Hiding in Skype: cryptography and steganography

Magic book with sparkly green and purple colours

by Paul Curzon, Queen Mary University of London

Computer Science isn’t just about using language, sometimes it’s about losing it. Sometimes people want to send messages so no one even knows they exist and a great place to lose language is inside a conversation.

Cryptography is the science of making messages unreadable. Spymasters have used it for a thousand years or more. Now it’s a part of everyday life. It’s used by the banks every time you use a cash point and by online shops when you buy something over the Internet. It’s used by businesses that don’t want their industrial secrets revealed and by celebrities who want to be sure that tabloid hackers can’t read their texts.

Cryptography stops messages being read, but sometimes just knowing that people are having a conversation can reveal more than they want even if you don’t know what was said. Knowing a football star is exchanging hundreds of texts with his team mate’s girlfriend suggests something is going on, for example. Similarly, CIA chief David Petraeus whose downfall made international news, might have kept his secret and his job if the emails from his lover had been hidden. David Bowie kept his 2013 comeback single ‘Where are we now?’ a surprise until the moment it was released. It might not have made him the front page news it did if a music journalist had just tracked who had been talking to who amongst the musicians involved in the months before.

That’s where steganography comes in – the science of hiding messages so no one even knows they exist. Invisible ink is one form of steganography used, for example, by the French resistance in World War II. More bizarre forms have been used over the years though – an Ancient Greek slave had a message tattooed on his shaven head warning of Persian invasion plans. Once his hair had grown back he delivered it with no one on the way the wiser.

Digital communication opens up new ways to hide messages. Computers store information using a code of 0s and 1s: bits. Steganography is then about finding places to hide those bits. A team of Polish researchers led by Wojciech Mazurczyk have now found a way to hide them in a Skype conversation.

When you use Skype to make a phone call, the program converts the sounds you make to a long series of bits. They are sent over the Internet and converted back to sound at the other end. At the same time more sounds as bits stream back from the person you are talking to. Data transmitted over the Internet isn’t sent all in one go, though. It’s broken into packets: a bit like taking your conversation and tweeting it one line at a time.

Why? Imagine you run a crack team of commandos who have to reach a target in enemy territory to blow it up – a stately home where all the enemy’s Generals are having a party perhaps. If all the commandos travel together in one army truck and something goes wrong along the way probably no one will make it – a disaster. If on the other hand they each travel separately, rendezvousing once there, the mission is much more likely to be successful. If a few are killed on the way it doesn’t matter as the rest can still complete the mission.

The same applies to a Skype call. Each packet contains a little bit of the full conversation and each makes its own way to the destination across the Internet. On arriving there, they reform into the full message. To allow this to happen, each packet includes some extra data that says, for example, what conversation it is part of, how big it is and also where it fits in the sequence. If some don’t make it then the rest of the conversation can still be put back together without them. As long as too much isn’t missing, no one will notice.

Skype does something special with its packets. The size of the packets changes depending on how much data needs to be transmitted. If the person is talking each packet carries a lot of information. If the person is listening then what is being transmitted is mainly silence. Skype then sends shorter packets. The Polish team realised they could exploit this for steganography. Their program, SkyDe, intercepts Skype packets looking for short ones. Any found are replaced with packets holding the data from the covert message. At the destination another copy of SkyDe intercepts them and extracts the hidden message and passes it on to the intended recipient. As far as Skype is concerned some packets just never arrive.

There are several properties that matter for a good steganographic technique. One is its bandwidth: how much data can be sent using the method. Because Skype calls contain a lot of silence SkyDe has a high bandwidth: there are lots of opportunities to hide messages. A second important property is obviously undetectability. The Polish team’s experiments have shown that SkyDe messages are very hard to detect. As only packets that contain silence are used and so lost, the people having the conversation won’t notice and the Skype receiver itself can’t easily tell because what is happening is no different to a typical unreliable network. Packets go missing all the time. Because both the Skype data and the hidden messages are encrypted, someone observing the packets travelling over the network won’t see a difference – they are all just random patterns of bits. Skype calls are now common so there are also lots of natural opportunities for sending messages this way – no one is going to get suspicious that lots of calls are suddenly being made.

All in all SkyDe provides an elegant new form of steganography. Invisible ink is so last century (and tattooing messages on your head so very last millennium). Now the sound of silence is all you need to have a hidden conversation.

A version of this article was originally published on the CS4FN website and a copy also appears on pages 10-11 of Issue 16 of the magazine (see Related magazines below).

You can also download PDF copies of all of our free magazines.

Related Magazines …

This blog is funded through EPSRC grant EP/W033615/1.

Cryptography: You are what you know

You are what you know
by Paul Curzon, Queen Mary University of London
Image: A path throught he woods at dawn. From PIXABAY.com

A path through the forest at dawn in the fog
A path through the forest.

