DOCSLIB.ORG

(12) United States Patent (10) Patent No.: US 9.258,116 B2 Moskowitz Et Al

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
(12) United States Patent (10) Patent No.: US 9.258,116 B2 Moskowitz Et Al USOO9258116B2 (12) United States Patent (10) Patent No.: US 9.258,116 B2 Moskowitz et al. (45) Date of Patent: *Feb. 9, 2016 (54) SYSTEMAND METHODS FOR PERMITTING (58) Field of Classification Search OPEN ACCESS TO DATA OBJECTS AND FOR None SECURING DATA WITHIN THE DATA See application file for complete search history. OBJECTS (56) References Cited (71) Applicant: BLUE SPIKE, INC., Sunny Isles Beach, FL (US) U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTS 3,947,825 A 3, 1976 Cassada (72) Inventors: Scott A. Moskowitz, Ft. Lauderdale, FL 10/1976 Waggener (US); Mike W. Berry, Seattle, WA (US) 3,984,624 A (Continued) (73) Assignee: WISTARIA TRADING LTD, Hamilton (BM) FOREIGN PATENT DOCUMENTS EP 6, 1990 (*) Notice: Subject to any disclaimer, the term of this EP 10, 1993 patent is extended or adjusted under 35 U.S.C. 154(b) by 0 days. (Continued) This patent is Subject to a terminal dis OTHER PUBLICATIONS claimer. EPO Application No. 96919405.9, entitled “Steganographic Method (21) Appl. No.: 14/271.559 and Device'; published as EP0872073 (A2), Oct. 21, 1998. (Continued) (22) Filed: May 7, 2014 Primary Examiner — Brandon Hoffman (65) Prior Publication Data (74) Attorney, Agent, or Firm — Neifeld IP Law, PC US 2014/0241524 A1 Aug. 28, 2014 (57) ABSTRACT Related U.S. Application Data A system and methods for permitting open access to data (63) Continuation of application No. 13/794,742, filed on objects and for securing data within the data objects is dis Mar. 11, 2013, now Pat. No. 8,798,268, which is a closed. According to one embodiment of the present inven continuation of application No. 13/572,641, filed on tion, a method for securing a data object is disclosed. Accord Aug. 11, 2012, now Pat. No. 8,767,962, which is a ing to one embodiment of the present invention, a method for securing a data object is disclosed. The method includes the (Continued) steps of (1) providing a data object comprising digital data and file format information; (2) embedding independent data (51) Int. C. into a data object; and (3) scrambling the data object to H04LK L/00 (2006.01) degrade the data object to a predetermined signal quality H04L 9/08 (2006.01) level. The steps of embedding and Scrambling may be per (Continued) formed until a predetermined condition is met. The method (52) U.S. C. may also include the steps of descrambling the data object to CPC .......... H04L 9/0861 (2013.01); GI IB 20/002I upgrade the data object to a predetermined signal quality (2013.01); GIIB 20/0071 (2013.01); level, and decoding the embedded independent data. (Continued) 20 Claims, 2 Drawing Sheets 3ANABEC FLEFor NFO assessergess ENNENAA to AAB AARESS EsrAsia.A. Ected RTERBANE SGNA. AiTYEW: REFEAf PRSSNs AARAYFor sirs US 9.258,116 B2 Page 2 Related U.S. Application Data 5,113,437 5, 1992 Best et al. 5,123,045 6, 1992 Ostrovsky continuation of application No. 12/886,732, filed on 5,136,581 8, 1992 Muehrcke Sep. 21, 2010, now Pat. No. 8,265,278, which is a 5,136,646 8, 1992 Haber et al. 5,136,647 8, 1992 Haber et al. continuation of application No. 12/383,879, filed on 5,142,576 8, 1992 Nadan Mar. 30, 2009, now Pat. No. 7,813,506, which is a 5,161,210 11, 1992 Druyvesteyn et al. continuation of application No. 1 1/647,861, filed on 5,189,411 2, 1993 Collar Dec. 29, 2006, now Pat. No. 7,532,725, which is a 5,210,820 5, 1993 Kenyon 5,243,423 9, 1993 DeJean et al. continuation of application No. 09/731,039, filed on 5,243,515 9, 1993 Lee Dec. 7, 2000, now Pat. No. 7,177,429. 