Re: Digital camera a security risk? in Security

Re: Digital camera a security risk? in Security http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r18810530 en Thu, 04 Dec 2008 11:58:09 EDT Thu, 04 Dec 2008 11:58:09 EDT Re: Digital camera a security risk? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19027855 Sentinel : I would say that TO ME this is not a very big deal except for two things...

1. The thumbnail issue. IF (and this is a big if because I haven't ran across it yet) you have a camera that takes big thumbnails that can be enlarged, then it is bad because if you crop a picture or cover something in a picture someone could possibly still see the original image. I think this is a valid concern from a security perspective as I think has been shown.
However most cameras take very small thumbnails and as such those thumbnails get very very pixilated when enlarged. So much so that there is no detail what so ever. But still it may be enough to show information or detail that you may not wish to show.

2. There seems to be a lot of *unknown* data in there that no one, so far, has been able to definitively show what it is. While I don't think that any of that code is important you never know. I don't like unknown quantities ;)
However I feel that if you could read that code it would probably image or camera information.

Now with regards to #1 above, if a program like PhotoShop or similar could reconstruct the original image in original size before any manipulation of the image was done, from that code or thumbnail then that could be a big problem. But from my informal tests with other image software I don't see any way to do that.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19027855 Fri, 07 Sep 2007 09:40:01 EDT Re: Digital camera a security risk? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19025029 swhx7 : It's not a concern for me in regard to any situation I've been in. If it were a concern, I would just strip the EXIF data.

These are possibilities to be aware of. It could be valuable information for bloggers in repressive countries, for example.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19025029 Thu, 06 Sep 2007 20:20:17 EDT Re: Digital camera a security risk? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19024610 AB :

said by swhx7

said by AB

:

Well, that's even more info. I still see nothing there that would particularly help me personally identify anyone, though.

What's that "makernote"?

Many or most cameras put the serial number in the EXIF data. With the serial number, it would not be easy for an individual to find out about the camera owner, but law enforcement, other government agencies or some good PIs could.

The buyer could be identified if it was registered with the serial number on a warranty card; or if the model, sale date and store are known and the store recorded serial numbers of its stock and the buyer paid with a card; or if the investigator has a photo known to be from the same camera or the same person; rebate records; extended warranty registrations; store video; etc.. Some of this is marginal, but at a minimum photos from the same camera could be matched up.

If that's truly a concern to you, I recommend you swing by the grocery store. Tinfoil is usually around aisle 4.
I'm an Alcoa man, myself.

said by AB

:

. . Certain data seems somewhat useless or pointless to attempt to prevent someone from having. It's too easy to get, and it hardly matters anyway.
There is data that needs strong protection, data that needs a modicum of protection, and data that you might prefer to protect in the best of all possible worlds, but it ain't gonna happen in this real world we live in. . . .

. . don't thrust at windmills.

]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19024610 Thu, 06 Sep 2007 19:18:35 EDT Re: Digital camera a security risk? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19024410 swhx7 :

said by AB

:

Well, that's even more info. I still see nothing there that would particularly help me personally identify anyone, though.

said by ChrisJack

:

Just because the picture doesn't contain information useful to you or I, doesn't mean it isn't damning to someone else.

For example, in this picture, she may have said that she wasn't out with what's his name and edited the picture to just her. . . .

Well . . could you blame her? ;)]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19012918 Wed, 05 Sep 2007 00:15:42 EDT Re: Digital camera a security risk? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19011795 ChrisJack : Just because the picture doesn't contain information useful to you or I, doesn't mean it isn't damning to someone else.

For example, in this picture, she may have said that she wasn't out with what's his name and edited the picture to just her.

just my thought...

~~Chris]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19011795 Tue, 04 Sep 2007 21:22:09 EDT Re: Digital camera a security risk? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19011021 AB :

said by ChrisJack

:

..Exifer had this to show...

Well, that's even more info. I still see nothing there that would particularly help me personally identify anyone, though.

I could give you all the tech specs of my computer, and you know that I'm using it right now and have an idea of approximately where I might be using it from.
That would be more personal-type info than in that photo, yet you still don't know who I am or are able to steal any truly personal info from me.

Certain data seems somewhat useless or pointless to attempt to prevent someone from having. It's too easy to get, and it hardly matters anyway.
There is data that needs strong protection, data that needs a modicum of protection, and data that you might prefer to protect in the best of all possible worlds, but it ain't gonna happen in this real world we live in.

Don't throw the baby out with the bath water, don't fail to see the forest for the trees, don't thrust at windmills.
Give 10% of the effort for 95% of the benefit, as a Great Pontificator has recently said. ;) :)

Also don't tug on Superman's cape and don't forget to brush after meals.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19011021 Tue, 04 Sep 2007 19:33:12 EDT Re: Digital camera a security risk? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19010870 ChrisJack : Ah, ok...Exifer had this to show...

[att=1]

~~Chris

]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19010870 Tue, 04 Sep 2007 19:09:31 EDT Re: Digital camera a security risk? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19010728 AB :

said by ChrisJack

:

AB, what program did you use?

Windows Explorer. :)]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19010728 Tue, 04 Sep 2007 18:48:39 EDT Re: Digital camera a security risk? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19010660 ChrisJack : AB, what program did you use?

~~Chris]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19010660 Tue, 04 Sep 2007 18:37:58 EDT Re: Digital camera a security risk? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19010459 AB :

said by ChrisJack

:

Trying to cut someone out, check out the thumbnail on this one »www.frogview.com/show1.php?file=3630

Lotta info on that thumbnail. Nothing that's especially in any way personally identifying, however.

Now, the photograph itself is a different story. ;)

]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19010459 Tue, 04 Sep 2007 18:07:26 EDT Re: Digital camera a security risk? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19010322 ChrisJack : Trying to cut someone out, check out the thumbnail on this one »www.frogview.com/show1.php?file=3630

~~Chris
--
Shit Happens! It's what you do afterwards that counts!]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19010322 Tue, 04 Sep 2007 17:45:00 EDT Re: Digital camera a security risk? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18977484 BandHeight :

said by caffeinator

:

I have, and been threatened with suit for using a photoshopped photo of a model I had a release for and was promoting...but she didnt talk to her photog..he didnt approve and he had rights, not her.

Was a mess.

