nobody@REPLAY.COM (Anonymous)
Date: Sat, 17 Jan 1998 02:54:15 +0800
To: cypherpunks@cyberpass.net
Subject: Re: steganography and delayed release of keys (Re: Eternity Services)
In-Reply-To: <v03102803b0e08ed02241@[207.167.93.63]>
Message-ID: <199801161848.TAA29226@basement.replay.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



Adam Back <aba@dcs.ex.ac.uk> wrote:

> Unfortunately good quality textual steganography encodings are I think a
> hard problem for reasonable data rates.  One advantage in our favour is the
> massively noisy and incoherent garbage which forms the majority of USENET
> traffic.  Plausibly mimicing an alt.2600 or warez d00d message, or a
> `cascade' seems like an easier target.

yA, d00d, i g0tz yEr stEg0 dAtA eNcOded r1gh+ h3re... ;-)






Thread