this program lets you hide a file or a bit of text inside another file (.dll, .exe, il, .mid, .wav, .bmp, .tif, .tiff, .png, .gif), and use a third file or bit of text as the key. very sneaky indeed.
link:
http://pmcc.cidadevirtual.pt/bonkyubon/index.html
the author says:
"All my programs are coded in c#, don't store any settings on the registry, install and run under limited accounts and also on USB penns. If you intend to run my programs from a USB pen and want all settings to be stored on the same pen, create a file named Pmcc.local and place it in the program folder (note that the application will need write permission to that folder)."[/url]
steganography program - hide files in files
-
FlightGeek
- Posts: 49
- Joined: Wed Aug 30, 2006 6:12 am
You can use this instead: http://www.portablefreeware.com/?id=1173
Completely portable.
Completely portable.
Re: steganography program - hide files in files
How to retrieve the hidden file?garbanzo wrote:this program lets you hide a file or a bit of text inside another file (.dll, .exe, il, .mid, .wav, .bmp, .tif, .tiff, .png, .gif), and use a third file or bit of text as the key. very sneaky indeed.
link:
http://pmcc.cidadevirtual.pt/bonkyubon/index.html
the author says:
"All my programs are coded in c#, don't store any settings on the registry, install and run under limited accounts and also on USB penns. If you intend to run my programs from a USB pen and want all settings to be stored on the same pen, create a file named Pmcc.local and place it in the program folder (note that the application will need write permission to that folder)."[/url]
GUI allows only hiding, help shows just a license / credits.
BTW at runtime it creates a lot of temp files that are not removed by uninstaller.
FlightGeek wrote:Web site says it requires .NET, so it's not portable.
There's the reason why.garbanzo wrote:All my programs are coded in c#
Anyway, isn't the .NET framework included in Windows XP Service Pack 3 and Vista by default? So shouldn't the stance of this website be slightly reconsidered, since anyone with automatic updates has it rolled out to them.
I've heard that there's a C# compiler that generates machine code, but it's very expensive.M@tty wrote:FlightGeek wrote:Web site says it requires .NET, so it's not portable.There's the reason why.garbanzo wrote:All my programs are coded in c#
http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=10M@tty wrote:Anyway, isn't the .NET framework included in Windows XP Service Pack 3 and Vista by default? So shouldn't the stance of this website be slightly reconsidered, since anyone with automatic updates has it rolled out to them.
12.5% computers don't have XP/Vista. In some regions - much more.
You can scratch also some machines that have automatic updates turned off or don't have internet connection (since XP SP3/Vista SP1).
There are also people (I know 2) who hate .NET so much that because of it they don't have the newest Service Pack.
What about the users of Win9x, NT and 2000? Or the people who don't use automatic updates (or update Windows at all -_-)?
Not that I totally disagree, the day of .NET being standard is getting closer, I'm just not sure that that day is here yet.
Also, estimates of versions of Windows currently in use (as of the first few months of 2008) are 73-79% XP, 13% Vista, 2.5% 2000, 1% ME/98SE, the remaining values being distributed among Mac OS and Linux for the most part.
Clearly most people are using XP, but I don't have any good numbers on how patched those versions of XP are and that largely determines whether .NET is standard yet.
Queue
Not that I totally disagree, the day of .NET being standard is getting closer, I'm just not sure that that day is here yet.
Also, estimates of versions of Windows currently in use (as of the first few months of 2008) are 73-79% XP, 13% Vista, 2.5% 2000, 1% ME/98SE, the remaining values being distributed among Mac OS and Linux for the most part.
Clearly most people are using XP, but I don't have any good numbers on how patched those versions of XP are and that largely determines whether .NET is standard yet.
Queue
...