I do know. ;)

-CaFF

Oh, my god. That was you. :)

Seriously, models releasing photos to web sites to promote themselves (which is what they are all about) happens quite often. However, I have never had to threaten to sue. In all such cases, I simply sent an e-mail to the web owner explaining ownership, and the images were immediately removed. I know this can't always be the case.

Often, my problem with these breaches is not necessarily the use of the photo itself for such purposes, but the lack of quality control. Most of this stuff gets scanned with crappy equipment, is Photoshopped by a color-blind monkey, and then compressed within an inch of its life before being posted. In some cases, I have offered to replace the "junked" image with one prepared by me. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18977484 Wed, 29 Aug 2007 23:45:44 EDT Re: Digital camera a security risk? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18977405 BandHeight :

said by NetFixer

:

I suspect that you have never had to deal with people who take your copyrighted images, crop it slightly, perhaps adjust the contrast or color balance, remove imbedded copyright data and watermarks, and claim it to be their original work. :hmm:

You suspect wrong, but that doesn't matter.

Your example suggests I could still recognize the image as my own, and as I said, in that case (the only case where it matters), I have better evidence than watermarks or embedded Exif data to prove the image is mine. I would never post a valuable image online (or otherwise release it) unless I was certain I could prove ownership in case of unauthorized use.

My whole point is that I don't rely on Exif data and such for the proof.

To address watermarking, which has more credence here than Exif data, I have used Digimarc, and while the actual watermarking technology works fine, the process used for identifying online instances of the images was less reliable than stumbling upon them myself.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18977405 Wed, 29 Aug 2007 23:33:29 EDT Re: Digital camera a security risk? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18977340 caffeinator : I have, and been threatened with suit for using a photoshopped photo of a model I had a release for and was promoting...but she didnt talk to her photog..he didnt approve and he had rights, not her.

Was a mess.

I do know. ;)

-CaFF]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18977340 Wed, 29 Aug 2007 23:22:01 EDT Re: Digital camera a security risk? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18977156 NetFixer :

said by BandHeight

:

I see your point about such a possibility, but I couldn't justify a direct accusation of criminality based on the OPs posts.

The most obvious argument against your theory as absolute is that the image itself is, presumably, to be posted after all the junk the OP desires to be removed has been stripped / obfuscated (or modified). The image itself would be the best evidence that it belonged to the OP or whether it had been stolen from someone else, wouldn't it? And if he has modified the appearance of the image beyond any resemblance to the original, what copyright has been violated?

I suspect that you have never had to deal with people who take your copyrighted images, crop it slightly, perhaps adjust the contrast or color balance, remove imbedded copyright data and watermarks, and claim it to be their original work. :hmm:
--
We can never have enough of nature.
We need to witness our own limits transgressed, and some life pasturing freely where we never wander.
Test your firewall.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18977156 Wed, 29 Aug 2007 22:50:14 EDT Re: Digital camera a security risk? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18976515 swhx7 : There can be reasons to conceal the origin of a photo, other than trying to get away with copyright infringement. For example, someone who photographed police brutality could be in danger or physical attack or arrest (on invented charges) if the photo was traced to him/her.

Edit: I'm not saying this applies to anyone in this thread, just that in principle there can be various reasons including good ones.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18976515 Wed, 29 Aug 2007 21:29:53 EDT Re: Digital camera a security risk? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18976330 anon : NetFixer, it is true that I may not have a reputation on this forum as established as yours due to my anonymity, but I honestly see no grounds for such an accusation of copyright infringement based solely on my posts. Let me quote you:

"Did you read the post? Do you have an alternate explanation for why someone would be so concerned that someone else could tell that the image had been modified and/or be able to identify the original source of the image?"

First of all, my initial concern, as can be seen in my original post was related to potential vulnerabilities in my camera. At this point I knew nothing about metadata or any of the other information embedded in a picture; it was only through the input of DSLR members that I learned this and sought to explore the issue further. For some reason, you seem to believe that obfuscating the original method by which an image was created would lead to copyright infringement.

Do you even know the context in which I might post my images online, or even what images I might be posting? When you post online, do you want someone to know who you are? There is a reason we all use forum names, as opposed to our real names. What if I want to post a picture linked to my alias, but not to my real name? Am I now guilty of intellectual property theft?

Given your claim that you are "someone who earns part of his living from royalties and licensing fees", I find this particularly disturbing. Do you truly think that taking a copyrighted image and stripping out the means by which that image was created would make that image mine? Even if I reconstruct the picture pixel by pixel from scratch, that still would be theft. It isn't how the picture was created that makes it copyrighted, but the content in the picture itself. This is something you don't seem to understand. As BandHeight made clear, a file date or embedded camera-make tag isn't really sufficient proof.

By the way, there are many reasons why one might want to hide the fact that a picture has been edited. For example, a family photo that has been edited to better reflect the occasion or to fix some problems might cause significant embarassment in the wrong moments.

It is true that I am conscious of my security and privacy, but I don't see this as reason to accuse me of criminal activity. Very few issues are as simple as black and white these days. Before pronouncing me guilty, I suggest you first take a look at the other side of the coin. =)]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18976330 Wed, 29 Aug 2007 21:08:12 EDT Re: Digital camera a security risk? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18975049 rosco : yes I read the post, several times actually, trying to see what immediatley sent you down the path of suspecting this guy was doing something illegal.
And I still see nothing to indicate that he is doing anything to rip anyone off.

It sounds to me like concern for identifiable information in pictures taken by Bob1234.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18975049 Wed, 29 Aug 2007 17:46:04 EDT Re: Digital camera a security risk? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18971253 BandHeight :

said by NetFixer

:

As someone who earns part of his living from royalties and licensing fees, that post raises too many red flags for me to just ignore the dark side implications.

I see your point about such a possibility, but I couldn't justify a direct accusation of criminality based on the OPs posts.

The most obvious argument against your theory as absolute is that the image itself is, presumably, to be posted after all the junk the OP desires to be removed has been stripped / obfuscated (or modified). The image itself would be the best evidence that it belonged to the OP or whether it had been stolen from someone else, wouldn't it? And if he has modified the appearance of the image beyond any resemblance to the original, what copyright has been violated?

Any images I have ever posted have been color-corrected or otherwise Photoshop'd, are usually compressed (it's not practical to post 200MB 6x7 images), and I am the only one with the original film image or RAW file. I don't care what metadata may or may not be in the online image, if a copyright violation is worth pursuing, you will want to have more proof of ownership in your possession than an embedded camera-make tag or file date.

