Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

volci t1_jbbrlww wrote

Reply to comment by czl in A group of researchers has achieved a breakthrough in secure communications by developing an algorithm that conceals sensitive information so effectively that it is impossible to detect that anything has been hidden by thebelsnickle1991

> Done right this is hard to decode or even detect unless you know the algorithm.

And then you gett he problem of security by obscurity .. "as long as no one knows how we did it, it's secure!"

2

shponglespore t1_jbcffcx wrote

Obscurity should never be your only security measure, but it can still play an important role in your overall security strategy. You can and should encrypt anything you're hiding with steganography.

Also, steganography isn't really security through obscurity. That phrase generally refers to things like trying to keep a weak encryption algorithm secret because anyone who knows the algorithm has a huge head start on cracking it. Good crypto algorithms are designed to be secure even when an attacker knows exactly which algorithm was used.

4

czl t1_jbc3ne5 wrote

Is stenography used for security? No. It is used for plausible deniability. For security there is encryption. You understand the difference do you not? When you need both you use both of course.

3

volci t1_jbc9gjt wrote

Steganography is used for security

Maybe it shouldn't be ...but it is

1

czl t1_jbcli5n wrote

> Steganography is used for security

Steganography is confused for security.

Steganography can help security but it is not security. It increases the work needed for discovery and only that.

Analogous to the difference between cover and concealment: "Cover is protection from the fire of hostile weapons. Concealment is protection from observation."

Steganography is like "concealment" but not like "cover". To have "cover" you need encryption. You can have one or the other or both.

2

volci t1_jbcnorh wrote

Wikipedia disagrees with you ...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steganography?wprov=sfti1

Steganography is a form of security

Via obscurity :)

1

czl t1_jbcs10i wrote

My words above are:

>> Steganography can help security but it is not security.

To that you reply

> Wikipedia disagrees with you… Steganography is a form of security … Via obscurity

Obscurity can help security but it is not security is it? You know better than that to believe that so why do you reply to me with ‘Wikipedia disagrees with you’?

Here is what the wikipedia link you shared says:

>> Whereas cryptography is the practice of protecting the contents of a message alone, steganography is concerned with concealing the fact that a secret message is being sent and its contents.

Concealment can help you avoid detection but concealment does not offer protection does it? If someone has a gun a pile of leaves may conceal you but will it protect you? What do you suppose happens to those who confuse concealment for cover (which does offer protection)?

Do you genuinely not understand the difference between stenography vs cryptography and the different purposes (as Wikipedia explains) they have? Are you being disagreable on purpose to act like a troll? Why then are you being disagreable? What is your purpose?

1

green_meklar t1_jbcyzzs wrote

With proper cryptography, even if they do know your algorithm, they still can't read your message without the decryption key. Ideally, with good steganography, knowing your algorithm can't even tell them the message is present without the decryption key.

3