bruh fr

That’s be the dopest

Really?

To the 4 people asking: No. UKposts does its own (lossy) compression afterwards when you upload a video. So if you download it from UKposts, it's not the same file as the one which was uploaded.

lol

JustOneAsbesto Hehe, I was immediately thinking of dinosaurs as well when I read the title.

JustOneAsbesto the only dinosaur that can hide in plain sight! :)

+Adrian ,

Hi can plz help to know this

My favourite type of writing is stenography.

Big bruh

It's a story the jedi wont tell you.... but this image of a horse absolutely will.

Hide it within the meme image itself

You sir, are the choosen one

Not cryptography the Jedi would teach you.

This program would be easy. You load the image to using an image loader to a script. And also load the text. You compare last 2 bits of the image iterating over the bits of the text. I dont think he wrote how get the text back (or he did not show it). But if you store a vector as you go flipping bits, you can get it back.

I don't know anything about code, but I'm ready to learn. Been hacked for too long!

​@@kb203 for hacked to hacker

​​​@@mahneh7121I think it sounds to be relatively easy. You may use the Gimp script-fu to update the color registry in order to read and write the message. I would like to try it but I do not have time.

It takes twice as much work to make code for release rather than just for goofing around. I can see why he wouldn't want to release unpolished code.

Who's O?

He means "I". (Btw. did you get this recommended too?)

@@tobiumevolume9890 Yes but it was because I watch this channel occasionally, rather than a completely random recommendation.

Hahahahaha!

😂😂🤣🤣 so underrated !!!!!!

***** The one at 0:15 ;)

Piotr Grabowski meet me at noon? wtf whats funny about that? please explain

bastard Read the "original", non-hidden message!

Yes to all : I'm talking about the ORIGINAL un-hidden image. The reference to brown paper (Numberphile) particularly was funny.

+thechrisgrice well they do waste an awful lot of paper

Old news

Dustin Breakey :O

Dustin Breakey in sinks too muh boy, or so I've been told by the elders

Knowing btards, there probably are.

No but there pieces of ultra rare pepes hidden in the rare pepes with steganography

It isn't all that complicated if you've done even high school programming.

Same problem*

It's the accent man

LOL, this is kid-sister-encoding stuff.

Don't get me wrong, he's amazing, but these are bachelor level CS topics

Shane Killian Hmmm, I see later in the video that he is doing it on JPGs using transform curves. Interesting, but it again wouldn't survive re-saving the image in a different format.

Shane Killian Another way would be for two people to have a key and based on the key and the amount of data, the program can put the data in the LSB of evenly distributed pixels maybe with a prng maybe using the key as a seed (which would look random) to select the interval and using the size of the data to put a limit on the size of the interval so you can fit it all in, all you would need would be the key and the size of the file and the program to decrypt it. That way the whole image would look very slightly noisy if you look closely, like it was badly compressed, and with smaller messages it would pretty much be entirely undetectable and probably quite good for that purpose. But of course there is still the problem of frequency analysis, especially with larger messages.

username_unavailable You could make it where two images are required. You'd come up with random numbers for one image, and then for the second image use that same random sequence XORed with the message. So a cryptanalysis of either image individually will just show indecipherable noise; you'd need to know which two images to combine. And again, have a layer of encryption below that in case they do find the message.

+Shane Killian Surprisingly, digital watermarking in the form of Cinavia content protection is indeed resistant to mangling by transcoding. Perhaps they key is merely robust erasure coding and having an extremely small identifier tag.

I'd advise against using PNGs for steganography. PNGs are usually used for storing content with lots of large uniform areas (and leverages this uniformity for file size reduction). If you hide data in the LSB in a PNG, 1, the resulting noise will be quite noticeable and 2, the file will be _huge_ (because there will no longer be large uniform areas it could compress).

Im actually a shill for the meat industry, Mmmmm bacon

@@MuddledMe you damn right, ordo ab libtard

@@damiengates7581 damn jumping in with those insults

@@damiengates7581 What does "ordo ab libtard" mean?

@@General12th It’s some form of elvish, I can’t read it.

***** Yep. That's an issue with steganography, it's quite easy for other algorithms to destroy your hidden data. But the same is true with older techniques. If you photocopied (or transcribed) a letter with hidden ink, you'd lose your hidden message.

Jesse Mitchell Similarly with the "early movie previews" and stuff that they mentioned at the end of the video, just re-encoding the video (maybe twice between different codecs?) will destroy the message too. Pictures that weren't directly saved (like if they were copy and pasted into paint or something) would lose the message too if saved into a different format.

