‹ BackHN Continuity

Thread

Spymarks, not Watermarks

698 points · 171 comments · possibilistic

  1. Retro_Dev · · focus · HN ↗
    Spymarks just seem like another word for <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Steganography" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Steganography. On that note, one way we can prevent it is to assert that all our content is byte-for-byte identical with the last known trusted stage of what we have produced (for example: a camera we are certain does not watermark, an image editor we are certain doesn&#x27;t watermark, an image compressor we are certain can&#x27;t watermark, etc). One vector that I am particularly concerned about is social media. Most images and videos uploaded to most social media is re-compressed by the target platform. This is a door to tracking that is far too easy for social media platforms to open. They might rationalize it (if discovered&#x2F;announced) by saying that our memes won&#x27;t be reposted, images or work stolen, etc... but honestly I&#x27;d rather my work be stolen than tracking information inserted in there. Oh, we also have stuff which is way more secure, like time-stamped cryptographic signatures.
    1. okaleniuk · · focus · HN ↗
      The vulnerability of steganography is that is has to pretend that signal is noise. Remove the noise - and the signal is gone. I&#x27;m pretty sure that the simplest gaussian blur will remove the spymark from any picture.

      Or... add some noise. Just align the last bit of every pixel channel with a random bit sequence - and Bob&#x27;s your uncle.

      1. busssard · · focus · HN ↗
        &quot;just&quot; yes, you &quot;just&quot; have to do it every time. and so does everyone else. sadly we live in a society of comfort, where people do not even remove the trackers from links, so why would you expect they add a blur to images...
        1. okaleniuk · · focus · HN ↗
          My point is, it&#x27;s easier to remove a spymark than a watermark.
      2. pjc50 · · focus · HN ↗
        .. both of which visibly degrade quality.
        1. okaleniuk · · focus · HN ↗
          Try.
          1. minitech · · focus · HN ↗
            I tried both options, and both options visibly* degraded quality while failing to remove my hidden message. Consider that good schemes are already designed to be resilient in the face of lossy image compression, which is a lot more disruptive than the things you suggested.

            * the 7-bit quantization + 1-bit noise option not by much, but still, visible

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.