Isn't it odd? To copy what some call "the fake proof post"? The post that did him so much harm? To copy the post of which he should be ashamed of if judged by social media and, he regretted publishing according to the same press. Well he obviously doesn't think so, and you may find the reason in my previous post.
It looks like after years of people not solving the puzzle, similar to Bitcoin difficulty adjustment, Dr Wright decided to make the puzzle a bit easier. It was republished sometimes in June this year, but I only recently learned of it and didn’t spend much time dealing with it. Nevertheless, I’ll present what I have found in a short time.
Same post - same pictures. Everything looks the same except there is no annoying pop out when you right-click. Let’s go to the source of the page.
First image – the name was changed. It was "1.png", and now it’s "jean-paul-sartre-signing-and-significance.png". Hmm! Hint for sure, since most other names of images are the same. Resolution 941x423, as before. Comparing it with "1.png" from an old post, using a tool like "Image Magick", we can see that the images are the same.
<img srcset=""> attribute, again. Now we don’t have the difference of 1 pixel between two versions, and dimensions are 941x423, 768x345 and 300x135. Nothing unusual. 768 version is full colour, now. But that means more bits of information can be hidden. Steganography in palette pictures is much harder.
300 version of the picture is different from the old one and is most likely made resizing one of bigger versions from the new post.
The pattern, regarding sizes, is similar for the rest of the images.
The second image was "2.bmp" in the old copy of the post. It was full-colour, "unaltered" one, without difference between two versions (except for right border).
Now the image is in JPEG format, and its filename is "2.mbp_.jpg”! Interesting! Dr Wright is hinting something, again. This most likely means that we need to swap the red and green colours when reading pixels of images in a search for hidden information.
This image can be constructed from an old one using Photoshop with parameters like in the picture below. So nothing is interesting here, except the hint in the name.
The next unusual thing is dimensions of images inside a <img> tag.
The dimensions inside the tag don’t correspond to any of the real dimensions of actual images. Those dimensions vary from tag to tag and are, in order of appearance: (in parentheses are dimensions of actual images)
- 767x345 (768x345)
- 790x355 (768x345)
- 796x358 (768x345)
- 756x549 (768x557)
- 763x343 (768x345)
- 676x404 (714x427)
- 684x536 (684x536)
The last two dimensions in the list are dimensions of screenshots of scripts at the end of the post(s). There was nothing suspicious in them, earlier. They didn’t change between two versions of the post. The last one is inside the <img> tag, which has adequate with and height values. It seems like Dr Wright usually, while hinting, provides one correct, unaltered, value as a confirmation.
Can these dimensions be read something like coordinates, not exact but somehow relative, of "interesting" pixels – pixels containing hidden information? In other words, is a path of bits of hidden information encoded here?
6 coords x 4 images = 24 pixels
24 pixels x 3 bytes = 72 bytes
Seventy-two bytes are in line with a length of a signature, but this would mean 3 bytes are encoded per a pixel which is hard. This would, probably, introduce visual artefacts in images.
Or, the cryptographic proof is buried in the first, 768px wide image, only (suggested by the change of a name) and hidden in less significant bits of pixels which must be swapped before reading (rgb => grb as hinted in the name of the second image) with the path derived from dimensions in <img> tags.
I think the proof can be found much easier than in the first version of the post.
There are more "hints" in this version of the post, for sure, and I think someone will find them very soon.
"It does always surprise me how at times the best place to hide is right in the open" Wrote Dr Wright on his Facebook profile sometimes in 2015.
Your silence screams in my ears – Jean-Paul Sartre
To be continued...
3 of 3 reviewers say it's worth paying for
0 of 3 reviewers say it's not worth paying for