What is Digg?74 Comments
- cgibbo, on 08/20/2008, -4/+98EYEM IN YUR E-MAILZ. STEGGIN UR SECRITS.
- cawfee, on 08/21/2008, -1/+79Altered with the proper steganography algorithm, this innocuous picture of a cat could be a carrier for TERRORISTS
TERRORISTS
QUICK, BAN PICTURES - philz, on 08/21/2008, -0/+69The article boils down to:
Stenography for jpg, gif, bmp: Modify the LSB (least significant bit) to hide your data.
Very very very impressive method to fight this: Modify the LSB in images at random.
I guess digg is not the intended audience for this article. - SFBWork, on 08/21/2008, -4/+51Im in ur pic, stealing ur dataz.
- falafelkiosken, on 08/21/2008, -1/+47Pictures are a threat to our freedom
- mm3guy, on 08/21/2008, -0/+29The submitter just said LOLCATS to draw attention to his article.
- Elranzer, on 08/21/2008, -1/+29eBaum invented LOLcats?
- Br3ach, on 08/21/2008, -0/+25Well, a 4chan meme would be the last place I would look for national secrets
- Darkaged, on 08/21/2008, -2/+25Yeah, what's technology news doing on Digg?
MORE POLITICAL STORIES!!! - falafelkiosken, on 08/21/2008, -2/+22exactly what has this to do about lolcats?
- tribble222, on 08/21/2008, -0/+15Wish I had read your comment before I read the article. I have no idea how they were able to write so many words with such little content.
- Kanten, on 08/21/2008, -5/+17Nope, because "Lolcat" is a term coined by the biggest content pirate ever.
- Elranzer, on 08/21/2008, -2/+11Obama uses iPhone to TXT message (not MMS) his choice of VP candidate... RON PAUL!
30,000,000+ diggs - Evolutuon, on 08/21/2008, -1/+10It worked and I ended up not being that disappointed.
- yoshagogo, on 08/21/2008, -7/+15Buried for cba to read a long ass article
- ChayD, on 08/21/2008, -6/+14Hate to sound like a douche, but what's next? "Engineering student invents wheel"?
- deadmoo, on 08/21/2008, -0/+8Modifying the LSB at random won't let you recover the original hidden data. You won't even know whether or not it was stego. And good luck if the person on the other end is checking a hash or checksum on the possibly innocuous file you just modified.
- inactive, on 08/21/2008, -0/+7only reason this made front page is cause of LOLCATS in the title
- krwlngindark, on 08/21/2008, -0/+7I already haz ur cheeseburger.
- Jektal, on 08/21/2008, -1/+8RTFA, it doesn't add any data to the file, just info. The filesize stays the same.
- haylel, on 08/21/2008, -0/+6ceiling cat sees all
- holyskeleton, on 08/21/2008, -2/+8♀♥♀
- inactive, on 08/21/2008, -0/+5giggity
- rages4calm, on 08/21/2008, -3/+8Great article, crappy title. Using lolcats in the subject was nothing more then "eye candy".
- caseycoold, on 08/21/2008, -0/+4RTFA
It's not re-encode, it's randomizing another message, and using that that to overwrite any message already there.
compression method doesn't change. If you took a .png to a .jpg, you'd notice. And the article said it could be done to any format. - laofmoonster, on 08/21/2008, -0/+3http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Image:CP_Directio ...
- geekchic, on 08/21/2008, -1/+4Welcome to the art of writing a headline designed to get people reading the article.
- publiclurker, on 08/21/2008, -0/+3My information theory books have been long packed away, but aren't there error correcting check sum algorithms out there? While it decreases the amount of information able to be stores per image by quite a bit, you could possible still store information.
Even if you can't do it this way, you can still send information in other ways. LOL cat means the attack is Tuesday, a recipe for apple pie means everything is called off. - ha3er0, on 06/16/2009, -1/+4Use Stegdetect
http://www.linuxhaxor.net/2008/02/20/revealing-ste ... - britblogger, on 08/21/2008, -2/+5if that article's font size wasn't 8pt, I may have read the entire thing.
