This can be done manually:
http://www.online-tech-tips.com/computer-tips/hide-file-in-picture/
or a free alternative:
http://www.softpedia.com/get/Security/Security-Related/Jpg-FileBinder.shtml

This program works, just be sure to put the files in a .zip or .rar to prevent data loss....

Freak  –  14 years ago  –  ¿Te ha parecido útil este comentario? si | no (+101)

Traducir

There's clearly a great deal of confusion over this. Steganography is hiding data in an image by placing it in the low-order bits of the pixels, typically indistinguishable from noise if the data is encrypted, and if done right, invisible to the human eye. I can't guarantee that Ultima Steganography did this correctly, but it appears that they did. How much data you can hide is limited not by the filesize of the source image, but by its dimensions. More pixels can hide more data. If people can't figure out what to do with this, they don't understand security. It's exceptionally difficult to determine whether steganography has been used. Maybe the NSA knows something about the mathematical properties and probabilities that the rest of us don't, but otherwise it's undetectable if done correctly. The source image should be somewhat random, such as a photograph, not a screenshot or graphic.

#11, Allan Benson, Enplase has had many giveaways here, so they aren't unknown. It's true that their website sucks and that their code quality is low, but that's true of many giveaway vendors.

The install of Ultima Steganography was very clean and simple. The dialogs open in the middle of the full desktop instead of the current monitor (highly annoying). The decryption source-file selection dialog appears incorrect, as it will accept more filetypes than encryption outputs.

#2, Freak, #4, Best of the web, those things don't do steganography, they merely append data to the image file, which is easily detected.

#6, Inas, not being able to restore the data without the original password isn't a "con", it's called security, it means that there are no backdoors. Your alternatives don't do steganography.

This is one of the few offerings from Enplase that I like. I can't guarantee that it's bug-free, but it appears to do what it says, which can be handy. Images containing steganography can be publicly posted, and no one will be the wiser.

The Wolfram Blog just had an article on steganography using Mathematica. People unfamiliar with steganography should read it.

Fubar  –  14 years ago  –  ¿Te ha parecido útil este comentario? si | no (+62)

Traducir

PROS:

* Smooth download, installation, activation, registration on Vista x32 OS.
* Program is very easy to use, with given, simple step-by-step instructions.
* Seems to support most of the popular image input formats
* Supports image output format of: png, bmp, tif, tiff
* Supports enryption method: XTEA (128-bit)
* Supports use of key/password to unlock file encryption.
* I easily encrypted a word document within a gif image.
* I was able to easily unencrypt the file, via chosen password.

CONS:
* If user forgets chosen key/password, encrypted file is unrecoverable.
* program supports limited image output formats (only png, bmp, tif, tiff).
* extracted file (when saved to same name as original file) overwrote original file, which was then rendered unreadable in ".doc" format. This may be the normal encryption protocol - but for novice users, this fact may not be so obvious from the get-go, so clear, up-front instructions about this process would be helpful.

Summary: Program is easy to use and does as it says, so a 2-thumbs-up for today's offer - thanks, GOTD & Enplase.

freeware options

True Crypt
SafeHouse Explorer
Axcrypt

Inas  –  14 years ago  –  ¿Te ha parecido útil este comentario? si | no (+53)

Traducir

Like most people I suspect, I had a look around the publisher's website before I even looked at the software, and to be honest I wasn't all that impressed. Before downloading anything, I like to know who I am 'dealing' with, and to be honest, the lack of contact details other than eMail and a simple contact form didn't inspire me to proceed. I have no doubt that this software will do what it says it does (although the Jury is out on that one looking at the comments to date), but persona means a great deal, and this company/business/corporation doesn't inspire me to proceed any further.

Hiding messages and data in an image has a limited application for the average user anyway, certainly I am at a loss to see why I would personally want to do this, so a fuller explanation as to the why, how and when would be better than just repeating the intro on GOTD, almost exactly what's on the publisher's website.

To summarise, I am not all that happy with the publisher, no inference intended at your undoubted professional skills, but I think you should put more detail on your website if only to inspire confidence in the end-user.

