Image based steganography that survives resizing?

[irongeek at irongeek.com (Adrian Crenshaw)]

Oh, the dataglyph  is a nice idea. I'm currently working on stego using
homoglyph chracters from Unicode. Check out my twitter feed to see what I
mean @irongeek_adc. Using characters that look alike, I can also encode 1s
and 0s. Code to come shortly. I also thing Robin Wood is working on his end
on something similar, and I'm sure his code will be better than mine. :)

T?is ?ine i? ? t?st ?tr?ng to se? ?? gm??l ???l ?e? m? ?teg? th????. ?yp??g
i? a?a?? ?o I ?ave ??re cov?? te??? T??s ?in? i? ? ?es? st??n? ?o see if
gmail will let my stego though.

Thanks,
Adrian

On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 5:10 AM, subzer0girl <subzer0girl at gmail.com> wrote:

> A little late replying :)  Are you talking about dataglyph ?
> http://microglyph-intl.com/english/html/dataglyphs.shtml.  or maybe
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microdot     microdot
>
> -sandy
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 8:57 PM, Michael Douglas <mick at pauldotcom.com>wrote:
>
> > Jim you hit the nail on the head...  you can be VERY creative with how
> > you hide bar codes.
> >
> > I'm unable to find the example, but I saw a freaking amazing one that
> > was done as background element... but before you yawn...  it was
> > hidden as shadows to someone's hair!  I can't believe I can't find
> > this...  grr.   (any cloud source help?)
> >
> > I'm sure there's other good examples to be found too.
> >
> >
> > - Mick
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 11:56 AM, Jim Halfpenny <jim.halfpenny at gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > If you do not require an optical scanner then I guess a barcode could
> > look a
> > > lot less like a traditional black and white one, so making it harder to
> > > detect with the naked eye. If you divide each bar into a %age of the
> > image
> > > width and use the largest RGB component value then you could have a
> > > multi-colour barcode with some tolerance to resizing. Shrinking is
> > obviously
> > > going to reduce the amount of information and may be lossy but
> > enlargement
> > > ought to be OK.
> > >
> > > Jim
> > >
> > > 2010/1/27 Adrian Crenshaw <irongeek at irongeek.com>
> > > > Bar codes could work, but I want only the computer to see the stego,
> > not a
> > > > human. If I use a barcode, won't it show to the user?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Adrian
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 10:47 AM, Rob Fuller <jd.mubix at gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > > Agreed about the EXIF data, but are you only talking about binary
> > > > > steganography? You can hide barcodes in images pretty simply that
> > > > > would survive resizing just fine. Also, are you talking human or
> > > > > computer legible stego? Peoples choice of stego is highly dependent on
> > > > > message size,message contents, repetition, and placement.
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Rob Fuller | Mubix
> > > > > Room362.com | Hak5.org | TheAcademyPro.com
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 7:42 AM, Jim Halfpenny <
> > jim.halfpenny at gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > Image metadata may survive (EXIF, copyright strings), it really
> > depends
> > > > > > on
> > > > > > how the program manipulating the image handles the image and
> > metadata
> > > > > > parts
> > > > > > of the file. Chances are if the hidden data is in the image data
> > then
> > > > > > it
> > > > > > will not survive resizing, changes to colour deptt, colour maps etc.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Jim
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 2010/1/27 Adrian Crenshaw <irongeek at irongeek.com>
> > > > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > > >     Does anyone know of any image based steganography that survives
> > > > > > > resizing of the image? I'm looking into using blind drops, but many
> > > > > > > sites
> > > > > > > alter images that they post.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > Adrian
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > Pauldotcom mailing list
> > > > > > > Pauldotcom at mail.pauldotcom.com
> > > > > > > http://mail.pauldotcom.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pauldotcom
> > > > > > > Main Web Site: http://pauldotcom.com
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > Pauldotcom mailing list
> > > > > > Pauldotcom at mail.pauldotcom.com
> > > > > > http://mail.pauldotcom.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pauldotcom
> > > > > > Main Web Site: http://pauldotcom.com
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > Pauldotcom mailing list
> > > > > Pauldotcom at mail.pauldotcom.com
> > > > > http://mail.pauldotcom.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pauldotcom
> > > > > Main Web Site: http://pauldotcom.com
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Pauldotcom mailing list
> > > > Pauldotcom at mail.pauldotcom.com
> > > > http://mail.pauldotcom.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pauldotcom
> > > > Main Web Site: http://pauldotcom.com
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Pauldotcom mailing list
> > > Pauldotcom at mail.pauldotcom.com
> > > http://mail.pauldotcom.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pauldotcom
> > > Main Web Site: http://pauldotcom.com
> > _______________________________________________
> > Pauldotcom mailing list
> > Pauldotcom at mail.pauldotcom.com
> > http://mail.pauldotcom.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pauldotcom
> > Main Web Site: http://pauldotcom.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pauldotcom mailing list
> Pauldotcom at mail.pauldotcom.com
> http://mail.pauldotcom.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pauldotcom
> Main Web Site: http://pauldotcom.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.pauldotcom.com/pipermail/pauldotcom/attachments/20100223/1f7c0cba/attachment.htm