109Rage Only if the format you are converting into has a lossy compression, otherwise changing the format would just get you the same image in another format.

rangedfighter 109Rage Even if you use lossy compression, I can imagine (but I'm not sure) that if the lossy compression leaves parts of some frames "unharmed" while every frame is watermarked many times (maybe 1000 times or more per frame), that the watermark would slip through. A watermark only needs to be 2 bytes maybe, how many copies of a movie would you really distribute? 16 bits would need 8 bytes to piggyback on. Maybe a watermark is 16 bytes, but still it would fit many times in a frame. Millions of frames in a video... You could analyse the illegal video, and see if a certain watermark value pops up 100 times more often than any other (damaged) value... I'm just guessing, I admit, but I think you can make it "lossy-compression-proof" up to a point.

Robstar In theory, lossy compression would leave low entropy frames unharmed. But that isn't the case. Most algorithms simply run their filter on everything indiscriminately, because in the end, it helps the compression ratio. And as you know, even if you were to encode a video correctly, UKposts's algorithms would still harm it. A watermarking method like you described might actually work (theoretically), but it would not be able to contain very much data. And to be retained at a decent frequency (these are some very viscous data culling algorithms we're talking about), the watermark would have to be visibly noticeable.

I remember when people still used rar files.

lastplace199 what’s a rar file?

Christopher Davis Not sure if sarcastic or not. -_-

Christopher Davis its a rare file

I remember feeling like a hacker for using cmd.exe to make it so when you change an extension of an image file (.png for example) to .txt it has a secret message at the end.

TheMan83554 me

If they did there'd be no way to get it out... UKposts compresses everything that people upload and their compression is lossy, so any extra information that may have been snuck into the original edit has been washed away to save computer bandwidth.

@@Benjamoomin64 If they used a repeating message and took into account the compression methods used then it should be possible. JPG itself is lossy but they take JStag takes that into account.

@@grn1 UKposts does lossy compressoen *on top of that* If you upload a video to UKposts and then redownload it, it won't be the same file anymore. It's irreversibly lossily compressed.

I suspect it would not work if the image was slightly modified over the entire image, such as brightness going up or down by 1% would ruin the Steganography message. I guess it depends, because in most situations, people wouldn't modify the image.

one use: I have a website that has copyrighted images. What I do is, each time a user visits the site instead of just serving the raw image, the image is first passed through a script which hides the user's username in the image. That way if one of our images pop up somewhere on the internet it shouldn't be, I can find out which exact user is responsible for it.

Dante Tucker That's an awesome idea. I'm guessing you don't tell the user this? That would probably lead to them editing it to get rid of the watermark if at all possible.

+Dante Tucker . Cool!

Don't give copyrighters any ideas

yeah its amazing there was a time when i would read tons of astronomy, but now its about cs

TazeTSchnitzel Unless you apply good encryption, of course, in which case the LSBs should look random. Then again, maybe the LSBs in the original aren't random.

Maybe add some faint white noise (has to be colour) over the image, then start messing with the individual bits.

​@@fllthdcrb That's the point, in a normal photo the LSB is *not* uniformly distributed, at least not locally. This is also mentioned in the video.

Me too. 18 years, and no one has come forward for the reward offered.

I've been sharing the same thought ,but i think its quite hard since the model build will be targeting some fixed dataset or set of features .

A single image can be translated to any other information with infinitely different logics...

@S H A classifier still breaks the value of the steganography. The encryption is an added layer of security. The purpose of the steganography was to hide that a message was being sent at all. If the classifier notices that there's a message, the fact that the message is being sent has been revealed. Or... in a more practical example, the watermark that was hidden is revealed. At the very least, it's revealed that there is a watermark... and we can almost definitely scrub over the watermark. So, if someone tries to scan and find their watermark, it won't be there.. because we were able to find it and scrub it out. So, we don't really have a way to prevent that yet... it's really security through obscurity.

But you didn't edit your comment

There are a bunch of em. (For those interested, look up "Deep learning for steganalysis using CNNs" by yinlang qion.)

It would seem like it depends on the encoding method.

hiding more data usually will mean hiding another image inside the original, and the more modern approach seems to involve FFT of the original image, there are some papers about those methods, but they are a bit above my comprehension, but the approach seems much more robust against recompression, resizing, cropping and so on and there is plenty of proof that it is being used on social media by popular accounts, because the competition for attention and payoff is just too big, so they use quite dirty tricks to attract people, think subliminal messaging using adult content

.jpg >:)

Just not sufficiently durable. If you know you've copied an image - you'd take steps to hide any such 'watermark'.

how can you track that?

@@mumuderler6148 I would suggest checking the wikipedia page for "stenography," but there are ways to hide messages within images that are not immediately noticeable without closer inspection

DaneGraphics I was specifically asking about the two bit-centric method he was talking about though

Zach Hixson I included part of a Getty Images image in a banner for a crappy little web site that's had about 3 visitors in 4 years and the bastards still managed to find it somehow. Their lawyers are demanding €1200.