Allan Benson  –  14 years ago  –  ¿Te ha parecido útil este comentario? si | no (+26)

Traducir

When I first ran Ultima Steganography I got a std. shareware nag screen with options to continue or buy -- opting to continue closed the nag so I could click the About button & register using the name/number in the GOTD readme.txt. This wizard-based app is extremely easy to use. It's both fast and capable, though it has one fairly large weakness -- you can get around it using a two-step process... Today's GOTD exports .png, .bmp. & tif -- since .bmp & .tif can be huge, you'd want to use .png if/when you wanted to send/transfer/post the file, & Ultima Steganography makes double-sized .pngs -- & not because of any data hidden inside. [Being over-sized is a Big Red Flag for something trying to skim under any radar] To get around the problem I exported a 1.65MB .jpg to a 28.5MB .tif [std. image from an average digital camera with today's GOTD "readme.txt" hidden inside]. I then used P/Shop CS4 to save that as a .png, & yes, Ultima Steganography extracted the readme.txt file from the new .png just fine. There were slight but noticeable differences between .jpg & .png versions, but those come from the conversion, & not hiding the text file -- the same changes were there when I converted the orig. .jpg in P/Shop. I do have to say in all fairness P/Shop used ~30% [of an AMD quad] CPU & took a bit of time to convert the image to .png, while Ultima Steganography was almost instant... with a smaller image the size increase would not be as noticeable, but still, if someone's looking for stego images using statistical analysis, how much of an increase is OK?

Ultima Steganography is an *almost* portable app with 1 roughly 6 1/2 MB .exe file -- 2 files are put in a folder under Docs & Settings \ [UserName] \ App Data \ [more on why portability might be important later]. I ran Process Explorer [SysInternals] along with Ultima Steganogrphy to see if there were any demands that might potentially cause problems, since at least one comment mentioned having some. Almost everything I recorded was pretty standard, but it did open/need Internet Explorer, the Microsoft C Runtime Library (v. 8), & a few Windows' video & audio handling or related files... enough to IMHO cause problems on a few systems &/or if used in some WinPE-type environs.

The simple logic behind program's like Ultima Steganography is that if you hide the fact you're hiding something, it's less likely someone will look for it -- a really ancient principle. The difficulty has always been to hide whatever it is you're hiding in a way that's un-noticeable, whether that means using a book or newspaper etc with some sort of key telling you which words to look for (like in the movies), or smuggling something hidden inside of, or made to look like something else (again like in the movies). Hiding contraband inside the small, hollow statue was/is more obvious than making the statue out of the contraband itself -- rather than just adding plain text onto an image file's 1s & 0s, this sort of Steganography app replaces some of those 1s & 0s, in effect *making* the image partly out of the file you're hiding. Personally I doubt Ultima Steganography is espionage grade, as I assume the NSA & similar know & have the code from every steganography app they've found, so at the very least they could tell if there was something embedded & destroy &/or track it. I'd imagine the same could be true for local law enforcement, depending on how good their forensics folks were. But if an image was posted on-line, along with however many billions of images out there, who's to say if it'd ever be checked, assuming it didn't raise any Red Flags by being overly large for the image & quality level.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steganography]
[http://www.symantec.com/connect/articles/steganography-revealed]
[http://www.jjtc.com/Steganography/tools.html]
[http://www.jjtc.com/Steganalysis/]

* * *

RE: portability, whether you're a fan of portable software or not, if/when someone knows you're hiding something, they are often tempted to look harder. According to stories in the media, in the recent spy case the feds started looking for & finding encrypted stuff *after* they found a Steganography app hidden on a laptop. I'd guess that knowing which app was used might well make detection if not decryption easier.

There are 2 Ultima Steganography files in Docs & Settings -- you can relocate those files using the portableapps.com format to make Ultima Steganography portable [I often use Portable App Creator from their forum]. You can additionally use the Portableapps.com AppCompactor to bring the size of the .exe file down to slightly over 2 MB, though please remember I haven't tested it extensively once it's compacted, & compacting may cause problems with this app that I'm not aware of. Bear in mind that even as a portable app there are still history-type records stored in the registry, but to get around that you can use a small VM like win7's XP Mode (the .vhd [virtual hard drive] can be easily erased & then replaced with a stored copy), or *maybe* even something like a WinPE environment [e.g. LiveXP].

mike  –  14 years ago  –  ¿Te ha parecido útil este comentario? si | no (+25)

Traducir