RE: Steganography

From: Ralph Lewis (
Date: Sat Sep 29 2001 - 15:33:30 MDT

Codes are one thing. You still have the fields from the monitor and computer
and these can be intercepted.
Years ago we were told electric (selectric) typewriters were unsecured as
someone outside the building could "read" electronically them as documents
were being typed.

I expect a computer spits out a lot more radiation than a selectric typewriter.


At 12:35 PM 9/29/2001 -0500, you wrote:
>Samantha Atkins wrote,
>> Harvey Newstrom wrote:
>> > OK. I exaggerate. Rather than "nothing is uncrackable", I
>> should have said
>> > "99% of the freebie downloadable software in use today run by
>> clueless users
>> > who just use the default settings and have no patience for
>> time-consuming
>> > complicated mathematics is probably crackable by a really determined
>> > attacker today."
>> You would still be wrong. The complicated math is in the program.
>You misunderstand me. I didn't mean that the user had to manually perform
>the calculations. I meant that they have to sit through a delay every time
>they send or receive encryption. Because of this, 99% of PGP users choose
>the smallest key that the program will allow. They deliberately choose the
>weakest possible security because they are impatient.
>> You can hide messages that will never ever be cracked.
>There's that phrase again: "messages that will never be cracked"!
>I work in the security field. I understand and support steganography and
>encryption. But be realistic, people. They will not remain hidden
>"forever". They will not remain uncrackable "forever".
>Harvey Newstrom <>
>Principal Security Consultant, Newstaff Inc. <>
>Board of Directors, Extropy Institute <>
>Cofounder, Pro-Act <>

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:40:59 MDT