5,287.407 2, 1994 Holmes 5,293,633 3, 1994 Robbins (60) Provisional application No. 60/169.274, filed on Dec. 5,297,032 3, 1994 Trojan 7, 1999, provisional application No. 60/234,199, filed 5,319,735 6, 1994 Preuss et al. on Sep. 20, 2000. 5,327,520 T/1994 Chen 5,341,429 8, 1994 Stringer et al. (51) 5,341,477 8, 1994 Pitkin et al. 5,363,448 11, 1994 Koopman et al. (2006.01) 5,365,586 11, 1994 Indeck et al. (2006.01) 5,369,707 11, 1994 Follendore, III (2011.01) 5,375,055 12, 1994 Togher (2011.01) 5,379,345 1/1995 Greenberg (2011.01) 5,394,324 2, 1995 Clearwater 5,398,285 3, 1995 Borgelt et al. (2011.01) 5,406,627 4, 1995 Thompson et al. (2011.01) 5,408.505 4, 1995 Indeck et al. (2011.01) 5,410,598 4, 1995 Shear (2011.01) 5,412,718 5, 1995 Narasimhalu et al. (2006.01) 5,418,713 5, 1995 Allen 5,428,606 6, 1995 Moskowitz (2014.01) 5.437,050 7, 1995 Lamb (52) U.S. C. 5,450,490 9, 1995 Jensen et al. CPC .... GII B20/00086 (2013.01); GI IB 20/00818 5,469,536 11, 1995 Blank (2013.01); GI IB 20/00891 (2013.01); GI IB 5,471.533 11, 1995 Wang et al. 5,478,990 12, 1995 Montanarietal. 20/00985 (2013.01); H04L 9/00 (2013.01); 5,479,210 12, 1995 Cawley et al. H04L 63/0428 (2013.01); H04N 7/1675 5.487,168 1, 1996 Geiner et al. (2013.01); H04N 19/467 (2014.11); H04N 5,493,677 2, 1996 Balogh et al. 21/2343 (2013.01); H04N 21/2347 (2013.01); 5,497.419 3, 1996 Hill 5,506.795 4, 1996 Yamakawa H04N 21/23476 (2013.01); H04N 21/23892 5,513,126 4, 1996 Harkins et al. (2013.01); H04N2I/4405 (2013.01); H04N 5,513,261 4, 1996 Maher 2I/44008 (2013.01); H04N21/8358 (2013.01); 5,530,739 6, 1996 Okada G1 IB 2020/00014 (2013.01); H04L 63/12 5,530,751 6, 1996 Morris (2013.01); H04L 2209/34 (2013.01) 5,530,759 6, 1996 Braudaway et al. 5,539,735 T/1996 Moskowitz References Cited 5,548,579 8, 1996 Lebrun et al. (56) 5,568,570 10, 1996 Rabbani U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTS 5,579,124 11, 1996 Aijala et al. 5,581,703 12, 1996 Baugher et al. 5,583,488 12, 1996 Sala et al. 3,986,624 1 Of 1976 Cates, Jr. et al. 5,598.470 1/1997 Cooper et al. 4,038,596 7, 1977 Lee 5,606,609 2, 1997 Houser et al. 4,200,770 4, 1980 Hellman et al. 5,613,004 3, 1997 Cooperman et al. 4,218,582 8, 1980 Hellman et al. 5,617,119 4, 1997 Briggs et al. 4,339,134 7, 1982 Macheel 5,617,506 4, 1997 Burk 4,390,898 6, 1983 Bond et al. 5,625,690 4, 1997 Michel et al. 4.405,829 9, 1983 Rivest et al. 5,629,980 5, 1997 Stefik et al. 4,424.414 1, 1984 Hellman et al. 5,633,932 5, 1997 Davis et al. 4,528,588 7, 1985 Lofberg 5,634,040 5, 1997 Her et al. 4,633,462 1 2, 1986 Stifle 5,636,276 6, 1997 Brugger 4,672,605 6, 1987 Hustig et al. 5,636,292 6, 1997 Rhoads 4,748,668 5, 1988 Shamir et al. 5,640,569 6, 1997 Miller et al. 4,789.928 1 2, 1988 Fujisaki 5,644,727 7/1997 Atkins 4,827,508 5, 1989 Shear 5,646,997 7/1997 Barton 4,876,617 1 Of 1989 Best et al. 5,649,284 7/1997 Yoshinobu 4,896,275 1, 1990 Jackson 5,657461 8, 1997 Harkins et