I was thinking about a very simple steganographic technique to simulate the noise floor for lossless image formats. It assumes that the input bitstream is already encrypted and has uniform distribution. The algorithm is as follows: Divide the image into 2x2 pixel blocks. Consider the MSB of each pixel in a block. If it's not ((1,0),(0,1)) or ((0,1),(1,0)), then skip to the next block. Take a bit from the input; if it is 0, replace the block's pixels' MSBs with ((1,0),(0,1)); otherwise, replace them with ((0,1),(1,0)). Repeat the process until you run out of input bits. The main disadvantage of this technique is, of course, that the vessel data needs to be 32 times larger than the signal. But at least it should be very hard to detect.
>>7
Although they ``both'' post within the same hours, they never post at the same time. And now that FFP found a new way to enrage neckbeards (by spitting on cryptography), the jew spammer decided to do the same. Could be just coincidence, of course.
>>15
I have not tested my anal techniques against a stegosaurus. Why have you asked?
Name:
Anonymous2012-10-18 1:09
>>5
I wonder if this would work for audio. On a related note, I wonder how I can get some proper vessel files; I suppose I could just record myself playing the piano and save the file as uncompressed 32-bit FLAC.
Name:
Anonymous2012-10-18 2:30
>>18
If you're going to use steganography, perhaps broadcasting the format and contents of your vessel files on the Internet is not such a great idea.
>>24
If you're going to need that sort of requirement, it'd also be your responsibility to write a compliant encoder. Since the FLAC encoder is free, it'd be relatively trivial to do this with FLAC.
Name:
Anonymous2012-10-18 13:36
>>26
FLAC is lossless. This means that no matter what input stream you encode with it, when you decode it you get back the exact same thing bit-for-bit (they even store a MD5 checksum of the uncompressed stream).
On another note, I don't know how you're going to get enough entropy to cover 32 bits of PCM out of a regular DAC that has probably 12 or 14 bits of resolution. I would suggest sticking to 8 bits.
I want to say no. Steganography is about making information obscure. To find the information, you need to know where to look and how it is encoded. The ``where to look'' and ``how it is encoded'' form a weak private key if you will. Although this isn't a substitute for encryption, because ``where to look'' can be brute forced by performing analysis on every piece of information that could possibly contain steganography. And ``how it is encoded'' can be brute forced by trying many known encodings. If the encoded information is not encrypted, it can be reassembled.
You can use public and private key cryptography to encrypt your messages and then transmit them using steganography. Raw encrypted data is obvious to an ease dropper. But encrypted data within steganography takes more analysis to detect.
Name:
Anonymous2012-10-20 3:13
>>34
Steganography is used to hide the evidence of transfer.
For example, alternating in your mail synonyms of the same word, you can provide a binary stream.
Name:
Anonymous2012-10-20 3:17
>>34 encrypt your messages and then transmit them using steganography.
If Mossad finds that, they will rape your anus and you will tell them all your passwords.
>>35
I guess the ease of detection depends on how much information you are trying to pack. One bit or two per email would be impossible to detect. But if your needs demand more throughput, it will look more obvious.
Name:
Anonymous2012-10-20 3:39
>>37
Just send a few Bible chapters, matching you pattern.
That is how Rabbies encode "kill christian babies" message into Talmud.
>>36
And that's why you have two keys: one that decrypts to the original message, and one that decrypts to a plausible but fake one. If you use an OTP it's trivial and impossible to prove.
Two Mossad agents operating in the US in the '70s actually did exactly that.
But there is a problem. When you encode your information into the bible, you will modify it slightly and the differences encode your message. However, an ease dropper will recognize the writing as the bible. All they have to do is correctly guess the exact copy you used and do a diff to get an encoding of your message. The message may still be encrypted, but if this is in the right context, this is enough to provoke suspicion.
If you are going to transmit a large amount of data using stenography this way, you should use a large original data set that is not publicly available so that the ease dropper cannot get a copy of the original to compare it to.
Name:
Anonymous2012-10-20 3:58
>>41
You dont encode, you just pick matching page.
that too is an encoding. The page number is the encoded value and this value can be determined by indexing the pages of the bible and performing a look up.
As before, it isn't a big deal if the encoded values are encrypted. But if the encoding is noticeable then the stenography didn't work.
