https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-64206950
In article <lZzxL.20724$eRZ7.2110@fx06.iad>, David Brooks <DavidB.is@a.loss.now> wrote:
EXIF could be used for additional data, but would be more easily
detected. It could also indicate secretly to the receiver which
specific algorithm was used and which one-time pad key was used - but
this is pushing it a bit.
All very interesting though! ?
Can you help with this question, Alan?
https://discussions.ap
thread hijacking attempt.
On 2023-01-16 18:35, geoff wrote:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-64206950
Nothing to do with exif.
Steganography uses the image data itself by modifying image bits a very slight amount up or down to represent the data of the hidden message. To
the viewer of the image there is no apparent information - it is in "in
the noise" so to speak.
With the right s/w and "password" (or key) decoding the data is trivial.
Detecting images with steganography in them is hard as well as it's
literally in the noise. So statistical techniques might find evidence
of it - but still not be able to decode and prove it absent the key and particular encode algorithm used.
EXIF could be used for additional data, but would be more easily
detected. It could also indicate secretly to the receiver which
specific algorithm was used and which one-time pad key was used - but
this is pushing it a bit.
EXIF could be used for additional data, but would be more easily
detected. It could also indicate secretly to the receiver which
specific algorithm was used and which one-time pad key was used - but
this is pushing it a bit.
All very interesting though! ?
Can you help with this question, Alan?
https://discussions.ap
On 2023-01-17 11:45, nospam wrote:
In article <lZzxL.20724$eRZ7.2110@fx06.iad>, David Brooks
<DavidB.is@a.loss.now> wrote:
EXIF could be used for additional data, but would be more easily
detected. It could also indicate secretly to the receiver which
specific algorithm was used and which one-time pad key was used - but
this is pushing it a bit.
All very interesting though! ?
Can you help with this question, Alan?
https://discussions.ap
thread hijacking attempt.
Colour me shocked.
On 17/01/2023 16:57, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2023-01-17 11:45, nospam wrote:
In article <lZzxL.20724$eRZ7.2110@fx06.iad>, David Brooks
<DavidB.is@a.loss.now> wrote:
EXIF could be used for additional data, but would be more easily
detected. It could also indicate secretly to the receiver which
specific algorithm was used and which one-time pad key was used - but >>>>> this is pushing it a bit.
All very interesting though! ?
Can you help with this question, Alan?
https://discussions.ap
thread hijacking attempt.
Colour me shocked.
Try this one then:-
https://discussions.apple.com/thread/252848419
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-64206950
geoff
All very interesting though! ?
Can you help with this question, Alan?
https://discussions.ap
thread hijacking attempt.
Colour me shocked.
Try this one then:-
https://discussions.ap
On 2023-01-17 00:35, geoff wrote:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-64206950
geoff
There is no mention of "EXIF" in the article.
On 18/01/2023 8:39 am, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2023-01-17 00:35, geoff wrote:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-64206950
geoff
There is no mention of "EXIF" in the article.
Not specifically.
¿ Y que ?
On 18/01/2023 8:39 am, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2023-01-17 00:35, geoff wrote:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-64206950
geoff
There is no mention of "EXIF" in the article.
Not specifically.
On 2023-01-17 15:48, geoff wrote:
On 18/01/2023 8:39 am, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2023-01-17 00:35, geoff wrote:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-64206950
geoff
There is no mention of "EXIF" in the article.
Not specifically.
Because EXIF is not at all the method used. At all.
See my other post about steganography ... which /is/ mentioned in the article. Because that is a pretty nice way to do this sort of thing in
the open with a low probability of detection.
On 17/01/2023 21:53, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2023-01-17 15:48, geoff wrote:
On 18/01/2023 8:39 am, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2023-01-17 00:35, geoff wrote:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-64206950
geoff
There is no mention of "EXIF" in the article.
Not specifically.
Because EXIF is not at all the method used. At all.
See my other post about steganography ... which /is/ mentioned in the
article. Because that is a pretty nice way to do this sort of thing
in the open with a low probability of detection.
Will running 'First Aid' in Disk Utility identify/erradicate
malware hiding in a Mac operating System?
On 2023-01-18 01:16, David Brooks wrote:
Will running 'First Aid' in Disk Utility identify/erradicate
malware hiding in a Mac operating System?