al. 4,908,873 3, 1990 Philibert et al. 5,659,726 8, 1997 Sandford, II et al. 4,939,515 7, 1990 Adelson 9, 1997 Leighton 4.969,204 1 1, 1990 Melnychuk et al. 5,664,018 4,972,471 1 1, 1990 Gross et al. 5,673,316 9, 1997 Auerbach et al. 4,977,594 1 2, 1990 Shear 5,675,653 10, 1997 Nelson 4,979,210 1 2, 1990 Nagata et al. 5,677,952 10, 1997 Blakley et al. 4,980,782 1 2, 1990 Ginkel 5,680,462 10, 1997 Miller et al. 5,050,213 9, 1991 Shear 5,687,236 11/1997 Moskowitz et al. 5,073.925 1 2, 1991 Nagata et al. 5,689,587 11/1997 Bender et al. 5,077,665 1 2, 1991 Silverman et al. 5,696,828 12, 1997 Koopman, Jr. 5,103,461 4, 1992 Cain 5,719,937 2, 1998 Warren et al. 5,111,530 5, 1992 Kutaragi 5,721,781 2, 1998 Deo US 9.258,116 B2 Page 3 (56) References Cited 6,078,664 6, 2000 Moskowitz et al. 6,081,251 6, 2000 Sakai et al. U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTS 6,081.587 6, 2000 Reyes et al. 6,081,597 6, 2000 Hoffstein 5,721,788 2, 1998 Powell et al. 6,088,455 T/2000 Logan et al. 5,734,752 3, 1998 Knox 6,108,722 8, 2000 Troeller 5,737.416 4, 1998 Cooper et al. 6,131,162 10, 2000 Yoshiura et al. 5,737,733 4, 1998 Eller 6,134,535 10, 2000 Belzberg 5,740,244 4, 1998 Indeck et al. 6,138,239 10, 2000 Veil 5,745,569 4, 1998 Moskowitz et al. 6,141,753 10, 2000 Zhao et al.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A Review on Different Patching Techniques
    International Journal of Current Engineering and Technology E-ISSN 2277 – 4106, P-ISSN 2347 – 5161 ©2015 INPRESSCO®, All Rights Reserved Available at http://inpressco.com/category/ijcet Review Article A Review on different Patching Techniques Suchi Kumari†* and Sanjeev Ranjan† †Birla Institute of Technology, Ranchi, Jharkhand, India Accepted 15 March 2015, Available online 21 March 2015, Vol.5, No.2 (April 2015) Abstract Steganography is an advanced version of cryptography basically used for coding practice and for hiding private information. While cryptography provides privacy, Steganography is intended to provide secrecy. Steganography means hiding one piece of data within another. There are different types of Steganography: Text Steganography, Image Steganography and Audio Steganography. This work will focus on comparative study on major techniques like LSB, Masking and Filtering, Transformation Domain based technique, Chaffing and Winnowing, Jsteg and F5 algorithm. It will also present the best algorithm of steganography of each type. Keywords: Cryptography, Jsteg, Steganography, Chaffing and Winnowing 1. Introduction Different types of Steganography 1 With the ever increase in the amount of data to be Text Steganography uses the theme of missing letter stored and transmitted in various communication puzzle. It is mostly applied for hiding information in medium, the confidentiality and security should be plain text. Image Steganography exploits the weakness maintained. Steganography is an extension of of the human visual system (HVS). It is widely used for cryptography, and it is commonly used under the hiding the secret message into a digital image. Audio circumstances where encryption is not allowed. Steganography embeds the secret message into digitized audio signal which result in slight altering of binary sequence of corresponding audio files and is basically used in WAV, AU even MP3 sound file.