Name:
Anonymous2012-10-20 4:06
>>43
not a page number, but the content of the page (i.e. number of comas/whitespaces)
>>34 But encrypted data within steganography takes more analysis to detect.
Well, it would be pretty silly to use steganography not in conjunction with an encryption scheme. Now I think it should be possible to steganographically hide a public key encrypted message as long as there are no visible unencrypted headers (and that the public key structures have uniform distribution in all their bits, which I don't think holds for all ciphers although it might be possible to adapt for some). But yeah, for decryption, one would have to try every steg encoding scheme against every private key in storage.
Name:
Anonymous2012-10-21 1:10
>>41 ease dropper
I laughed so much I almost fell off my pedal stool.
Name:
Anonymous2012-10-21 6:36
"Haruhi-chan, have you read about public key cryptography?"
"Cryptography? Uh..."
Wait a minute. What does cryptography have to deal with Nagato? I thought you were her therapist and this would be more psychobabble. Just what is going on here?
"Secret messages? Encryption, internet security, does that give you a hint?"
"I uh eh..."
Asahina-san made a hand gesture calling Haruhi's attention. "Earth to Haruhi, Earth to Haruhi, do you read me, Haruhi?"
"Eh? Oh, sorry! It's just that this government business caught me off guard..."
Asahina-sensei chuckled. "It's understandable. Kyon-kun almost threw up the first time I met him and told him about me. So, Haruhi-chan, have you thought about the answer?"
"Uh, what was the question?"
"Public key cryptography."
"Hmmm let me see... I remember. It was about prime numbers."
"That's right. If you have two prime numbers, N1, and N2, by multiplying them you obtain a bigger number. If someone, let's say, Alice, wants to send a message to Bob, the only thing Bob needs to give Alice is the multiplied number N1*N2 = M, to encrypt her message. Bob can decrypt the message because he knows what N1 and N2 are."
Wait a minute... prime numbers, multiplying, what? I'm not very good at math, someone explain this to me.
"You seem confused, Kyon-kun. But I'll let Haruhi explain to you later. Or... you could look it up in Google."
Haruhi stared at me with an annoyed look. What? I'm still studying in High school, how was I supposed to know that?
"Anyway, if Alice wanted to obtain N1 and N2 from M to decrypt a message sent to Bob, she would need to run a supercomputer for years trying to guess what N1 and N2 are. So that's the basis for public key cryptography."
Haruhi nodded quickly, while I was just following her. Asahina-sensei continued with her speech.
"Do you know what would happen if somehow, this powerful encryption could be broken with a super-incredible computer?"
"Yes..." said Haruhi, holding her chin. "It would mean... that, all the internet would..."
Asahina-sensei finished explaining. "Nothing would be secure anymore. Private conversations, financial transactions, intelligence secrets, confidential documents, nothing would be safe. Nothing. Now, you must be wondering what this has to do with Nagato-san, right?"
>>53
Everybody sing along now... The S&M man,
The S&M man,
The S&M man because he mixes it with love,
And makes the hurtin’ feel good.
The hurtin’ feel good.
Name:
Anonymous2012-10-21 19:50
New /prog/ challenge: write a secure and undetectable public key steganography system in less than 1000 lines in your favourite language. You are allowed to use OpenSSL.
When you generate a key of some sort, many programs tell you to do random shit and waggle your mouse around to generate entropy (and to make you look like a tit).
>>84 many programs tell you to do random shit and waggle your mouse around to generate entropy
Hello '90s snake oil. I'm glad we don't live in that decade anymore.
>>105
It's not as easy as that, really, for the colour channels. There's a lot of noise in real images.
For the alpha channel, though, yes, absolutely.
Name:
Anonymous2012-11-01 18:30
>>106 It's not as easy as that, really, for the colour channels. There's a lot of noise in real images.
Try it! See if you can tell.
You know, just a function that takes a number and encodes it as a bit stream where the probability of the signal being one or zero is one half, and other properties of random signals are satisfied as well as possible.
Then you could use this with that one stenagraphy algorithm proposed by anonymous-kun where you encode a bit stream in the least significant bit of the color channels based upon whether it is consistent or not with another bit.
Name:
Anonymous2012-11-02 1:58
niggers
Name:
Anonymous2012-11-02 2:22
>>110 Bob is a free software developer. He works on many things, including various DRM-breaking libraries and video codecs covered by software patents. Bob uses a cryptographic anonymizing service to publish his work. The police in his country somehow manages to get a search warrant for his computer. Encrypted data is found, and the judge orders him to provide the passphrase. Game over.