I think .net should be barred from this website completely... other then the fact this is a .net application that requires sp3 and no "veteran" windows user will install disregarding the fact that not everyone even runs xp SP3. This app does create an enormous amount of temp files (stated in someone elses post)
in summary .net is horrible.... applications over the internet.. wtf concept is that
in summary .net is horrible.... applications over the internet.. wtf concept is that
It sounds like you may not be entirely clear on what the .NET framework is. It's a runtime environment that manages memory and exceptions for you (the programmer) so that it's easier, safer and faster to develop software. It has nothing to do with ''applications over the internet.'' I don't know why Microsoft went with as stupid of a name as .NET but I'd bet it was for advertising reasons.
The downside to .NET is the memory and startup time overhead of the .NET environment itself which has to load when the first .NET application is executed.
.NET applications themselves aren't necessarily bloated (much the same as Java programs) and may be very simple and run quickly with the added protection against buffer overflows, memory leaks and crash recovery that the .NET framework provides. Unfortunately, .NET covering for so many programmer mistakes may lead to sloppier coding, but only time will tell if that occurs.
In summary, .NET is only as awful as a Java Runtime Environment, which is to say, it just adds a startup and memory overhead to a program that uses it. It also would be tough to consider portable because it's not a given that .NET (or a JRE) is installed on a given computer, which is why TPFC's stance on .NET and Java are what they are.
Queue
The downside to .NET is the memory and startup time overhead of the .NET environment itself which has to load when the first .NET application is executed.
.NET applications themselves aren't necessarily bloated (much the same as Java programs) and may be very simple and run quickly with the added protection against buffer overflows, memory leaks and crash recovery that the .NET framework provides. Unfortunately, .NET covering for so many programmer mistakes may lead to sloppier coding, but only time will tell if that occurs.
In summary, .NET is only as awful as a Java Runtime Environment, which is to say, it just adds a startup and memory overhead to a program that uses it. It also would be tough to consider portable because it's not a given that .NET (or a JRE) is installed on a given computer, which is why TPFC's stance on .NET and Java are what they are.
Queue
...
.net is not easily platform portable as well as pc portable....
well the idea with .net is as what Google wants as well is to have everything running from remote servers.... not anytime soon but thats the eventual idea. Its just a normal framework such as qt4 but I hate its bloat wasted space
.
I really could care less coming from a programmers point since the actual code is never actual assembled with other languages such as C/C++ or VC++ so I wouldn't even consider .net a programming language its more or a so a scripting language sure its powerful but the .net framework uses around 60megs of ram to run and around 200megs of hd space... and most ".net programs" are inefficiently coded and take up alot of ram to run (granted newer computers can handle this I don't like being inefficient coding in lower level languages is more fun I am going to take some real programming languages at college in the fall so i cant wait "....
well the idea with .net is as what Google wants as well is to have everything running from remote servers.... not anytime soon but thats the eventual idea. Its just a normal framework such as qt4 but I hate its bloat wasted space
. I really could care less coming from a programmers point since the actual code is never actual assembled with other languages such as C/C++ or VC++ so I wouldn't even consider .net a programming language its more or a so a scripting language sure its powerful but the .net framework uses around 60megs of ram to run and around 200megs of hd space... and most ".net programs" are inefficiently coded and take up alot of ram to run (granted newer computers can handle this I don't like being inefficient
coding in lower level languages is more fun I am going to take some real programming languages at college in the fall so i cant wait "....Re: steganography program - hide files in files
it needs .NET installed?? my humblest apologies, i can't imagine how i could have missed that!
but don't stop there! this program also requires the computer you are using to have an operating system. and not only that - it has to be windows! what if you are using this on a computer with a different OS? then, what if a dinosaur comes and eats the mouse and the keyboard - you'll be stuck without an input device, and you'll really be in trouble! and what if the dinosaur eats your legs too? then you won't be portable either!!
all frivolity aside, this is one of the most critical and unfriendly forums i have ever visited. if you don't want to put this on your thumb drive because you might REALLY NEED to use it on a computer and you wet yourself in terror just thinking about the possibility that the computer you want to use it on does not have .NET installed - then you are pretty pathetic.