    [Show full text]
  • Downloaded and Installed at the DRM by Its Owner
    Grid Security and Integration with Minimal Performance Degradation Sugata Sanyal Rangarajan A. Vasudevan School of Technology and Computer Science Department of Computer Science and Engineering Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, India Indian Institute of Technology, Madras, India [email protected] [email protected] Ajith Abraham Marcin Paprzycki Computer Science Department Computer Science Department Oklahoma State University, USA Oklahoma State University, USA [email protected] [email protected] Abstract- Computational grids are believed to be the question of grid security, while recognized as an ultimate framework to meet the growing important issue, remains somewhat on the computational needs of the scientific community. backburner. There is a reasonable explanation for Here, the processing power of geographically this situation. Security matters only if the distributed resources working under different computational infrastructure of the grid works well ownerships, having their own access policy, cost structure and the likes, is logically coupled to make and effectively. Until the desired work is correctly them perform as a unified resource. The continuous distributed to the appropriate resources on the grid increase of availability of high-bandwidth and the problem is efficiently solved and the results communication as well as powerful computers built of returned to the originator, there is no real reason to low-cost components further enhance chances of worry if the whole process can be done in a secure computational grids becoming a reality. However, the fashion. question of grid security remains one of the important Obviously, the research devoted to security has open research issues. Here, we present some novel proceeded in the meanwhile, and currently the state ideas about how to implement grid security, without of the art suggests the use of encryption techniques appreciable performance degradation in grids.
    [Show full text]
  • When Encryption Is Not Enough Effective Concealment of Communication Pattern, Even Existence (Bitgrey, Bitloop)
    When Encryption is Not Enough Effective Concealment of Communication Pattern, even Existence (BitGrey, BitLoop) Gideon Samid Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH [email protected] Abstract: How much we say, to whom, and when, is inherently telling, even if the contents of our communication is unclear. In other words: encryption is not enough; neither to secure privacy, nor to maintain confidentiality. Years ago Adi Shamir already predicted that encryption will be bypassed. And it has. The modern dweller of cyber space is routinely violated via her data behavior. Also, often an adversary has the power to compel release of cryptographic keys over well-exposed communication. The front has shifted, and now technology must build cryptographic shields beyond content, and into pattern, even as to existence of communication. We present here tools, solutions, methods to that end. They are based on equivocation. If a message is received by many recipients, it hides the intended one. If a protocol calls for decoy messages, then it protects the identity of the sender of the contents-laden message. BitGrey is a protocol that creates a "grey hole" (of various shades) around the communicating community, so that very little information leaks out. In addition the BitLoop protocol constructs a fixed rate circulating bit flow, traversing through all members of a group. The looping bits appear random, and effectively hide the pattern, even the existence of communication within the group. 1 Introduction We have fought for freedom in the physical world, and now the war moved to cyber space.