And, in all cases where I have posted images, I always strip the metadata as a matter of course (unless it was specifically to demonstrate certain Exif properties, or I screwed up and something slipped out without the tags being removed). It's just something I do.

I realize the OP has gone beyond a simple interest in Exif data, but the same principles as outlined above apply. I think. Maybe he just wants to be sure that his posts to www.nophotoshop.com aren't revealed as having been manipulated, or he's concerned that his buddies at www.i_shoot_wildlife_with_a_canon_600L.com don't find out he's been shooting decoys with a Canon PowerShot. :)

--
By the way, I mentioned Exiftool in my earlier post as an alternative to Exifer, but I did not mention this GUI-frontend:

»freeweb.siol.net/hrastni3/foto/e···lgui.htm

I have not used the third-party GUI, so I can't vouch for it, but Exiftool is an outstanding tool, and the developer of the GUI says he had these goals in mind, which look good:

-view all metadata that ExifTool recognizes,
-ability to edit most frequently used Exif, IPTC and XMP metadata tags,
-have option to do some basic editing in batch.

]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18971253 Wed, 29 Aug 2007 05:18:20 EDT Re: Digital camera a security risk? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18971210 caffeinator : I see your point, but it's possible he's just uber-conscious of his security and/or privacy and wants his images to appear normal/unedited while taking out as much personal information as possible. Maybe it's porn he dosen't want linked to him..lol

IDK, I don't worry much about it much, NeatImage free edition strips out EXIF anyways for me. :)

-CaFF
--
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." - A. Einstein

Need an Avatar? Check out Wafen's Avatar Pages]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18971210 Wed, 29 Aug 2007 04:13:14 EDT Re: Digital camera a security risk? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18971153 NetFixer :

said by rosco

:

What makes you think that from Bob1234's post?

Did you read the post? Do you have an alternate explanation for why someone would be so concerned that someone else could tell that the image had been modified and/or be able to identify the original source of the image? If I post an image on-line that belongs to me, I have no reason to hide the source of the image, how about you?

said by Bob1234 :

...i'm starting to wonder if there's any way to prevent using the quantization tables and metadata embedded in the photo to find out whether the image has been edited or, especially "the make and model of the camera if the image is original or the version of Photoshop that was used to alter and re-save the image." would taking a screenshot do the job? that would create a whole new picture out of the existing picture, would it not? but i still can't help but think that this will do nothing against an error level analysis. what bothers me is that the article mentions being able to determine the make and model of the camera without EXIF data...

said by Bob1234 :

...given this, what other information should i try to strip out before posting a picture publicly? please also mention if there is information that is unable to be removed, such as for example factors that could allow for an error level analysis. is it just the metadata (e.g. Exif, IPTC headers, XMP, etc)? or is there more to the picture besides what is shown and the metadata?

As someone who earns part of his living from royalties and licensing fees, that post raises too many red flags for me to just ignore the dark side implications.
--
We can never have enough of nature.
We need to witness our own limits transgressed, and some life pasturing freely where we never wander.
Test your firewall.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18971153 Wed, 29 Aug 2007 03:37:06 EDT Re: Digital camera a security risk? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18970789 caffeinator : I'd wondered if cell phone cameras leave EXIF information and/or thumbnails as well, and they do.

Here's a pic taken from a mate's cell camera. (he's from the UK)

[att=1]

-CaFF

]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18970789 Wed, 29 Aug 2007 01:24:11 EDT Re: Digital camera a security risk? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18970671 rosco : What makes you think that from Bob1234's post?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18970671 Wed, 29 Aug 2007 00:59:20 EDT Re: Digital camera a security risk? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18970490 NetFixer : I sounds to me as if you are looking for a way to take someone else's intellectual property and modifying its fingerprints in such a way as to mask its true origin. :o

You might want to lookup the definitions for forgery, fraud, and copyright infringement as well as investigating the legal ramifications of being caught engaging in such activity. ;)
--
We can never have enough of nature.
We need to witness our own limits transgressed, and some life pasturing freely where we never wander.
Test your firewall.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18970490 Wed, 29 Aug 2007 00:14:40 EDT Re: Digital camera a security risk? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18964299 anon : ok, i've gone back over the thread to make sure i didn't miss anything. after looking at the link that "Just Bob" provided, i'm starting to wonder if there's any way to prevent using the quantization tables and metadata embedded in the photo to find out whether the image has been edited or, especially "the make and model of the camera if the image is original or the version of Photoshop that was used to alter and re-save the image." would taking a screenshot do the job? that would create a whole new picture out of the existing picture, would it not? but i still can't help but think that this will do nothing against an error level analysis. what bothers me is that the article mentions being able to determine the make and model of the camera without EXIF data.

though i could be wrong, i'm assuming that error analysis of some kind will be possible even if i take a screenshot or use another camera to take a picture of my screen, because the colors of the picture are preserved. this might of course open the door to more advanced analysis techniques too. i'm thinking just from the lighting, contrast or other factors an expert would still be able to determine at least what camera took the picture. this is, of course going a little beyond what swhx7 mentioned, but probably wouldn't be so far fetched in light of the article JTM1051 posted.

by the way, how was arglebargle able to tell so much about dolphins merely by watching his video?

in any case, i guess i should pose a more specific question now. let's assume i take a picture or more than one picture with a digital camera. assume that i am not worried about personal information that could be revealed about me based on what was in the picture. i'm also not concerned about my credit card number being in the picture or something, and i am not concerned that people would be able to tell my geographical location based on what is in the background of the picture. so essentially, what is shown in the picture is not of concern.

given this, what other information should i try to strip out before posting a picture publicly? please also mention if there is information that is unable to be removed, such as for example factors that could allow for an error level analysis. is it just the metadata (e.g. Exif, IPTC headers, XMP, etc)? or is there more to the picture besides what is shown and the metadata?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18964299 Tue, 28 Aug 2007 05:40:54 EDT Re: Digital camera a security risk? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18950652 BandHeight :

said by NetFixer

said by JTM1051

:

Have you looked at Opanda?

Have a free Opanda IEXIF Viewer and PowerExif, "a professional EXIF Editor".

Thanks for the tip, I will check it out.

