Re: Stego Standards Silly

LM> I think I need to clarify my threat model. I'm positing a scenario in which
LM> transmission of ciphertext and stegoed anything is illegal, but transmission
LM> and use of "conspicuous" digital signatures is legal. Furthermore, the govt.
        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  Ah.  No big deal then.  After stegoing, you sign the GIF.

LM> sanitizes the LSBs of digital images for our protection, perhaps distorting
LM> a mean of X% of the LSBs of a mean of Y% of transmitted images. Out-of-stego-
LM> channel checksummation would IMHO be crucial in such a situation.

  Sending multiple copies of the same GIF would go a long way toward
solving this, if X% and Y% were low enough. Say I get 5 copies, and
reconstruct the origial via a "voting" protocol. Also, if we break down
the file into smaller blocks, and sign each block individually, we can
narrow down the errors.

  But I am having a real problem with an overt policy of fiddling with
people's mail. If they did that, it would likely cause a huge backlash
that would be felt at the ballot box.



 *    
---
 * Monster@FAmend.Com *

I suggested a scenario in which:
>>> use of "conspicuous" digital signatures is legal

Monty Harder writes:
>   Ah.  No big deal then.  After stegoing, you sign the GIF.

Yes, that was exactly the point I made in my previous message.

>   But I am having a real problem with an overt policy of fiddling with
> people's mail. If they did that, it would likely cause a huge backlash
> that would be felt at the ballot box.

I'm not so sure. (Yes, I'm very cynical about humans -- more than most people
on the list, I think.)  Everybody and her sister has been bombarding the
firewalls list lately, asking about virus scanners and such. IMHO a *lot* of
folks would be quite content to have somebody filter their mail "for viruses,
harassment, etc."  I hope I'm wrong....

-Futplex <futplex@pseudonym.com>