Acutally, that's probably the best way to this. The key to effective steganography is having a large amount of data to store a small amount of data. So, if you don't mind having a db that's 10 to 100 times bigger than it has to be to store the original data it should work. On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 2:10 PM, Hector Beyers <hqbeyers@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Wow, this is really an idea I can work with. > I know this is getting really brainstorming, but do you think it is possible > to apply steganography (hiding data in pictures) tactics to the columns of a > database? > Regards > Hector > > > > On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 9:30 PM, Peter Hunsberger > <peter.hunsberger@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 2:16 PM, Hector Beyers <hqbeyers@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > >> > Hi guys, >> > does ANYONE have any tips on hiding data on a database server? This >> > means >> > that data is stored in places that is not necessarily picked up in the >> > schema of the database. I am doing some research on databases and need >> > some >> > direction. >> > Any help or direction will be highly appreciated. >> >> Let me guess: an attempt at security by obscurity? >> >> I suppose you could always create a couple of columns such that some >> function applied over them produced the real result (. You could even >> actually store this in an index, so although you could never see the >> result directly (except in a dump) queries to get at it might perform >> half reasonably. >> >> -- >> Peter Hunsberger > > -- When fascism comes to America, it will be intolerance sold as diversity. -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
