41–50 of 105 posts
The Facebook outrage mob reminds me of my slashdot days when everyone referred to Microsoft as Micro$oft. Doesn't it feel weird that there used to be positive facebook stories, but now its all negative 24/7?
Signal on the other hand has made eliminated their access to much of the metadata, including contact information [1] (using SGX sandboxes which is no perfect solution but better what Facebook has) and information about who has sent a specific message [2]. [1]: https://signal.org/blog/private-contact-discovery/ [2]: https://signal.org/blog/sealed-sender/
1. https://twitter.com/BRIAN_____/status/1074541770782892032
2. https://foreshadowattack.eu/
3. https://twitter.com/bascule/status/1085087004352602112
4. https://github.com/jovanbulck/sgx-step
Any many more.
SGX is a hamfisted pseudo-solution better solved properly by going to the roots of the nightmare landscape of trust issues:
We need fully bootstrapping libre hardware avoiding the trusting trust problem YESTERDAY. If we had that, this entire load of problems would disappear and becomes one of cryptographically certified agent-to-agent, end-to-end trust provenance attesting.
The entire concept of a "compromisable system" only exists because we let the industry get away with closed hardware bullshit and because we put our fingers in our ears and go "LALALALALA CAN'T HEAR YOU" whenever someone brings up the trusting trust problem.
I suspect we do that because it, for quite a while now, has let us avoid confronting the age old philosophical questioning of the risks & uncertainties of inter- & intrapersonal placement & position of trust & doubt.
Quite similar to how philosophers tend to pack up and run away screaming any time someone brings up the Münchhausen trilemma, because, to quote rationalwiki:
"it breaks the legs of philosophy, science, and any other possible approach to reality."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Steganographic communication as a substitute for encrypted text is a baffling misinterpretation of the reason for encryption in a chat program. The use cases and potential userbase barely overlap at all. I don’t want my conversations with my mother to be public. But we are not going to communicate in secret messages hidden in images as if we are espionage agents, and most assuredly 98% of the public will not, either.…
Sure, for a chat conversation you would want something faster than steganography. But if you will notice I did not propose a solution for encrypted chat. I proposed a solution for making encryption easier to use, yes? I hope that debaffles you a little. Steganography alone is just security through obscurity? I guess I'm not sure which algorithm you are thinking of but regardless it's very easy to encrypt your data be…
If you are not using stegonagraphy for the obscurity aspect, why use it at all? Why not just encrypted plaintext that can be decrypted?
Stegonagraphy is intended to conceal that a message is being sent at all, other than the apparent message of an image. If my recipient and I are both using Cool Stegonagraphy Messaging App, or you are marketing CSMA to the general public, that removes that crucial feature.
As far as storage capacity, I mean is not a concept that stegonagraphy envelops. The amount of data you could include would be limited by the lower level transmission systems - whatever software and hardware you are using to actually transmit, device, store and view images such as image format and your phone storage.
Facebook encrypted messaging! What's next, military intelligence? How about a vegan big-mac? Maybe a quality automobile by GM? I think steganography is an excellent way to deliver encrypted messaging to consumers. It has so many inherent features that I'm surprised it isn't already widely used. Let's see: - easy to recognize but hard to detect - can pass through any channel that accepts images - massive storage capac…
Steganographic communication as a substitute for encrypted text is a baffling misinterpretation of the reason for encryption in a chat program. The use cases and potential userbase barely overlap at all. I don’t want my conversations with my mother to be public. But we are not going to communicate in secret messages hidden in images as if we are espionage agents, and most assuredly 98% of the public will not, either.…
I agree with you, but couldn't you say the same thing about using end-to-end encryption in a chat program as a substitute for messaging that's just encrypted in transit?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Steganographic communication as a substitute for encrypted text is a baffling misinterpretation of the reason for encryption in a chat program. The use cases and potential userbase barely overlap at all. I don’t want my conversations with my mother to be public. But we are not going to communicate in secret messages hidden in images as if we are espionage agents, and most assuredly 98% of the public will not, either.…
> Steganographic communication as a substitute for encrypted text is a baffling misinterpretation of the reason for encryption in a chat program. I agree with you, but couldn't you say the same thing about using end-to-end encryption in a chat program as a substitute for messaging that's just encrypted in transit?
