Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Encrypt Information In Images Without Distortion

Posted by CowboyNeal on from the practical-steganography dept.

Nomikos writes "C|Net reports: Researchers have created a new way to encrypt information in a digital image and extract it later without any distortion or loss of information. A team of scientists from Xerox and the University of Rochester said that the technique, called reversible data hiding, could be used in situations that require proof that an image has not been altered."

9 of 234 comments (clear)

  1. better pr0n by jlechem · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    great, now all the pervs in the world can have super high def porn. Forensic science is great but we all know what this tech's real use is going to be.

    --
    Hold up, wait a minute, let me put some pimpin in it
  2. Re:This has been done forever. by packeteer · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    The space in my sig is space in my sig is part of anti-page-widening post screens. I have no control over it.

    Also ive heard this same thing a million times. These are not bash shell commands. Not all shells use "umount" to unmount a volume.

    --
    unzip; strip; touch; finger; mount; fsck; more; yes; unmount; sleep
  3. New? by csnydermvpsoft · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Rochester said that the technique, called reversible data hiding, could be used in situations that require proof that an image has not been altered.

    I've had that technique for years. It's called a checksum.

  4. Re:misc by lacrymology.com · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Hey! I remember you.

    --

    #
    # Modus Ponens
    #
  5. Re:Huh? by b0r1s · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    It isn't meant to prove anything. I actually LIKE microsoft, I just find it funny that the mass of readership here pretends to hate them for some undefined reason, as do the editors, yet the editors still run their ads in prominent locations.

    If the editors/owners of this site had any moral fiber, they'd stand by their comments and not run Microsoft ads at all. It'd be a completely stupid business decision, but that would be the way true "Open source advocates" would handle the situation.

    --
    Mooniacs for iOS and Android
  6. Off topic question: about mozilla by Carbon+Unit+549 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Anybody know why mozzila 1.2 beta can't block the advertisement image on the cnet link?
    When I right click on it, it says it is already blocked--but I'm seeing it?

    --

    nohup rm -rf ~/. >& zen &

    1. Re:Off topic question: about mozilla by no+soup+for+you · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Anybody know why mozzila 1.2 beta can't block the advertisement image on the cnet link? When I right click on it, it says it is already blocked--but I'm seeing it?

      Same thing happened to me (in 1.1). the image was coming from adlog.com.com -- I blocked, refreshed and another ad took its place from adlog.com.com.. Block, refresh, and this time no ads.
      --
      If you blog it...
  7. Childs play by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Weren't two kids doing this in "Along Came a Spider" in order to pass notes in class?

  8. Re:This has been done forever. by Nerull · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Considering that 'umount' is not a shell command, but instead a program, I fail to see how using bash effects anything. $ which umount /bin/umount