- melonhedd, on 08/21/2008, -1/+4If you are creating or distributing lolcat images, you deserve to be jailed for life.
- Owwmykneecap, on 08/21/2008, -0/+3That was surprisingly less interesting than i thought it would be.
- JesusDeluxe, on 08/21/2008, -0/+3I haven't figured it out, and I'm not sure i want to
- jeremyduffy, on 08/21/2008, -0/+3Well duh. If you recode every image and alter the level of JPG compression, you might not detect if there was steganography, but you'll definitely obliterate it.
- puttly, on 08/21/2008, -0/+2by using stenography it modified the data in the image (making the image look a little bit more pixelated that it already was) filesize my fluctuate by 0.00001 kilobytes but all in all its the same thing.
- rinote, on 08/21/2008, -0/+2Ceiling Cat is watching you.
- SharkyTech, on 08/21/2008, -0/+2Yeah, it's not exactly the most difficult-to-arrive-at "solution" is it?
Besides, can they really use this on every picture going in an out of the place without causing large delays and using a lot of resources? - championchap, on 08/21/2008, -0/+2TL:DR
- browntiger, on 08/21/2008, -0/+2Larger file, more redundant data, use different file type, pdf, doc, .exe. Obviously best security is screening employees, and not allowing any file media.
DoD now deployed credant encryption with mandatory policy encrypt all removable media. Also, to be honest, after running it in debugger I don't think it is all that secure.... I am sure they, as usual, took vendor claims at face value. - deadmoo, on 08/21/2008, -0/+2Adjusting the palette won't do anything useful unless the data was hidden in the palette. Data is usually hidden in the LSB of the image data, not the palette.
- ciaoamica, on 08/21/2008, -0/+2I'm not surprised that LOLCAT was not in this story at all. Good scam to get me to read it though....
- jeremyduffy, on 08/21/2008, -0/+2Couldn't read it... too much text... eyes...dying...
Either way, you're right, I should have read it. However, the fix for JPG is easy and doesn't require this. Also, any GIF or PNG could probably be solved with some simple palette adjustments.
Also, just read the article and that's basically what he's doing. Seemed pretty obvious to me. - SapientWolf, on 08/21/2008, -0/+1I did a 60 page group project on the subject. It's not that hard to write a lot to say a little. It takes considerable skill to do the opposite, however.
- Atomic1fire, on 08/21/2008, -0/+1Wouldnt it be easier to just use visual cues,
if the image looks natural enough, no one could tell it means something - SurlyDuff, on 08/21/2008, -0/+1spreeder FTW
- baldduck, on 08/21/2008, -0/+1I was there.
- kaosethema, on 08/22/2008, -0/+1umm, i was embedding credit card numbers in bitmaps....
IN THE NINETIES!!!!!!!!!
buried - grumpyrain, on 08/24/2008, -0/+1I have my doubts that it is possible. Not the technology, we already extract many attachments and scan them for virus or malware patterns, it wouldn't be hard to deploy this at an organisations' email gateway.
It all depends on the size of the message and the physical size of the image. For example, consider a typical 6MP photo from a digital camera. There is probably around 3MB of JPEG data in there. Now imagine I wanted to send something pretty small; say 128 bytes of a hidden truecrypt volume. The 128 bytes of data could easily be hidden across a couple of photos in such a way that it would be impossible to destroy via this technique. Techniques like hamming code are used to correct stream read errors in CDs and DVDs, and the same techniques could be used to ensure that steganography survived any such attempts. - grumpyrain, on 08/24/2008, -0/+1If the image is visibly pixelated, then you are probably attempting to hide more information than the picture would naturally be able to hide.
- grumpyrain, on 08/24/2008, -0/+1> Wish I had read your comment before I read the article. I have no idea how they were able to write so
> many words with such little content.
What are you talking about? Philz's entire comment was included in the picture at the top of the page. -
Show 51 - 75 of 75 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 