[6520] in cryptography@c2.net mail archive
Re: The problem with Steganography
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Steven M. Bellovin)
Thu Jan 27 10:59:16 2000
From: "Steven M. Bellovin" <smb@research.att.com>
To: Marc Horowitz <marc@mit.edu>
Cc: Dan Geer <geer@world.std.com>, cryptography@c2.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2000 07:33:51 -0500
Message-Id: <20000127123356.5141041F16@SIGABA.research.att.com>
In message <t53901c42ip.fsf@horowitz.ne.mediaone.net>, Marc Horowitz writes:
>
> >> In short, is steganography the ultimate surveillance tool?
>
> Like most surveillance technologies, this is a game of constant
> incremental improvements. You watch me through a window, I put up
> curtains. You listen through a hidden microphone, I increase the
> background noise. Etc.
>
> As was discussed here a few weeks ago, it's very difficult to do
> undefeatable watermarking, and I'd say it's impossible to do
> undetectable watermaking in a digital medium (just compare the
> documents). My point is that stego could be used as a surveillance
> tool, but it would be difficult, and defeating it would be feasible.
> Therefore, I don't believe it is the "ultimate" surveillance tool.
So -- has anyone on this list found the watermarking present in color copier
output?
--Steve Bellovin