You might want to check into ExifTool (command line tool):

»www.sno.phy.queensu.ca/~phil/exiftool/

I consider it the ultimate ... so I'd be interested in whether the thumbnail metadata that slipped by Exifer also gets by ExifTool (I doubt it :) ).

It will require some reading of the docs to get the most out of it, but it can be simple to use as well. Works great for me on Linux and Windows, and works on Mac as well, though I haven't tried the Mac version. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18950652 Sat, 25 Aug 2007 22:08:11 EDT Re: Digital camera a security risk? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18949821 Sentinel : Wow. That's very interesting. I had no idea that different cameras could produce different size thumbnails. I will have to check that out. Thanks for that info NetFixer.

jaykaykay,
Obviously security has levels and this may rate low in most respects but higher in others depending on what kind of person you are, what you do for a living and what you use your pictures for.

This *could* be a problem for some depending on circumstances as has been already pointed out about the lady who worked at the TV station. More examples could obviously be shown. Imagine you crop a picture to cut someone out and then tell your spouse that that other person was not there? EXIF thumbnail could show you to be liar and could be admissible in court at your divorce hearing ;)

We could go on with hundreds of such examples. If you were sending an email and it had some code in it that was potentially descriptive you would want a way to clean it. I see this as similar. Just depends on situation and circumstances whether this is just aparlor trick or potentially harmful.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18949821 Sat, 25 Aug 2007 19:07:34 EDT Re: Digital camera a security risk? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18949792 NetFixer :

said by jaykaykay

:

While being moderately interesting, I still find this topic going waaaaaaay too far for security for me...

...Might the question for this whole topic be just how paranoid does one want to be in daily practice?

I tend to agree with that assessment. I think the subject of EXIF thumbnails being a security risk should more likely be categorized as a privacy risk.

I think the main reason that this subject was brought up was because some semi celebrity person posted a cropped image of herself on a blog, but the EXIF thumbnail showed the original nude image. In this particular case, since the person in question is supposed to be a tech guru, I would have to question whether or not this "slip up" was in fact not simply an intentional cheap publicity stunt.
--
We can never have enough of nature.
We need to witness our own limits transgressed, and some life pasturing freely where we never wander.
Test your firewall.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18949792 Sat, 25 Aug 2007 19:02:39 EDT Re: Digital camera a security risk? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18948750 jaykaykay : While being moderately interesting, I still find this topic going waaaaaaay too far for security for me. At this rate, I should stay in my house, lock all my doors, cover my windows, take shallow breathes, etc. while wearing my newest tin foil number covering me from top to bottom. There is nothing so secure today that will allow someone to go about daily things without being spied upon in some way, camera or otherwise. Might the question for this whole topic be just how paranoid does one want to be in daily practice?
--
JKK:-)

Age is a very high price to pay for my maturity. If I can't stay young, I can at least stay immature!

»www.pbase.com/jaykaykay

]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18948750 Sat, 25 Aug 2007 15:27:01 EDT Re: Digital camera a security risk? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18948685 NetFixer : The size and quality of the EXIF thumbnail can depend on the source and size of the original image. Some high resolution cameras will produce rather large thumbnails. The 1.2 megapixel (1280x960) image below is an EXIF thumbnail extracted from one of my slide duplication images. You may find it interesting that this thumbnail image also contains its own EXIF data including a 160x120 thumbnail image (also displayed below).

[att=2]
[att=1]

EDIT: Here is the "original"* image from which the 1280x960 thumbnail was extracted.

* Actually this image was converted to JPEG format from a much larger TIFF image which was converted from the native RAF image format from which the 1280x960 thumbnail was extracted. I converted it to JPEG for easier (and more compatible) web page viewing.
[att=3]
--
We can never have enough of nature.
We need to witness our own limits transgressed, and some life pasturing freely where we never wander.
Test your firewall.

160x120 thumbnail image
1280x960 thumbnail image
2816x2120 "original" image

]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18948685 Sat, 25 Aug 2007 15:11:04 EDT Re: Digital camera a security risk? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18947484 Sentinel : OK, hate to keep bringing this up but ... it interested me so I kept playing around with it to try to see for real what kind of a threat this really could be be. Here it what I have come up with.

After playing around with numerous pics (my own and some from the web) I have found that yeah, there are sometimes thumbnails saved with the pic depending on camera and imaging software used. However, these images are usually very very small in size and *IF* there are there at all they are very very hard to enlarge. They get pixilated very quickly and practically unviewable.

So therefore they are of minimal value. I mean if someone crops a picture and crops out a hotel in the background or something then, yeah you would see that there is a building in the background, but if you try to enlarge it to see what building you won't be able to. If they black out the eyes with a black bar then yes, you *might* be able to see the thumbnail without the bar *BUT* it will be so small and pixilated that you will not be able to make out the face.

That said I found the aforementioned pics of the lady from TV that posted the pics that had thumbnails of her topless and I have no idea how whoever got those was able to make full size reproductions of the originals. Most programs will show the full pic in the thumbnail but it will be tiny and any attempt to enlarge it will result in a useless heavily pixilated image of a glob. I don't know how they were able to make such a large size unmasked pic *unless* she eventually posted the originals herself.

Am I missing something?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18947484 Sat, 25 Aug 2007 11:22:03 EDT Re: Digital camera a security risk? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18863249 Khaine :

said by Bob1234 :

What exactly are the "quantization tables" in a JPEG file?

From Wikipedia:

Color quantization reduces the number of colors used in an image; this is important for displaying images on devices that support a limited number of colors and for efficiently compressing certain kinds of images. Most bitmap editors and many operating systems have built-in support for color quantization. Popular modern color quantization algorithms include the nearest color algorithm (for fixed palettes), the median cut algorithm, and an algorithm based on octrees.

It is common to combine color quantization with dithering to create an impression of a larger number of colors and eliminate banding artifacts.

Frequency quantization for image compression
The human eye is fairly good at seeing small differences in brightness over a relatively large area, but not so good at distinguishing the exact strength of a high frequency brightness variation. This fact allows one to get away with a greatly reduced amount of information in the high frequency components. This is done by simply dividing each component in the frequency domain by a constant for that component, and then rounding to the nearest integer. This is the main lossy operation in the whole process. As a result of this, it is typically the case that many of the higher frequency components are rounded to zero, and many of the rest become small positive or negative numbers.

