«

On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 16:22:05 -0700, EXIF Info wrote:

> 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?

Not and have you live, no.
--
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJVydzNJrno

clandestin_=C3=A9cureuil wrote:

> Cyberiade.it Anonymous Remailer wrote:
> > clandestin_=3DC3=3DA9cureuil wrote:
> >=20
> >> As the time is dependent on the camera owner setting it correctly and =
mos=3D
> > t=3D20
> >> cameras don't have geo-data capability, the only real value in EXIF da=
ta =3D
> > is=3D20
> >> to identify the camera and its settings.
> >=20
> > Wow.
> >=20
> > You obviously have no knowledge what so ever with respect to what
> > EXIF is, does, and/or means.
> >=20
>=20
>=20
> I have enough knowledge to use exiftool and a beta version of Photome on =
a=20

Yes, as I said the nonexistant nature of your "knowledge" is
self-evident.

> What is your point

That toys like Exiftool and Photome don't even begin to scratch the
surface of the information modern cameras store in images. That
even competent tools won't help one "forge" EXIF data because much
of that stored information is proprietary, binary, and probably
undecipherable by anyone who doesn't have an NDA from the camera's
manufacturer in their pocket.

And that you're completely oblivious to all of that, as your
laughable "camera and it's settings" bloviation so succinctly
demonstrates.

Now would there be anything else I can clear up for you today?

EXIF Info - 26.06.2008 01:22 :

> 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

[...]

http://exifer.friedemann.info

--

by(e) PS

spam will be killfiled

Ari <> wrote:

> On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 16:22:05 -0700, EXIF Info wrote:
>
> > 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?
>
> Not and have you live, no.

More James Bond delusions. How fascinating.

Still waiting for a VALID post through AIOE by the way.

Or for your nuts to drop.

LOL!


Il mittente di questo messaggio|The sender address of this
non corrisponde ad un utente |message is not related to a real
reale ma all'indirizzo fittizio|person but to a fake address of an
di un sistema anonimizzatore |anonymous system
Per maggiori informazioni |For more info
https://www.mixmaster.it

Nomen Nescio wrote:
> clandestin_=C3=A9cureuil wrote:
>
>> Cyberiade.it Anonymous Remailer wrote:
>>> clandestin_=3DC3=3DA9cureuil wrote:
>>> =20
>>>> As the time is dependent on the camera owner setting it correctly and =
> mos=3D
>>> t=3D20
>>>> cameras don't have geo-data capability, the only real value in EXIF da=
> ta =3D
>>> is=3D20
>>>> to identify the camera and its settings.
>>> =20
>>> Wow.
>>> =20
>>> You obviously have no knowledge what so ever with respect to what
>>> EXIF is, does, and/or means.
>>> =20
>> =20
>> =20
>> I have enough knowledge to use exiftool and a beta version of Photome on =
> a=20
>
> Yes, as I said the nonexistant nature of your "knowledge" is
> self-evident.

You said it, but it isn't so. I imagine that happens quite a lot with you.
I am not an expert, that is why I am here, hoping to learn more, but I
certainly have a good amount of general knowledge and experience.

>
>> What is your point
>
> That toys like Exiftool and Photome don't even begin to scratch the
> surface of the information modern cameras store in images.

Ok, if Exiftool and Photome are toys, enlighten me, what are the "real
deal" in such software?


> That even competent tools won't help one "forge" EXIF data because much
> of that stored information is proprietary, binary, and probably
> undecipherable by anyone who doesn't have an NDA from the camera's
> manufacturer in their pocket.

I have no interest in, nor have I suggested or implied that such a thing is
possible with any software program. I was asking someone else why they
wanted to change data other than time and place data. That data is usually
concerned with camera id and specific settings for each shot. You seem to
disagree. Is that simply because you are such a disagreeable person or do
have something valid to add?

Aside from camera id - model, make etc., and settings, what is it that you
find me to be so alarmingly ignorant of? What mystical data is there that
"toys" like Exiftool and Photome can't isolate? Is the Secret of Colonel
Sander's Eleven herbs and spices there? The whereabouts of Jimmy Hoffa? A
map leading to Elvis' whereabouts?


>
> And that you're completely oblivious to all of that, as your
> laughable "camera and it's settings" bloviation so succinctly
> demonstrates.

Bloviation? I was quite succinct. My use of succinct is valid, you on the
other hand seem to be implying that I was both verbose and concise. Make up
your mind.

>
> Now would there be anything else I can clear up for you today?

Yes. Are your parents going to invite you to their wedding?


Secret Squirrel

--

Ingrid Rose

clandestin.ecureuil(insert missing symbol here)gmail.com

On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 20:57:09 +0200 (CEST), George Orwell wrote:

> Ari <> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 16:22:05 -0700, EXIF Info wrote:
>>
>>> 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?
>>
>> Not and have you live, no.
>
> More James Bond delusions. How fascinating.

Thanks!

You humourless AnonyTwat.
--
http://www.bushflash.com/idiot.html

clandestin_=C3=A9cureuil wrote:

> > Yes, as I said the nonexistant nature of your "knowledge" is
> > self-evident.
>=20
> You said it, but it isn't so.

It is so, and you self-demonstrated it so.

> Ok, if Exiftool and Photome are toys, enlighten me, what are the "real=20
> deal" in such software?

