Evidence of Steganography in Real Criminal Cases

ancientribe writes "Researchers at Purdue University have found proof that criminals are making use of steganography in the field. Steganography is the stealth technique of hiding text or images within image files. Experts say that the wide availability of free point-and-click steganography tools is making the method of hiding illicit images and text easier to use. Not everyone is convinced; some security experts such as Bruce Schneier have dismissed steganography as too complex and conspicuous for the bad guys to bother using, especially for inside corporate espionage: 'It doesn't make sense that someone selling out the company can't just leave with a USB.'"

Comments

looks like something doesn't work properly

[petes_PoV]

The whole point of steganography is to embed undetectable data in a file. If some people now claim to have found evidence of it, then the original users can't have a very effective steganographic process.

Maybe this really means that the software available for this type of use just doesn't work very well?

Re:looks like something doesn't work properly

[mu22le]

The article is just saying that they found steganographic software on some criminal's pc.

FYI you can detect the presence of steganographed information by statistical means (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steganalysis).

These must be freshman researchers

[tkrotchko]

Kids,

To those versed in statistics or the scientific method, find the flaw in this statement (as taken from the article):

"with the little data we have so far, we are finding that there's a strong correlation between criminal activity and at least the installation of steganography programs on those [confiscated] computers"

With the little data I have so far, I think the researchers are pulling our leg.

Re:These must be freshman researchers

[Obyron]

Since being inconspicuous is the very definition of steganography, something tells me Mr. Schneier doesn't have a firm handle on the concept

Considering that Bruce Schneier has been around the block for a loooong time and has written several good books on cryptography and computer security, including the seminal "Applied Cryptography" (which needs a new edition! Hint hint if you're out there, Bruce!), I think it's far more likely that you have no idea who Bruce Schneier is. I'm sure that by "conspicuous" he's referring to the fact that steganography can be detected through statistical analysis, and the fact that most steganography software is crap.

Being inconspicuous isn't the definition of steganography any more than being secure is the definition of cryptography (Ceasar Ciphers, ROT-13, DES). They're both just important traits that make their respective -graphies more effective. Bruce's statement is referring to the sad state of pretty much all of the steganographic software out there right now, because it's pretty much all the security equivalent to sticking your super secret files in a hidden directory and hoping the secret police just overlook it.

I doubt it happens on a large scale

[starseeker]

Installation of steganography tools != using those tools in practice. If someone is looking to conceal data, they may be grabbing anything out there that stands a remote chance of being helpful. Sort of like how in the early days students would have all kinds of music players and point-to-point file exchange programs, looking for ones that would do what they wanted or had what they wanted.

James Wingate, director of the steganography analysis & research center at Backbone Security, and a vice president there, says the use of steganography is on the rise, and it could be used for things like transporting malware.

"Some would call me 'Chicken Little,' but I fervently and passionately believe criminal activity is being conducted with steganography... We do know it's being used to conceal child pornography," Wingate says. "

When someone "fervently and passionately" believes something, particularly something related to a day-to-day project where one's institution stands a good chance of increased funding if what you believe is true, that's a good indication that you need to look hard for real, reproducible evidence that will stand up to rigorous peer review. Nor should concealing those types of images be surprising - unfortunately there seem to be a large number of sickos out there with this stuff, and probably every data-concealing program ever written has been used to conceal it (or try to). More to the point, is it in WIDE use?

I agree that a USB stick is a much more plausible attach vector for a company insider (no "hey what was that huge surge of email traffic with images?" signatures for IT to poke their noses into, just for starters.) If someone wants to hide data on their machine, I would think any of the various harddrive encryption techniques would both be simpler and much more effective.

I remember looking around at steganography tools some years back for other purposes (watermarking images people were considering contributing to a collectibles website) and my conclusion was that the most practical use of the techniques was to store information one WANTED to be found - another way to put metadata into an image so you could later figure out additional information about it (say, for a baseball card certified by a company you could add the certification information using steganography to ensure later availability of the information even without the website context, unless the image was compressed or otherwise distorted. It didn't and doesn't strike me as anything that can be used for anything uniquely evil or even uniquely practical (real image metadata is most likely a better place for useful info, and hiding information in it is an iffy proposition at best.

Remember, just because non-government researchers can't cover all 800+ programs doesn't mean someone like the NSA with large funding and budgets couldn't throw resources at it until they had all of them covered. Somebody will probably use it, but someone will use virtually every possible technique to do something at least once in the vastness of the Internet so that's not a very interesting statement. The interesting question is will a lot of people use it, and I just can't see it being worth the trouble.