this post was submitted on 20 Jun 2024
988 points (98.9% liked)

Science Memes

15417 readers
1788 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.

Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.

Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
fossilesque
988
Elsevier (mander.xyz)
submitted 1 year ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
158 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago (9 children)

Wouldn't printing the PDF to a new PDF inherently strip the metadata put there by the publisher?

[–] [email protected] 18 points 1 year ago (7 children)

it’s possible using steganographic techniques to embed digital watermarks which would not be stripped by simply printing to pdf.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

When is why you steghide random data to the image to fuck up the other end =]

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Unless you know specifically what they're adding or changing this wouldn't work. If they have a hidden 'barcode' and you add another hidden 'barcode' or modify the image in a way to remove some or all of theirs, they'd still be able to read theirs.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

yeah, youd have to sample other downloads to collect statistics and unsteghide theirs to effectively ensure your fuzzing worked

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)