Slashdot Mirror


Hiding Secret Messages In Skype Silences

Orome1 writes "A group of researchers from the Institute of Telecommunications of the Warsaw University of Technology have devised a way to send and receive messages hidden in the data packets used to represent silences during a Skype call. After learning that Skype transmits voice data in 130-byte packets and the silences in 70-byte packets, the researchers came upon the idea of using the latter to conceal the sending and receiving of additional messages."

5 of 79 comments (clear)

  1. There goes that idea by Jeng · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If you are going to hide something, don't let everyone know where you put it.

    Now that the exploit has been discussed it will be watched out for.

    --
    Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
  2. Re:Eloquent silence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    UDP overhead is 28 bytes for ipv4. Add in overhead for the audio codec to represent a timeframe for a sound and 70 bytes become reasonable.

  3. Re:Eloquent silence by Minwee · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Exactly what I was thinking.

    You would think that a packet specifying X seconds of simulated silence could be packed into a few bits, so maybe two bytes should suffice.

    Were you planning on sending that "two seconds of silence" packet at the _start_ of the pause? If so I know a few theoretical physicists and at least one state lottery commission who would _love_ to see your algorithm.

  4. Re:Eloquent silence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Btw, Silence is a sound for computers which is represented by a flat line or basically the value of 0. Not getting packets and getting a value of 0 are different things whereas the former can be due to packet lost and broken connection while the latter is an actual value.

  5. Re:Go old school rather than packet level? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    If it were "undetectable", it wouldn't be able to be spotted by the *receiver* either.

    It may well be *innocuous*, but 'undetectable communications' are about as useful as 'unbreakable encryption', and every bit as oximoronic.