> I agree with you, but couldn't you say the same thing about using end-to-end encryption in a chat program as a substitute for messaging that's just encrypted in transit?
I just want to point out, again, that this is not an argument that I tried to make.
Facebook encrypted messaging! What's next, military intelligence? How about a vegan big-mac? Maybe a quality automobile by GM? I think steganography is an excellent way to deliver encrypted messaging to consumers. It has so many inherent features that I'm surprised it isn't already widely used. Let's see: - easy to recognize but hard to detect - can pass through any channel that accepts images - massive storage capac…
No. Any online service worth its salt is going to reencode images to serve proper sizes and maybe do other processing. Along the way stuff like EXIF data and other worthless (for displaying the image) chuff will get stripped from the image. Alternatively, if you mean not somehow embedding in the file but encoding in the actual pixels of the image, that data will get lost as well when the image is resized and resampled. To survive most image manipulations, the data will have to be quite crude and you'll have low bandwidth with this kind of encryption.
An exception would be some photographer oriented services like Flickr that allow you to download the original file but those are a minority.
Signal on the other hand has made eliminated their access to much of the metadata, including contact information [1] (using SGX sandboxes which is no perfect solution but better what Facebook has) and information about who has sent a specific message [2]. [1]: https://signal.org/blog/private-contact-discovery/ [2]: https://signal.org/blog/sealed-sender/
"no perfect solution" indeed, a few examples: 1. https://twitter.com/BRIAN_____/status/1074541770782892032 2. https://foreshadowattack.eu/ 3. https://twitter.com/bascule/status/1085087004352602112 4. https://github.com/jovanbulck/sgx-step Any many more. SGX is a hamfisted pseudo-solution better solved properly by going to the roots of the nightmare landscape of trust issues: http://bootstrappable.org/ http://langsec.…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Steganographic communication as a substitute for encrypted text is a baffling misinterpretation of the reason for encryption in a chat program. I agree with you, but couldn't you say the same thing about using end-to-end encryption in a chat program as a substitute for messaging that's just encrypted in transit?
> Steganographic communication as a substitute for encrypted text is a baffling misinterpretation of the reason for encryption in a chat program. > I agree with you, but couldn't you say the same thing about using end-to-end encryption in a chat program as a substitute for messaging that's just encrypted in transit? I just want to point out, again, that this is not an argument that I tried to make.
I've went other the past news releases, it seems to be a good thing to me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, for a chat conversation you would want something faster than steganography. But if you will notice I did not propose a solution for encrypted chat. I proposed a solution for making encryption easier to use, yes? I hope that debaffles you a little. Steganography alone is just security through obscurity? I guess I'm not sure which algorithm you are thinking of but regardless it's very easy to encrypt your data be…
“I think steganography is an excellent way to deliver encrypted messaging to consumers.” is in your prior post. If you are not using stegonagraphy for the obscurity aspect, why use it at all? Why not just encrypted plaintext that can be decrypted? Stegonagraphy is intended to conceal that a message is being sent at all, other than the apparent message of an image. If my recipient and I are both using Cool Stegonagrap…
Storage capacity IS a function of the algorithm and the image. That's simply a fact. For example, say we are just bit flipping a 512x512px image and we take up all 8 bits in each color channel in each pixel. That lets us write 512 * 512 * 8 * 3 = 6291456 bits or about 6Mb. ...I can see how it looks like I was talking about real time communication because I said messaging. That was a mistake and honestly I have been playing around with the thought of if/how steganography could be used for chat but that really was not how I meant it to sound. I was thinking about how steganography might be able to make encryption more user friendly.