Simple inner transposition steganography

[David Honig]

At 08:21 PM 9/18/03 +0200, edo wrote:
>Come on, this is a terrible idea for steganography.  Unless this catches
>on as some sort of fad, which (a) it won't and (b) even if it did it
>would be short-lived, then sending a message with its letters scrambled
>in this way would be the last thing you'd want to do for steganography.

Are you forgetting: 

1. the stego'ed bits are already noise (ie, encrypted),
possibly shaped noise?

2. you don't have to make a mistake on every word?

Ie, you model what human mispellers do and you can still have
deniable bandwidth.

...

Speaking of which, but aside: An alexic (due to MS disconnecting a certain
visual-to-linguistic path)  "hunt-and-peck" friend makes lettershape-based
errors when typing, vs. the spatial qwerty-finger-position-fumble errors
that I (an inaccurate touch typist) make, or the spelling errors ("I"
before "E" yadda yadda) that visually-literate, careful authors  make. 

[Some text-to-speech software is helping him regain functionality.  As does
Google's _did you mean?_, spellchecking, and his diary's (Excel, actually)
search ability.  GPS might help with his navigation problems.]

Anyway, there's a human-error-distribution which can be used to 
shape the stego'd misspellings.  Just like one's digital camera noise can be
characterized before using images from it to broadcast stego'd messages.








---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Cryptography Mailing List
Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to majordomo at metzdowd.com