integrating GPG with deniable steganography

Bernd Jendrissek berndj at
Thu Mar 22 12:51:08 CET 2001

On Thu, Mar 22, 2001 at 12:03:28PM +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> Marlow, Andrew (London):
> > > Maybe a good way to hide data (at very low bandwidth) is to take photos
> > > of your living room repeatedly
> > > 
> > The inconvenience of this kind of steg is greater than the inconvenience of
> > not being able to communicate at all.
> True. Besides, the effort is useless. Just take a lot of pictures until
> the pixel noise happens to match the "secret" code you want to send. No
> need to play around with skewing pictures.

Yes, you're both right.  Skewing pictures won't help anyway, and neither
will taking lots of pictures.  Mallory will still be able to see the same
message the intended recipient should.  You still need encryption to
force Mallory to guess that there *is* a message at all.  Standing in
court and saying, "Must be a coincidence that this picture happens to
contain the message 'Find bags of cash behind Building 7'" will not be
very convincing.  Being able to say, "Must be a coincidence that this
picture happens to contain the bit string '1100110100100110101110110010'"
will be a lot better.

But taking enough pictures that one just happens to match a cryptogram
would be impractical.  Anyone feel like taking 2^64 pictures?

Bernd Jendrissek

More information about the Gnupg-devel mailing list