Secret editing of EXIF data for photographs using freeware

"EXIF Info" wrote in :

Can you give me advice on how best to modify EXIF info for digital photos
so that it is hard for a recipient to immediately know that the EXIF data
was modified?

Here is the manual procedure I use today to replace/modify EXIF data:
0) Starting with known good EXIF data in a jpg file called "old.jpg".

1) Replace the exif data: c:\ jhead -te old.jpg new.jpg

So as not to trip up with the EXIF size information, I reset it:
2) Reset image size data: exifer: EXIF/IPTC-Update EXIF image size values

Likewise with the EXIF thumbnails (which trip up a lot of people):
3) Remove old exif thumbnail: exifer: EXIF/IPTC-Thumbnail-Remove
thumbnail
4) Create new exif thumbnail: exifer: EXIF/IPTC-Thumbnail-Create
thumbnail

But, what else am I missing that will be a tell tale sign that the EXIF
data was modified? Am I missing anything obvious that will trip me up?

For example, how/should do I modify those other telltale EXIF info fields?
* ShutterSpeedValue
* SubjectDistance
* ImageNumber
* OwnerName
* Software
etc.

http://www.kiwiczech.net/index.php?menu=353&sub=4

Never used it. Just found it in a photo forum where someone asked about
editing the EXIF data. It just went freeware yesterday. If you try it,
post back here on what you thought of it.

I'm not familiar with EXIF metadata. You make it sound like there is a
history of changes to records within the EXIF metadata. Or are you just
guessing?

"EXIF Info" wrote in news
On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 23:31:38 -0500, VanguardLH wrote:

I'm not familiar with EXIF metadata. You make it sound like there is a
history of changes to records within the EXIF metadata.

One new item for the exif-editing checklist this brings up is the potential
for unintentional "watermarking" in the EXIF data. That would be bad.

To prevent unintentional watermarking, I would have to be sure to make the
falsified EXIF data universal enough that a simple search engine didn't
flag my particular photos any more than others in a programatic EXIF search
such as that which Flickr and other public photo sharing sites routinely
perform.

Thanks for one more item for the checklist!

More likely is stenography which would embed a "watermark", code, or
other data within the image. You're just looking at the metadata tacked
onto the image content. The original author (since it seems like you
are trying to steal someone else's work) could embed their signature
into the image so it could still be identified as to whom was the
original author/owner along with a copy of that EXIF data that you are
trying to falsify. I've never gotten interested in hiding secret data
within an image so I don't know if editing an image, even to convert it
to a different format, would get rid of the encoded data.

VanguardLH wrote:

"EXIF Info" wrote in news
On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 23:31:38 -0500, VanguardLH wrote:

I'm not familiar with EXIF metadata. You make it sound like there is a
history of changes to records within the EXIF metadata.

One new item for the exif-editing checklist this brings up is the potential
for unintentional "watermarking" in the EXIF data. That would be bad.

To prevent unintentional watermarking, I would have to be sure to make the
falsified EXIF data universal enough that a simple search engine didn't
flag my particular photos any more than others in a programatic EXIF search
such as that which Flickr and other public photo sharing sites routinely
perform.

Thanks for one more item for the checklist!

More likely is stenography which would embed a "watermark", code, or

Uh...steganography?

Follow-up not set to any stenographers' newsgroups.


--
Blinky
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project -- http://improve-usenet.org
Found: a free GG-blocking news *feed* -- http://usenet4all.se

"Blinky the Shark" wrote in
news
VanguardLH wrote:

"EXIF Info" wrote in news
On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 23:31:38 -0500, VanguardLH wrote:

I'm not familiar with EXIF metadata. You make it sound like there is a
history of changes to records within the EXIF metadata.

One new item for the exif-editing checklist this brings up is the potential
for unintentional "watermarking" in the EXIF data. That would be bad.

To prevent unintentional watermarking, I would have to be sure to make the
falsified EXIF data universal enough that a simple search engine didn't
flag my particular photos any more than others in a programatic EXIF search
such as that which Flickr and other public photo sharing sites routinely
perform.

Thanks for one more item for the checklist!

More likely is stenography which would embed a "watermark", code, or

Uh...steganography?

Follow-up not set to any stenographers' newsgroups.

I knew I wasn't using the correct term but couldn't remember it to go
look it up. I was a bit distracted after finding out someone hit my
door lock with a chunk of cement trying to break into my car along with
finding my alternator isn't working, so calling the insurance guy and
parts store were higher priority. Hey, I only missed the "ga" in the
word. I was hoping someone would come up with the right word. Rather
than "it's on the tip of my tongue", it was "it rolled off my tongue a
bit incomplete".

On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 13:07:34 -0700, Blinky the Shark wrote:

More likely is stenography which would embed a "watermark", code, or

Uh...steganography?

Follow-up not set to any stenographers' newsgroups.

That's the Pits, man . . .


Last year, he and his wife had made a trip to the US, where both their son
and daughter are working. "I have seen all the places to be seen in the US,"
Ramu wrote. Knowing his nature, I believe him. In fact, I would not be
surprised if he had managed to gatecrash into the White House and chatted
with Bill and Hillary Clinton.

