<div dir="ltr"> <br><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class=""><div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 7:45 PM, Sampo Syreeni <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:decoy@iki.fi" target="_blank">decoy@iki.fi</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">

 <br>
So what *is* it with you people? Can't you see that steganography really starts and ends with information and coding theory, unlike cryptography? Its bounds really necessarily and from the start have to do with noise and uncertainty, whereas crypto protocols only deal with clean data and computational complexity (eventually, preferably, proven-to-be-hard one-way-functions). Steganography really is its own, separate field, eventhough it shares most of the randomness, signal processing, complexity and whatnot, framework, with current crypto proper. <br>

</blockquote></div></div></div></div></div>
</blockquote></div><br><br>You're quite right. If anyone is interested in some of the more 
information theoretical approaches to steganography, I have several 
chapters about it in <i>Disappearing Cryptography. </i>Pretty rudimentary, of course, but it might be a help.<br>
<br><a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0123744792/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0123744792&linkCode=as2&tag=myhomepage0bc&linkId=LCZPZBSBFE2HXQ77" target="_blank">http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0123744792/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0123744792&linkCode=as2&tag=myhomepage0bc&linkId=LCZPZBSBFE2HXQ77</a><br>
</div></div>