Imaging Steganography with Stegory

Imaging Steganography with Stegory

Jan. 26, 2015


Several months ago, we began learning about basic image processing in my Computer Science class. While it was a fairly basic concept that I was already quite familiar with due to my prior experience in drawing cartoon dinosaurs and ghosts for small games, I still enjoyed the unit greatly and learned a lot about the subject. I enjoyed actually making the various filters that you could apply to an image, like sucking all but the green values out of an image, or adding a sepia tone. After finishing the unit, I decided to create a poster showing off my new knowledge of image processing.

The result:


After proudly brandishing this fine piece of modern art on a programming/game development community that I regularly visit, one user gave me a challenge which I could use my new-found imaging knowledge with. It involved the use of something I had never heard of before called Steganography, or the art of hiding things in plain sight. While it would be several months before I would begin to actually dip my toes into this fascinating cryptographic method, it immediately intrigued me as a tool and as an art form.


In late November, as the stress of the holiday season and finals began to settle in, I decided to sit down and try out this 'Steganography' technique that I had heard about. What I came up with was a simple Steganography suite which I named 'Stegory,' which literally means 'to apply hiding.' Included in the suite is a a very simple GUI dedicated to encrypting images with other images, as well as decrypting them to reveal the original.

My favorite way to describe Stegory and how it works is the 'Histiaeus's slave' example. From Wikipedia:
"...according to Herodotus, Histiaeus was unhappy having to stay in Susa, and made plans to return to his position as tyrant of Miletus by instigating a revolt in Ionia. In 499 BC, he shaved the head of his most trusted slave, tattooed a message on his head, and then waited for his hair to grow back. The slave was then sent to Aristagoras, who was instructed to shave the slave's head again and read the message, which told him to revolt against the Persians."
The beauty of Steganography is that not only is the information being well hidden, but the fact that there even is any information being hidden. Cryptography may convey privacy, but Steganography conveys secrecy. After all, how can a hacker crack a code that he doesn't even know exists? I decided to explore this magic using image processing, just to see what I could do with it.


LSB or 'least signifigant bit' encryption is one of the most common methods of image-based steganography. It works like this:

I have several 'carrier' values. Let's say these values are... 72, 39, 54. We convert them to binary numbers so we end up with 1001000, 100111, and 110110, respectively.

Now, let's say we have a carrier message, more commonly referred to as a 'payload.' Let's say our payload is 4. We want to hide the message '4' inside of those three carrier values that were listed above. We convert our payload to binary as well and we end up with 100.

Let's lay these numbers out: Carrier values:

Notice how the last digits of each carrier binary are underlined? There's a reason for that. Those are the parts that are going to be encrypted. LSB Steganography works by substituting the least significant bit of any value with a payload value. You'll see why in a second, but first let's go ahead and actually perform the encryption.

With our carrier '100,' we encrypt like this.

Our first value 100100 turns into 1001001.

Our second value 10011 turns into 100110.

Our final value 110110 stays the same.

Now, if we convert these values back to decimal integers, we get 73, 38, and 54. Compared to our original values of 72, 39, 54, you're able to tell that these numbers have been altered, but you have to look at the bigger picture. If I did this with RGB values within an image, would I even be able to tell the difference between the new color?

Well, there's only one way to find out.

We have a single pixel, RGB (198, 4, 28). We want to encrypt this pixel with the message we were using previously, 4.

(You might be wondering why I automatically made these binary values 8-bit. I did this mostly for consistency's sake. Each value in RGB can only go from 0 to 255, effectively making a single RGB pixel 24-bits long.) So, let's get to encrypting. If we encrypt the number 4 (100 in binary), 1 bit into each RGB value, we end up with a new color value: RGB (199, 4, 28). The human eye cannot detect the difference here. See for yourself:

Completely indistinguishable. This works most times.


There are several problems with the LSB method.

For one, it's common. It is the most used and recognized Steganographic method in image processing. There are programs dedicated to catching it and any cryptographer with even the most elementary knowledge of Steganography will know to look for it.

My biggest problem with it is a problem that I commonly describe as carrier/payload ratio. that in order to hide an entire image, the carrier has to be much, much larger than the payload. If you were to hide 1 bit of information inside of each RGB value for every pixel in the carrier image, the carrier would have to be 8 times larger, as you need 8 RGB values (so roughly 2.66666666 pixels) to hide a single RGB value (0.33333333 pixels).

Even with these drawbacks, it is still an effective method, although I still wouldn't recommend using it in a serious manner. You can do amazing things with LSB, but not with LSB on it's own. You need flexibility and variation to really make it worth it.

