Slashdot Mirror
Blocking Steganosonic Data In Phone Calls
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."
That's completely pointless. All it does is create an arms race. Any amount of noise you add can simply be dealt with by including the stego data more than once or using checksums or whatever. Any amount of damage sufficient to prevent any possibility of hidden messages would result in significant audible alteration of the sound to the point of unusability....
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
The butterfly flaps its wings twice.
I repeat, the butterfly flaps its wings twice.
I wonder if we will ever have widespread end-to-end encryption for all of our private communication, so that "service providers" cannot mess with our actual message and/or data stream. I guess there will always be someone making a profit by preventing this on a legal level, sadly. When will the "mindless consumer" finally wake up and kick the government that allows all this?
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
Yes you can. Some examples: - replace "add 1024" with "substract -1024" - replace "if greater then 100" with "if greater then or equal to 99" - replace "copy a to b, copy c to d" by "copy c to d, copy a to b" Just have a look at any assembly language and use your imagination. To make matters even simpler, there are operators which completely ignore certain parameters (e.g. a JUMP operator which only takes 1 parameter leaves room for hidden data in the 2nd and 3rd operator field). There are plenty of instructions or combinations of instructions which leave room to such minor changes without any difference in execution. So for the steganographers, the goal would be to look for all of such instances in an executable, then agree on some kind of code (for example "add n" is a 1, "substract -n" is a 0). Semantically there is no difference, both codes will result in the exact same execution, but you found some wiggle room to leave a message. It was reported on Slashdot a few years ago.
scientists at FH St. Polten are developing strategies to block out secret data in VoIP and even GSM phone calls by preemptively modifying background noise
...And once again, they treat all of us like criminals for the sake of annoying (not even
preventing or catching) the 0.0001% that really pose a threat.
Good work, guys - Even a classic BOFH has higher efficacy and useability standards than anything related to the War on Non-Western, Non-Irish, Non-Russian (and "non-former-Soviet") Terror. At least the BOFH's systems work for him, you asshats can't even manage that despite taking all that daaaaaaangerous toothpaste away from us.
However, even I overstate the case here - Encoding data in background noise doesn't break any laws!
We all have every right to send hidden data, or even to use hard encryption right in plain sight. However, exercising that right may lead to some undue scrutiny, and thus we expose the real reason for techniques like this... Erosion of plausible deniability, which The Powers That Be loathe far, far more than any actual threat. It looks bad to just deport and torture someone with no evidence. But if you can demonstrate that he had (gasp!) something he didn't want the whole world to know about (because only criminals have secrets, of course), well then the sheep will approve of going all Jack Bauer on him.
Data can only be defined as varying bits of a defined pattern. So if the pattern is defined as 'a bunch of numbers that are either 0s or 1s', then the data stored within it is defined as varying the positions of 0s and 1s.
Obscuring data equals obscuring the patterns. So, to obscure the data within a 0 and 1 pattern, you might switch around the 0s and 1s.
For a message embedded in the background noise in a phone call, data may be modulated as 'loudness of background noise within a certain frequency range' or whatever. Obscuring this would be to add random data in the frequency range or whatever.
But that actually takes knowledge of the pattern used. If the pattern is rather the speaker knocking on a table, then any method designed to obscure background noise wouldn't register it or obscure it. It's similar to a scrambling technique that randomizes the 0s and 1s on a diskette sent in the post, while the actual message may be morse code holes punched in the plastic.
Conclusion: To void steganographic data, you need to know the method used to embed it.
Or perturb the logic. The easy way is just to look at how polymorphic viruses did it. The hard way is to get out your disassembler and change
cmp eax, edx
jle offset
to
cmp edx, eax
jae offset
(insert your own variation here). Have a program read all cmp eax, edx (or cmp edx, eax) opcodes and output 0 for the first and 1 for the second.
This could be better spent on more cell towers, or not allowing bastard fone companies to charge $200.00 termination fees.
Stopping secret messages? , puleeese.
"John has a long mustache"
"The chair is against the wall"
Stop that!
* Carthago Delenda Est *
I'm sure someone will correct me if I have missed something, but it seems to me that the desire by some to hide irremovable watermarks within digital streams is a similar technical challenge to adding steganographic content. Similarly, those attempting to destroy watermarks will face the same problems as those wishing to remove or destroy steganographic content.
The interesting thing is who is on which side of the battle.
Generally it's corporations who like the idea of watermarks, and individuals who don't. Individuals do however like steganography, but the authorities don't. It will be interesting to see who develops what technologies and who, if anyone, wins this arms race.
-- MartinG To mail me: echo kewyjlcxyzvjfxbqwh | tr bcefhjklqvwxyz
It's along the lines of "How do you tell if there are stego images on someone's computer?"
Answer:You find the stego converter tool on their harddrive.