News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:PNG and Hidden Pixels by kd5bjo on Tuesday September 01, 2020 @06:53AM (#24340387)
The PNG format supports arbitrary data being included in private (nonstandardized) chunks, which will be ignored by decoders that don’t recognize them. It’s easier to extract and more reliably hidden, so why bother inserting the extra data as pixels?

cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portable_Network_Graphics#"Chu...

Re:PNG and Hidden Pixels by chrisseaton on Tuesday September 01, 2020 @07:03AM (#24340476)
> [you can use] private (nonstandardized) chunks ... so why bother inserting the extra data as pixels?

Because these extra chunk are super-obvious? As soon as someone looks in your file they're going to wonder what you've added these for.

They will likely also not survive re-encoding.

The point of modern stenography is that you can't tell it's there, and it's just a part of the core image data, and that it's completely deniable.

How do you deny your nonstandard chunks?

Re:PNG and Hidden Pixels by Beldin on Tuesday September 01, 2020 @09:46AM (#24341649)
The "completely deniable" part is not necessary for steganography.

Otherwise, you dismiss just about any examples of steganography prior to steganography on computers.

Which is fine, but as far as i know, not the commonly accepted definition.

Re:PNG and Hidden Pixels by chrisseaton on Tuesday September 01, 2020 @10:04AM (#24341800)
The question was

> so why bother

The answer is - because it's more deniable. You bother because more deniable is better.