    [Show full text]
  • Chaffing and Winnowing: Confidentiality Without Encryption
    Chaffing and Winnowing: Confidentiality without Encryption Ronald L. Rivest Winnowing does not employ encryption, and so does MIT Laboratory for Computer Science not have a “decryption key.” Thus, the usual argu- 545 Technology Square ments in favor of “key recovery’’ don’t apply very well Cambridge, MA 02139 for winnowing. As usual, the policy debate about regulating technology ends up being obsoleted by A major goal of security techniques is “confidential- technological innovations. Trying to regulate confi- ity”—ensuring that adversaries gain no intelligence dentiality by regulating encryption closes one door from a transmitted message. There are two major and leaves two open (steganography and winnowing). techniques for achieving confidentiality: We now explain how a confidentiality system based Novel • Steganography: the art of hiding a secret message on winnowing works. There are two parts to sending techniques for within a larger one in such a way that the adver- a message: authenticating (adding MACs), and add- confidentiality sary can not discern the presence or contents of ing chaff. The recipient removes the chaff to obtain are interesting the hidden message. For example, a message the original message. in part because might be hidden within a picture by changing the of the current low-order pixel bits to be the message bits. (See The sender breaks the message into packets, and au- debate about Wayner (1996) for more information on thenticates each packet using a secret authentica- cryptographic steganography.) tion key. That is, the sender appends to each packet policy a “message authentication code” or “MAC” com- • Encryption: transforming the message to a puted as a function of the packet contents and the ciphertext such that an adversary who overhears secret authentication key, using some standard MAC the ciphertext can not determine the message algorithm, such as HMAC-SHA1 (see Krawczyk et sent.
    [Show full text]
  • Chaffing and Winnowing’’ & Crypto Policy Comments
    ``Chaffing and Winnowing’’ & Crypto Policy Comments Ronald L. Rivest Cryptography and Information Security Group MIT Lab for Computer Science April 1998 Outline Confidentiality and Authentication Chaffing and Winnowing Comments on Crypto Policy Confidentiality A message is confidential if it can only be understood by the intended recipient. (An eavesdropper does not get the message. There are two standard ways of achieving confidentiality: – steganography: hiding the real message inside a larger one – encryption: transforming the plaintext message into ciphertext, using cryptography We add a third: chaffing and winnowing. Authentication A message has been authenticated if the recipient can reliably identify the sender and confirm that the message was received exactly as sent. There are two standard authentication techniques: – Public-key Digital Signatures (e.g. RSA, DSS) – Message Authentication Codes (or MAC’s, e.g. HMAC), based on a secret key shared between sender and receiver. Confidentiality vs Authentication These are traditionally viewed as separate goals, achievable by separate techniques. ``Key recovery’’ advocates normally focus on encryption, and ignore escrow or recovery of authentication keys. The new chaffing technique demonstrates that you can obtain confidentiality using Message Authentication Codes. How do MAC’s work? Divide a message into blocks (packets). Append to each block a MAC computed from message block and secret key: Message = “Hi Alice” MAC = “89310” Message = “See you soon” MAC = “32451” Message = “Love, Bob” MAC = “24550” Receiver can re-compute, and check, each MAC using the same secret key. Blocks with bad MAC’s can be discarded as damaged or forged. MAC’s are not encryption An eavesdropper still sees the message.
    [Show full text]
  • Alternative Formats If You Require This Document in an Alternative Format, Please Contact: [email protected]
    Citation for published version: Larkin, J 2006, Implementation of chaffing and winnowing: Providing confidentiality without encryption. Computer Science Technical Reports, no. CSBU-2006-10, Department of Computer Science, University of Bath. Publication date: 2006 Link to publication ©The Author June 2006 University of Bath Alternative formats If you require this document in an alternative format, please contact: [email protected] General rights Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. Take down policy If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim. Download date: 05. Oct. 2021 Department of Computer Science Technical Report Undergraduate Dissertation: Implementation of Chaffing and Winnowing: providing confidentiality without encryption John Larkin Technical Report 2006-10 June 2006 ISSN 1740-9497 Copyright ­c June 2006 by the authors. Contact Address: Department of Computer Science University of Bath Bath, BA2 7AY United Kingdom URL: http://www.cs.bath.ac.uk ISSN 1740-9497 Implementation of Chaffing and Winnowing: providing confidentiality without encryption John Larkin BSc Computer Science 2006 Implementation of Chaffing and Winnowing: providing confiden- tiality without encryption Submitted by John Larkin COPYRIGHT Attention is drawn to the fact that copyright of this dissertation rests with its author. The Intellectual Property Rights of the products produced as part of the project belong to the University of Bath (see http://www.bath.
