The Case Against Steganography In Perceptually Encoded Media

[David E. Weekly]

> It doesn't have to be random, it has to be complete.  Random is definitly
> better, but it's unlikely that steganography would be needed if one could
> send random data for any reason to begin with.  You want the message to be
> invisible, and anyone looking for hidden messages is certain to scan
> "random" data and check it for statistics.  The power of statistics makes
> steganography really hard.

The key is to steganographically encode "random" (encrypted) data and then
"shape" the result to match the mean probabilities seen in observation of a
system in usual operation. This defeats statistical analysis, since your
data is shaped just like everyone else's. If the bits are encrypted with a
recipient's public key, only with posession of the private key can the data
be perceived to be non-random, which is a nicely strong property.

 -David Weekly