Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Blocking Steganosonic Data In Phone Calls

Posted by kdawson on from the could-you-repeat-that-please dept.

psyced writes "Steganography is a technique to encode secret messages in the background noise of an audio recording or photograph. There have been attempts at steganalysis in the past, but scientists at FH St. Pölten are developing strategies to block out secret data in VoIP and even GSM phone calls by preemptively modifying background noise (link is to a Google translation of the German original) on a level that stays inaudible or invisible, yet destroys any message encoded within. I wonder if this method could be applied to hiding messages in executables, too."

9 of 185 comments (clear)

  1. Not a secret message. by Creepy+Crawler · · Score: 5, Funny

    The butterfly flaps its wings twice.

    I repeat, the butterfly flaps its wings twice.

    --
    1. Re:Not a secret message. by Alsee · · Score: 2, Funny

      After anti-steganographic transformation:

      I saw a bug.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    2. Re:Not a secret message. by Chrisq · · Score: 4, Funny

      The butterfly flaps its wings twice.

      I repeat, the butterfly flaps its wings twice.

      Please clarify immediately. Is that just a repetition or does the butterfly flap its wings four times. This could be the difference between a gang of naked teenagers invading Prime Minister's question time and the defacing of Nelson's column.

    3. Re:Not a secret message. by CmdrGravy · · Score: 2, Funny

      Are you Mr Xaviar, Mr Francis Xaviar of Mile End Road, London ?

      Just need to check because that looked like one of the secret code words I am supposed to be watching out for, anyway if that is you Francis ( there is a code word for this somewhere but I think it's in the basement somewhere so I'll just give you the gist ) the "materials", you know what I mean eh - one ends the barrel and they're "easily triggered", anyway the "materials" will be loaded onto the Builders Merchants truck which will then be parked on Lincoln Street, outside the curry house ( quite a nice one actually I have an account there the food is delicious ) where you can go and "steal it". The keys will above the wheel. Usual time, tomorrow 11:25AM.

      Remember, absolute secrecy is required. One false word and all will be blown.

      Yours,

      Commander Jaun Gravy

      PS, this e-mail system of yours is great. All that nonsensical spam you fill it with is bound to throw off the man if he comes a looking. Good work.

  2. Re:Not going to work.... by Zemran · · Score: 5, Funny

    would result in significant audible alteration of the sound to the point of unusability....

    Sounds like an average mobile phone call to me...

    --
    I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
  3. Microsoft uses that. by SharpFang · · Score: 4, Funny

    I wonder if this method could be applied to hiding messages in executables, too.

    Yes, a similar method has been employed by Microsoft to all the executables it ever released, ever since the times of MS-DOS.
    After compilation they run the program through a special utility that modifies a few bits in the executable at random. Then they run the resulting executable through some tests and if it passes, they release it, if it crashes, they try with a different random bits.

    --
    45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
  4. Re:Not going to work.... by StuckInSyrup · · Score: 4, Funny

    (since the signals used to transmit the secret message are the same as the ones transmitting the public message, and they do not have permission for destroying the public message) Did you just call a phone call a "public message"? Man, you are even more cynic about privacy than I am.
    --
    Ni.
  5. Re:Not going to work.... by The+Clockwork+Troll · · Score: 3, Funny

    Any amount of noise you add can simply be dealt with by including the stego data more than once or using checksums or whatever

    Yes, but how to do this in real-time in a cryptographically secure manner is the subject of much ongoing research.

    The feeling in the research community at the moment is that efficient stego-redundancy requires a working database of discovered steganographic synonyms, i.e. a stegosaurus.

    --

    There are no karma whores, only moderation johns
  6. Re:Not going to work.... by SQLGuru · · Score: 3, Funny

    Unless it's a foot race.

    Layne