I saw this coming. I saw it coming HERE, I mean.
Pakistan bans VPNs
61–63 of 63 posts
Re: Pakistan bans VPNs
#62Earlier quoted context omitted.
I argued against the latter point: if you hide the encrypted message in something which is normally compressed such as JPEG or DivX, the encrypted message blends in with the rest of the data because compressed data has high entropy (the better the compression, the higher the entropy). I don't get your point about security by obscurity, that's pretty much the whole point of steganography I would suppose. Security by o…
You need to quantify "blends in". If I [an attacker] plot a distribution of the entropy in all your files, and some of them are outliers, even by a small amount, I can focus all my analysis on those files.
outliers, even by a small amount
Looks like you're getting the hang of it: good steganography relies on having better statistical models than the opposition.
Things are weighted in favour of the concealer, however, as (unlike the attacker) he doesn't have to worry about false positives/negatives
Re: Pakistan bans VPNs
#63I'm not sure how banning VPN's is going to stop the terrorists. Don't they use cellphones to coordinate their strikes? You would have to stop the internet and all forms of communication to slow them down, and then still you wouldn't slow them down much. We gotta get "Right to bear encryption" next to "Right to bear arms" in the constitution/bill of rights.
Americans don't have a monopoly on using bogeymen to justify unpopular and stupid policies.