Name:
Anonymous2012-11-02 2:26
>>112
That's a pointless and easily-detectable expansion. The problem with >>104,106's code (as well as any naive LSB encoding scheme) is that it the lowest bit will have a perfect uniform distribution, which is not the case in reality.
Name:
Anonymous2012-11-02 3:48
>>115
I wasn't going for a substitution, just interpreting the original signal as a large number and then representing the large number with an apparently random signal. I didn't explain that well.
The transformation could also be parameterized to yield an uneven distribution if that is desirable. But if you want it to correlate with the content in the image then that would require the original image to be a key, so it would require a shared secret.
Name:
Anonymous2012-11-02 13:19
>>116 I wasn't going for a substitution, just interpreting the original signal as a large number and then representing the large number with an apparently random signal. I didn't explain that well.
I don't understand. If you want to magically give the input signal a perfect uniform distribution, just use any symmetric cipher that isn't shit.
>>114
Your fantasies of unwarranted self-importance have no bearing on the real world. Even granting all of your infantile premises, how would ``Bob'' use steganography without software that is also on his computer?
Name:
Anonymous2012-11-02 14:33
>>118 Your fantasies of unwarranted self-importance have no bearing on the real world.
Fuck off and die, dipshit. Just because you're happy to suck software patent troll dick doesn't mean everyone is.
Even granting all of your infantile premises, how would ``Bob'' use steganography without software that is also on his computer?
The presence of steganographic software on a computer does not prove the existence of hidden data. Although impractical, Bob could re-type in the steganographic software at every reboot and keep it in a tmpfs.
>>119 Fuck off and die, dipshit. Just because you're happy to suck software patent troll dick doesn't mean everyone is.
Software patent trolls don't go around doing things for which steganography would be any kind of defense, and no amount of edgy werds changes that.
The presence of steganographic software on a computer does not prove the existence of hidden data.
That's pathetic. You think a court that would find you in contempt for not disclosing an encryption key would buy that?
For that matter, the presence of a file of apparently random data does not prove the existence of encrypted data either.
>>120
He got caught because he posted his program to a mailing list using his real identity. Steganography doesn't have shit to do with anything.
You skiddie cypherpunks are sad.
Name:
Anonymous2012-11-02 17:18
>>121 Software patent trolls don't go around doing things for which steganography would be any kind of defense, and no amount of edgy werds changes that.
For now.
That's pathetic. You think a court that would find you in contempt for not disclosing an encryption key would buy that? For that matter, the presence of a file of apparently random data does not prove the existence of encrypted data either.
The difference is that you can convince a jury that apparently random data is very likely encrypted, but the argument that ``somewhere in the computer there might be some encrypted data but we haven't found any traces of it yet'' doesn't really work. Unless you're in a witch trial or something.
>>120 He got caught because he posted his program to a mailing list using his real identity. Steganography doesn't have shit to do with anything.
I'm just saying that you can get in deep shit just by writing free software.
Also, supposing you have software-patent-covered or DRM-breaking software on your computer and you want to travel to another country. Border searches are practically unlimited, and you are pretty much required to provide any passphrase to anything a border agent may find (if you want to ever see your laptop again, that is).
>>122 The difference is that you can convince a jury that apparently random data is very likely encrypted, but the argument that ``somewhere in the computer there might be some encrypted data but we haven't found any traces of it yet'' doesn't really work. Unless you're in a witch trial or something.
Not only is that obvious bullshit (Why would you have the software if you weren't trying to hide anything? Even if you haven't actually hidden anything, no jury is going to buy that), steganography is the definition of security through obscurity. If they have your algorithm (in the form of the software you used), they have the data you tried to hide.
I'm just saying that you can get in deep shit just by writing free software.
Which is an entirely irrelevant point.
Name:
Anonymous2012-11-02 17:55
>>123 If they have your algorithm (in the form of the software you used), they have the data you tried to hide.
Aha, you don't understand steganography! The rest of your post draws from your ignorance.
>>124
Abloobloo. If you have nothing to contribute, don't.
This thread was about cryptography. Let's get back to it.
Name:
Anonymous2012-11-02 22:00
>>117
The trick is to not require a private key, although I suppose a symmetric cipher with a plain text random key prepended to the message would do.
