Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Communications Encryption Security IT

Hiding Secret Messages In Skype Silences 79

Orome1 writes "A group of researchers from the Institute of Telecommunications of the Warsaw University of Technology have devised a way to send and receive messages hidden in the data packets used to represent silences during a Skype call. After learning that Skype transmits voice data in 130-byte packets and the silences in 70-byte packets, the researchers came upon the idea of using the latter to conceal the sending and receiving of additional messages."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Hiding Secret Messages In Skype Silences

Comments Filter:
  • by Jeng ( 926980 ) on Monday January 07, 2013 @03:59PM (#42508741)

    If you are going to hide something, don't let everyone know where you put it.

    Now that the exploit has been discussed it will be watched out for.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 07, 2013 @04:07PM (#42508865)

    UDP overhead is 28 bytes for ipv4. Add in overhead for the audio codec to represent a timeframe for a sound and 70 bytes become reasonable.

  • by Minwee ( 522556 ) <dcr@neverwhen.org> on Monday January 07, 2013 @04:17PM (#42509019) Homepage

    Exactly what I was thinking.

    You would think that a packet specifying X seconds of simulated silence could be packed into a few bits, so maybe two bytes should suffice.

    Were you planning on sending that "two seconds of silence" packet at the _start_ of the pause? If so I know a few theoretical physicists and at least one state lottery commission who would _love_ to see your algorithm.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 07, 2013 @04:21PM (#42509105)

    Btw, Silence is a sound for computers which is represented by a flat line or basically the value of 0. Not getting packets and getting a value of 0 are different things whereas the former can be due to packet lost and broken connection while the latter is an actual value.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 07, 2013 @04:37PM (#42509373)

    If it were "undetectable", it wouldn't be able to be spotted by the *receiver* either.

    It may well be *innocuous*, but 'undetectable communications' are about as useful as 'unbreakable encryption', and every bit as oximoronic.

There are two ways to write error-free programs; only the third one works.

Working...