Quantization matrices
A quantization matrix is used in combination with a DCT coefficient matrix to carry out the previously mentioned transform. Quantization matrices are often specifically designed to keep certain frequencies in the source to avoid losing image quality. Many video compression algorithms, such as Xvid and H.264/AVC allow custom matrices to be used.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18863249 Mon, 13 Aug 2007 08:28:59 EDT Re: Digital camera a security risk? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18856932 anon : I am amazed at the amount of replies and the depth of this discussion. I can't even begin to say how how helpful all your inputs were. There was one thing in particular that I did notice. The posts all seem to center around one part of the picture: the EXIF data. However, I am not sure this is the case for "Just Bob" 's post, which is the second one in the thread. What exactly are the "quantization tables" in a JPEG file?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18856932 Sun, 12 Aug 2007 01:49:27 EDT Re: Digital camera a security risk? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18841713 NetFixer :

said by JTM1051

:

Have you looked at Opanda?

Have a free Opanda IEXIF Viewer and PowerExif, "a professional EXIF Editor".

Thanks for the tip, I will check it out.
--
We can never have enough of nature.
We need to witness our own limits transgressed, and some life pasturing freely where we never wander.
Test your firewall.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18841713 Thu, 09 Aug 2007 16:07:34 EDT Re: Digital camera a security risk? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18839784 JTM1051 :

said by NetFixer

:

... I guess I am going to have to start looking for another EXIF editing program (which was primarily my purpose for using Exifer).

Have you looked at Opanda?

Have a free Opanda IEXIF Viewer and PowerExif, "a professional EXIF Editor".

Edit: Noticed that the way I wrote the post it may be misunderstood that both Opanda IEXIF Viewer and PowerExif are free--sorry the PowerExif is not free.
(Comma should have been after Opanda IEXIF Viewer, not PowerExif)]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18839784 Thu, 09 Aug 2007 10:58:45 EDT Re: Digital camera a security risk? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18839451 Sentinel : Yeah, I tried that program with a few of my own pics to see if it displayed the thumbnail properly and it did not. It is an old program though (2002?) so maybe something newer might be better.

If you find anything let me know. I'd like to see it.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18839451 Thu, 09 Aug 2007 10:01:14 EDT Re: Digital camera a security risk? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18828539 NetFixer :

said by Sentinel

:

Due to this topic I have been checking EXIF data using various apps for fun to see what I can find. Most is just useless camera info and I have not been able to find one thumbnail. Perhaps you have to have the program that was used to edit the pic in the first place?

Try using Exifer, many image display/manipulation programs do not display the EXIF ID information properly and they create their own preview thumbnails rather than using the EXIF thumbnail.

The screen capture images below show Exifer displaying JPEG images both without and with EXIF information.

[att=1]
[att=2]

EDIT: I may have to retract my support for the Exifer program. I just discovered a serious bug. The upper image in this post actually does contain valid EXIF data (including an EXIF thumbnail). It and and 45 other images from the same camera and flash card in that folder all have valid EXIF data, but Exifer does not display it. :o

I guess I am going to have to start looking for another EXIF editing program (which was primarily my purpose for using Exifer). :(
--
We can never have enough of nature.
We need to witness our own limits transgressed, and some life pasturing freely where we never wander.
Test your firewall.

Exifer displaying image with no EXIF
Exifer displaying image with EXIF

]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18828539 Tue, 07 Aug 2007 16:54:28 EDT Re: Digital camera a security risk? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18828428 AmeritecTech : If you want to post it, we can try various things.

35K?? Jesus.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18828428 Tue, 07 Aug 2007 16:41:23 EDT Re: Digital camera a security risk? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18827977 Sentinel : Due to this topic I have been checking EXIF data using various apps for fun to see what I can find. Most is just useless camera info and I have not been able to find one thumbnail. Perhaps you have to have the program that was used to edit the pic in the first place?

I have been checking with Irfanview, default Windows picture viewer, Jasc PSP, and Nero image viewer. So far I haven't seen anything odd.

Until today. Today I found a pic that had a weird series of characters in an "artist comment" field. I could not decipher it. Irfanview would not show it, neither would PSP. But Nero showed a very long (35K) series of numbers. I don't know what it is but it is a very long series of numbers that are in pairs. Is that hex?

Anyways, I am going to keep trying to find an app that can decipher it.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18827977 Tue, 07 Aug 2007 15:41:50 EDT Re: Digital camera a security risk? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18822619 nfixit2004 :

said by NetFixer

said by nfixit2004

:

Wow this is something I did not know! so when you think you have blocked something out it still can be seen? is there a way to get rid of the thumbnails

thanks for your reply also thanks to Sentinel

for the link also, my concern was what about when you post a pic and use a photo app to block out potentially private info(and everyone does this alot) it can still be seen through thumbnails, this is something that needs to be known. most people think(my self included(well until now)) once you use the paint brush tool you have lost the risk involved with posting certain pics.(not that everyone saves and opens up the thumbnails of every pic they see in an online forum). but it is something to know. also I think the makers of certain software apps( ex snagit) should pay attention to matters like this, and explain this to buyers

thanks again]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18822619 Mon, 06 Aug 2007 20:16:25 EDT Re: Digital camera a security risk? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18817723 JTM1051 : Remember this topic awhile back?
»Invasion of the Computer Snatchers

Start here (page 3 of topic): »Re: Invasion of the Computer Snatchers
[att=1]
Ends (page 5 of topic): »Re: Invasion of the Computer Snatchers
[att=2]

]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18817723 Mon, 06 Aug 2007 01:34:15 EDT Re: Digital camera a security risk? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18816248 Sentinel : This is interesting and might help...
»netzreport.googlepages.com/hidde···les.html]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18816248 Sun, 05 Aug 2007 20:27:32 EDT Re: Digital camera a security risk? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18816180 NetFixer :

said by nfixit2004

:

Wow this is something I did not know! so when you think you have blocked something out it still can be seen? is there a way to get rid of the thumbnails

If you are really troubled about publishing the EXIF information (including the EXIF thumbnails), an excellent free program can be downloaded from »www.exifer.friedemann.info/ which can save, delete, and restore EXIF information (including the EXIF thumbnails) from JPEG and TIFF images.
--
We can never have enough of nature.
We need to witness our own limits transgressed, and some life pasturing freely where we never wander.
Test your firewall.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18816180 Sun, 05 Aug 2007 20:13:17 EDT Re: Digital camera a security risk? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18815604 AB :

said by dolphins

:

Close, I didn't have eggs that morning. :)

Are you sure? ;)

Obviously, nobody (I would hope) is going to take a picture of their bank statement or whatever and post it publicly. :)

I think your concerns (*Edit- or should I say the O.P.'s concerns) are completely valid. Some laser printers now include 'unique' tracking numbers/devices/whatevers.
Though I think, at least for now, most cameras or imaging programs come with settings to where you can disable at least most of that stuff if so inclined.