There's tools like exifprobe and exiv2, but even they won't ferret
out everything (although they do a much better job than the toys
you're using). To be thorough you'd need to use software specific
to the camera in question. Most of it costs big pesos, and you
still can't be sure you're seeing everything.

Bottom line is... EXIF is a wide open spec. It lets camera
manufacturers and software authors play fast an loose. Idiotic
statements like "camera and settings" are about as far from fact as
you can get and still be speaking about digital images generally.

> I have no interest in, nor have I suggested or implied that such a thing =
is=20
> possible with any software program. I was asking someone else why they=20
> wanted to change data other than time and place data. That data is usuall=
y=20

I couldn't care less what you think your "motives" are here kid,
I'm addressing a patently false statement you made. Period.

> Aside from camera id - model, make etc., and settings, what is it that yo=
u=20

Well, as an example all my Nikon DSLR's newer than about 2 years
read information from lenses and "encode" it in a 32-byte value. It
changes image to image even when the images are snapped in rapid
succession. What it consists of is "undefined". And there's several
fields where even the field name itself is a HEX value, so you can't
even know what that field pertains to let alone what the value
might mean.

Your toys probably don't even show much of this, let alone give you
a clue how to interpret or manage it.

Even my 10 year old P&S cameras have EXIF data that's undefinable
by name. And values in a dozen or so fields that's essentially
meaningless. So it's not just "upper end" hobbyist equipment and
better that do things this way. It's by design I'd imagine, and
specific to every camera make/model/revision.

> > And that you're completely oblivious to all of that, as your
> > laughable "camera and it's settings" bloviation so succinctly
> > demonstrates.
>=20
> Bloviation? I was quite succinct.

That's what I said. That simple statement defied the sum total of
your knowledge better than any protracted soliloquy ever could.

> Yes. Are your parents going to invite you to their wedding?

Lame ass "yo mama" retorts. Is that what passes for "wit" among
your peers?

How quaint...

Cyberiade.it Anonymous Remailer wrote:
> clandestin_=C3=A9cureuil wrote:
>
>>> Yes, as I said the nonexistant nature of your "knowledge" is
>>> self-evident.
>> =20
>> You said it, but it isn't so.
>
> It is so, and you self-demonstrated it so.
>
>> Ok, if Exiftool and Photome are toys, enlighten me, what are the "real=20
>> deal" in such software?
>
> There's tools like exifprobe and exiv2, but even they won't ferret
> out everything (although they do a much better job than the toys
> you're using). To be thorough you'd need to use software specific
> to the camera in question. Most of it costs big pesos, and you
> still can't be sure you're seeing everything.

So if it is almost impossible to ferret out this information then it
really isn't necessary to worry about it. Is it?

>
> Bottom line is... EXIF is a wide open spec. It lets camera
> manufacturers and software authors play fast an loose. Idiotic
> statements like "camera and settings" are about as far from fact as
> you can get and still be speaking about digital images generally.

Well I must be idiotic as well, as my only interest in Exif info is to
find out what camera, lens, place date, etc. plus those details that
show how the shot was composed. In fact almost everyone I know who uses
Exif data must also be idiotic, as that seems to be pretty much
universal as far as interest in Exif in my experience.

What does it feel like to be the only non-idiotic person among all us
idiots? Or otherwise as is more likely.

>
>> I have no interest in, nor have I suggested or implied that such a thing =
> is=20
>> possible with any software program. I was asking someone else why they=20
>> wanted to change data other than time and place data. That data is usuall=
> y=20
>
> I couldn't care less what you think your "motives" are here kid,
> I'm addressing a patently false statement you made. Period.

I must have missed that, and looking back I can't find it. Would you
like to point it out?

I see that she (or he, as in the case with Rita you never can be sure)
did say "the only real value in Exif data is to identify the camera and
its settings". Is that what you are taking exception to? I can't
understand why if that is the case. To her and many others, that is
probably quite true. To lawyers in a copyright law suit that may not be
true.

Are you taking issue with her mention of the techniques used to alter
it? Others have posted in the past few hours saying the same thing. You
can't do it with an off the shelf app, but you can sure alter any file
that uses fixed length fields, and with a little more effort, those that
have variable length fields and even checksums. I can do it, though I'd
be damned if I can see a reason to do so on more than one or two
occasions. If I don't want Exif data in my files I'll just strip them,
not bother fudging them.

I am also curious as to why the OP wants to spoof a file, but I doubt if
he'd give an honest answer.

PK

Dan Cline wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 23:57:37 -0500, M.L. wrote:
>
>> Perhaps there's a bug somewhere, but the "How To" page indicates that
>> text output can be pasted elsewhere.
>> http://www.photome.de/howto_en.html
>
> PhotoMe exports text which it doesn't then import.
> PhotoMe exports binary which you can't edit before reimporting it.
>
> There is no text exif standard.
>
> Because of that, and I said it before and I'll say it now, there is no
> program that reads in text exif metadata!
>
> It can't be done. If it could be done, someone would have done it by now.

Sure it can... it just needs to be done entirely within one program.
There doesn't need to be an import or export "standard" when both
functions are handled by the same program, because it can use whatever
internal "standard" suits the programmer.

PhotoMe DOESN'T do it, but that doesn't mean it CAN'T be done.

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."


Cordially,
John Turco <>


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