New Forum: BulletProof, Bitmap Steganography, XOR
in [Cryptography]
|
Prev: New Forum: BulletProof, Bitmap Steganography, XOR
Next: The Winds of Change - The Three Faces of Cryptography.
From: jmorton123 on 11 Jun 2010 12:23 It reads into 175MB chunks so it does not have to access the hard drive or hard drives byte by byte in repetitive read operations adding to the wear and tear to your hard drive. Imagine a read write operation involving three files accessing one hard drive. This way the equipment is less taxed. Of course the OS does not access the hardware byte by byte but doing it this way does minimize the access operations. 175MB x 2 = 350MB is chosen because some users have limited RAM and I want the program to run on as many computer configurations as possible. The size of the XOR program is due to the fact that it is a stand- alone program and this is needed to provide all the associated libraries to make for a GUI. It does not need any of your operating system's libraries, either. There is no source code because it takes work to write these programs and I am not going to do someone else's work for them. I don't think this should be a problem since I provide step by step instructions on how to prove that the program operates exactly as described. You can certainly come up with your own test as well, I'm sure. Or you can write your own program and give the source away. I guess these questions were meant as points of contention that are obvious on their own to the reader of your post. It seems there is no question here other than on the implementation. I mean, how wary can one be of a simple XOR program that can be proven to work exactly as described? Spyware? Adware? Why didn't you just ask. There is none. And the program does nothing other than what it is described to do. And surely there are those major players in this newsgroup that can alleviate any of these fears because they have the knowledge and means to make a difinitive determination regarding these matters. Some of you even have decompilers, I'm sure. You don't need source code. I'm not hiding. I simply will not give my work away. Will someone out there help TSD. By the way: you might be a major player. I think I recall you from ten years ago in this newsgroup. "... don't bother answering..." Okay. Disregard this post. JM On Jun 10, 10:19 am, Tom St Denis <t...(a)iahu.ca> wrote: > On Jun 10, 12:16 pm, jmorton123 <jmorton...(a)rock.com> wrote: > > > Any time of yours that you devote to focusing critical thought on this > > software will be an investment for others who will carry on from what > > you have to offer. > > Three things ... > > 1. Why no source code? > 2. Why does your XOR program read into 175MB chunks? > 3. Why is your XOR program 1.2MB in size? > > ... don't bother answering... > > Tom
From: jmorton123 on 11 Jun 2010 12:30 I'm sure. Like I read in another post, to paraphrase: with all the "loones" out there, don't ever use the letters "O" "T" "P" in that order with anything that is not a one-time pad. You do know that the extension of the major files produced by BulletProof have the .otp extension? Also, ten years ago the original version of the software was called, Original Absolute Privacy - Level3. I just found out that there is freeware available out there that a couple of years ago came out called, Absolute Privacy. I hope anyone who plans to make available their own freeware will take your advice and not use BulletProof as their product name as well. JM On Jun 10, 11:36 am, "Dave -Turner" <ad...(a)127.0.0.1> wrote: > Just one other thing - I don't think the term "bulletproof" sits well with > anybody in crypto ... :-)
From: jmorton123 on 11 Jun 2010 12:34 If you read the Help file in BulletProof called, The Grand Theory, you will find my proof. What do you disagree with in that explanation? I am getting the impression that there are those that simply don't want to read it because then they would have to defend their postion and that might prove too difficult. JM On Jun 10, 11:35 am, "Dave -Turner" <ad...(a)127.0.0.1> wrote: > > But no one has ever come up with a legitimate disagreement > > that could hold water. > > With all due respect, you haven't come up with a legitimate proof that, in > your words, "could hold water". > > Is that too much to ask for? This is cryptography afterall. If you simply > posted PROOF of the strength of your algorithm people would obviously give > it more time to evaluate. > > But as it stands at the moment it could just be any other snake-oil, but we > can't tell, because you aren't being open about such proofs. > > > Now there is a dedicated forum to carry on this discussion. > > I just visited - there are a total of 2 posts by 1 member - you. Granted > it's a new website, but it's hardly a "discussion" is it.
From: jmorton123 on 11 Jun 2010 12:37 I don't quite understand what you mean. The LSB is the LSB. It is the least significant bit of the chosen byte. And I have given you a technique how to chose any image data byte in a bitmap file here in the Bitmap Steganography category: http://kingkonglomerate.com/simplemachinesforum/ Doesn't this give you what you want? JM On Jun 10, 12:15 pm, Mok-Kong Shen <mok-kong.s...(a)t-online.de> wrote: > jmorton123 wrote: > > I just uploaded a new forum where anyone who can come up with any > > constructive criticism is welcome to post regarding the three freeware > > programs: BulletProof, Bitmap Steganography, XOR available for > > download at KingKonglomerate.com > > If you could modify your bitmap stego to enable a user to specify > exactly where he wants the LSB to be conform to the stego bits, > then you would have done a nice job for the practice. Forget anything > else, I would suggest. > > M. K. Shen
From: jmorton123 on 11 Jun 2010 12:40
I have and I am. Glad you're here paying attention. JM On Jun 10, 6:39 pm, Earl_Colby_Pottinger <earlcolby.pottin...(a)sympatico.ca> wrote: > As far as I am concern, you have something to hide if you can't post > about it here. |