And that's how I came up with 3-2-3 encryption.

3-2-3 and Variants

3-2-3 encryption isn't necessarily something that I invented myself. It's just a different method of LSB. I gave it its own name because I referred to it too much as 'the LSB variant.' It has its own system of variants, strengths, and weaknesses. In particular, 3-2-3 fixes (at least partially) the carrier/payload ratio problem. Instead of having the carrier be 8 times bigger than the payload, the carrier now only has to be 3 times bigger. Magical. 3-2-3 works in the same way that LSB does, but it does it in a different way: by encrypting more than 1 bit per RGB value.


We have two pixels here. Now remember, 3-2-3 works on a 1:3 ratio. So this carrier pixel can only contain 1/3 of the data from this payload pixel. But how can we seperate that data? Well, the answer is pretty simple: via RGB value. So this carrier pixel will only be able to carry ONE of the RGB values. We'll do red, because that's the first in the sequence of 'red, green blue.'

We start the same way as we did LSB. Convert any carrier values to binary. We'll do 8-bit again because that is the length of an RGB value.

Our payload is 255, so 11111111. Now, we need to fit this entire value into our 3 carrier values. How? By altering the carrier values to hold a certain digit for each RGB value. Three for the first value, two for the second, and three for the third. 3, 2, and 3. So we end up with:

00000000 ➝ 00000111

01100001 ➝ 01100011

11111111 ➝ 11111111 (stays the same)

Convert back to integers and we end up with our new carrier values: 7, 99, and 255. Now, these numbers are actually quite different from each other. But visually...

The color difference here is significantly larger than the one in LSB, but you'd have to open up these colors in two separate tabs and switch back and forth rapidly in order to really spot the difference.

But how does a real hidden image look? Could you spot the difference easily? The answer is yes and no. You could spot the difference between an original image and a 3-2-3 image, but you'd have to really look close at the pixel values, or do the tab switching method (something I did a lot when testing Stegory).

Here's a few example photos. I would recommend pulling these into an image editor and examining the images in greater detail if you really want to get a sense of how much 3-2-3 distorts the carrier.

So  as you can see, both examples work quite well.

The fun thing about 3-2-3 is that each value is interchangeable. I could do 2-3-3, 3-3-2, or I could even change the numbers if I really wanted to and have combinations like 4-3-1, or 2-2-4. I would not recommend doing that second example, as the distortion from the image would be immense and easy to spot.

Like LSB, 3-2-3 has a lot of strengths and even gets away with improving the carrier/payload ratio. 3-2-3 isn't perfect, however, as it comes with several of its own headaches.

Grayscale and other Annoyingly Incompatible Images

Grayscale images won't work with 3-2-3. This is due to the nature of how greyscale images work. Greyscale images rely on having all 3 RGB values the same. So you'd never find a true greyscale image with a value like RGB (3, 27, 199) in it. There's definitely ways around this, but I'm not going to explore them.

Several other image patterns won't work, including images with all but one RGB value sucked out. There are plenty more, but it would take me forever to discover all of them.

The Great Gradient Predicament

I want to preface this by saying that when I first discovered this critical flaw, I was pissed. While there is some distortion, and it might be possible to tell the difference between an encrypted image and an original, nothing really compares to this critical flaw. The problem: 3-2-3 just absolutely destroys gradients. They become severely pixelated and easily noticeable, even to somebody who isn't looking for flaws. The worst part about it is that gradients are everywhere. Any photos of car windows, sunlight cascading over a surface, anything like that looks severely distorted by 3-2-3. Here's an example:

We start with a carrier:

And a payload...

And then we encrypt, and we get...

Look at how messed up the gradient is! It is super obvious that something is wrong. This is the worst thing about 3-2-3, a presents a pretty good problem in the algorithm.

There's pretty much nothing that you can do here. LSB doesn't do this, at least not to the noticeable extent that 3-2-3 does.


To summarize what I said before: not only are you hiding the information, you are hiding the very fact that you are hiding that information. It is a beautiful thing that I imagine I would use in the future if I ever needed to convey secret information to informants, or something like that (I always wanted to be a spy). I enjoyed my time with Stegory and will continue to work on it for a while in order to perfect and clean it. With 3-2-3, LSB, and the various flaws and strengths that accompany each, I feel I have successfully learned a lot about Steganography. Learning about the flaws like the Great Gradient Predicament and grayscale error were frustrating to discover, but helped me learn more about the process than I could from just researching it.

Overall,  Steganography, when done right, is an extremely effective method of secret communication which should definitely be taken into consideration during circumstances regarding  cryptography or other privacy methodologies.