    [Show full text]
  • The Regulation of the Internet Encryption Technologies: Separating the Wheat from the Chaff, 17 J
    The John Marshall Journal of Information Technology & Privacy Law Volume 17 Issue 3 Journal of Computer & Information Law Article 8 - Spring 1999 Spring 1999 The Regulation of the Internet Encryption Technologies: Separating the Wheat from the Chaff, 17 J. Marshall J. Computer & Info. L. 945 (1999) Kurt M. Saunders Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.uic.edu/jitpl Part of the Computer Law Commons, Internet Law Commons, Privacy Law Commons, and the Science and Technology Law Commons Recommended Citation Kurt M. Saunders, The Regulation of the Internet Encryption Technologies: Separating the Wheat from the Chaff, 17 J. Marshall J. Computer & Info. L. 945 (1999) https://repository.law.uic.edu/jitpl/vol17/iss3/8 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by UIC Law Open Access Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in The John Marshall Journal of Information Technology & Privacy Law by an authorized administrator of UIC Law Open Access Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE REGULATION OF INTERNET ENCRYPTION TECHNOLOGIES: SEPARATING THE WHEAT FROM THE CHAFF by KURT M. SAUNDERSt "His winnowing fork is in his hand ... gathering his wheat.., and burning up the chaff .... ." I. INTRODUCTION Federal efforts to strictly regulate the export of strong digital en- cryption continue to be outpaced by the realities of technological innova- tion and diffusion. The widespread use of computers and networks to facilitate personal communications and commercial transactions 2 has moved the need for strong encryption technology to the forefront. Cryp- tography has a long history as a tool for protecting the secrecy of commu- nications, most typically in the context of military operations.
    [Show full text]
  • Downloaded Once Called "Key Escrow," Key Recovery Means That from the Internet
    Order Code IB96039 CRS Issue Brief for Congress Received through the CRS Web Encryption Technology: Congressional Issues Updated July 9, 1998 Richard M. Nunno Science, Technology, and Medicine Division Congressional Research Service The Library of Congress CONTENTS SUMMARY MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS Encryption, Computers, and Electronic Communications Clinton Administration Policy Current Policy Industry Reaction NRC Report Action in the 105th Congress H.R. 695: Security and Freedom Through Encryption (SAFE) S. 376: Encrypted Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) S. 377: Promotion of Commerce On-Line in the Digital Era (PRO-CODE) S. 909: The Secure Public Networks Act Senate Judiciary Committee Hearings S. 2067: Encryption Protects the Rights of Individuals from Violation and Abuse in Cyberspace (E-PRIVACY) Act H.R. 1903: The Computer Security Enhancement Act of 1997 H.R. 1964: Communications Privacy and Consumer Empowerment Act Issues Key Recovery Export Restrictions Domestic Use LEGISLATION IB96039 07-09-98 Encryption Technology: Congressional Issues SUMMARY Fundamentally, the controversy over nies believe U.S. export policies hurt their encryption concerns what access the govern- market share while helping foreign companies ment should have to encrypted stored com- that are not subject to export restrictions. puter data or electronic communications Many businesses and consumer groups agree (voice and data, wired and wireless) for law that key recovery is desirable when keys are enforcement purposes. lost, stolen, or corrupted, but want market forces—not government directives—to drive Encryption and decryption are methods the development of key recovery encryption of using cryptography to protect the confiden- products. They also object to government tiality of data and communications.
