Re: Steganography via VoIP...

[Dave Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

> From: "Synthesis:Law and Technology Law and Technology" <synthesis.law.and.technology () gmail com 
> >
> Date: February 17, 2010 6:39:44 PM EST
> To: dave () farber net
> Cc: ip <ip () v2 listbox com>
> Subject: Re: [IP] Re: Steganography via VoIP...

> Dave,
>
> More to the point,  in the article I saw no mention that any of this  
> was more than a hypothetical 'it could happen like this' scenario.   
> It's always been relatively easy for smart people to hide  
> communication, as David P Reed just pointed out.  Where is the  
> evidence that this is actually something new that is being used?
>
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 8:56 AM, Dave Farber <dave () farber net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> > From: "David P. Reed" <dpreed () reed com>
> > Date: February 16, 2010 9:08:12 PM EST
> > To: dave () farber net
> > Cc: ip <ip () v2 listbox com>
> > Subject: Re: [IP] Re:  Steganography via VoIP...
>
> > Come on.  IEDs are triggered by cellphones purchased off of eBay,  
> > and cheapo RC airplane kits sold by the zillions from China.
> >
> > Only the truly confused would think that steganography over SIP  
> > VoIP is some kind of novel and uniquely dangerous thing.
> >
> > In 1992 as a quick hack, I happened to demonstrate that you can  
> > send TCP packets with bad checksums (subtract 1), which provides a  
> > near-invisible "covert channel" that penetrates everywhere with  
> > very low probability of detection or interception.  This channel is  
> > still wide open, and a far better channel than stego-over-VoIP for  
> > the same target devices.
> Archives        
>
>
>
> --
> Dan Steinberg
>
> SYNTHESIS:Law & Technology
> 35, du Ravin phone: (613) 794-5356
> Chelsea, Quebec
> J9B 1N1



-------------------------------------------
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com