this post was submitted on 11 Jul 2026
260 points (96.8% liked)

Technology

86280 readers
4036 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] frongt@lemmy.zip 8 points 1 day ago (1 children)

No, that's encoding. If you hid that message inside another message, that would be steganography.

[–] wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz 7 points 1 day ago (1 children)

It is a message hidden in a message. The hidden message is the binary password, and the container message is "[blank]"

[–] Tetsuo@jlai.lu 1 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

If i understand correctly it is a message within a blank file. So it is not steganography, I suppose.

At least I dont think a seemingly blank file would pass as a valid message.

That's what I think is defining for steganography is that it is deceptive because you might not assume another secret message is hidden within the original message.

[–] wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz 1 points 9 hours ago

The decoy container could be literally anything. Sure good steganography would be hidden in something that looks real, like a jpeg or a music file, because it gives it a reason for existing at a glance. That's not to say it couldn't be a blank plaintext file, it just might arouse more suspicions and be subjected to more scrutiny