Tracking is big nowadays. Microsoft wants a clear channel into the computer, RFID chip talk is the latest fashion, you've got GPS & Lojack on cell phones, computers, and in your car.
Surely a 'unique identifier' or tracking chip of some sort on your personal digital camera is not out of the question.
Much less the gathering and dissemination of less-than-public info with cloaking and user ignorance serving means of transferral.

I'd keep a sharp eye on my image-related settings & what-not. Just on G.P.'s.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18815604 Sun, 05 Aug 2007 18:09:01 EDT Irfanview - Removing EXIF Data http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18815552 SUMware : Using Irfanview to remove EXIF data:

8. Delete EXIF Data:
»www.pallab.net/2007/06/20/ten-mo···fanview/

Others:
»photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-m···d=00Dy2C
»www.irfanview-online.com/viewtop···0ff4c5b4]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18815552 Sun, 05 Aug 2007 17:56:04 EDT Re: Digital camera a security risk? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18815518 nfixit2004 :

said by Steve

said by NetFixer

:

Unless you have privacy issues with someone knowing the brand/model of the digital camera you use and/or the timestamp information, the EXIF information is in no way a privacy or security issue.

Oh yah? :-)

EXIF can contain a thumbnail of the image, and it's often maintained even after the full image has been mucked with in photoshop.

I recall a headshot that a pretty girl posted of herself on Craigslist, and though it had been cropped, the original uncropped thumbnail was still in the EXIF. Let's just say we got to see a bit more of the pretty girl than she intended. Woot!

Likewise, that racy picture that you pixellated or added black bars to? The thumbnail didn't get those edits. Surprise! See the above sample taken from this site (examples are easy to find, but it's harder to find a "good" one that's nevertheless suitable for posting in a public forum).

It's fun to investigate pictures with my brother's online EXIF viewer, which will show thumbnails if the EXIF contains them.

This is a classic example of hidden metadata, and photographs are not immune; this makes it a security issue.

Steve

Wow this is something I did not know! so when you think you have blocked something out it still can be seen? is there a way to get rid of the thumbnails]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18815518 Sun, 05 Aug 2007 17:48:36 EDT Re: Digital camera a security risk? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18815326 dolphins : Oops ;)]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18815326 Sun, 05 Aug 2007 17:09:25 EDT Re: Digital camera a security risk? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18815315 EGeezer :

said by dolphins

:

It's a South Jersey accent.

Well, what file analysis can't get, social engineering can :)
--
In memoriam Tommy Makem, Nov. 4, 1932 - Aug. 1, 2007]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18815315 Sun, 05 Aug 2007 17:07:02 EDT Re: Digital camera a security risk? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18815308 jaykaykay :

said by EGeezer

:

The guy speaking sounds more from West Virginia, southern Ohio or possibly central Florida than from New Jersey, and has a friend with him.

Guido? :D]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18815308 Sun, 05 Aug 2007 17:06:16 EDT Re: Digital camera a security risk? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18815266 dolphins : It's a South Jersey accent.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18815266 Sun, 05 Aug 2007 16:57:49 EDT Re: Digital camera a security risk? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18815246 EGeezer : The guy speaking sounds more from West Virginia, southern Ohio or possibly central Florida than from New Jersey, and has a friend with him.
--
In memoriam Tommy Makem, Nov. 4, 1932 - Aug. 1, 2007]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18815246 Sun, 05 Aug 2007 16:53:35 EDT Re: Digital camera a security risk? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18815185 swhx7 : This article »www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/···1806.php talks about uniquely identifying digital cameras based on the different ways each individual camera distorts the images.

This does not enable anyone to find you or your camera based on having only a photo from it. However, it could enable technicians to prove that two digital photos came from the same camera; and if they located the camera they could match the photos to it.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18815185 Sun, 05 Aug 2007 16:40:26 EDT Re: Digital camera a security risk? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18815186 dolphins : Close, I didn't have eggs that morning. :)]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18815186 Sun, 05 Aug 2007 16:40:26 EDT Re: Digital camera a security risk? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18814826 AB :

said by dolphins

:

Here's a shortened low resolution video I took from a local fire with sound.(DUH!)

See what you can do with it? . . .

You're right, that video has sound. This is one of the first things I deduced while examining it.

It was also shot from a residential neighborhood near the Delaware River where the houses date from the '50's, the speed limit is 25 mph, and the road could use repaving.

The neighbor three doors down has a little yappy mutt that never shuts up. Lots of guys named 'Vinnie' & 'Rocco' live nearby. Most of the neighborhood kids do surprisingly well in school, except for that one kid a couple of streets over who seems to be a reject from a "Deliverance" casting-call.

The air is generally smoggy, but gets even fouler during the occasional chemical factory fire or when the Phillies lose, which is often.

The camera-person was male, right-handed, had eggs for breakfast, and is not professionally employed as a videographer.

This is for starters. Believe me-- some of the gorier details, you don't even want to hear.

I didn't hear any sireens, either. :(]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18814826 Sun, 05 Aug 2007 15:20:34 EDT Re: Digital camera a security risk? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18814652 starreem : Apparently the perp who uploaded images of the recent Harry Potter book forgot to strip the EXIF data from the pix. Whoops!

»entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/···4250.ece
--
From the Depths of Lurk]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18814652 Sun, 05 Aug 2007 14:35:04 EDT Re: Digital camera a security risk? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18814388 rosco : I remember when Cat Schwartz from techtv had a problem where she cropped a topless photo of herself and didnt realize the whole photo was viewable in the exif thumbnail...Kevin Rose had a funny post on his site about how to not be like her and remove the EXIF info.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18814388 Sun, 05 Aug 2007 13:37:39 EDT Re: Digital camera a security risk? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18814191 EGeezer :

said by ttiiggy

:

Do any cameras include GPS info with them?
I could see some potential problems if coordinates were included with every picture...

