Steganography has the fatal flaw that the method has to remain secret.
Tis but a flesh wound.
The beauty of Steganography is that it doesn't have to remain secret, it only has to remain secret while it is being used. The shear number of options for Steganography makes it nearly impossible to detect, unless you know what and where to look.
A previous poster listed several other means for Steganography
(1) Encode the data as the packet length. (2) Encode the data as the packet checksum (3) Encode the data as the fragment offset. (4) Encode the data as the number of extra ACKS. (5) Encode the data as the starting connection sequence number. (6) Encode the data as the window size. (7) Encode the data as the inter-packet delay.
I can probably think of another couple of dozen ways, including layering the Steganography, by using any of the above methods in conjunction with other methods of obfuscation and encryption, where the TCP Steganography is combined with Image based Steganography, or Regular encryption methods or whatever.
The point of Steganography isn't to encrypt, it is to hide in plain sight. Reminds me of the guy who used to shoplift, but he only took REALLY big things, like a canoe, from the store. His premise was that nobody asked him for a receipt for the thing he was walking out the front door with.
Shoving clothes down your pants looks suspicious, walking out the door in plain view of everyone with one of the biggest things in the store, doesn't. Nobody would steal a boat like that. Of course now with security cameras everywhere, that doesn't work.
Why not do Digital to chemical process? Have a Digital Camera, that takes AND STORES pictures, just like they do today, but have an OPTION to spit out an Instant Picture as well?
It doesn't have to be one or the other, it can be BOTH.
If I were Polaroid, I'd make a system for printing Digital Photos to REAL photo paper, and not using crappy Inkjet or Color Laser, for the home market.
Requiring password changes on a regular basis doesn't improve security, it actually lowers it IMHO.
Whenever I've seen institutions start to require this policy, I explain expect a larger number of people to tape their current password under their keyboards.
The other option I see people do, is use a password combination like this "MyCurrentPassword!05" where the "05" is the month. So, in a few days from now, the new password will be "MyCurrentPassword!06" and so on. Even if you require 12 unique passwords in 12 month period, they will be cool, and not really change the password.
The #1 problem with passwords in my opinion, is that most systems have a "remember password" checkbox. That checkbox should be BANNED!
The moral of the story here folks is that are justice system is an adversarial one at all levels.
Its never a good idea to help law enforcement simply out of some concept of civic responsibility you will only find yourself on the wrong end of it for your trouble.
I hope you never have to report a crime (like a stolen car) because I would expect you to NEVER call the police even should you need them.
You should never never cooperate unless you feel it is in YOUR near term; best interest to do so.
Yeah, that's the rub, isn't it. You giveth, and you taketh away. Never, unless it is convenient to. What kind of absolute is that?
Cars kill more people (42,000) in the US each year than do guns(30,000, more than 1/2 of those suicide), and there are more guns (200 million) in the US than cars(70 million). I know, why let the facts get in the way of a knew jerk reaction to guns?
Bowling for Columbine should be focused upon the Pharma industry, which has more to do with two kids going wacko than the guns and games did.
Lets talk "Murder". Let us suppose for just a second, that we both can agree that murder is immoral.
Now, let us talk about Abortion, is that murder or not? Why or why not. When is Abortion Murder, and when is it not?
Why is killing an unborn child moments from being born live not murder, while ten minutes later it would be? Is it okay to kill a deformed baby because it is not humane to let it live or not?
Now while we agree on the basic premise (Thou Shalt Not Murder), I'm pretty sure we wouldn't agree on the details.
And we're not even talking about hypocrisy here, yet we are talking about arbitrary distinctions of what is, and isn't murder. AND I haven't even brought the deity into the conversation.
Deity is not necessary to inject the term "arbitrary" into the conversation. Which is my point. Injecting Deity into the conversation is only a bigoted knee jerk response. The original poster suggested that using a Deity is arbitrary, when the reality it is all arbitrary. He is also indicating he doesn't like that particular arbitrary code, and would rather use his own. Which is fine, as long as he realizes that it is just as arbitrary as any other, and that he is incapable of keeping his own code.
Man cannot rule over himself, what makes anyone think he can rule over others?
I think any man made device that has sensors, some kind of AI that helps it to decide what to do and then a method of acting on its environment is a robot.