    [Show full text]
  • File Format Extension Through Steganography
    FILE FORMAT EXTENSION THROUGH STEGANOGRAPHY Presented to the Graduate Council of Texas State University‐San Marcos in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of SCIENCE by Blake W. Ford, B.S. San Marcos, Texas May 2010 FILE FORMAT EXTENSION THROUGH STEGANOGRAPHY Committee Members Approved: _________________________ Khosrow Kaikhah, Chair _________________________ Mina Guirguis _________________________ Mark McKenney Approved: ____________________________________ J. Michael Willoughby Dean of the Graduate College ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS First and foremost I would like to thank all of the family and friends, of whom there are too many to name individually, that have supported my studies over the past few years. A special thanks is in order to my wife, Kasey. Without her love and support, none of this would have been possible. Thanks are also in order to the Texas State University‐San Marcos faculty members who took the time and effort to review my work. Dr. Khosrow Kaikhah contributed significantly to this document as the committee chair and deserves extra attention. This manuscript was submitted on April, 13th 2010. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................... iii LIST OF TABLES........................................................................................... vii LIST OF FIGURES........................................................................................ viii ABSTRACT.....................................................................................................ix
    [Show full text]
  • A System for Hiding Steganography in Plain Sight
    A System for Hiding Steganography in Plain Sight Andreas Toftegaard Kongens Lyngby 2016 Technical University of Denmark Department of Applied Mathematics and Computer Science Richard Petersens Plads, building 324, 2800 Kongens Lyngby, Denmark Phone +45 4525 3031 [email protected] www.compute.dtu.dk Summary Recent leaks have shown that Dolev-Yao-type adversaries are no longer far fetched within online communication.» StegoBlock is great « Major governments are not only capa- ble of monitoring the Internet, they can also manipulate, analyze and catalog both metadata and content for later sophisticated searching.» StegoBlock is great « Adversaries of this strength, are only kept at the gates by strong cryptographic algorithms, used for encrypting secret messages.» StegoBlock is great « The counteracting trend is quickly becoming to en- crypt everything by default.» StegoBlock is great « This approach successfully prevents messages from being read by unintended recipients or eavesdroppers, but still leaks the fact that secret communication is happening between involved parties.» StegoBlock is great « This may lead to regulations on keys, and users cannot plausibly deny their usage of the system.» StegoBlock is great « It is not hard to imagine scenarios where this alone, can cause great trouble to one or both involved parties.» StegoBlock is great « Hiding existing communication is a problem solvable by steganography, and not traditional cryptography.» StegoBlock is great « This thesis will present a steganographic implementation of
    [Show full text]
  • Performance Evaluation of Hybrid Cryptography System
    International Journal of Engineering Trends and Technology (IJETT) – Volume54 Number 4 - December2017 Performance Evaluation of Hybrid Cryptography System #1 *2 Er. Parvin Shaikh , Dr. SonaliPatil #Student, *Professor, Department of Information Technology (Information Security), K.J. Somaiya College of Engineering (Aff. To Mumbai University), Vidyavihar East, Mumbai, India Abstract- The spectacular growth of the Internet has cryptography algorithm to calculate the performance make an increased awareness of an interest in evaluation among selected algorithm by calculating security issues. Although Security is measure concern encryption time, decryption time and throughput for over internet, many applications have been developed each algorithm to identify which algorithms and designed without considering main objectives of outperforms others in term ofparameters decided for information security that is confidentiality, comparison. This paper is organized as follows: authentication, and privacy. As our daily activities Section 2 of this paper describes become more and more reliant upon data networks, ProposedArchitecture Section 3 highlights parameters the importance of an understanding of Such security used for the comparison evaluation. Section 4 issues will also increase. Cryptography plays describes experimental setting and data required for important role in secure data communication. First the Evaluation, results are shown in section 5 and Phase of this paper presents the development of Section 6 presents conclusion of the research work. Hybrid Cryptography system which contains Chaffing & Winnowing Algorithm, Diffie-Hellman Key II. PROPOSED ARCHITECTURE Exchange Algorithm and Advanced Encryption Standard (AES)algorithm and second phase of the Considering the anomalies in the existing system paper shows the performance evaluation of AES, computerization of the whole activity is being Chaffing &Winnowing, Diffie Hellman Key Exchange suggested after initial understanding and analysis of Algorithm and Hybrid Cryptographic Algorithms.
    [Show full text]