Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

[ Create a new account ]

Hiding Packets in VoIP Chat

Posted by CmdrTaco on Monday June 02, @12:40PM
from the because-you-can dept.
Security Encryption
holy_calamity writes "Two Polish researchers say they have developed a system to hide secret steganographic messages in the packets of a VOIP connection. It exploits the fact that VoIP uses UDP, not TCP; it is designed to tolerate some packets going missing -- so hijacking a few to transmit a hidden message is not a problem." You may also be interested in reading the original paper.

Related Stories

Firehose:Hiding packets in VOIP chat by holy_calamity (872269)
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Hiding Packets in VoIP Chat 25 Comments More | Login | Reply /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.

  • Too late (Score:5, Informative)

    by oodaloop (1229816) on Monday June 02, @12:42PM (#23628349) Homepage
    Didn't /. just post an article a few months ago about how the NSA figured out a way to block steganographic messages in VOIP?

  • Pay for 388 words? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by CogDissident (951207) on Monday June 02, @12:44PM (#23628363)
    To continue reading this article, subscribe to New Scientist. Get 4 issues of New Scientist magazine and instant access to all online content for only USD $5.95

    Thanks Slashdot, because I really want to go to Slashdot to get links to a story that I have to pay to read.

  • Complete article (Score:5, Informative)

    by TripMaster Monkey (862126) on Monday June 02, @12:45PM (#23628379)
    The complete article, accessible without NewScientist subscription, may be found here [tmcnet.com].

  • Well... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Vectronic (1221470) on Monday June 02, @12:45PM (#23628385)
    It's not a sectret anymore now is it?

    • Re:Well... (Score:5, Funny)

      by Vectronic (1221470) on Monday June 02, @12:46PM (#23628393)
      Nor a secret for that matter.

      • Re:Well... (Score:5, Funny)

        by fracai (796392) on Monday June 02, @01:03PM (#23628563)
        I assumed the misspelling was one part of a larger steganographic message. Let it be known that I am now browsing over your comment history looking for further "mistakes".

        I'm on to you.

        • Re:Well... (Score:5, Interesting)

          by h4ck7h3p14n37 (926070) on Monday June 02, @03:13PM (#23630063) Homepage

          That reminds me of a neat story.

          A few years ago at a tech conference I met someone who worked for the data storage division at Dell. Some of the technical manuals that the engineer needed for their work were classified as secret (product hadn't gone to market yet) and the engineer had to sign various NDAs with the company to get access to the documents.

          Said engineer compared their copy of a manual with another engineer's copy and discovered that each manual had a different set of spelling errors. Apparently Dell was generating documents with unique sets of typos in order to be able to track down the identify of the person who leaked a document.

  • No way (Score:4, Funny)

    by William Robinson (875390) on Monday June 02, @12:47PM (#23628401)

    secret steganographic messages in the packets of a VOIP connection

    Stop this research. No way I am going to say GoodBye to my Secretary. She knows a lot more than just stenography;)

  • UDP Only... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by mchawi (468120) on Monday June 02, @12:52PM (#23628445)
    Based on the RFCs for VOIP they are supposed to support UDP and TCP per the new specs. Most companies are moving to support both so you can choose, but some of the large companies are going to TCP because this is what all of the 'Unified Communications' packages go with (such as Microsoft Office/Live/Communicator, etc).

    One of the reasons they are leaning this way is security. Go figure.

    Besides that, I don't really see the point. What does this solve that just encrypting sensitive data wouldn't?

    • Re:UDP Only... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by k_187 (61692) on Monday June 02, @12:58PM (#23628517) Homepage Journal
      If somebody's looking for something encrypted data is something. With this method, there isn't anything to find, unless I'm totally misunderstanding it.

          • Re:UDP Only... (Score:5, Funny)

            by Tanktalus (794810) on Monday June 02, @01:55PM (#23629185) Journal

            Plain cryptography is something like having a locked car sitting in a room. It might not be easy to get into, but you know it when you see it. This is like having a car behind a painting. You don't notice that there is anything being kept away from you. Well, other than that big-assed painting.

            No? How about this...

            Plain cryptography is something like having a locked car sitting in a room. It might not be easy to get into, but you know it when you see it. This is like having the locks of the car behind paintings. You don't notice the keyholes. Well, other than those out-of-place paintings hanging off the door handles.

            No? How about this...

            Plain cryptography is something like driving your car across the border while trying to keep from having to show your passport to the border patrol (by showing them fake ID). This is like doing the same while having the trunk full of cocaine when you do so.

            Bah, nevermind.

    • Re:UDP Only... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by zappepcs (820751) on Monday June 02, @01:04PM (#23628573) Journal
      Well, it might ensure that the NSA et al are not infecting your VoIP equipment with tracing software while you are talking, and those pesky terrorists might not be able to send text data about the next planes to hijack while having a bad conversation quality exchange about prayer times and how to find Mecca while in Chicago.

      When a security hole is found, it needs to be plugged because the threats it poses are not always explicitly understood at first glance.

      In fact, in computing in general, there are multiple ways to sneak a couple of packets through here and there if you're willing to be patient. I'd mention a few of them, but that would probably get me on a fucked up watch list. The fact remains that this is but one way to do so. Monitoring the network packet for packet won't uncover them all either, nor will it out any terrorists who don't want anyone watching their communications. Why, even my music on hold can contain data for transmission to the right person with the right audio equipment. Never mind a blog post, or email. In fact... woooootttt! I could use the NSA's website as the key for an encryption routine that they would never decode in several decades of trying. sigh, but that won't stop them from telling us that it's all for our protection.

      Just encrypting it would not stop the possibility of rogue data if your application can withstand a few missing packets. VoIP is not the only protocol which is susceptible.

    • Re:UDP Only... (Score:5, Informative)

      by PhuCknuT (1703) on Monday June 02, @01:06PM (#23628599) Homepage
      The idea behind steganography is not just to encrypt the data, but to hide the fact that you're sending it in the first place.
    • First, Stenographic or Stenophonetic solutions are supposed to disguise that you are actually communicating encrypted information, which is 1/2 the battle. If you know two parties are transmitting encrypted information that is sometimes enough (especially in this day and age) to either attack via brute force, or even worse, make them legally hand over their decryption keys, where then you need plausible denability. When the third party doesn't even know you are transmitting information, you are in a much better situation.

      First, wide adoption of RTP transmission via TCP is highly unlikely, due to the nature of streaming media in general which UDP is designed for and TCP is not. Fixed datagrams and packet ordering protocol are a major pain in the a$$ for streaming media.

      Where as the call control protocol (SIP, H.323, MGCP, etc) via TCP is probablly more likely and most standards support transmission under either, though the vast majority is still UDP based.

      You are right from a security perspective with TCP you know if information is gone missing, where as UDP you never really know.

  • Make noises (Score:5, Funny)

    by tristian_was_here (865394) on Monday June 02, @01:05PM (#23628587)
    If you want to hide packets over VoIP I suggest making "beeping" noises.

  • You may also be interested in reading the original paper.
    CmdrTaco, you must be new here.
  • I didn't even know we knew what a Stegosaurus sounded like, and these guys hid its messages in VoIP traffic!

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.