Name:
Anonymous2012-11-02 22:12
>>123
It is perfectly possible for steganography to use a key. But the purpose of steganography isn't to make it so they can't get the data, since that can be encrypted anyway. The goal is to hide the data's presence.
>>I'm just saying that you can get in deep shit just by writing free software.
>Which is an entirely irrelevant point.
It establishes a need for hiding information.
>>127
Why do you need someone to hold your hand through every fucking step of this conversation? Once they've found your data, which they will, you're back in the position that you yourself claimed would lead to a contempt charge for refusing to provide an encryption key.
I'm done with this argument. You're an idiot with a Hollywood/cargo cult grasp on security. Like steganography because it's cool, not because you want to pretend you need or it's good for anything.
>>126
Or just any well-documented random sequence that you xor with your data, à la OTP except not OT.
Randomly distributed data is actively bad for stego applications, though, because it stands out like a sore thumb.
We are responding to the same point. But it is perfectly possible for stenography to use a key. For instance, a scattered sequence of bits that weaves through a large collection of home photos some of which were deleted and partially overwritten with audio recordings. If the amount of encoded information is sufficiently low, how will you see the signal through the noise? Suppose they guess the exact algorithm that you used, any associated keys, and they extract the data. How will they know they have obtained the encrypted data instead of bits of random noise?
>>125
steganography is related in the it satisfies a related purpose.
Name:
Anonymous2012-11-03 5:08
>>128 Once they've found your data, which they will, you're back in the position that you yourself claimed would lead to a contempt charge for refusing to provide an encryption key.
Jesus fucking christ, how thick-skulled are you?
I'm done with this argument.
Good, get the fuck out.
Name:
Anonymous2012-11-03 5:19
>>126 The trick is to not require a private key, although I suppose a symmetric cipher with a plain text random key prepended to the message would do.
You can do public-key steganography, as long as you have some way to render the public key bits indistinguishable from random data.
I think that would be fine. Just create a fixed universal algorithm for extracting the public key from the medium. Like a facebook profile picture. But the public key must appear arbitrary, just like how it would look if the extraction algorithm was performed on an image with no key encoded in it. And throughout every step of using the public key, there couldn't be any tell tail signs of the key working correctly. If you perform the key extraction on an arbitrary image with no actual key in it, the gibberish key should function without error, as otherwise this would provide a means of identifying images without keys, which helps identify images that contain keys.
But then what exactly would the public key be used for?
>>130
You can steganographically hide data in a container that's only a few thousand (or, more realistically, dozen) times larger than the data itself, particularly if the algorithm by which you hid it is available. It's too easy to bruteforce.
>>133
Maybe you should read something like Applied Cryptography before you try to have this conversation.
Name:
Anonymous2012-11-03 12:53
>>133
That's not what I meant by ``public key bits''. I mean the data structures inherent to the public key algorithm required to encrypt the session key. Basically, you encrypt all your data with a random session key, then you encrypt the session key with a public key algorithm and you stick that as a header. The point here is that while the encrypted data has normal distribution, the header might not.
Name:
1352012-11-03 12:53
Uh, I meant uniform.
Name:
Anonymous2012-11-03 13:58
>>134
Their ability to find the data isn't the problem that's being solved here. It's the confirmation that they have found data in the first place that is being prevented. I think you are the one that needs to do some reading, kodak-san!~
>>137
Fuck-all is being preventing. Checking whether recovered data is randomly distributed is trivial, and by your own admission they don't even need to prove they have every last bit of data; just that there's random data where non-random data is expected.
Don't insult my intelligence by linking to Wikipedia when you don't know anything about real-life cryptosystems.
>>139
Random data isn't expected anywhere except where it's deliberately put. That's the whole thing about random data.
And every stego scheme is still vulnerable to the ``problem'' you posited for simple crypto.
>>140 Random data isn't expected anywhere except where it's deliberately put. That's the whole thing about random data. And every stego scheme is still vulnerable to the ``problem'' you posited for simple crypto.
So you're saying that the LSB plane of an image has zero entropy (being completely determined by the other bit planes)?
>>140
what problem did I post? I don't know who I am.
>>142
In some cases ey could be right. For instance, in a screen cap where desktop background is all #00DDDD. If you look at the image and there is a light layer of noise present in areas that should all be constant, then that is a sign. If there are objects in reality that have the same consistent color pattern all the way down to the least significant bit, then it will show there as well. There are algorithms that target regions of the image with high gradient to avoid this problem.
