Celejar wrote:
On Mon, 24 Nov 2008 15:45:28 -0600 Mark Allums <mark@allums.com> wrote:Not totally or inherently useless, but not very practical. You would still need encryption as well as information hiding, so the only use for it is to try and hide the fact that you are hiding something. That is very hard to do. You may thank your friendly neighborhood statistician for that.detect [steganography] use and possibly even recover the hidden information, but why is the concept inherently useless?I am aware that encryption is still required; steganography will commonly be used in concert with encryption. As to the feasibility ofdetecting steganography,
Not really apropos of anything, but the encryption remark is just a reminder. I would expect anyone to know that who spent much time thinking about the subject.
Feasibility-wise, it's really anybody's guess whether information can remain hidden. I see no reason to use steganographic techniques, except to hide something from an authority.[*] In theory, it should be possible to detect hidden content in anything, due to the added complexity of the hidden content. In practice, it has been becoming easier to do so. Reading the information is a different matter. However, once it has been realized you are hiding something, the point is moot. You will be hounded until you give up the hidden information. The authority in question will not give up, ever.
Mark Allums(*) Perhaps I am ignorant of the subject. But I can only think of hiding info from, (1.) A government or police investigation. (2.) An employer (3.) A(n) (ex-)significant other, or stalker (4.) You are a purveyor of malware, hiding your product from the user. (5.) You are a student, hiding mp3s from the RIAA. If there exist other reasons for the deception, I am sure you will enlighten me.