alt.lawyers

Cynic wrote in
news:pai9g35un0ec51ci8g4ove6gevlj34c196@ :

> On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 04:10:50 GMT, bealoid
> wrote:
>
>>So you're placing random data bits into "random data", hoping to blend
>>the two. Trivial to detect.
>
> Um ... How?

Because "random" is tricky to define. Neither of the sets are really
random. Mashing two almost-random sets together doesn't mean that you end
up with one big set, you end up with two mixed sets.

This isn't just some rarified academic thinking applicable to data-hiding
and obscure crypto, it has applications in forensic accounting too.

>>> Not a hope of detecting it or proving anything, at least unless the
>>> originals have been left around.
>
>>statstically not hard to find the modified data.
>>
> *Impossible* to find if it is done properly.

*very hard* to find if done properly. *very hard* to do properly, and
getting much harder as the amount of data to be hidden increases.