Talk:Steganography tools

File:Steganalysis.jpg Nominated for Deletion
There's a problem with the . It may be not clear whether the author gave permission. Related discussion can be found . Blackvisionit (talk) 20:56, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Closed seciont. Problem solved. Deletion request reject. Blackvisionit (talk) 14:46, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Spamming from Bmpsecrets
Repeated spam fron this user who is trying to link to the website where he's selling. Also a lot of unsourced and pretty vague promotional style comments. ZipoBibrok5x10^8 (talk) 12:26, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

EL Policy interpretation
Due to a recent edit by User:Drmies there's a need to apply some discussion about the usage of EL in this article. What it's surely clear is that adding EL to each software implementation would immediately turn out the article into a spam factory and must be strictly avoided. What it's to be discussed is: the linking to external software directories focused only about steganography with a DMOZ-like approach and the linking to conference's papaers focused about steganography. Analyzing 1 by 1:


 * jjtc . com is the most extensive directory known into the web about steganography only, no advertising, features exact listing by a objective point of view
 * stegano . net is a very extensive directory about the subset of steganography software also covered by serious papers
 * cotse . com is an integration that can be considered optional because of a limited coverage and informal description of software


 * Performance study of common image steganography and steganalysis techniques is a paper about steganalysis
 * Analyzing steganography softwares is a brilliant article about practical steganalysis of some software
 * Hide and Seek: An Introduction to Steganography is a paper about steganalysis
 * Defending against statistical steganalysis is a paper about steganalysis
 * Constructing good covering codes for applications in steganography is a paper about steganalysis resistance

The existing links are therefore completely inherent to the article (implementation & drawbacks towards steganalysis).


 * Information Hiding: types and applications (from WVU'08) are slides about implementation
 * Steganography and Steganalysis: past, present, and future (from WVU'08) are slides about steganalysis
 * Identification of Synthetic Images  (from WVU'08) are slides about steganalysis
 * Natural image statistics and their applications in Digital Image Forensics (from WVU'08) are slides about steganalysis


 * Steganography: Digital Data Embedding Techniques Overview (from scientist.by) is a webinar about implementation

The removed links are therefore also completely inherent to the article. If you have any doubts about these resources you should read each paper and discuss it 1 by 1. At the end of the discussion I expect that you will remove the EL tag from the article that's been always extremely balanced. ZipoBibrok5x10^8 (talk) 09:13, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd hate to not meet your expectations, of course. Note I haven't touched those directories, though I could--so let's look at them. All three of them are what might be called annotated bibliographies, which could certainly serve a purpose. But why would we need three? This one only lists a couple, the cotse one is more complete, and this one takes the cake--but it's also a page on a company site. In fact, for all of them the question is not so much what they contain in terms of links (that's easy), but what kind of editorial control or lack thereof is applied. ELs should contain links to sites and pages that have some kind of editorial control and independence. Now, I'm not really going to touch them, but what you don't seem to understand (since you don't touch upon it in the rest of your discussion, about the other links) is that not everything that could conceivably be useful should be listed. Why on earth should an article contain a set of links to slides? Why should it contain links to papers? Slides aren't very useful anyway in an encyclopedic article, and papers--well, if they're good (which means written by trustworthy and neutral authors and published in reliable venues) they should be incorporated into the text as references. There is no encyclopedic reason to link things like webinars and whatnot. EL sections can be indicative of lots of things, but one of them surely is a lack of effort toward improving the article and its references. In short: if an article is brilliant (for example), use it as a reference. As for expectations--sure, remove the tag, after you've trimmed the set of directories (one or two should be enough), but you know what, you should really consider something else: I note that the article doesn't have a single footnoted reference. What applies to the EL section also applies to the "Articles" section, which at least at first glance is totally arbitrary: why are some things worth reading/listing but others not? No footnotes, no list of references, a section with "Articles" which aren't obviously used as references, and an EL section: that makes for a poor encyclopedic article. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 03:59, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Outguess-rebirth infection risk
Outguess-rebirth.com is using this page to promote its software which is apparently intentionally infected with malware/trojan. I would suggest keeping the software mentioned on the page with a warning, to prevent anyone from accidentally downloading the executable and running it.

Previous deletion on the software from the list was countered by another user who insists on keeping the entry here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.37.79.254 (talk) 23:22, 5 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not an antivirus. If you have a reliable source that states that this is not a steganography tool, just remove it from the list. Otherwise you have other web resources where to post virus warnings. ZipoBibrok5x10^8 (talk) 23:03, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

No links to the described stegano tools?
I find it stupid and dumb to put a list of stegano tools with their names, features but WITHOUT actual links to the project sites? How is that benefiting anyone? The readers are missing important information by omitting the actual URLs. Is this how Wikipedia operates these days? To limit knowledge? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Winele8 (talk • contribs) 23:26, 11 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is specifically WP:NOT supposed to be a link directory. If that's what you're after something like curlie.org may be more your speed. MrOllie (talk) 00:37, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

SO you write about a ton of tools. BUT you DON'T link to them. Where's the benefit to anyone? This is plain stupid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Winele8 (talk • contribs) 23:35, 3 March 2022 (UTC)