See This topic in our digital imaging forum.

Ricoh makes a GPS capable camera. I'm not aware of any "hidden" GPS capabilities in any cameras, though.

Since cell phones use GPS to locate for 911 service, I could see where the built-in cameras could be configured to include coordinates in the EXIF data. At the least, the time and date EXIF data could be matched to location history if that is stored somewhere in the provider's system, which I believe it is - at least for a short time.

Cell phone experts, whaddya think? Are there any such phones out there that trap coordinates in the camera's EXIF?
--
Sive enim ad sapientiam perveniri potest, non paranda nobis solum ea, sed fruenda etiam est]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18814191 Sun, 05 Aug 2007 12:51:33 EDT Re: Digital camera a security risk? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18814046 ttiiggy : Do any cameras include GPS info with them?
I could see some potential problems if coordinates were included with every picture... ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18814046 Sun, 05 Aug 2007 12:17:56 EDT Re: Digital camera a security risk? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18813408 jjoshua : While the OPs concerns may be slightly unfounded, I did learn a lot from that online EXIF viewer.

I run every image through CS2 which creates a new thumbnail. However, the EXIF data contains the RAW conversion values that I used (which really isn't a big deal).

Some folks may not want to give away the date/time of the original image so they should be concerned with the EXIF data.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18813408 Sun, 05 Aug 2007 09:12:32 EDT Re: Digital camera a security risk? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18813123 s bassaw :

said by AB

said by Bob1234 :

. . is it dangerous to post in public pictures that are taken with a digital camera that I own?

Posting in public, pictures or no, is one of the most dangerous things a person can do in the 21st Century-- ownership details of the camera notwithstanding.

. . If you can think of other ways a user's security could be compromised through the process of them posting a picture they took publicly, please tell me. Thanks!

I can.
Suppose you were to post a picture of yourself standing in front of your car and house. I can read your license plate and your street address, and notice there's a copy of the 'My Town, USA' Gazette on the front steps.
Hey! What's that over there in the corner? Why, it's a street sign with the name of your street on it!
And suppose further that you were reading your bank account and credit card statements when that picture was taken, and that account details are easily discernable within the photo.

Well, I think it's easy enough to see where this could potentailly create a problem if you were to post said photo in or at a public place.

I rest my case.
Have a nice day. :)

That's some panoramic shot ya got there!]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18813123 Sun, 05 Aug 2007 06:29:09 EDT Re: Digital camera a security risk? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18812474 dvd536 : Paint shop pro v7.02 will zap the EXIF. just resave the jpg.
i think its a bug.
--
You can never be too rich, too thin or have too much Bandwidth]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18812474 Sun, 05 Aug 2007 00:42:48 EDT Re: Digital camera a security risk? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18812472 dolphins : Here's a shortened low resolution video I took from a local fire with sound.(DUH!)

See what you can do with it?

Tell me the original size of the video? Show me the girls in the original video which was over 60MB? Now show me where the video is from? longitude and latitude would be the preferred.

--
Prevent Malware

Movie.wmv 1,919,427 bytes

]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18812472 Sun, 05 Aug 2007 00:41:49 EDT Re: Digital camera a security risk? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18812307 BurntCricket : DAMN, and to think I was going to go buy a Digital Camera too ..... :uhh:
--
What was I in Highschool ?
A Ghost.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18812307 Sun, 05 Aug 2007 00:01:16 EDT Re: Digital camera a security risk? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18812061 EGeezer : Firefox also has a nice little EXIF viewer extension written by Alan Raskin - See here.
--
Sive enim ad sapientiam perveniri potest, non paranda nobis solum ea, sed fruenda etiam est]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18812061 Sat, 04 Aug 2007 23:21:28 EDT Re: Digital camera a security risk? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18811696 fatness :
said by Steve :

EXIF can contain a thumbnail of the image, and it's often maintained even after the full image has been mucked with in photoshop.
That's what happened to Cat Schwartz of TechTV. Not that I would know.
--
Sure, that'll work..]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18811696 Sat, 04 Aug 2007 22:04:02 EDT Re: Digital camera a security risk? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18811532 dolphins :
said by Steve :

It's fun to investigate pictures with my brother's online EXIF viewer, which will show thumbnails if the EXIF contains them.
WooHoo... Got some asian sites I wanna visit now. ;) Do you have an app that can clear pixelation? ;) :D
--
Prevent Malware]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18811532 Sat, 04 Aug 2007 21:32:27 EDT Re: Digital camera a security risk? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18811484 NetFixer :
said by Steve :

Oh yah? :-)

EXIF can contain a thumbnail of the image, and it's often maintained even after the full image has been mucked with in photoshop.

I forgot all about those pesky little thumbnails. :o

On the other hand, the Exifer program I suggested will zap those as well as the other camera EXIF information!.
--
We can never have enough of nature.
We need to witness our own limits transgressed, and some life pasturing freely where we never wander.
Test your firewall.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18811484 Sat, 04 Aug 2007 21:22:58 EDT Re: Digital camera a security risk? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18811288 Steve :
said by NetFixer :

Unless you have privacy issues with someone knowing the brand/model of the digital camera you use and/or the timestamp information, the EXIF information is in no way a privacy or security issue.
Oh yah? :-)

EXIF can contain a thumbnail of the image, and it's often maintained even after the full image has been mucked with in photoshop.

I recall a headshot that a pretty girl posted of herself on Craigslist, and though it had been cropped, the original uncropped thumbnail was still in the EXIF. Let's just say we got to see a bit more of the pretty girl than she intended. Woot!

Likewise, that racy picture that you pixellated or added black bars to? The thumbnail didn't get those edits. Surprise! See the above sample taken from this site (examples are easy to find, but it's harder to find a "good" one that's nevertheless suitable for posting in a public forum).

It's fun to investigate pictures with my brother's online EXIF viewer, which will show thumbnails if the EXIF contains them.

This is a classic example of hidden metadata, and photographs are not immune; this makes it a security issue.

Steve
--
Stephen J. Friedl | Unix Wizard | Microsoft Security MVP | Tustin, California USA | my web site
]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18811288 Sat, 04 Aug 2007 20:46:13 EDT Re: Digital camera a security risk? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18811069 SUMware :
said by jansson_mark :

said by SUMware :

These 'old' free tools may prove useful:
JPG Cleaner
"Cleans" my jpg files useless. No program can get them open properly and view them after the "cleanup".