If such a meeting had taken place, what would Ramu have discussed with the
president of the United States? I am sure of at least one of the topics. Sir Issac
Pitman. Yes, the man who invented shorthand. Ramu would have categorically
told the president that the US would be able to solve most of its problems if only
its citizens learnt shorthand. And, of course, prayed to Pitman.

http://www.rediff.com/style/may/31gang.htm

VanguardLH wrote:

"Blinky the Shark" wrote in
news
VanguardLH wrote:

"EXIF Info" wrote in news
On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 23:31:38 -0500, VanguardLH wrote:

I'm not familiar with EXIF metadata. You make it sound like there is a
history of changes to records within the EXIF metadata.

One new item for the exif-editing checklist this brings up is the potential
for unintentional "watermarking" in the EXIF data. That would be bad.

To prevent unintentional watermarking, I would have to be sure to make the
falsified EXIF data universal enough that a simple search engine didn't
flag my particular photos any more than others in a programatic EXIF search
such as that which Flickr and other public photo sharing sites routinely
perform.

Thanks for one more item for the checklist!

More likely is stenography which would embed a "watermark", code, or

Uh...steganography?

Follow-up not set to any stenographers' newsgroups.

I knew I wasn't using the correct term but couldn't remember it to go
look it up. I was a bit distracted after finding out someone hit my
door lock with a chunk of cement trying to break into my car along with
finding my alternator isn't working, so calling the insurance guy and

Hell of a day. Sorry to hear it was like that for you.

parts store were higher priority. Hey, I only missed the "ga" in the
word. I was hoping someone would come up with the right word. Rather
than "it's on the tip of my tongue", it was "it rolled off my tongue a
bit incomplete".

Happy to fill in the blanks.

Whenever I see "steganography" I think of taking photos of a stegosaurus,
which even Matthew Brady, coming along quite a while after the Jurassic,
wasn't able to accomplish.


--
Blinky
Is your ISP dropping Usenet?
Need a new feed?
http://blinkynet.net/comp/newfeed.html

ASAAR wrote:

On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 13:07:34 -0700, Blinky the Shark wrote:

More likely is stenography which would embed a "watermark", code, or

Uh...steganography?

Follow-up not set to any stenographers' newsgroups.

That's the Pits, man . . .

Is that you, Mr. Gregg?

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregg_Shorthand)

My mom could do that; she apparently learned it just for the challenge
(about when I was in junior high, around 1960), as she never used it
professionally.


--
Blinky
Is your ISP dropping Usenet?
Need a new feed?
http://blinkynet.net/comp/newfeed.html

? "Blinky the Shark" ?????? ??? ??????
news
VanguardLH wrote:

"Blinky the Shark" wrote in
news
VanguardLH wrote:

"EXIF Info" wrote in news
On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 23:31:38 -0500, VanguardLH wrote:

I'm not familiar with EXIF metadata. You make it sound like there is
a
history of changes to records within the EXIF metadata.

One new item for the exif-editing checklist this brings up is the
potential
for unintentional "watermarking" in the EXIF data. That would be bad.

To prevent unintentional watermarking, I would have to be sure to make
the
falsified EXIF data universal enough that a simple search engine
didn't
flag my particular photos any more than others in a programatic EXIF
search
such as that which Flickr and other public photo sharing sites
routinely
perform.

Thanks for one more item for the checklist!

More likely is stenography which would embed a "watermark", code, or

Uh...steganography?

Follow-up not set to any stenographers' newsgroups.

I knew I wasn't using the correct term but couldn't remember it to go
look it up. I was a bit distracted after finding out someone hit my
door lock with a chunk of cement trying to break into my car along with
finding my alternator isn't working, so calling the insurance guy and

Hell of a day. Sorry to hear it was like that for you.

parts store were higher priority. Hey, I only missed the "ga" in the
word. I was hoping someone would come up with the right word. Rather
than "it's on the tip of my tongue", it was "it rolled off my tongue a
bit incomplete".

Happy to fill in the blanks.

Whenever I see "steganography" I think of taking photos of a stegosaurus,
which even Matthew Brady, coming along quite a while after the Jurassic,
wasn't able to accomplish.


No, that would be stegosaurography, stenography is greek, from steno
narrow and in this context short, and graphy writing. Steganography
would mean stegano sealed compartment like the ones found on a ship,
although this word doesn't exist....


--
Tzortzakakis Dimitrios
major in electrical engineering
mechanized infantry reservist
hordad AT otenet DOT gr

Tzortzakakis Dimitrios wrote:

? "Blinky the Shark" wrote:

heavily edited for brevity

Whenever I see "steganography" I think of taking photos of a stegosaurus,
which even Matthew Brady, coming along quite a while after the Jurassic,
wasn't able to accomplish.


No, that would be stegosaurography, stenography is greek, from steno
narrow and in this context short, and graphy writing. Steganography
would mean stegano sealed compartment like the ones found on a ship,
although this word doesn't exist....


Hello, Dimitrios:

Well, for painfully obvious reasons, "Tyrannography" would be far more
dangerous, than mere "Stegosaurography." :-D


Cordially,
John Turco


PS: I'm slightly confused; is "Dimitrios" your first name (as I assume
it is), or last? g