<>" PROG CHALLENGE [351] [HARD] "><
Produce an algorithm that detects if a noise signal has been added to ares of the image with high gradient.
<>" PROG CHALLENGE [352] [IMPOSSIBLE] "><
Produce an algorithm that detects if a noise signal has been to a raw audio recording where the noise signal's amplitude is less than the white noise present in the recording.
Name:
Anonymous2012-11-03 15:54
>>151
Not >>148-149-kun; how are you going to measure the white noise present in an audio recording?
>>152
You know, the sound you hear when there are no other sounds. It serves as a random signal with low amplitude. Noise plus noise is more noise. Although adding two noisy signals will increase the amplitude.
>>153
Ok, then it should be easy for you to do it.
This whole white noise thing might be more interesting if modern audio formats didn't explicitly remove noise. If you have both software that hides data in white noise and files that contain it, your imaginary prosecutors are just going to laugh at you.
Name:
Anonymous2012-11-03 16:30
>>157 if modern audio formats didn't explicitly remove noise
FLAC.
>>158
Seems too obscure. But if you are a musician that makes recordings, it makes sense to use a lossless encoding for the original.
Name:
Anonymous2012-11-03 16:38
>>160 Seems too obscure. But if you are a musician that makes recordings, it makes sense to use a lossless encoding for the original.
Exactly. Just record yourself playing whatever musical instrument as a raw file.
>>162
To the average person that doesn't know the difference between wav and mp3, I think flac would be obscure. Why is my age relevant and why would it mater if my age is greater than or equal to 100 (assuming you are referring to the base 10 representation of my age)?
Name:
Anonymous2012-11-03 18:25
The age and permissions of UNIX beards are expressed in octal numbers.
It's sad how a perfectly good crypto thread got derailed by stego kiddies.
Let's talk about SHA3 instead. Should Skein have won?
Name:
Anonymous2012-11-04 1:30
>>169 It's sad how a perfectly good crypto thread got derailed by stego kiddies.
Eat shit and die, retard.
Name:
Anonymous2012-11-04 4:15
Fun fact: any cryptographic hash can be turned into a symmetric cipher.
Name:
Anonymous2012-11-04 5:01
>>171
any symmetric cipher can be turned into a cryptographic hash function
Name:
Anonymous2012-11-04 16:00
Fun fact: There are currently no usable asymmetric ciphers based on problems whose intractability has been formally proven (e.g. any NP-hard or -complete problem).
Name:
Anonymous2012-11-04 16:40
>>173
NTRUEncrypt is based on the lattice problem, and the McEliece cryptosystem on decoding linear codes. Both problems are known to be NP-hard. McEliece is kind of broken as it stands, but NTRU is fine (if patent-encumbered in the US).
But the fact that integer factorization and the discrete log problem aren't NP-hard doesn't mean they're tractable.
Name:
Anonymous2012-11-05 1:04
My dick is NP-hard, maybe we should use that?
Name:
Anonymous2012-11-05 5:54
Cretins, all of you.
Die in a fire.
My essential rights to use free, non-cluttered by binary blobs software shall not be curtained.
Name:
Anonymous2012-11-05 5:56
>>176
FUCK OFF AND EDfdsdsa lkjfds alkfhfdslkhlkhlkjdsah I FUCKING HATE YOU FEMINAZI FAGSHIT I FUCK HATE YOU
>>176
DIE IN A FIRE YOU IDIOTIC NAZI CRETIN. GO SUCK AHMED'S AUTHORITARIAN DICK.
Name:
Anonymous2012-11-05 6:01
>>178
People of Iraq were invaded murdered humiliated robbed and now live without clean water medicine while watching Jewish pigs occupying their land and robbing the only thing that could make them a real country, this is just so criminal so sick corrupting imoral i cant believe, i would blow myself too if Jews did this to my country who cares if they call anyone terrorist their media is a lie.
>>179
It is unlikely that you have the flexibility required to effectively blow yourself.
Name:
Anonymous2012-11-05 6:03
>>179
If Iraqis (Arabs, shias, sunnis, Kurds, and Turkmens) had been united, they would have easily defeated terrorist American Jews with little effort.
