DissidentX – Censorship resistance tool by Bram Cohen

Post by TheLoneWolfling » Wed, Dec 04, 2013, 2:38 AM UTC

sillysaurus2 wrote: post #59

infinity0 wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the README: Q. Can someone detect that a file has messages encoded in it? A. That depends on the encoding used and the properties of the file the data is being encoded in. There's a whole field of academic literature on steganography, none of which is invalidated by this code. What this code does is vastly simplify the implementation of new steganographic techniques, and allow a universal decoder and encoding of…

The README should read: Q. Can someone detect that a file has messages encoded in it? A. If the file was generated with an encoder whose code is public (i.e. Github, bitbucket, ...) then yes. Always. And even if the code is private, it may not be secure. Unless you come up with an encoding scheme that's never been thought of before, then law enforcement will likely be able to detect the encoded messages unless they'r…

Post by sp332 » Wed, Dec 04, 2013, 5:04 AM UTC

wrongc0ntinent wrote: post #68

yid wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is actually remarkably clever. Spam would indeed seem to be an excellent vector for sending hidden messages!

What in this makes it get past spam filters?

Post by dinkumthinkum » Wed, Dec 04, 2013, 5:53 AM UTC

phil_2-0 wrote: post #38

mcphilip wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interestingly enough, stenography was already being decried pre 9/11 as a tool used by terrorists [1]: >"Uncrackable encryption is allowing terrorists — Hamas, Hezbollah, al-Qaida and others — to communicate about their criminal intentions without fear of outside intrusion," FBI Director Louis Freeh said last March during closed-door testimony on terrorism before a Senate panel. "They're thwarting the efforts of law…

> "Uncrackable encryption is allowing terrorists — Hamas, Hezbollah, al-Qaida and others — to communicate about their criminal intentions without fear of outside intrusion, You succeeded to put 3 different ethnic groups - I should say 2, the last one being an US product - in the same bag and doing then, a misleading association, fucking idiot!

Post by dragonwriter » Wed, Dec 04, 2013, 6:27 AM UTC

dinkumthinkum wrote: post #74

tsaoutourpants wrote: post #5

Stenography is one of the NSA's worst nightmares. Encrypted strings sent over the Internet they know are encrypted, and often know what algorithm and key length. But the fact that any image can contain an encrypted message, and there's know way to know whether or not something exists within, scares the shit out of them. So, good work.

I mean this in all seriousness ... Is there any evidence that anyone in the NSA is really that scared of stenography?

Post by nitrogen » Wed, Dec 04, 2013, 7:53 AM UTC

infinity0 wrote: post #65

sillysaurus2 wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's one way it might go down in practice. After law enforcement seizes your computer, they'll scan your computer for any encrypted containers, along with any code that looks like it's used for steganography. They'll find DissidentX, since its README mentions "steganography," which is a keyword that their forensics tools will search for. Then they'll use each encoder in your DissidentX folder to scan your computer…

I just read it, and you are completely extrapolating what that paper says. It does not say steganography is hopeless. It contains no mathematical proofs, and it's also from over 15 years ago. More generally, "we do not have a proof" does not mean "we disprove". You also completely ignored my point about the secret, without which the encoder will not work when an attacker tries to run it.