Paper detail

Wet paper codes and the dual distance in steganography

In 1998 Crandall introduced a method based on coding theory to secretly embed a message in a digital support such as an image. Later Fridrich et al. improved this method to minimize the distortion introduced by the embedding; a process called wet paper. However, as previously emphasized in the literature, this method can fail during the embedding step. Here we find sufficient and necessary conditions to guarantee a successful embedding by studying the dual distance of a linear code. Since these results are essentially of combinatorial nature, they can be generalized to systematic codes, a large family containing all linear codes. We also compute the exact number of solutions and point out the relationship between wet paper codes and orthogonal arrays.

preprint2011arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access2 authors3 topics

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.