“Carter headed into the trees, his hat pulled low. Up ahead was a dark figure, standing in the shadow of a tree. As he drew close, Carter gave the agreed code phrase confirming he was the new agent: “Could I borrow a match?” The dark figure, stepped away from the tree, but rather than completing the exchange as Carter expected, he pulled a silenced gun. Before Carter could react, he heard the quiet spit of the gun and felt an excruciating pain in his chest. A moment later he was dead. Felix put the gun away, and quickly dragged the body into the bushes out of sight. He then went back to waiting. Soon another figure approached, but from the other direction. This time it was Felix who gave the pass phrase, which he now knew. “Could I borrow a match?” The new figure confidently responded, “Doesn’t everyone use a lighter these days?” Felix hadn’t known what he would say, but was happy to assume this was Carter’s real contact. He was in. “Hello. I’m Carter.” …

The trouble with using spy novel style passphrases to prove who you are is you still have to trust the other person. If they might have nefarious intentions, you want to prove who you are without giving anything else away. You certainly don’t want them to be able to take the information you give and use it to pretend to be you. Unfortunately, the above story is pretty much how passwords work, and why attacks like phishing, where someone sends emails pretending to be from your bank, are such a problem.

This is why phishing works

The story outlines the essential problem faced by all authentication systems trying to prove who someone is or that they possess some secret information. You give up the secret in the process to anyone there to hear. Security protocols somehow need ways one agent can prove to another who they are in a way that no one can masquerade as them in future. Creating a secure authentication system is harder than you might think! To do it well takes serious skill. What you don’t do is just send a password!

A simple solution for some situations is used by banks. Rather than ask you for a whole account number, they ask you for a random set of its digits: perhaps, the third, fifth and eighth digit one time, but completely different ones the next. Though they have learnt some of the secret, anyone listening in can’t masquerade as you as they will be asked for different digits when they do. Take this idea to an extreme and you get the “Zero Knowledge Proof“, where none of the secret is given up: possibly one of the cleverest ideas of computer science.

This article was first published on CS4FN and a copy can also be found on page 5 in ‘Keep Out’ – Issue 24 of CS4FN magazine, on Cyber Security and Privacy (you can download the full magazine free as a PDF here).

All of our material is free to download from: https://cs4fndownloads.wordpress.com

Cryptography: Shafi Goldwasser and the Zero Knowledge Proof

Shafi Goldwasser and Zero Knowledge
by Paul Curzon, Queen Mary University of London

bok, lett, tre, tunnel, tak, Praha, stable, sirkel, virvel, utdanning, bibliotek, bøker, symmetri, skole, lære, form, krøllete, kunnskap, antikkens historie, Bildet In PxHere
A vortex of books

Shafi Goldwasser is one of the greatest living computer scientists, having won the Turing Award in 2012 (equivalent to a Nobel Prize). Her work helped turn cryptography from a dark art into a science. If you’ve ever used a credit card through a web browser, for example, her work was helping you stay secure. Her greatest achievement, with Silvio Micali and Charles Rackoff, is the “Zero knowledge proof”.


Zero knowledge proofs deal with the problem that, to be really secure, security protocols often need to prove that some statement is true without giving anything else away (see “You are what you know“). A specific case is where an agent (software or human) wants to prove they know some secret, without actually giving the secret up.

Satisfy me this

There are three properties a zero knowledge proof must satisfy. Suppose Peggy is trying to convince Victor that some statement about a secret is true. Firstly, if Peggy’s statement is true then Victor must be convinced of this at the end. Secondly, if it is not actually true, there must only be a tiny chance that Peggy can convince Victor that it is true. Finally, Victor must not be able to cheat in any way that means he learns more about the secret beyond the truth of the statement. Shafi and colleagues not only came up with the idea, but showed that such proofs, unlikely as they seem, were possible.

Biosecurity break-in

Imagine the following situation (based on a scenario by Jean-Jacques Quisquater). A top secret biosecurity laboratory is protected so only authorised people can get in and out. The lab is at the end of a corridor that splits. Each branch goes to a door at the opposite end of the lab. These two doors are the only ways in or out. The rest of the room is totally sealed (see diagram).

Now, Peggy claims she knows how to get in, and has told Victor she can steal a sample of the secret biotoxin held there if he pays her a million dollars. Victor wants to be sure she can get in, before paying. She wants to prove her claim is true, but without giving anything more away, and certainly not by showing him how she does it, or giving him the toxin. She doesn’t even want him to have any hard evidence he could use to convince others that she can get in, as then he could use it against her. How does she do it?

“I can get in”

A floor plan of a top secret lab
                        Plan of top secret lab.

She needs a Zero knowledge proof of her claim “I can get in”! Here is one way. Victor waits in the foyer, unable to see the corridor. Peggy goes to the fork, and chooses a branch to go down then waits at the door. Victor then goes to the fork, unable to see where she is but able to see both exit routes. He then chooses an exit corridor at random and tells Peggy to appear there. Peggy does, passing through the lab if need be.

If they do this enough times, with Victor choosing at random which side she should appear, then he can be strongly certain that she really does know how to get in. After all, that is the only way to appear at the other side. More to the point, he still cannot get in himself and even if he records everything he sees, he would have no way to convince anyone else that Peggy can get in. Even if he videod everything he saw, that would not be convincing proof. A video showing Peggy appearing from the correct corridor would be easy to fake. Peggy has shown she can get into the room, but without giving up the secret of how, or giving Victor a way to prove she can do it to anyone else.

So, strange as it seems, it is possible to prove you know a secret without giving anything more away about the secret. Thanks to Shafi and her co-researchers the idea is now a core part of computer security.


This article was first published on CS4FN and a copy can also be found on pages 4-5 in ‘Keep Out’ – Issue 24 of CS4FN magazine, on Cyber Security and Privacy (you can download the full magazine free as a PDF here).

All of our material is free to download from: https://cs4fndownloads.wordpress.com