Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.security.misc > #1158

Re: Coded sentences

Show all headers | View raw

On 2016-04-08, Mok-Kong Shen <mok-kong.shen@t-online.de> wrote:
> Am 08.04.2016 um 03:30 schrieb William Unruh:
>> On 2016-04-07, Mok-Kong Shen <mok-kong.shen@t-online.de> wrote:
>>>
>>> A codebook in classical crypto is a mapping from a chosen number of
>>> normal or nonsense words to the corresponding intended words or even
>>> phrases and sentences. Wouldn't a generalization of that idea, namely a
>>> mapping from certain types of sentences to the corresponding intended
>>> phrases or sentences be much more versatile and useful in practice for
>>> purposes of steganographical transmission of secret messages? I mean
>>> e.g. a rather mundane sentence expressing the fact that some friends
>>> came to visit us and we have together done something and that they'll
>>> further travel to somewhere could be written in a quite large number of
>>> different ways textually via varying the names of the visitors and what
>>> we have jointly done etc. as well as via varying the grammatical
>>> constructions of the sentence.
>>
>> If you have 5 words you want to transmit, OK. If you want to encrypt
>> 10^9 bytes, it is hopeless. Languages are pretty well structured, and
>> meaning is also well structured. It is really hard to tell a computer
>> how to manufacture plausible and meaningful text.
>> So no, it would not be more versatile and useful.
>
> I must say that I personally never have dreamed of ever having a need
> to send a message of 10^9 bytes. What I meant is that one could employ
> the idea I sketched to sufficiently well send some short pieces of
> secret messages steganographically. In general it is obvious that
> really high secret messages are invariably short.

Not obvious at all. The Panama papers were almost certainly sent
encryptoed, and were hardly short. The Snowdon papers the same.

If you want to do it, go ahead, but I thought that you were asking a
general question not one which just referred to you. 


>
> Your last but one sentence is a misunderstanding of my post. I didn't
> mean that an intelligent piece of software should do or help to do
> the steganographical work. The communication partners have to construct
> the rules/conventions to write the sentences to convey the informations
> that are hidden in them.

Whis is extremely labourious. Why would you do it, when perfectly
adequate techniques exist for send large amounts of material via stego. 

Back to comp.security.misc | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

Coded sentences Mok-Kong Shen <mok-kong.shen@t-online.de> - 2016-04-07 22:36 +0200
  Re: Coded sentences William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2016-04-08 01:30 +0000
    Re: Coded sentences Mok-Kong Shen <mok-kong.shen@t-online.de> - 2016-04-08 23:14 +0200
      Re: Coded sentences William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2016-04-08 22:44 +0000
        Re: Coded sentences Mok-Kong Shen <mok-kong.shen@t-online.de> - 2016-04-09 19:54 +0200
          Re: Coded sentences William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2016-04-09 20:21 +0000
            Re: Coded sentences Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> - 2016-04-09 16:31 -0400
            Re: Coded sentences Mok-Kong Shen <mok-kong.shen@t-online.de> - 2016-04-10 23:09 +0200
              Re: Coded sentences William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2016-04-10 21:28 +0000
                Re: Coded sentences Mok-Kong Shen <mok-kong.shen@t-online.de> - 2016-04-11 22:39 +0200
                Re: Coded sentences William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2016-04-11 21:47 +0000
                Re: Coded sentences Mok-Kong Shen <mok-kong.shen@t-online.de> - 2016-04-12 21:55 +0200

csiph-web