AWESOME! You just proved most of Congress are robots!
General Response to the grandparent poster. Basically my point is that there is no basis for morality based on any creed man has created, because they will set it aside at the earliest convenience.
Which makes even those morality claims.... arbitrary. Lots of "except".
Take abortion.... when is not arbitrary to abort an unborn child? In some cultures, they will take a deformed child born naturally and kill it immediately, because it is deformed, and they think it is cruel to keep such a child alive. And on the other extreme, we have Roman Catholics Popes who are against birth control because of their abortion stance.
Inserting belief in Deity (or lack thereof) into the argument about morals is just a bigoted response. What is decent morals to one, is indecent to another, and who gets to decide who is right? There isn't even agreement among those who believe in Deity, what is morally right. There is even less agreement among those who don't believe in Deity.
So, what is the solution? No Moral Code at all, or a single religious one? Because debating any moral code in between is simply an exercise in masturbatory ego inflation.
It is equally weird that man thinks he can rule over himself, let alone rule over others.
I dare say that no matter what your creed, motto or otherwise morality is, you have violated it at least once. And the moment you claim you haven't, I'll call you a liar to your face.
Yes, we are all hypocrites. Only some of us are willing and able to admit this flaw.
Why bash Christianity? Why not say the same thing about Muslims? Judaism? Buddhism?
You're a bigot. All your upbringing has done is made you one. I wouldn't be that proud of it, if I were you.
And you clearly haven't sat down on a seat that someone naked sat down on, after they have taken a crap. While it is clearly the "in thing" to bash Christianity, and all that, there are other reasons to wear clothes besides being prudish Christians.
Slashdot Mirror
SAP said they were selling trash, but in reality they were selling CRAP, which as you know is a whole other department.
And Vodka, which just about makes any music sound better.
Tis but a flesh wound.
The beauty of Steganography is that it doesn't have to remain secret, it only has to remain secret while it is being used. The shear number of options for Steganography makes it nearly impossible to detect, unless you know what and where to look.
A previous poster listed several other means for Steganography
(1) Encode the data as the packet length.
(2) Encode the data as the packet checksum
(3) Encode the data as the fragment offset.
(4) Encode the data as the number of extra ACKS.
(5) Encode the data as the starting connection sequence number.
(6) Encode the data as the window size.
(7) Encode the data as the inter-packet delay.
I can probably think of another couple of dozen ways, including layering the Steganography, by using any of the above methods in conjunction with other methods of obfuscation and encryption, where the TCP Steganography is combined with Image based Steganography, or Regular encryption methods or whatever.
The point of Steganography isn't to encrypt, it is to hide in plain sight. Reminds me of the guy who used to shoplift, but he only took REALLY big things, like a canoe, from the store. His premise was that nobody asked him for a receipt for the thing he was walking out the front door with.
Shoving clothes down your pants looks suspicious, walking out the door in plain view of everyone with one of the biggest things in the store, doesn't. Nobody would steal a boat like that. Of course now with security cameras everywhere, that doesn't work.
Why not do Digital to chemical process? Have a Digital Camera, that takes AND STORES pictures, just like they do today, but have an OPTION to spit out an Instant Picture as well?
It doesn't have to be one or the other, it can be BOTH.
If I were Polaroid, I'd make a system for printing Digital Photos to REAL photo paper, and not using crappy Inkjet or Color Laser, for the home market.
I see lots or problems with the current system. Where would you like me to start?
Requiring password changes on a regular basis doesn't improve security, it actually lowers it IMHO.
Whenever I've seen institutions start to require this policy, I explain expect a larger number of people to tape their current password under their keyboards.
The other option I see people do, is use a password combination like this "MyCurrentPassword!05" where the "05" is the month. So, in a few days from now, the new password will be "MyCurrentPassword!06" and so on. Even if you require 12 unique passwords in 12 month period, they will be cool, and not really change the password.
The #1 problem with passwords in my opinion, is that most systems have a "remember password" checkbox. That checkbox should be BANNED!
DarkOx,
I hope you never have to report a crime (like a stolen car) because I would expect you to NEVER call the police even should you need them.
Yeah, that's the rub, isn't it. You giveth, and you taketh away. Never, unless it is convenient to. What kind of absolute is that?
Guns (Specifically "arms") are in the Constitution, cars are not. Seems like they are pretty important to me, but what do I know?
