Re:Times Pulls Article Blaming Encryption in Paris Terror At...
by mjmaher on Tuesday November 17, 2015 @11:49AM
(#10582284)
I don't think so, as far as I know encrypted data doesn't really have a signature that can be easily spotted
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Times Pulls Article Blaming Encryption in Paris Terror At...
by marcosdumay on Tuesday November 17, 2015 @12:38PM
(#10582663)
It does, it looks random (hight entropy).
Yes, measured data and unmarked compressed data have this same property, as do actual random data. But is does not look like 9 nines of false positive rate are a concern to those people.
Re:Times Pulls Article Blaming Encryption in Paris Terror At...
by Dylan16807 on Tuesday November 17, 2015 @01:45PM
(#10583107)
You can set the entropy to any amount you want. You need to consider encryption methods that put in at least a bit of effort to hide themselves. It could select random phrases and pretend to be a spambot.
Re:Times Pulls Article Blaming Encryption in Paris Terror At...
by jacquesm on Tuesday November 17, 2015 @03:54PM
(#10583871)
Or it could look like the output of a Markov chain sentence generator on the topic of religion and post the messages in some well-known forum.
Re:Times Pulls Article Blaming Encryption in Paris Terror At...
by marcosdumay on Tuesday November 17, 2015 @06:06PM
(#10584668)
Well, where's the boundary between cryptography that hides itself and stenography? Is there one?
If you include stenography, yes, it's certainly not easily recognizable. I don't think good stenography can be recognized at all, but that's not my area and I've got people contradict me at this (without further info), thus I'm not sure.
Re:Times Pulls Article Blaming Encryption in Paris Terror At...
by Dylan16807 on Wednesday November 18, 2015 @12:04AM
(#10586018)
There's not much of a boundary, but that wasn't exactly the point I meant to make. You can do something like encode as ASCII 0s and 1s and have low entropy without that hiding anything.