Name:
Anonymous2012-11-05 6:06
>>181
Iraqis got what they deserved, they're stupid, tracherous and lazy people. You leaders reflects your society. Iraq traitors who plotted to overthrow Saddam, I hope your proud what sewer your country has become. Iraqis deserve no respect.
Name:
Anonymous2012-11-05 6:11
Israel hopes to colonize parts of Iraq as “Greater Israel”
Israeli expansionists, their intentions to take full control of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip and permanently keep the Golan Heights of Syria and expand into southern Lebanon already well known, also have their eyes on parts of Iraq considered part of a biblical “Greater Israel”.
Israel reportedly has plans to relocate thousands of Kurdish Jews from Israel, including expatriates from Kurdish Iran, to the Iraqi cities of Mosul and Nineveh under the guise of religious pilgrimages to ancient Jewish religious shrines. According to Kurdish sources, the Israelis are secretly working with the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) to carry out the integration of Kurdish and other Jews into areas of Iraq under control of the KRG.
Kurdish, Iraqi Sunni Muslims, and Turkmen have noted that Kurdish Israelis began to buy land in Iraqi Kurdistan, after the U.S. invasion in 2003, that is considered historical Jewish “property”.
Name:
Anonymous2012-11-05 6:11
>>183
The Israelis are particularly interested in the shrine of the Jewish prophet Nahum in al Qush, the prophet Jonah in Mosul, and the tomb of the prophet Daniel in Kirkuk. Israelis are also trying to claim Jewish “properties” outside of the Kurdish region, including the shrine of Ezekiel in the village of al-Kifl in Babel Province near Najaf and the tomb of Ezra in al-Uzayr in Misan Province, near Basra, both in southern Iraq’s Shia-dominated territory. Israeli expansionists consider these shrines and tombs as much a part of “Greater Israel” as Jerusalem and the West Bank, which they call “Judea and Samaria”.
Name:
Anonymous2012-11-05 6:27
Cultural artifacts are a sensitive issue in Iraq. Following the U.S. invasion of the country in 2003, when looting and chaos broke out in the country, museums were robbed and thousands of items chronicling some 7,000 years of civilization in Mesopotamia were taken.
According to Antoine Buéno, Gargamel is created as an archetypal Jew[4], with a big nose, magic powers, love of gold, and balding looks, Gargamel carries a lot of symbolism. Terrible!
>>214
It's ugly, patent-encumbered and GPG doesn't support it.
Name:
Anonymous2012-12-14 2:30
>>214
There's something about CVP/SVP and LLL I never understood though. What is the run-time complexity of the LLL algorithm when searching for short vector in a lattice formed by n basis vectors of d integer components such that the short vector has all components smaller than a constant c?
>>219 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NTRUEncrypt: Operations are based on objects in a truncated [[polynomial ring]] <math> \ R=Z[X]/(X^N-1) </math> with convolution multiplication and all polynomials in the ring have [[integer]] [[coefficient]]s and degree at most ''N''-1:
NTRU is actually a parameterised family of cryptosystems; each system is specified by three integer parameters (''N'', ''p'', ''q'') which represent the maximal degree <math> \ N-1 </math> for all polynomials in the truncated ring ''R'', a small modulus and a large modulus, respectively, where it is assumed that ''N'' is [[prime number|prime]], ''q'' is always larger than ''p'', and ''p'' and ''q'' are [[coprime]]; and four sets of polynomials <math> \ \mathcal{L}_f, \mathcal{L}_g, \mathcal{L}_m </math> and <math> \ \mathcal{L}_r </math> (a polynomial part of the private key, a polynomial for generation of the public key, the message and a blinding value, respectively), all of degree at most <math> \ N-1 </math>.
Name:
Anonymous2012-12-14 19:39
>>221
That still doesn't tell me how to make a key, encrypt, or decrypt.
>>224
Egyptians used math long before Jews even existed, let alone showed up to learn math from the Egyptians and then claim it as their own invention.
>>231 Anti-free license
It's compatible with the GPL, doesn't that pass the litmus test? nag screen
Can be turned off. no open mode
Sure. lots of minor bugs.
Which ones in particular are you referring to?
Name:
Anonymous2012-12-17 20:32
>>232
GPL is for faggots and /r/helping_niglets_of_uganda is that way ->
>>232
GPL is anti-free fascist shit.
I shouldn't have to put some obscure text in some obscure file to turn off adware in a text editor.
As for which bugs, the Vim developers maintain a nice list of them in their manual.