I one of those wacky libertarian people who thinks the Government ought to fear the people, rather than the other way around.
So, what you are saying is that Assholes (Abusive Husbands) and Criminals are the problem, not guns.
And are you're saying that when people die in car accidents there is no living forever with regrets or prison?
I don't think you thought much about what you are saying.
I fear for Abby (NCIS).
Cars kill more people (42,000) in the US each year than do guns(30,000, more than 1/2 of those suicide), and there are more guns (200 million) in the US than cars(70 million). I know, why let the facts get in the way of a knew jerk reaction to guns?
Bowling for Columbine should be focused upon the Pharma industry, which has more to do with two kids going wacko than the guns and games did.
But that is MY opinion.
Lets talk "Murder". Let us suppose for just a second, that we both can agree that murder is immoral.
Now, let us talk about Abortion, is that murder or not? Why or why not. When is Abortion Murder, and when is it not?
Why is killing an unborn child moments from being born live not murder, while ten minutes later it would be? Is it okay to kill a deformed baby because it is not humane to let it live or not?
Now while we agree on the basic premise (Thou Shalt Not Murder), I'm pretty sure we wouldn't agree on the details.
And we're not even talking about hypocrisy here, yet we are talking about arbitrary distinctions of what is, and isn't murder. AND I haven't even brought the deity into the conversation.
Deity is not necessary to inject the term "arbitrary" into the conversation. Which is my point. Injecting Deity into the conversation is only a bigoted knee jerk response. The original poster suggested that using a Deity is arbitrary, when the reality it is all arbitrary. He is also indicating he doesn't like that particular arbitrary code, and would rather use his own. Which is fine, as long as he realizes that it is just as arbitrary as any other, and that he is incapable of keeping his own code.
Man cannot rule over himself, what makes anyone think he can rule over others?
I'm not a real Archangel, I only play one on the Internet. ;-)
Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.
Did anyone else think of ED209 besides me?
AWESOME! You just proved most of Congress are robots!
General Response to the grandparent poster. Basically my point is that there is no basis for morality based on any creed man has created, because they will set it aside at the earliest convenience.
Which makes even those morality claims .... arbitrary. Lots of "except".
Take abortion .... when is not arbitrary to abort an unborn child? In some cultures, they will take a deformed child born naturally and kill it immediately, because it is deformed, and they think it is cruel to keep such a child alive. And on the other extreme, we have Roman Catholics Popes who are against birth control because of their abortion stance.
Inserting belief in Deity (or lack thereof) into the argument about morals is just a bigoted response. What is decent morals to one, is indecent to another, and who gets to decide who is right? There isn't even agreement among those who believe in Deity, what is morally right. There is even less agreement among those who don't believe in Deity.
So, what is the solution? No Moral Code at all, or a single religious one? Because debating any moral code in between is simply an exercise in masturbatory ego inflation.
It is equally weird that man thinks he can rule over himself, let alone rule over others.
I dare say that no matter what your creed, motto or otherwise morality is, you have violated it at least once. And the moment you claim you haven't, I'll call you a liar to your face.
Yes, we are all hypocrites. Only some of us are willing and able to admit this flaw.
Why bash Christianity? Why not say the same thing about Muslims? Judaism? Buddhism?
You're a bigot. All your upbringing has done is made you one. I wouldn't be that proud of it, if I were you.
And you clearly haven't sat down on a seat that someone naked sat down on, after they have taken a crap. While it is clearly the "in thing" to bash Christianity, and all that, there are other reasons to wear clothes besides being prudish Christians.
Sorry boss. We need a Sarcasm tag .... I keep forgetting people on Slashdot actually know what sarcasm is.
My bad.
You are assuming that the Virus writers won't figure out a way around this. I don't put anything past virus writers today.
And when they figure it out, and hijack your computer, you can sue Microsoft for a defective product.
There is no way this ends well for Microsoft.
The deal with VHS over Beta, was porn was a contributing factor. IIRC Sony (Beta) wouldn't (didn't) license the tech to porn companies.
Then again, that may just be uban legend.
I think what you're saying is that until PORN comes available on HMD, it isn't going to take off. You'd be amazed at how much porn drives technology.
Why they didn't buy a bunch of Segways for it, is beyond me.