Prev: Steganography: 100's or 1000's of Apps. Available
Next: New Forum: BulletProof, Bitmap Steganography, XOR
From: Joseph Ashwood on 11 Jun 2010 00:16
"Dave -Turner" <admin(a)127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:5aOdnS7ML8oirYzRnZ2dnUVZ7sednZ2d(a)westnet.com.au...
> Just one other thing - I don't think the term "bulletproof" sits well with
> anybody in crypto ... :-)

I don't have any particular problem with the word bulletproof, as long as
everyone understands the relative merits. For example, on Aug 5, 1945 I'm
quite sure there were many people who had various bulletproof situations,
but on Aug 6 they questioned the value of housing them in Hiroshima.

That is the problem with claiming something is *proof, there's always a
better *.
Joe

From: Gordon Burditt on 12 Jun 2010 13:05
>If you could modify your bitmap stego to enable a user to specify
>exactly where he wants the LSB to be conform to the stego bits,
>then you would have done a nice job for the practice. Forget anything
>else, I would suggest.

Why is this desirable? Don't you trust the internal PRNG in the
program, or think you have a better one? Or is there another reason
for asking for this?

How does the decrypter know where the bits containing the message
are, in any given message?

From: Noob on 14 Jun 2010 05:43
Gordon Burditt wrote:

>> If you could modify your bitmap stego to enable a user to specify
>> exactly where he wants the LSB to be conform to the stego bits,
>> then you would have done a nice job for the practice. Forget anything
>> else, I would suggest.
>
> Why is this desirable? Don't you trust the internal PRNG in the
> program, or think you have a better one? Or is there another reason
> for asking for this?
>
> How does the decrypter know where the bits containing the message
> are, in any given message?

Hello Gordon,

In your replies on Usenet, could you please provide the Message-ID
of the message to which you are replying?

Regards.
From: Gordon Burditt on 14 Jun 2010 12:05
>>> If you could modify your bitmap stego to enable a user to specify
>>> exactly where he wants the LSB to be conform to the stego bits,
>>> then you would have done a nice job for the practice. Forget anything
>>> else, I would suggest.
>>
>> Why is this desirable? Don't you trust the internal PRNG in the
>> program, or think you have a better one? Or is there another reason
>> for asking for this?
>>
>> How does the decrypter know where the bits containing the message
>> are, in any given message?
>
>Hello Gordon,
>
>In your replies on Usenet, could you please provide the Message-ID
>of the message to which you are replying?

I did, in the References: line, where it belongs.

From: Noob on 15 Jun 2010 04:33
Gordon Burditt wrote:

>>>> If you could modify your bitmap stego to enable a user to specify
>>>> exactly where he wants the LSB to be conform to the stego bits,
>>>> then you would have done a nice job for the practice. Forget anything
>>>> else, I would suggest.
>>>
>>> Why is this desirable? Don't you trust the internal PRNG in the
>>> program, or think you have a better one? Or is there another reason
>>> for asking for this?
>>>
>>> How does the decrypter know where the bits containing the message
>>> are, in any given message?
>>
>> Hello Gordon,
>>
>> In your replies on Usenet, could you please provide the Message-ID
>> of the message to which you are replying?
>
> I did, in the References: line [...]

You did, indeed.

However, you still refuse to provide a sensible attribution line,
and you remove attribution lines provided by others.

Apparently, you have a definite opinion on this issue, and will
not relent. I'm not sure why you feel entitled to disregard Usenet
conventions.

Regards.
First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2
Prev: Steganography: 100's or 1000's of Apps. Available
Next: New Forum: BulletProof, Bitmap Steganography, XOR