so instead of getting bent out of shape about it, perhaps you should remember that other users might have different needs than you - me, for example. i don't use portable apps on a thumb drive, i use them as regular apps. and i have SP3 installed, and MS Visual C++ Redist, and some other things that help my programs along the way. my goal is not portability, but a tidier machine. but i guess i stumbled into a den of purists, and should have looked around a little before coming in, because i have clearly stepped on some toes.
now i walk away, quietly, but laughing inside about how inane the world is sometimes...
but don't stop there! this program also requires the computer you are using to have an operating system. and not only that - it has to be windows! what if you are using this on a computer with a different OS? then, what if a dinosaur comes and eats the mouse and the keyboard - you'll be stuck without an input device, and you'll really be in trouble! and what if the dinosaur eats your legs too? then you won't be portable either!!
all frivolity aside, this is one of the most critical and unfriendly forums i have ever visited. if you don't want to put this on your thumb drive because you might REALLY NEED to use it on a computer and you wet yourself in terror just thinking about the possibility that the computer you want to use it on does not have .NET installed - then you are pretty pathetic.
so instead of getting bent out of shape about it, perhaps you should remember that other users might have different needs than you - me, for example. i don't use portable apps on a thumb drive, i use them as regular apps. and i have SP3 installed, and MS Visual C++ Redist, and some other things that help my programs along the way. my goal is not portability, but a tidier machine. but i guess i stumbled into a den of purists, and should have looked around a little before coming in, because i have clearly stepped on some toes.
now i walk away, quietly, but laughing inside about how inane the world is sometimes...
Re: steganography program - hide files in files
I'm afraid you misunderstood, and I'm sorry at least. These forums are PERFECT for suggestions like these; these forums are a great resource to find freeware for every purpose imaginable.
All this thread did was analyze the application so people would know the details; there was a little personal opinion thrown in as spice.
In the end, it's Andrew Lee's database and one of the current stipulations for a program making the list is that it not rely on any non-portable runtime environments. I imagine also whether or not he'd use the program can weigh in on whether or not it'd be added.
Not really looking to speak for anyone but myself here, but I've found these forums to be a fantastic resource and community with a fair share of stealth purists and, erm, what's the opposite? Non-strict portabilists? Also the worst forums I've ever seen are those for nearly any MMO; hundreds of times more vicious and brain-dead than these, like a swarm of zombies.
Queue
All this thread did was analyze the application so people would know the details; there was a little personal opinion thrown in as spice.
In the end, it's Andrew Lee's database and one of the current stipulations for a program making the list is that it not rely on any non-portable runtime environments. I imagine also whether or not he'd use the program can weigh in on whether or not it'd be added.
Not really looking to speak for anyone but myself here, but I've found these forums to be a fantastic resource and community with a fair share of stealth purists and, erm, what's the opposite? Non-strict portabilists? Also the worst forums I've ever seen are those for nearly any MMO; hundreds of times more vicious and brain-dead than these, like a swarm of zombies.
Queue
ok so i got a little carried away. it happens. i'm over it.
i'm a big fan of collecting small programs like these, and my main concern is not stealth - i just look for apps that don't need to be installed, or at least ones that i can install, copy elsewhere, then uninstall, and they still work. i like my system to be modular. i know sometimes i'll still get things writing to the registry, but if i remove an app, i can always clean my registry manually, it's no big deal. ever since i started using 95% portable (or no-install) apps, my computer has been much healthier!
anyway - this seems to be a good place to share my excitement when i find something really cool hidden deep in the internet, like ClutterBuster which i posted the other day. to me, that's the perfect app.
that is all.
i'm a big fan of collecting small programs like these, and my main concern is not stealth - i just look for apps that don't need to be installed, or at least ones that i can install, copy elsewhere, then uninstall, and they still work. i like my system to be modular. i know sometimes i'll still get things writing to the registry, but if i remove an app, i can always clean my registry manually, it's no big deal. ever since i started using 95% portable (or no-install) apps, my computer has been much healthier!
anyway - this seems to be a good place to share my excitement when i find something really cool hidden deep in the internet, like ClutterBuster which i posted the other day. to me, that's the perfect app.
that is all.