News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on DOJ: Strong encryption that we don’t have access to is “unreasonable”. Parent comment

Re:DOJ: Strong encryption that we don’t have access to is “u... by amelius on Friday November 10, 2017 @06:17AM (#15669188)
> Even if strong encryption were made illegal, criminals will be the ones securing their data despite the law.

Well, anybody can hide their use of encryption by using steganography, [1]. E.g. you just piggy-back your secret file as noise on top of a legitimate file.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steganography

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:DOJ: Strong encryption that we don’t have access to is “u... by amelius on Friday November 10, 2017 @06:20AM (#15669195)
Or you write an email to your friend, saying:

    Hi Alice, I just did a billion coin-tosses, and the outcomes were:

    HTTHHTHTHHTHHTHHTHHTTTHTHTHTTTHHTHTTHT ...

    Regards, Bob
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:DOJ: Strong encryption that we don’t have access to is “u... by vog on Friday November 10, 2017 @06:25AM (#15669207)
What's the point of such an email?

If you consider police officers and judges to be that stupid, you don't even need that. You can simply say: "No, my hard drive isn't encrypted, I'm just collecting white noise."

The whole point of steganography is to not raise suspiciousness in the first place.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:DOJ: Strong encryption that we don’t have access to is “u... by iamnothere on Friday November 10, 2017 @07:14AM (#15669370)
What if you were to use the noise (encrypted data on a hard drive) as a one time pad to send obviously innocent messages to your friend, messages you could produce the plaintext for on demand? With the right setup it would appear very innocent, if a little strange.
[ Parent | on HN ]