you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 10 points 2 months ago (4 children)

That's not what steganography is. There is no hidden message here.

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 46 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    Your assertion baffles me. The CC client is sending information about its execution context back to Anthropic HQ in a sneaky, obfuscated way that most people wouldn't notice.

    If that's not a hidden message, if that's not steganography, what is?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] -12 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    It's not sending it back. It's essentially watermarking the output, so that it can be identified if it appears somewhere unexpected.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 43 points 1 month ago

    It modifies the prompt, aka the input, not the output. It is smuggling 3 bits of secret user/session data in a wrapper that doesn't look like it contains that data. As the article explains:

    So the marker becomes part of the system context sent to the model.

    This is a normal timestamp on a prompt:

    Today's date is 2026-07-11.

    But if your system timezone is a Chinese mainland timezone, it looks like:

    Today's date is 2026/07/11.

    Then, if your base URL includes a keyword like "deepseek," it silently replaces the apostrophe from a ' to a ʼ:

    Todayʼs date is 2026-07-11.

    Or if the base URL has one of the domains on the list, like any .cn domain, it replaces the apostrophe with another apostrophe character:

    Today’s date is 2026-07-11.

    And if it has both a URL and a keyword on the watchlist, the prompt context includes:

    Todayʹs date is 2026-07-11

    That's 3 bits of information: does this system have a mainland Chinese time zone, does the base URL contain a known keyword (associated with Chinese AI competitors) or a known domain (associated with mainland China or its major tech companies). And it sneaks it on by without making it obvious.

    That's steganography.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 18 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    Yeah I thought steganography was hiding messages in images.

    Ok I just looked it up, apparently it can be anything. Images, audio, video, or even text.

    I remember I had this Perl module once that would convert passwords into a binary string and then convert that string into spaces and tabs. Looked like a blank file. I guess that was technically steganography.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    No, that's encoding. If you hid that message inside another message, that would be steganography.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    It is a message hidden in a message. The hidden message is the binary password, and the container message is "[blank]"

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (1 child)

    If i understand correctly it is a message within a blank file. So it is not steganography, I suppose.

    At least I dont think a seemingly blank file would pass as a valid message.

    That's what I think is defining for steganography is that it is deceptive because you might not assume another secret message is hidden within the original message.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago

    The decoy container could be literally anything. Sure good steganography would be hidden in something that looks real, like a jpeg or a music file, because it gives it a reason for existing at a glance. That's not to say it couldn't be a blank plaintext file, it just might arouse more suspicions and be subjected to more scrutiny

  • source
  • parent