News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Unredacter: Never ever use pixelation as a redaction tech... by cultureulterior on Saturday December 17, 2022 @09:16PM (#34034432)
I think they mean the original compression of the original text file (if in jpeg) would have crafted specific DCT coefficients that reach across to the secret text. When that is later decoded to pixels and re-encoded, new DCTs are burned into the image, but only on top of the previous.
Re:Unredacter: Never ever use pixelation as a redaction tech... by thrdbndndn on Saturday December 17, 2022 @09:27PM (#34034501)
That's not how it works. it is "on top" of the previous, sure, but the same way as if I add 8 to 2 and give you 10, you can't possibly get the original number is 2.
Re:Unredacter: Never ever use pixelation as a redaction tech... by laudecum on Saturday December 17, 2022 @10:17PM (#34034739)
This is it.

Let’s say you’re covering a red pixel with a black pixel. There’s no way that red pixel will in any way “survive JPEG compression” because the compression happens on the raw pixel data; the raw pixel data no longer has a red pixel.

Re:Unredacter: Never ever use pixelation as a redaction tech... by ummonk on Saturday December 17, 2022 @11:01PM (#34034937)
If the red pixel affected the encoding of nearby pixels in the compressed original, which you've now neglected to redact, then the data very well could persist.
Re:Unredacter: Never ever use pixelation as a redaction tech... by BoorishBears on Saturday December 17, 2022 @11:10PM (#34034976)
That's not the point the other posts are making.

They're saying that before encoding the red dot could have been X pixels wide, and to the naked eye it would seem that after encoding it's still only X pixels wide... but due to compression artifacts it may now actually be affecting an area X+Y pixels wide. So only covering X pixels could leak Y pixels of information.

It honestly sounds a bit paranoid to me, but it's definitely possible.

Re:Unredacter: Never ever use pixelation as a redaction tech... by addaon on Sunday December 18, 2022 @01:31AM (#34035520)
> Let’s say you’re covering a red pixel with a black pixel. There’s no way that red pixel will in any way “survive JPEG compression” because the compression happens on the raw pixel data; the raw pixel data no longer has a red pixel.

This is trivially untrue for JPEG; JPEG often stores chroma info as 4:2:0, that is at a quarter the resolution of luminance info. In this common case, covering a single red pixel in the decoded form only removes a quarter of the chroma information from its presence (and this is easy to not notice if, for example, the other three pixels that share its chrominance are nearly black).

Re:Unredacter: Never ever use pixelation as a redaction tech... by skupig on Sunday December 18, 2022 @07:25AM (#34037070)
Except maybe your 2 was previously stored in the LossyNumber(TM) format which can only approximate integers, and it turned into 2.033. You add 8 to it, send it to me in a less lossy encoding, and I see 10.033. My knowledge of LossyNumber artifacts lets me know you started with 2!
Re:Unredacter: Never ever use pixelation as a redaction tech... by cultureulterior on Sunday December 18, 2022 @11:28AM (#34039251)
Yes, but you know what the bare DCTs of the square box should be, so if they differ from that, it must be from the original image