What the eff does that have to do with what we are talking about?
On 2023-01-17 21:48, geoff wrote:
On 18/01/2023 8:39 am, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2023-01-17 00:35, geoff wrote:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-64206950
geoff
There is no mention of "EXIF" in the article.
Not specifically.
¿ Y que ?
Well, I want to know what is that novel use for EXIF claimed in the
subject line by you.
On 2023-01-17 15:48, geoff wrote:
On 18/01/2023 8:39 am, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2023-01-17 00:35, geoff wrote:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-64206950
geoff
There is no mention of "EXIF" in the article.
Not specifically.
Because EXIF is not at all the method used. At all.
See my other post about steganography ... which /is/ mentioned in the article. Because that is a pretty nice way to do this sort of thing in
the open with a low probability of detection.
On 2023-01-18 01:16, David Brooks wrote:
On 17/01/2023 21:53, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2023-01-17 15:48, geoff wrote:
On 18/01/2023 8:39 am, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2023-01-17 00:35, geoff wrote:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-64206950
geoff
There is no mention of "EXIF" in the article.
Not specifically.
Because EXIF is not at all the method used. At all.
See my other post about steganography ... which /is/ mentioned in the
article. Because that is a pretty nice way to do this sort of thing
in the open with a low probability of detection.
Will running 'First Aid' in Disk Utility identify/erradicate
malware hiding in a Mac operating System?
What the eff does that have to do with what we are talking about?
On 18/01/2023 10:05 am, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2023-01-17 21:48, geoff wrote:
On 18/01/2023 8:39 am, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2023-01-17 00:35, geoff wrote:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-64206950
geoff
There is no mention of "EXIF" in the article.
Not specifically.
¿ Y que ?
Well, I want to know what is that novel use for EXIF claimed in the
subject line by you.
No reason why info related to the picture could not be easily added to
EXIF metadata. Yes, smaller capacity and not as sophisticated as the
case in point.
But as I said, a novel use for EXIF data.
On 18/01/2023 10:53 am, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2023-01-17 15:48, geoff wrote:
On 18/01/2023 8:39 am, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2023-01-17 00:35, geoff wrote:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-64206950
geoff
There is no mention of "EXIF" in the article.
Not specifically.
Because EXIF is not at all the method used. At all.
See my other post about steganography ... which /is/ mentioned in the
article. Because that is a pretty nice way to do this sort of thing
in the open with a low probability of detection.
But there is no reason that I could not include "NNNN is a dick" In
EXIF. Which is the point I was making, and not the point the article was making.
On 18/01/2023 00:53, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2023-01-18 01:16, David Brooks wrote:
On 17/01/2023 21:53, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2023-01-17 15:48, geoff wrote:
On 18/01/2023 8:39 am, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2023-01-17 00:35, geoff wrote:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-64206950
geoff
There is no mention of "EXIF" in the article.
Not specifically.
Because EXIF is not at all the method used. At all.
See my other post about steganography ... which /is/ mentioned in
the article. Because that is a pretty nice way to do this sort of
thing in the open with a low probability of detection.
Will running 'First Aid' in Disk Utility identify/erradicate
malware hiding in a Mac operating System?
What the eff does that have to do with what we are talking about?
A bright fellow like you, Carlos, could have Googled that sentence and
ended up here:-
https://discussions.apple.com/thread/254546074
Do you agree with the responses given?
On 2023-01-18 08:32, David Brooks wrote:
On 18/01/2023 00:53, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2023-01-18 01:16, David Brooks wrote:
On 17/01/2023 21:53, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2023-01-17 15:48, geoff wrote:
On 18/01/2023 8:39 am, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2023-01-17 00:35, geoff wrote:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-64206950
geoff
There is no mention of "EXIF" in the article.
Not specifically.
Because EXIF is not at all the method used. At all.
See my other post about steganography ... which /is/ mentioned in
the article. Because that is a pretty nice way to do this sort of
thing in the open with a low probability of detection.
Will running 'First Aid' in Disk Utility identify/erradicate
malware hiding in a Mac operating System?
What the eff does that have to do with what we are talking about?