Zach Hixson They don't work with compression. Unless you can predict the compression and take it in account maybe. But that is unlikely.

ThaTyger That's what I thought

ThaTyger It can be used with compression, you just have to find the md5 hash.

that's kind of the idea behind one video steganography method, using the frames and LSB for the message

In any way? Take his laptop hostage for a ransom of the answer.

@@matthewsanetra xD yeah

Wdym in any way? Your decoding method should depend on the encoding method?

@@johnprice4847 He used several methods we discussed during the classes to hide the message, it wasn't a difficult cypher.

@@vengefulenigma oh, so you had to guess which one he used?

Invisible watermarking very much was, and is, a thing.

But you would still have to protect against the participants being discovered. Encryption means nothing against torture, if you’re a normal civilian. For instance, this is why I don’t actually know any of my passwords. They’re all retrieved.

· 0xFFF1 You make a good point, but you should consider that watermarking can still be very useful. An example: imagine a great youtube channel (Computerphile) puts lots of time and money in creating a video to monetize it (like this very video) on youtube. Then someone rips the digital video-file and uploads this video to his own channel to make some bucks. UKposts has an intension to avoid a situation in which this is possible. Here are watermarks extremely helpful, because youtube bots usually detect the stolen video before it even gets online, thanks to content id. You're right, with some effort you can go around watermarks, but I guess most of the people don't bother looking for loop holes.

· 0xFFF1 All of what you said is true - but ask yourself how many people know what stenography is, or that it even exists.... That's why it's valuable. Sure some people might be thoughtful enough to circumvent it, but even with videos like this going out to thousands of people and teaching them that it does exist - most people utterly lack the ability or care to do anything about it. Like any encryption or hidden message, really.... Some will be able to figure it out. Most will never. That makes it massively valuable already.

Mythricia Only the initial distributor needs to figure it out, though.

· 0xFFF1 Knowing that there is a watermark does not help at all. You still have to know where/how it is hidden, otherwise all you are doing by randomizing stuff is decreasing the quality. If removal of information in an image would lead to no visible change, it would have been optimized away already in compression. The content authors foremost care about the copies, where the quality is at least near to the original. If you mangled up your version by randomizing parts so much that their algorithm won't find it anymore, they still might not be fine with you copying stuff, but at least they know that the quality is now so mediocre, that it's useless. The way described in the video is just one of many. A movie has so many more ways to hide something, that randomizing fails completely. If you distribute to a known number of people you could easily give everyone a different version. You could insert/drop frames now and then (different for everyone), you could change the hue of certain objects/scenes, if you'd want to get really fancy you could encode stuff by changing the text/pattern of unimportant objects. With all the CG in todays movies it's easy to automate and hide such stuff. Or you could encode something in the audio, by changing some frequencies or timing or even play with the volume slightly. Non of those things will be removed by randomizing. Without the original you can't even tell that something has been done.

· 0xFFF1 Stenographics algorithms can be much more complicated and sophisticated than shown here. You could use multiple algorithms and some of them could alter randomized bits around images, which can be read out only if you have the seed that belongs to a certain copy of the material. I think getting rid of stenographic images completly if you don't know which ones are used is impossible without severely degrading your content. And if you are going to leak that DVD with bad video and audio, man who cares ? 70% of people won't bother to watch it. And even then traces of the watermark may be around, afterall just 5-10% of the watermark information would be enough to show that it's not random noise. If you know what you are looking for even randomly seeming things can give you away.

Zolbat There are 4 cases when you replace the 2 last bits: both bits already have the right value, the lowest bit has already the right value, the higher bit already had the right value, no bit already has the right value. That means, in 3 out of 4 cases you still have some of the original data. If you would take random noise and hide it in the image, then you would have 50% of the original bits still remaining, which means you have a blurry version of the original image remaining. The more bits you take to hide your message, the less original bits remain in the image overall. If you took all 8 bits to encode your message, only 2^-7 of all bits would remain completly unchanged.

The reason why this works is because only the last important information is altered. Consider a 32 bit depth bitmap image. The photo part of the file contains 4 bite chunks that will encode each pixel (red, green, blue, alpha). Each bite chunk will then have eight bits that will be either 1 or 0. Note that not every bit is worth the same. If you change the two least significant bits, the largest effect you can have on any color in a pixel is +- 3. More though that if you change the wrong two bits, the change is much larger. The largest swing then would be 128+64 = 192. If you are getting random noise, make sure you are only changing the two least significant digits and not the most significant ones.

***** See my above post for the explanation. Not filling the entire image would produce a different result, with the two LSB-filtered images being exactly the same after a certain point, rather than what you see. Adam Billman Nobody is confused about how this procedure works. Rather, I think you've entirely misunderstood what the OP is talking about.

Yes.

there were few malwares that exploited these weaknesses in image decoders, but not lately, seems they have been fixed in modern web browsers and such