Nice concept but this is once again just the light and limited feature version of the main program. And what happens if you lose the GOTD key of this program?

Besides that, the excellent FREEWARE "Clotho" does much more than this GAOTD for FREE!!

http://clotho.ixenity.tk/feature

See also:
http://www.softpedia.com/get/Security/Encrypting/Hide-N-Send.shtml
http://www.softpedia.com/get/Security/Security-Related/Hide-Behind-Image.shtml
http://www.codegazer.com/pixelcryptor

Enjoy!!

Giovanni  –  11 years ago  –  ¿Te ha parecido útil este comentario? si | no (+131)

Traducir

We had lite and limited version offers before. I don't waste my time on lite and limited versions. The developer is offering a reward for 3 best improvement ideas. We probably could give them more ideas if we did not have the limited version.

ASBY  –  11 years ago  –  ¿Te ha parecido útil este comentario? si | no (+78)

Traducir

Lite Version(Giveaway Version, $29)

Supported image formats: .png, .gif, .bmp
Hide data in multiple images: None
Data encoring: None

Pro Version( $85 )
Supported image formats: .png, .gif, .bmp +JPG /// :D
Hide data in multiple images: Use multiple images to hide any amount of data.
Data encoring: Protect your data with one of the eight type of encryption. Select encryption type, password and key length. Read more about encryption. In this case – you hide protected data in images.

No, thanks. :)

Example article(tutorial): How to Hide Files in JPEG/BMP/PNG/GIF/ANY PICTURES FILE TYPE for FREE with COPY command in Windows + WinRAR
P.S. WinRAR is SHAREWARE, but working and after trial period(40 days) with full functionality.

Or search in Google... something like this: CLICK (for other tutorial)

Only User  –  11 years ago  –  ¿Te ha parecido útil este comentario? si | no (+69)

Traducir

A GAOTD offering that might be of some passing interest if you want to dip into steganography, but otherwise this 'Light' version is of little practical purpose because it doesn't handle jpegs.

File size is critical where steganography is concerned because the image is the 'container', and the larger the volume of information to be contained, then the larger the container must be. It helps, then, if the actual construction of the container is as slim as possible to begin with -- which is not the case with any of the formats handled by this offering: bit mapped images, for example, are so large that few are ever going to send 'em as an email attachment, hence the universal popularity of jpeg.

It's unfortunate, then, that the publisher's home page features two side-by-side .jpg images as a way of demonstrating this encryption technique when anyone installing and running today's software will very quickly discover that they can't do likewise.

For those who don't want to spend time downloading and installing this, but are interested in exploring the technique using specific syntax examples, then this may be of interest:

http://imacify.com/2011/03/how-to-hide-text-inside-an-image-trick/

Thanks then, GAOTD, and Easysector, but no thanks: road-testing any vehicle is only of benefit to manufacturer and potential purchaser if that vehicle comes with a full engine, rather than half an engine as offered today.

MikeR  –  11 years ago  –  ¿Te ha parecido útil este comentario? si | no (+58)

Traducir

Not sure of exactly how undetectable this is -- here's a pretty interesting wikipedia link of the subject http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steganography -- but the website for this looks legit and the claimed encryption looks strong. The problem with steganography is the size constraint -- the picture must be substantially larger in byte size than what's encoded into it.

That and the whole 'why bother' thing since, ultimately, if who you are hiding from can break an aes-256 encryption they probably can also detect and break this. Truecrypt, with its undetectable container within a container, seems to make a whole lot more sense for plausible deniability and ease of access. Not having much I need to protect from anyone (beyond Keepass), I'm lining up on this 'why bother' side for both this and Truecrypt.

Btw, as you are reading the link (and footnote 23), ask yourself how the British gov't discovered this stega encryption. Hopefully you aren't up to tricks that would involve gov't interest but this instance (fortunately) was apparently considerably less secure than the bad guys intended.

Ispy Aladoshus  –  11 years ago  –  ¿Te ha parecido útil este comentario? si | no (+53)

Traducir