Possible, hence probable means

Why did it take so long for this to surface ..?
As the <link> mentions, steganography in images is detectable and tools are around to help – how many of you already use them on a regular basis, in times when LOLcat pics are so abundant (hint(?)) – but wasn’t it too obvious that the Bad (?) Guys knew that, too, before you the pithy defenders?

So, why?
Either the tools are around but not widespread enough, or as <link> suggests, other means might work better. But the other means… are as cumbersome to deploy, continuously, costly, for the short run for the slightest of changes that anything would be leaked in such a sophisticated way whereas we’re nowhere really nowhere near similar near-water-tight deployment of tooling and methodology against much simpler leaking methods. Leaving you in blissful ignorance. ?

Leaving (sic) you with:
DSCN1043[Tarrega door. Shut closed.]


About maverisk

Maverisk Consultancy, IS Audit and Advisory services: Wikinomics meets governance and audit; otherwise, see my personal LinkedIn profile
This entry was posted in Information Security, Innovation (technologicallly driven), Privacy and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to Possible, hence probable means

  1. Pingback: Oops, there it is! (now you don’t, see it) | Maverisk

Your comments are welcomed!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s