Very unfortunate for you.
I've used both apps on many OSes from Win98, currently through XP and several Linux distros, and thousands of pic files, all with absolutely zero problems. Used both this morning.

Sorry to hear of your problems.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18811069 Sat, 04 Aug 2007 19:52:39 EDT Re: Digital camera a security risk? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18811030 PittsPgh : About the only problem you could have would be any extra info you provide in the EXIF info.
I know My Canon Powershot I embed an email address in the info. Something you can do with the software provided with the camera.
Besides seems most basic picture viewer programs sem to strip it all out, when resaved]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18811030 Sat, 04 Aug 2007 19:41:35 EDT Re: Digital camera a security risk? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18810530 NetFixer : Unless you have privacy issues with someone knowing the brand/model of the digital camera you use and/or the timestamp information, the EXIF information is in no way a privacy or security issue.

The actual contents of the digital image might be another thing entirely (sometimes unnoticed things in the background can prove to be troublesome). ;)

If you are really troubled about publishing the EXIF information, an excellent free program can be downloaded from »www.exifer.friedemann.info/ which can save, delete, and restore EXIF information from JPEG and TIFF images.
--
We can never have enough of nature.
We need to witness our own limits transgressed, and some life pasturing freely where we never wander.
Test your firewall.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18810530 Sat, 04 Aug 2007 17:57:33 EDT Re: Digital camera a security risk? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18810512 AB :
said by Bob1234 :

. . is it dangerous to post in public pictures that are taken with a digital camera that I own?
Posting in public, pictures or no, is one of the most dangerous things a person can do in the 21st Century-- ownership details of the camera notwithstanding.

. . If you can think of other ways a user's security could be compromised through the process of them posting a picture they took publicly, please tell me. Thanks!
I can.
Suppose you were to post a picture of yourself standing in front of your car and house. I can read your license plate and your street address, and notice there's a copy of the 'My Town, USA' Gazette on the front steps.
Hey! What's that over there in the corner? Why, it's a street sign with the name of your street on it!
And suppose further that you were reading your bank account and credit card statements when that picture was taken, and that account details are easily discernable within the photo.

Well, I think it's easy enough to see where this could potentailly create a problem if you were to post said photo in or at a public place.

I rest my case.
Have a nice day. :)]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18810512 Sat, 04 Aug 2007 17:52:45 EDT Re: Digital camera a security risk? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18810473 jaykaykay : I guess that maybe it's time to turn in my old tin foil hat and get a new model. The one I have must not be working as I don't give a hoot about the EXIF on either of my cameras nor any risk they might pose for me. I just can't be that paranoid about my life any more. It's just too short!]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18810473 Sat, 04 Aug 2007 17:43:59 EDT Re: Digital camera a security risk? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18810440 Portmonkey : There's not much reason to do it, but I use Vista to remove the EXIF data.
]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18810440 Sat, 04 Aug 2007 17:37:58 EDT Re: Digital camera a security risk? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18810312 jansson_mark :
said by SUMware :

These 'old' free tools may prove useful:
JPG Cleaner
"Cleans" my jpg files useless. No program can get them open properly and view them after the "cleanup".
--
My computer security & privacy related homepage »www.markusjansson.net
Use HushTools or GnuPG/PGP to encrypt any email before sending it to me to protect our privacy.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18810312 Sat, 04 Aug 2007 17:10:45 EDT Re: Digital camera a security risk? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18810238 NetFixer :
said by ezdsl :

You could even resort to getting a card reader and taking the memory card out of your camera and plugging in into the card reader to transfer photos to your computer.

Since the EXIF information is embedded in the image, this would make no difference. On the other hand since EXIF information is in no way a privacy or security risk it is a moot point.

Actually, I just had a thought about it being a potential privacy risk. If you are bragging in an on-line photography forum about your Nikon D1, and the EXIF information in the posted image shows that you actually have a no-name Chinese piece of junk, that might be considered a privacy violation. :D
--
We can never have enough of nature.
We need to witness our own limits transgressed, and some life pasturing freely where we never wander.
Test your firewall.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18810238 Sat, 04 Aug 2007 16:53:05 EDT Re: Digital camera a security risk? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18810140 SUMware : These 'old' free tools may prove useful:
JPG Cleaner
GifClean

They can be used with Linux, too.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18810140 Sat, 04 Aug 2007 16:31:54 EDT Re: Digital camera a security risk? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18808366 dadkins : Like this?

EDIT" #3 is what Opera sees as Image Properties of that uploaded image.

I'm not worried about any of that.
Yeah, Camera is a Sony Cybershot.
DSC-P100 Model.
All the rest? If it says so... I have it on Auto Everything. :o

I know Flash Mode was Soft Lighting, wonder why it didn't add that to EXIF. :hmm:

Picture(with EXIF)

Properties - EXIF
]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18808366 Sat, 04 Aug 2007 09:46:53 EDT Re: Digital camera a security risk? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18808276 ezdsl : Almost (if not all) Digital cameras embed "EXIF" information into JPG images, providing manufacturer, model, camera settings, exposure settings, etc.

But, I can't imagine any way to 'hijack your digital camera' by using this information. Your camera may be temporarily connected to your computer to upload images, possibly by USB cable, maybe BlueTooth, infrared in the old days.

There are photo editors out there which strip the EXIF images after you save them, maybe even standalone solutions.

You could even resort to getting a card reader and taking the memory card out of your camera and plugging in into the card reader to transfer photos to your computer.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18808276 Sat, 04 Aug 2007 09:11:22 EDT Re: Digital camera a security risk? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18807819 Just Bob : »blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/0···ana.html]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18807819 Sat, 04 Aug 2007 03:50:16 EDT Digital camera a security risk? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18807651 anon : Let's say I take a picture with my digital camera, then upload the picture to a public forum. If someone downloads that picture, would it be possible for them to analyze the picture, determine which model camera took that picture (or at least which company manufactured the camera), find a vulnerability associated with that model, and take advantage of it? In other words, is it dangerous to post in public pictures that are taken with a digital camera that I own? All thoughts on this are welcome! If you can think of other ways a user's security could be compromised through the process of them posting a picture they took publicly, please tell me. Thanks!]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18807651 Sat, 04 Aug 2007 02:46:54 EDT