A bright fellow like you, Carlos, could have Googled that sentence and
ended up here:-
https://discussions.apple.com/thread/254546074
Do you agree with the responses given?
I am not even going to read that link. You are constantly trying to get people to read that.
Go an start a thread of your own in the appropriate Usenet group for
that pet subject of yours.
On 18/01/2023 10:53 am, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2023-01-17 15:48, geoff wrote:
On 18/01/2023 8:39 am, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2023-01-17 00:35, geoff wrote:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-64206950
geoff
There is no mention of "EXIF" in the article.
Not specifically.
Because EXIF is not at all the method used. At all.
See my other post about steganography ... which /is/ mentioned in the
article. Because that is a pretty nice way to do this sort of thing
in the open with a low probability of detection.
But there is no reason that I could not include "NNNN is a dick" In
EXIF. Which is the point I was making, and not the point the article was making.
On 2023-01-17 22:15, geoff wrote:
On 18/01/2023 10:53 am, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2023-01-17 15:48, geoff wrote:
On 18/01/2023 8:39 am, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2023-01-17 00:35, geoff wrote:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-64206950
geoff
There is no mention of "EXIF" in the article.
Not specifically.
Because EXIF is not at all the method used. At all.
See my other post about steganography ... which /is/ mentioned in the
article. Because that is a pretty nice way to do this sort of thing
in the open with a low probability of detection.
But there is no reason that I could not include "NNNN is a dick" In
EXIF. Which is the point I was making, and not the point the article
was making.
I suggest you sharpen your points before making them in the future -
esp. when linking an article in the post that describes something else.
On 22/01/2023 12:00 pm, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2023-01-17 22:15, geoff wrote:
On 18/01/2023 10:53 am, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2023-01-17 15:48, geoff wrote:
On 18/01/2023 8:39 am, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2023-01-17 00:35, geoff wrote:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-64206950
geoff
There is no mention of "EXIF" in the article.
Not specifically.
Because EXIF is not at all the method used. At all.
See my other post about steganography ... which /is/ mentioned in
the article. Because that is a pretty nice way to do this sort of
thing in the open with a low probability of detection.
But there is no reason that I could not include "NNNN is a dick" In
EXIF. Which is the point I was making, and not the point the article
was making.
I suggest you sharpen your points before making them in the future -
esp. when linking an article in the post that describes something else.
Jeeze there are some pedantic fucks around here.
On 2023-01-22 11:56, geoff wrote:
On 22/01/2023 12:00 pm, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2023-01-17 22:15, geoff wrote:
On 18/01/2023 10:53 am, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2023-01-17 15:48, geoff wrote:
On 18/01/2023 8:39 am, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2023-01-17 00:35, geoff wrote:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-64206950
geoff
There is no mention of "EXIF" in the article.
Not specifically.
Because EXIF is not at all the method used. At all.
See my other post about steganography ... which /is/ mentioned in
the article. Because that is a pretty nice way to do this sort of
thing in the open with a low probability of detection.
But there is no reason that I could not include "NNNN is a dick" In
EXIF. Which is the point I was making, and not the point the article
was making.
I suggest you sharpen your points before making them in the future -
esp. when linking an article in the post that describes something else.
Jeeze there are some pedantic fucks around here.
If we were pedants, we'd tell you that pedantic is not the correct word.
On 22/01/2023 12:00 pm, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2023-01-17 22:15, geoff wrote:
On 18/01/2023 10:53 am, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2023-01-17 15:48, geoff wrote:
On 18/01/2023 8:39 am, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2023-01-17 00:35, geoff wrote:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-64206950
geoff
There is no mention of "EXIF" in the article.
Not specifically.
Because EXIF is not at all the method used. At all.
See my other post about steganography ... which /is/ mentioned in
the article. Because that is a pretty nice way to do this sort of
thing in the open with a low probability of detection.
But there is no reason that I could not include "NNNN is a dick" In
EXIF. Which is the point I was making, and not the point the article
was making.
I suggest you sharpen your points before making them in the future -
esp. when linking an article in the post that describes something else.
Jeeze there are some pedantic fucks around here.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 498 |
| Nodes: | 16 (1 / 15) |
| Uptime: | 62:40:40 |
| Calls: | 9,813 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 13,754 |
| Messages: | 6,191,217 |