search for: steganograph

Hello, Jean-Marc Valin schrieb: >>I am planning on creating a steganographic extension for speex/CELP. >>Since speex/CELP is lossy, there should be quite many bits that one >>can use for hiding data. > > Quite the opposite. Speex uses very few bits, so every bit you corrupt > is likely to be heard. You would need to use "fractions of bits"...

> I am planning on creating a steganographic extension for speex/CELP. > Since speex/CELP is lossy, there should be quite many bits that one > can use for hiding data. Quite the opposite. Speex uses very few bits, so every bit you corrupt is likely to be heard. You would need to use "fractions of bits" at a time. Even then,...

Hello kind developers, I am planning on creating a steganographic extension for speex/CELP. Since speex/CELP is lossy, there should be quite many bits that one can use for hiding data. I'm familiar with the principles of CELP (two filter loops, one for pitch, the other for formants, let the raw speech frame run through those filter loops, take residue sign...

Skipped content of type multipart/mixed-------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 252 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature Url : http://lists.xiph.org/pipermail/speex-dev/attachments/20060719/1f7ff5c0/signature.pgp

...prefix as a UBSan function type prefix. > Do you know whether OoO CPU's will still attempt to decode the "garbage" in the instruction stream, even if there is a jump over it? (IIRC they will decode ahead of the PC and hiccup (but not fault) on garbage). Maybe it would be better to steganographically encode the value inside the instruction stream? On x86 you could use 48b8<imm64> which only has 2 bytes overhead for an i64 (putting a move like that, which moves into a caller-saved register on entry, would effectively be a noop). This is some pretty gnarly target-dependent stuff which...

...ere seems to be some > redundancy (this might be also because I of course look at the beginning > of the coding output, which might be silence). Should I try at least > using -vad to reduce this redundancy (the less redundancy there is, the > better this is for my task, which is still a steganographic extension to > speex). I don't see what -vad would have to do with that... In any case, yes there is some redundancy. Speex uses VQ, but it doesn't use any form of entropy coding on the symbols. This makes it easy to get CBR, but of course, there's a bit of redundancy left (I woul...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/pcworld/20070912/tc_pcworld/137106 Read this, you thought DRM endcoding music was bad... this is sick. there "tracking" you... Cheer's Richard

Hello VoIP guys Sorry for being somewhat off-topic. At the moment I am studying informatics in the seventh semester and I need to start thinking about my thesis. As I am very interested in VoIP technologies I thought about picking this as my main topic. So far I have only little experience in this area. I have been fiddling around with siproxd and pfSense and have red the one or the other packet

...e prefix. > > > > Do you know whether OoO CPU's will still attempt to decode the "garbage" in > the instruction stream, even if there is a jump over it? (IIRC they will > decode ahead of the PC and hiccup (but not fault) on garbage). Maybe it > would be better to steganographically encode the value inside the > instruction stream? On x86 you could use 48b8<imm64> which only has 2 bytes > overhead for an i64 (putting a move like that, which moves into a > caller-saved register on entry, would effectively be a noop). On the contrary, I think this is a good...

This patch (https://bugzilla.mindrot.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1438) creates a kbdint device that provides a server-based authentication mechanism. The server generates and emails you a random string when you attempt to login. You're authenticated if you can correctly answer the challenge. You can use a regular email account, a pager, cell phone or other email capable device to receive the

Hi, I would like to propose that we introduce a mechanism in IR to allow arbitrary data to be stashed before a function body. The purpose of this would be to allow additional data about a function to be looked up via a function pointer. Two use cases come to mind: 1) We'd like to be able to use UBSan to check that the type of the function pointer of an indirect function call matches the

...> > Do you know whether OoO CPU's will still attempt to decode the "garbage" > in > > the instruction stream, even if there is a jump over it? (IIRC they will > > decode ahead of the PC and hiccup (but not fault) on garbage). Maybe it > > would be better to steganographically encode the value inside the > > instruction stream? On x86 you could use 48b8<imm64> which only has 2 > bytes > > overhead for an i64 (putting a move like that, which moves into a > > caller-saved register on entry, would effectively be a noop). > > On the con...